1961-04-28

Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of an apparent change that has been made in Hansard. This only came to my attention yesterday although the matter to which I have reference occurred on Monday of this week, April 24. You will recall, sir, that in his introductory remarks the hon. member for Laurier, in a preface to the raising of his grievance, made the following statement with reference to Bomarc missiles:
The government Is building two Bomarc missile bases in northern Ontario and northern Quebec which, in order to be operative, must be equipped with nuclear weapons-


Mr. Speaker:: What page?


Frank Charles McGee: Page 3933, on the right hand side. A few moments later, as you will recall, I rose on a point of order in order to challenge the validity of that statement. I copied down the words he used and referred to them as found at page 3934. No reply was made to that statement of mine, and I was astonished yesterday to have it pointed out to me that in fact the word "operative" appears to have been changed to "effective". I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. member made this change intentionally, but it would certainly seem to me that it would require some explanation.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing this motion the other day the hon. member rose on a point of order and said that he had taken down my words. The words which he took down were taken down erroneously. They were not the words I had used on the occasion in question.
I do not remember whether or not Your Honour was in the chair at the time, but I believe you were. However, Your Honour made it quite clear to the hon. member that he had no right to interrupt me at the time he did because he was not making a point of order but was challenging a statement I had made. Your Honour also made it quite
clear to him that if he wanted to challenge a statement made in the house he should follow the rules of the house and make a statement afterward. He did not choose to do that, but today he rises in his place on a question of privilege, four days after the occasion arose. I think the practice of this house, as you have ruled repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, is that when there is a question of privilege a member should rise immediately thereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: If I am correct in understanding the hon. member for York-Scar-borough, his question of privilege relates to the alleged change of the word "effective" to "operative".


An hon. Member:: It is the other way around.


Frank Charles McGee: It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the word "operative" was used, and upon being challenged later it now appears in Hansard as "effective".


Mr. Speaker:: That is in the remarks attributed to the hon. member for Laurier?


Frank Charles McGee: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member's complaint is one that warrants attention after four days have elapsed. However, if the hon. member for Laurier wishes to comment on the alleged question of privilege arising from the change of the words, I shall be glad to hear him.


Lionel Chevrier: I have nothing to add to what I have already said, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask if the minister can explain why legislation to extend the application of the Freight Rates Reduction Act has not been presented to the house.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is on the order paper and legislation will follow in due course.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister
4092	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry realize that if this legislation is not passed before the day is out either the freight rates increase goes into effect or the government will have no authority to compensate the railways financially?


Léon Balcer: This aspect of the question will be looked after in the legislation that will follow.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of that answer. Has the government made any arrangements with the railways to have them continue the reductions as they now exist, and have they been given any assurance that they will be compensated therefor?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer of the Minister of Transport is sufficient. When the legislation is introduced the hon. gentleman will have his answer. He will recall that there were occasions during the period when he occupied a seat on the treasury benches when directions were given by ministers. I hope we will not follow that course.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the Prime Minister allow this additional question. Is the Prime Minister able to point to many occasions when an amendment to a statute of this character, expiring as it does tonight, was not introduced earlier?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is a debating question rather than one that is pressing for action.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, following the question which I asked the Minister of Transport a moment ago I wonder whether I can add another one. Will the minister tell us whether any statutory authority exists under the Freight Rates Reduction Act to continue the reductions after midnight of April 30?


Léon Balcer: I will ask for a legal opinion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is in accordance with practice to ask for information which is available equally to all members of the house, and I consider that the statutes, as enacted by parliament, are equally available to all hon. members of the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I wonder, sir, whether I can ask the Minister of Justice, in that case, whether there is any order in council of which the house has not been apprised which will continue the reduction of freight rates beyond midnight of April 30 next.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this question was answered by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago when he stated the practice and the policy of this government in matters of this kind.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: It is a question of fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege affecting all hon. members, I do not think that question was ever put to the Prime Minister or answered by him and, if I may, I would like to put the question. Since it is a matter of the exercise of the executive function and of the responsibility of the executive to this parliament, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any order in council has been passed of which the house has not yet been apprised which would have the effect of continuing the freight rate reduction, which will expire at midnight on April 30, beyond that date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the hon. gentleman in orders in council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Prime Minister would answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: This government does not pass orders in council for which it has no authority, which is somewhat different from the group with which the hon. member is associated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects me and several other hon. members of the house. The Prime Minister has made an allegation affecting the conduct of other hon. members of the house, and 1 challenge the Prime Minister to produce a single order in council passed by the previous administration which was not founded upon proper legal authority.
Moreover, sir, the Prime Minister made no attempt to answer the very proper question I put to him. I did not suggest for a minute that there had been an order in council passed for which there was not statutory authority. I merely asked the Prime Minister, and I did so in the politest way possible, whether an order in council had been passed of which the house had not yet been apprised. It is quite possible that there would be statutory authority for such an order in council. It is a matter of fact one way or the other, and I think the house is entitled to an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member on the matter of privilege, and he proceeded from there to criticism of the answer he received, which is not in accordance with the

practice. It is the responsibility of the ministry to determine the kind of answer that is given, and it is not subject to debate.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: On a point of order, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to page 27 of the standing orders, rule 39, of which I think one would want to have the Prime Minister take particular notice. That rule reads as follows:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned-
These are the words that I think have a special bearing with respect to the reply made by the Prime Minister:
-but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, has violated that rule. He always answers questions by speaking about another subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was simply imitating the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and I am glad he knows the rule now.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the rule which he read refers to questions being placed on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there is no need to pursue the matter further. The same rule also applies to oral questions, I might say, so that there may be no doubt. It is true that hon. members in putting their questions and ministers in answering them very often yield to the temptation of attaching a rider. I hope all hon. members will observe the rule.


Mr. Hellyer:: On the question of privilege which was raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see no further need for assistance on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister alleged that the former administration passed orders in council without statutory authority. He has provided no evidence to substantiate that statement, and he should withdraw.
He should provide some evidence or withdraw the allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not in order himself in pursuing a matter that has been disposed of.
90205-6-259
Inquiries of the Ministry



BANK OF CANADA-CONSIDERATION OF REPORT BY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance the following question as reported at page 4042 of Hansard:
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Will the minister tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to move to refer the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the standing committee on banking and commerce, or to any other committee of this house?
The Minister of Finance gave the following reply, as reported in Hansard for yesterday:
Mr, Speaker, following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I really can see no advantage to parliament or to the public in that course.
My question of privilege is that this report in Hansard is not in accord with what the minister in fact said. What the minister did say was "I can really see no advantage to parliament, nor is it in the public interest". I do not say that the Minister of Finance has deliberately changed these words but the reported version is not what the minister said. That I am justified in this remark is seen by what Mr. Deputy Speaker said at page 4043 of Hansard, when he made this observation:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Finance has already indicated he does not consider this suggestion to be in the public interest.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is an observation that may be intended to have more implicit in it than is explicit about it.
I believe that Hansard, at page 4042, has correctly reproduced my answer. I saw the blues, Mr. Speaker, as usual. I thought they correctly gave my remarks and I made no change in them. The observation made by Mr. Deputy Speaker purported to state the gist, I take it, of what I had said in reply to the question asked by the member for Essex East. In any event, I consider the member for Essex East to be clearly wrong on his facts, as so often happens; and I repeat, I consider that the statement attributed to me in the second column of yesterday's Hansard at page 4042 correctly states my remark.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the matter should not be pursued. The hon. member has drawn to the attention of the house what he regarded as a question of privilege arising out of a change which he thought had been made, or an erroneous report. The minister has given his word in his place that he did not change
4094	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the report and therefore, if there is any error, it is an error in the reporting which does not raise a matter of privilege. Consequently I think the matter cannot be further debated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Does he not think that it is in the public interest the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada should be referred to the banking and commerce committee, or to a committee of this house, for its consideration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I really can see no advantage to parliament or to the public in that course.



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I hope in attempting to answer it he will not make inaccurate and offensive observations. Now that the committee on external affairs is about to begin its work, does the Prime Minister anticipate that the Columbia river development treaty will be sent to that committee in the near future?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Columbia river treaty will be sent to the committee will be determined in the light of circumstances as they develop, and also in the light of the request of the committee and the decision made by it.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this well mannered group I should like to ask the Prime Minister another question. Will the committee have the opportunity, even prior to consideration of the Columbia river treaty, to ask General McNaughton to appear before it to give evidence with respect to this development?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member, with his adherence to parliamentary principles, will realize that no direction to a committee on the part of the Prime Minister would have any effect whatever. I would hope it would not.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of news reports to the effect that the Laos team is


split on an understanding of its role and procedure, would the minister inform the house whether the Canadian members of the commission have received specific instructions in this respect, and also would he comment on the situation?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the report in question is a bit premature, because the commission was not to meet until today. The key point in this whole Laos problem is whether or not there will be a cease fire in Laos. As I informed the house on April 25, the first step in the procedure agreed to by the co-chairmen at the Geneva conference, that is by the Soviet union and by the United Kingdom, for dealing with the critical situation in Laos was a call to the two parties in Laos for a cease fire. Both sides have accepted this call in principle.
Hon, members will recall, however, that representatives of the parties were requested by the co-chairman to enter into negotiations on, and I quote, "questions connected with the cease fire". In other words, the people who are fighting in Laos are to negotiate on that point. There has not yet been agreement in Laos, so far as I am aware, as to where or when such negotiations will begin. Continued delay in reaching agreement on this matter could have very grave consequences. I earnestly hope a satisfactory agreement will be reached promptly by the parties. Dispatches indicate that the fighting is still going on, in spite of the fact that everybody says we are going to have a cease fire.
If agreement is reached and a cease fire takes place, then the international supervisory commission, which is holding its first meeting in New Delhi this afternoon should, and I hope will, be able to begin immediately its task of verifying and supervising the cease fire, so the subsequent conference of 14 nations can be held as planned in Geneva on May 12.
The Canadian representatives on the supervisory commission have their instructions, and I am sure they will be doing their best to work amicably with the representatives of India and Poland. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that Canada will agree automatically to everything that is suggested by another member of that commission. These are rather complicated discussions and operations, and sometimes things are not as simple as they look on the surface in connection with the work of these commissions. But our objective throughout will be to help in every possible way to bring about a settlement of the troubles in Laos.

(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence, a copy of which has been forwarded to the minister's office. Could the minister indicate to the house whether there is any basis to the rumour that the Val d'Or airport in northern Quebec, is to be used exclusively for defence purposes?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Chapleau, I wish to state that the rumour is incorrect and that the Val d'Or airport will not be restricted to purely defence activities.
(Text):



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please inform the house whether there is any further report on the recent action of His Excellency Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo of Saskatchewan in deferring royal assent to bill No. 56.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has given very full consideration to this matter, and I think I shall be in a position on Monday to indicate the attitude we will take. Suffice it to say, as I pointed out on an earlier occasion, that the reservation of legislation by the lieutenant governor for the pleasure of the Governor General has generally throughout the years been dependent on a direction from the federal government and the governor in council. There was neither direction nor consultation in this case.
I think that is as far as I will go, until the beginning of next week, when a full statement will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government decided whether or not to table the documents connected with this case, particularly the report of the lieutenant governor?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think any further consideration has been given to that matter. I mentioned at the time the hon. gentleman raised this question that there was some 90205-6-259i
Inquiries of the Ministry qualification. Personally I have no objection, and I think it is only proper that tabling should take place. If there is not anything to the contrary over the years that would prevent it, I will table what we have at the same time I make the statement.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether the two Bomarc installations, the one at North Bay, Ontario and La Maoaza, Quebec, will be operational this year, as reported in the Ottawa Journal on April 26?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, the two Bomarc stations to which the hon. member refers probably will not be operational by the end of 1961, but they should be operational not long after that date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wide discrepancy in newspaper reports in respect to this matter, I wonder whether the minister would arrange on an early occasion to make a statement which would bring the house up to date on the progress that has been made.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe the hon. member's supplementary question was answered by my reply to his first question.
[Later:)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct another question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise the house when the control centre near North Bay will be operational, and indicate how the Bomarcs will be guided in the period before the control centre is functional?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I refer the hon. member to the answer which I gave a moment ago. As far as the second portion of the question is concerned, I do not believe that it should be treated as representing a matter of urgency.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has not chosen to answer the question, will he include all the information in the full statement that I requested earlier?

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



CO-OPERATION BETWEEN ONTARIO AND FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS IN OVERSEAS MARKETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which has been given. Would the minister tell the house the relationships which exist between his department under this government and the government of the province of Ontario in the interests of promoting trade jointly with overseas markets, and how the two departments are officially associated in this endeavour?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was sent notice of this question relative to a statement which was made yesterday by Hon. Leslie Frost, premier of Ontario, in this regard. We welcome the initiative of the province of Ontario in developing further specialized services, as expressed yesterday by its very able premier, Hon. Leslie Frost. I am particularly happy that these plans call for dovetailing with, rather than duplication of, the vigorous efforts being made by our trade commissioners abroad.
For many years our officers in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe, as well as in New York and Chicago, have worked in close co-operation with all provincial offices in important matters, particularly those concerned with the attraction of industry to Canada and matters of general trade development. As do other agencies, our trade commissioners constantly report new opportunities for Canadian exporters in these markets as well as in other parts of the world.
The close co-operation between my department and the provincial authorities has been exemplified by our export trade promotion conference in Winnipeg on February 6 and by plans for similar conferences in Calgary on May 16, in Vancouver on May 18 and in London, Ontario, on May 25. We look forward enthusiastically to further conferences in at least two other centres of Ontario and in other provinces-


George James McIlraith: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the answer to the question is in violation of the rules on at least two grounds. First of all, it contains debatable material and the minister does not confine his reply to the actual information asked for. Second, the minister's estimates are indicated as the business of this day when government orders are called. The hon. gentleman is now taking the opportunity to make a speech about the

operation of his department and to give information of a kind which cannot properly be sought by way of answer to a question asked on orders of the day. There is no urgency about this question such as would justify it being asked on the orders of the day instead of later in the day on estimates. Therefore on three grounds I submit that the question violates the rules of orders.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the minister has finished his answer-


George Harris Hees: Almost.


Mr. Speaker:: -or whether he wishes to say anything on the point of order. If one were to draw fine or nice distinctions I think the hon. member for Ottawa West is probably correct in saying that this question is not one of urgency but rather one for the estimates as they arise. The matter is of continuing interest rather than something which requires immediate attention. Furthermore, I think the minister in his answer went beyond the terms of the question. However, I take it the matter is not now of serious moment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and, in doing so, to welcome him back on behalf of the house from his mission to Washington.
My question is this. Have national employment service personnel referred unemployed persons to apply for work at the strike-bound Royal York hotel and, if so, can the minister assure the house that this practice has ceased?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: It has always been the object of the national employment service to be neutral in these matters. People who may be referred to plants or businesses which are strike-bound are so referred on the basis that the referral slip is stamped with the words "this plant strikebound". It is then left to the discretion of the person concerned as to whether or not to proceed with his application.


Walter George Pitman: I have a supplementary question arising out of the answer of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister assure the house that people who refuse to accept jobs at the Royal York hotel, when recommended by the unemployment insurance commission service, will not lose their benefits?


Michael Starr: My understanding is that they do not lose their benefits as a result of refusal

to work in a strike-bound plant. However, if the hon. member knows of any occurrence and wishes to bring a specific instance to my attention I shall be glad to investigate.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform the house whether the deputy minister of transport was speaking for the government when he made statements about the proposed Chignecto canal at a meeting of a women's association at Saint John, New Brunswick, this week?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, whenever any policy statement is to be made it is the practice of this government to have it made by members of the cabinet.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Yesterday the hon. member for St. Denis inquired about the theft of mail bags at Dorval airport. I might say that an attempt was made to steal a mail bag at Dorval. The persons concerned were apprehended before the mail bag or any mail was lost, and they are now before the courts.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: A supplementary question. I should like to know from the Postmaster General whether these bags were stolen after being left unguarded, or whether it was an attempt with violence.


William McLean Hamilton: We
pay rewards of up to $2,000 for people who are apprehended if it is theft with violence. There was no violence involved in this particular situation. If the hon. member wishes to apply for a reward we shall be glad to consider him, but I do not think he had anything to do with this offence, at least with apprehending the people concerned.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. I am not sure who he is, and that
Inquiries of the Ministry accounts for my scatter-gun glances. In view of the news reports that the combines branch of the Department of Justice has just completed a report on an inquiry into Canadian drug prices which indicates that Canada's drug prices are the highest in the world, and in view of the great interest in and importance of this matter, does the restrictive trade practices commission intend to hold public hearings on this question in the near future?


William Joseph Browne: I will take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Justice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Was the minister consulted in respect of the proposed international conference to thresh out the crime situation in Toronto and adjoining areas?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the question as notice and take it up with the Minister of Justice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on an announcement he made in the house over five months ago. When may we expect that the members of the royal commission to examine into the question of medical care insurance will be appointed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In due course.


John George Diefenbaker: I will add one extra word to the answer I gave on another occasion-very, very shortly.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he or his department has received representations respecting the recent recommendation of the board of broadcast governors that the Saskatoon television station should be located in the area of Kinder-sley rather than the station at Swift Current and alleging that there were certain irregularities in respect of this matter. If such

Supply-Trade and Commerce representations have been received, would the minister say what it is proposed to do about them?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check with my department before giving an answer to this question.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
394. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates (also includes the national industrial design council transferred from the national gallery), $3,275,445.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by informing the house about some of the most important aspects of the work of my department. It will be impossible to cover all the diverse and wide ranging responsibilities of this department. However, I would remind hon. members that the annual report of the department was tabled on April 14 last. In it they will find a comprehensive review of economic and trade developments affecting Canada as well as a great deal of detailed information on our departmental activities during the year 1960.
My remarks today will be divided into four broad categories. I shall begin with a review of our trade and economic situation and the outlook for the next few months. Next 1 will outline the department's work and achievements in the field of trade promotion. I shall then give some details on the subject of trade policy and, finally, I shall review some of our efforts on the domestic and commercial fronts.
During the past year, developments in the foreign trade field have provided strong underpinnings for activity in the Canadian economy, and a higher level of exports has added to production and employment in Canadian industries. Imports, meanwhile, have edged downward. The result has been a substantial improvement in Canada's trade balance. The deficit on merchandise trade declined from $369 million in 1959 to $97 million in 1960, the lowest figure since 1954. In I960 our merchandise exports reached $5,395 million, 5 per cent above the level for the preceding year. This followed a similar increase between 1958 and 1959.
Most of the expansion in exports in 1960 consisted of higher sales in various mineral products including pulp and paper, lumber, aluminum, nickel, copper, petroleum, asbestos,


iron and steel and chemicals. In addition, the various types of manufactured products have been sold in larger quantities. The progressive dismantling of import restrictions throughout the trading world has opened up new market opportunities for this type of export.
An outstanding feature of our export trade in 1960 was a substantial growth in sales to overseas markets. Between 1959 and 1960 our exports to the United Kingdom increased by 16 per cent; to the common market by 39 per cent; to Japan by 27 per cent, and to all overseas areas taken together by about one fifth. On the other hand, our sales to the United States declined by nearly 5 per cent. However, sales of all foreign goods in the United States market were down. Thus the relative position of Canadian imports in that market was pretty well maintained.
Imports into Canada in 1960 were slightly below the 1959 level and, in fact, were less than four years ago. Despite the difficult competitive position faced by some industries, total shipments from Canadian factories, in aggregate, have about kept pace with imports of manufactured goods. Domestic manufacturers, for the most part, have been able to maintain their relative position in the Canadian market, although there have been some exceptions.
Another notable feature of Canada's trade in 1960, and in fact for several years past, has been its growing geographic diversification. This has involved in particular a lessening concentration of trade with the United States and a growing relative importance of trade with countries such as the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan. The steadily improving competitive position of overseas industrialized countries has enhanced their importance as sources of supply for the Canadian market. At the same time strong internal growth rates within these areas have involved sharply expanded markets for Canadian products. Reflecting these broad tendencies, the proportion of our exports going to the United States has declined from 62 per cent in 1959 to 56 per cent in 1960. This means that 44 per cent of our total exports now go to overseas markets. The geographic distribution of our imports remained almost unchanged between 1959 and 1960. However, during the last four years the United States share of the Canadian import market has declined from 73 per cent to 67 per cent, while the share enjoyed by overseas countries has risen correspondingly.
There is good reason to anticipate that the improvement realized in Canada's trade position in 1960 will carry forward in the current year. Export figures have been fluctuating sharply from one month to another, but for

the first two months of the current year our exports have held within 3 per cent of the record level achieved in the same months a year ago. Imports also are down moderately. In the January-February period the merchandise trade balance has shown little change from a year ago, with exports and imports near to an even balance.
Total exports have been maintained at a high level in recent months despite lower sales in the U.S. market. Economic activity in the United States has been declining, and in the first quarter of 1961 industrial production was at a level 8 per cent below the previous high point achieved in January 1960.
As usually happens, the adverse effects of this decline in factory output upon the demand for .ndustrial materials has been accentuated by inventory liquidation. In consequence Canada's sales to the United States, as reflected in export trade figures for the last three months, have recently been running 17 per cent below the level of a year previous. In the over-all trade figures, however, lower sales to the United States have been largely offset by increased shipments overseas. Recent signs of hesitancy in the trend of activity in some overseas countries have not, up to this point, affected the upward movement in our shipments to overseas markets.
The Canadian economy, and in particular the level of trade, cannot be fully insulated from the effects of economic fluctuations in major foreign market areas. Nevertheless, forward-looking action can help to cushion the adverse effects of these fluctuations. I have already illustrated how the recent broadening out of our markets has helped to limit adverse reactions emanating from the current down trend in the United States.
The manner in which higher exports to overseas markets has helped to cushion the shock of recession in the United States further emphasizes the vital importance of diversification of Canada's trade, and the continued expansion of trade with overseas countries.
Hon. members will already have seen the dominion bureau of statistics trade figures for February and for the cumulative Janu-ary/February period, which were released this morning. They reveal the fact that while our exports in the first two months of the year increased by 22 per cent to the United Kingdom, and by 37 per cent to other commonwealth countries, compared to the same period last year, a drop of 14.5 per cent in our shipments to the United States has caused a fall of nearly 3 per cent in our total exports to all countries. At the same time, while our imports from all other sources have increased, a reduction of just under
28, 1961
Supply-Trade and Commerce 6 per cent in our imports from the United States has helped to maintain an almost even balance in our over-all trade balance.
It would be difficult indeed to find more conclusive evidence than this with which to vindicate the policy of multilateralism in trade which this government has consistently followed. While dealing with what might be termed our chronic deficit in trade with the United States, it is imperative that our exports be vigorously expanded and that we continue to seek out new overseas markets for Canadian products.
There are other bright spots in the current trade situation. The careful attention which we have given in recent years to market potentialities in mainland China has now paid off in large new orders for wheat and barley. Perseverance in the development of this market by the Canadian wheat board and by our foreign trade service has been an important contributing factor in bringing a major portion of this new business to Canada. The development of advanced types of aircraft by the Canadian industry is now showing up in substantially higher aircraft exports. Canada's new national oil policy, calling for more rapid growth in this highly productive industry, is injecting new initiative into the development of export markets. The orderly development of new outlets for natural gas provides the basis for a continuing growth in exports of this product. A substantial addition to Canada's iron ore producing capacity brings with it new export outlets for this commodity. The growth of our sales of these and other items will help to offset the temporary ill effects of economic adjustment in the United States and possibly in some other countries.
There is also a general expectancy that an upturn in United States economic activity is now beginning or is close at hand. In this event we can look forward to underlying improvement in the United States market as the year progresses. Just the same, we are not standing by waiting for markets to get better. The Department of Trade and Commerce is continuously seeking out ways to stimulate export trade, and major efforts to this end have recently been initiated.
On August 5,	1960, at page 7666 of
Hansard, my colleague the former minister of trade and commerce, indicated certain changes in the organization and personnel of the department. At that time he forecast the appointment of two new assistant deputy ministers. As a result of interdepartmental examinations conducted by the civil service commission, assistant deputy ministers responsible for commodities services and domestic

Supply-Trade and Commerce commerce have been appointed. This reorganization has improved administrative efficiency and has enabled the department to move ahead boldly in two very important fields of endeavour.
One of our primary functions is to promote the sale of Canadian products in world markets. I think our record is one we can be proud of. Our export trade promotion conference, held in Ottawa from November 30 to December 16, was one of the most effective means ever employed to arouse the attention of Canadians and Canadian producers to the advantages and the value of our export trade. You will remember that when we brought back all the trade commissioners from abroad there were 110 of them here. Alert businessmen immediately recognized the advantages of meeting with these officers. In fact 1,365 Canadian businessmen, representing 1,133 Canadian firms, met for a total of 10,502 interviews with our trade commissioners.
It is still too early to give an accurate measurement of the results of those meetings. However, by the middle of March we had definite word from the trade commissioners that 344 new agencies or buying connections had already been established, and that there were good possibilities for upwards of 2,000 more. Trial orders, as a direct result of the meetings last December, have already been placed in 26 countries for Canadian goods valued at more than $1 million. As we do not know the value of many other orders, the actual total may well approach $2 million. The goods concerned include the products of agriculture such as, seed potatoes and baby chicks as well as flour and frozen foods. They include a wide range of manufactured products such as wood pulp and whisky, kitchenware and cutlery blanks, lamps and leather wallets. There were substantial orders for acetate, chemicals, electrical equipment, fibre glass cloth and leather.
The spirit of this export trade promotion conference continues with the hearty cooperation of provincial authorities and business associations. My senior officers and I participated in a regional trade promotion conference in Winnipeg on February 6, when more than 600 businessmen turned out for the discussions. On May 16 we have a similar trade conference coming up in Calgary. On May 18 there will be another one in Vancouver and on May 25 still another in London, Ontario. The provincial authorities and the businessmen who are organizing these meetings are most enthusiastic about the prospects. The departmental team from Ottawa is also finding these personal contacts with governments, business and industry across the country a rewarding experience

The trade commissioner service is the overseas arm of our department. During 1960 there were more than 120 trained officers in this sales force, stationed at 63 posts in 47 different countries. Quite apart from the special efforts connected with the export trade promotion conference, our trade commissioners were instrumental last year in establishing 847 agency or buying connections for Canadian export products. They also received and dealt with more than 9,000 inquiries from Canadian exporters about market opportunities and conditions abroad.
We are continuing to build this foreign sales force by means of an aggressive recruiting program. This year we have selected 15 promising young men who will shortly begin their training in the department. As the problems connected with international trade grow in number and complexity, greater demands are constantly made upon our resources of trained officers for special assignments and negotiation work. A large group of trade commissioners is now in Ottawa receiving training and experience in these fields.
One of our most important forms of export promotion is participation in trade fairs abroad, where Canadian goods are placed directly before the prospective agent and customer. Selection of fairs in department's program is made on the basis of active market possibilities. We show Canadian goods wherever there are good prospects that Canadian products can be sold. Results have been very encouraging. Since April 1, 1960 we have exhibited in 13 fairs outside Canada and by April 1, 1962 we will have participated in 17 more. Many of these are of a very specialized nature, because it is in the specialized fair that we find our best prospects.
We do not ignore the large, general shows, however. One such exhibition is the ideal homes show held in London in March each year. In 1960 the Canadian stand comprised 51 booths. This year it had expanded to 86 booths. No less than 36 of those who participated' in 1960 returned for this year's show. We shall continue to extend our participation in the important trade fairs of the world.
Trade missions are another proven medium for promoting trade. We have given them a specialized application by planning missions for very specific purposes and organizing them intensively to those ends. Here again results have been encouraging. The two missions which we sent to the United Kingdom last fall-one on timber and the other on processed food-are still bringing results, not only in the form of new business but in the continued interest of the members

of the missions who are working together to achieve improved methods and procedures. Our high level mission to the common market countries successfully achieved its immediate purpose of maintaining our exports of specific commodities. It has also had a continuing benefit, in that the leaders of industry who comprised the mission have met on several occasions since their return to discuss their impressions. The missions of consulting engineers and construction engineers which we sent to South America also give definite promise of new business abroad.
There are many risks attached to export operations which are not normally encountered in the domestic market and against which Canadian firms cannot obtain coverage through private sources. Here again the department, through the services of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, provides valuable assistance to Canadian industries by insuring them against non-payment by foreign buyers. Business done in 1960 was up 34 per cent over 1959. May I remind hon. members, Mr. Chairman, that the annual report of the corporation was tabled in the house last month.
Last November I announced in this house that the banks and the government were cooperating closely to provide financing for export sales of capital goods on credit terms. Just last week the banks announced the establishment of the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd., which has been set up to provide a new and separate source of funds for exporters selling capital goods to foreign buyers on medium term credit. Where long term credit extending beyond five years is required, the government is prepared to provide financing under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act. I made a statement in this connection in the house just two weeks ago outlining the very satisfactory developments and substantial figures involved.
Such aggressive measures to promote Canada's trade at home and abroad must be supported by closer liaison with industry in Canada. This is the lesson of recent experience. Twenty per cent of the firms which took part in the export trade promotion conference had no previous contacts with the department. Expansion of industry all across Canada in recent years and a new drive for industrial development in all provinces have stimulated a growing interest in the possibilities of export trade. Greater concentration of attention on aids to small business and domestic commerce is translated into new interest at the local business level in the services which are available from the department.
Thus the need to establish regional offices of the department to provide these services
Supply-Trade and Commerce more readily, and with greater continuity, is clearly apparent. As a consequence it has been decided to open regional offices in Halifax and Winnipeg in the near future. As soon as possible thereafter two more regional offices will be opened in Montreal and Toronto. At the same time our two existing offices in Vancouver and St. John's, Newfoundland, will be strengthened, to place them on a similar footing. In this way we hope to greatly increase the effectiveness of our assistance to industry and business across Canada and to provide closer liaison with provincial governments in the field of industrial development.
Let me now dwell on the department's activities and responsibilities in respect of Canada's international trade relations. In the light of the debate earlier this week on the government's trade policy, and the very complete review of our commercial relations contained in the department's annual report at pages 19 to 29, I do not intend to make a comprehensive review of this subject at this time. Members have been kept continuously informed in the course of the current session either by myself or by my colleagues.
Let me say briefly that our trade policy objective, to which we have constantly directed our endeavours, is to foster the development amongst trading nations of policies conducive to stability, growth and the expansion of mutually beneficial trade. In order for the very intensive export effort of my department and the business community to bring results, it is first necessary to have access to markets throughout the world on equal terms with our competitors.
This objective, in the main, has been realized. The handicaps under which dollar country exports laboured in the transitional period of post-war recovery have been largely removed since 1959, and together with the renewed economic strength of the major importing nations, exports have made very substantial gains.
The new stimulus which has been given to Canadian export sales as a result of the trade promotion conference places a further responsibility on the government. This department, in seeing that the conditions under which our goods move into international trade continue to improve, is therefore further intensifying its efforts to have import restrictions removed by those countries which no longer have balance of payments difficulties. I am confident that we can expect to see substantial improvements in this regard. I also look to some progress in this direction by less developed countries.
As the tide of trade restrictions recedes, the restrictive effect of agricultural protectionism abroad emerges as a problem of

Supply-Trade and Commerce major concern to Canada. Barriers to imports of agricultural products by other countries are a serious impairment to our trade, and we must press forward in restoring the balance of advantage between the agricultural exporting countries and their trading partners. We are convinced that there is room here for considerable reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.
Meanwhile Canada is participating in the work of the GATT committee which is examining ways and means of expanding world agricultural trade. We are likewise active members of the international wheat agreement, as well as of the wheat utilization committee, for the expansion of world wheat consumption and trade. Similarly we take part in regular consultations with the United States authorities for the safeguarding of commercial markets for wheat. These interests continue to be fully taken into account in the formulation of our broad commercial policy.
The enthusiastic response of Canadian exporters for the development of trade has also meant that the government's constant efforts to safeguard and improve our access to all world markets take on greatly increased importance. These efforts consist of ensuring, first, that equitable treatment is accorded Canadian exports to those markets; second, that our competitive position in such markets is not impaired by the application of measures prejudicial to our exports; and finally, that commercial markets for our goods are not disrupted by our competitors, whether in the form of subsidies, surplus disposal programs or other means.
The government, through my department, plays an important role in keeping exporters informed of conditions in each market and the best means of exploiting them to advantage, in exploring new areas where trade may be developed, and by ensuring that our trade agreement relationships with all areas are soundly based. The negotiation of the new trade agreements with both Australia and the U.S.S.R. last year exemplifies our activities in the latter field. We are constantly reviewing possibilities for similar fruitful negotiations with other countries where commercial opportunities exist.
In our endeavours to seek out new opportunities for our exports and to defend our commercial interest, this department is fully conscious of the need to have a forward looking and flexible trade policy. We must look ahead and anticipate developments and changing conditions. With our dependence on exports we must keep all doors open and ensure that the most favourable conditions for multilateral trade are maintained. We must be constructive and ever mindful that we are on a course in our international trade
[Mr. Hees.l
relations which will contribute most effectively to our future economic growth.
I have spoken previously on the subject of regional developments in Europe, Mr. Chairman, but there are two points which I should like to make again at this time. The first is with regard to the common market and the E.F.T.A. group. Both have a collective obligation to ensure no less favourable access to their areas than previously existed. We will expect both groups to live up to this responsibility. The present negotiations with the common market on the level of the common tariff are approaching the final stages, and I am hopeful of a settlement which will be satisfactory from the Canadian point of view.
The emergence of both these communities will mean that we may have to make some adjustments in the pattern of our trade with Europe. On the other hand, in the expectation that our access will generally be not less favourable than before, and provided that, collectively, their trade policies will be outward looking, we need not be pessimistic about the growth of trade opportunities for Canada. Certainly our export results in Europe have been favourable to date.
The second point I wish to make is that we are about to enter the main round of tariff negotiations at the conference in Geneva, which will provide Canada with an opportunity to obtain better tariff access to markets throughout the world, including both the United States and the common market. This is another important step in the direction which this government intends to maintain for the betterment of our exports.
Finally, we have the possibility that the United Kingdom will become more closely associated with the common market. We have no clear indication as yet as to what may come out of the British initiative. However, we have indicated to the United Kingdom authorities the importance we attach to duty free and unrestricted entry to the British market for industrial materials and agricultural products, as well as to the preferences we enjoy, particularly in certain manufactured products. I can assure the house that this matter is being followed closely, and that we will see to it that no opportunity is lost to safeguard our commercial interests in whatever arrangement may eventually emerge.
It is essential to the objectives of the department that we seek continually to extend our knowledge of supply conditions in Canada, to widen our industrial contacts and to search for products and services which can be exported. These are the primary functions of our commodity branch which, by active liaison with industry, develops a continuing

exchange of commercial intelligence between posts abroad and industry in Canada. Active trade promotion programs carried on by this arm of the department have achieved success in many different directions.
We have placed sustained emphasis on the promotion of Canadian consulting engineering and construction services in foreign markets. Opportunities in markets abroad have been widened considerably for groups of Canadian consulting engineers through direct contacts arranged by the department with the international bank in Washington and the United Nations special fund in New York. This approach has resulted in an increase in exports of Canadian equipment, machinery and services. Noteworthy among these items has been equipment incorporating highly advanced design, such as telecommunications equipment, cargo aircraft, air navigation equipment and various types of automation equipment.
Let me just mention several notable successes. Specialty printing papers have been introduced into Australia, South Africa and Mexico, and fir plywood into western Germany. Gratifying results have also been obtained in stimulating increased timber sales in the United Kingdom. Substantial gains have taken place in exports of chemicals, metals and minerals. Encouraging results have recently been experienced in the promotion of manufactured consumer goods, particularly to the United Kingdom, in the wake of relaxed import controls.
Success continues to attend efforts of Canadian industry to re-establish itself in the United Kingdom market following the removal of import restrictions in 1959. Due to quality and design of the goods offered, excellent results have been achieved in the sale of synthetic and cotton fabrics, high-styled clothing for men and women, slippers, moccasins and jewelry. A concentrated effort is being launched by the Canadian food processing industry following the Canadian food trade mission to the United Kingdom last autumn. Very substantial sales of livestock and poultry products have been realized by our trade missions, and following visits to Canada by foreign trade delegations. The Latin American countries are showing a renewed interest in Canada as a source of supply.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn now to the domestic market. For a number of years after the war Canadian producers faced a minimum of competition in our home markets. In fact Canadian goods, both primary and manufactured, were shipped to markets all over the world. In more recent years, however, Canadian producers have faced increasing competition both at home and abroad. The
Supply-Trade and Commerce reason is that countries which until recently were markets for our products have completely recovered from the devastation of war and are now producing goods of excellent quality and design which sell at competitive prices.
This increase in competition has not always meant that we have lost markets, but it does mean that Canadian industry, in order to retain its markets, must also turn out goods of high quality and design at competitive prices.
To accomplish this task there must be co-operation among labour, management and government. All our energies must be directed to improving our competitive position. We must not dissipate our strength in internal disputes and strife.
To a very large extent the recovery of industry in Europe and Japan is directly attributable to the close co-operation of labour and management in those countries. This cooperation has been so effective that industry in these countries is now producing some of the best goods in the world, at prices which are extremely competitive.
The government has taken the lead in assiting Canadian industry to adjust to these changing conditions. Under the auspices of the departments of trade and commerce and labour, leaders of Canadian industry and commerce and top union officials were called to Ottawa recently to discuss ways of achieving greater co-operation in Canadian industry as an effective means of increasing Canadian output and improving our competitive position.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the house give unanimous consent to the minister continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It will not take very long.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the minister injects his usual enthusiasm into his statement.


George Harris Hees: There was general agreement at that meeting that Canadian labour, management and government could work together to achieve the same results. Labour, management, government, and the general public are also combining their efforts through the national productivity council. The council has been meeting regularly and is developing an active program to assist Canadian industry in a variety of fields which will improve its ability to sell its goods in both home and

Supply-Trade and Commerce overseas markets. The chief objective of the council is to lend every assistance to Canadian industry in increasing its productive efficiency. The council is now enlisting the support of regional and provincial groups in order to carry this work to all parts of Canada.
At the same time we have established new services in the department and have expanded a number of our existing facilities in order to assist Canadian industry in meeting the new challenges which it faces. Over the last year we have built up a strong domestic commerce service whose function it is to provide assistance to industry over a wide range of the production and distribution aspects of business. We are now in a position to give information and help on such important subjects as product design, financing, new product possibilities, industrial development, distribution, sources of material, industrial standards, production under licensing arrangements and managerial and technical training and education. This is not by any means an exhaustive list. It is, however, indicative of the comprehensive services which we are developing to help Canadian business and industry.
Rapidly changing economic conditions have often posed difficulties for small businessmen. The government has recognized these difficulties and has taken steps to assist businessmen in overcoming them. A small business branch was established in the department to provide a focal point where the small business man could come to discuss his problems and obtain assistance and advice.
As I have often stressed, Mr. Chairman, we place very great importance on good design as one means of making Canadian goods as competitive as possible. With this in mind a national design branch has recently been established in the department. The function of this branch is to encourage the improvement of design in Canada, and to foster an awareness of the importance of good Canadian design. We have also introduced legislation providing for the establishment of a national design council.
The department has been increasingly active during the past year in the field of industrial development. The industrial development branch has increased its activities in new plant establishment, production expansion, product diversification, licensing arrangements, and other aspects of industrial development. It has also given valuable assistance to Canadian manufacturers in uncovering new markets for their products in Canada. Industrial development is further stimulated through special capital cost allowances administered by the department. In


all these endeavours the department is working very closely with the provincial department of trade and industry.
Another arm of the department is the dominion bureau of statistics. I need hardly remind hon. members that the bureau is acknowledged the world over as one of the foremost organizations in its field. During the past year it has kept pace with many complicated and highly technical developments. Its functions in providing statistical information and analyses have been widened and improved in response to demand. Its services to governments, industry and business in our country have been of incalculable value.
The most formidable task which faces the bureau this year is, of course, the 1961 census, which will be taken on June 1 next. This will be the tenth decennial census of Canada since confederation. The results of the census will provide a valuable national inventory of information on the composition of our population, the types of homes in which we live, the area and type of agricultural operations, and the size and nature of trade and service establishments operating in Canada. With the advantage of this up-to-date information about ourselves and our country we shall be better able to gauge our capabilities in meeting the challenges on the economic front which he ahead.
In conclusion may I say this. It has been a very full year for the Department of Trade and Commerce, a year of growth, of change and of achievement. We have made a contribution in the development of many new and important forces designed to strengthen our economy, expand production and increase employment in Canada. We have carried out organizational and administrative changes within the department which will ensure that we shall continue to provide the most efficient possible service to Canadian business and industry.
We find ourselves in the midst of a highly competitive and rapidly changing world economy. We face new and serious problems which must and will be overcome. At the same time we have great natural wealth, many natural advantages and, most important of all, the energy and the determination for great accomplishment. Our economic situation at home and our trading relations abroad are under continuous and expert vigilance.
To those Canadian firms and salesmen who have demonstrated their competitive ability in foreign markets and who have co-operated so fully with us, I extend my thanks and my congratulations. I urge them to keep up the good work and to exert their influence on their less progressive fellows. To the men and

women of the department, I offer my appreciation for their devotion and for a job well done. To all Canadians who require help or guidance in the commercial field, I hold out an invitation. The Department of Trade and Commerce is at your service.


Mr. Carter:: I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's presentation of the estimates of his department before this committee. The hon. gentleman spoke rapidly-almost too fast for me to take the notes I would like to have taken -but if I heard him correctly it appears to me that the statement he has just made invites some criticism because of its very serious omissions.
Before proceeding to criticize the minister's statement, however, I should like to extend my congratulations to him on his promotion to the very important department over which he now presides, and to wish him well in his new field of endeavour. The fact that foreign trade accounts for no less than 25 per cent of the jobs available to Canadians emphasizes the importance of the minister's department and places it, in my opinion, in the same category as the departments of finance and defence. I also would like to pay tribute to the minister's staff, from the deputy minister down, and in particular to the hon. gentleman's executive assistant, whose tireless efforts and devotion to duty must be a great source of inspiration to the minister.
The minister is a very optimistic person. He exudes optimism everywhere he goes. He looks on the bright side, and I think he sometimes gets carried away by this optimism to the extent that his perspective becomes a
Supply-Trade and Commerce little distorted and he conveys the impression that there is no side to the picture other than the side which he himself is engaged in portraying. It is the function of the opposition to bring this picture back into proper focus. We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by the brightness of the picture which the minister has painted today.
The hon. gentleman has told us of higher exports, lower imports, lower trade deficits. That all sounds very well, but when we come to look at Canada's trade performance on a world scale we find that the picture is not nearly so encouraging. I have some figures which have been taken from the international financial statistics, dated April, 1961, which give values in millions of United States dollars, and the extract I have here is from pages 36 and 37. I should like permission to have this table printed in Hansard, but I should also like to read one or two figures from it. I think it would be better for individuals studying this debate to have the table printed as I have it here.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will
the hon. member advise the Chair as to where the table originated?


Chesley William Carter: I thought I had made that clear. The figures are taken from the international financial statistics of world trade.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has
the hon. member permission of the committee to have this table printed in Hansard?


George Harris Hees: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
CANADIAN AND WORLD EXPORTS (Millions U.S. Dollars)
Jan.-Sept.
1958	1959 per cent incr.	1960	per cent incr.World exports	
96,080	101,780	5.9 per cent 111,300*	9.3 per centCanadian exports	
5,386	5,652	4.9 per cent	5,767	2.3 per cent
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates.
Source: International financial statistics, April 1961, World Trade: Value in millions of U.S. Dollars, pages 36-37.


Chesley William Carter: This table shows that in 1958 world exports amounted to $96,080 million. In 1959 they went up to $101,780 million, an increase of 5.9 per cent. During that same period Canada's exports went up by 4.9 per cent, so that we did not maintain our position; we fell behind the rate of growth in world exports during that period. If we take the period January to September, 1960, and I have figures for only that period, we find that world exports went up to $111,300 million U.S. dollars, an increase of 9.3 per cent, while
Canada's exports went up only 2.3 per cent. Therefore we are not holding our own in the world's markets because our increase in world trade want down from 4.9 per cent in 1959 to 2.3 per cent in the period up to September, 1960. When we compare the increase of 2.3 per cent in Canadian exports with the 9.3 per cent increase in world exports, we see that Canada is failing to keep pace with the increase in world trade.
The minister referred to the higher exports to our overseas markets, and it seems to me he was making a virtue of necessity because he failed to mention that the economies of

Supply-Trade and Commerce overseas markets are experiencing an unprecedented boom which puts them in a position to buy more goods and thus increase their imports. On the other hand, Canada has been experiencing a kind of recession, and this puts us in an unfavourable position as far as imports are concerned. I do not think it is far fetched to allege that these two factors are in some way related to what appeared to be an overly bright picture of Canada's performance in the world export market and the improvement so far as Canadian imports are concerned.
Therefore my first criticism of the minister's statement is that it did not give us the complete picture. I think at a time like this we must be honest with ourselves and with the Canadian people and not try to create an impression of optimism and wellbeing that may not be completely justified by the facts.
My second criticism of the minister's statement is that he said nothing at all about the deficit in what we call invisible exports, and that is the major part of our overseas trade deficit problem. I would be one of the first to admit that items such as interest, dividends and insurance possibly come within the realm of fiscal policy, but they also affect the minister's department and he must work out his policies in conjunction with those of his colleagues and try to do something about this problem of the invisible exports.
There is one matter about which I think a great deal could be done, and that is the imbalance on our tourist trade. I do not have the exact figures, but I think last year that imbalance amounted to about a quarter of a billion dollars. Although it does involve the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, yet here again is a matter for collaboration among the minister and his colleagues to try to work out some solution to this problem. A more vigorous sales promotion of the goods we produce has, according to the minister, produced favourable results, and surely it is not outside our capacity or ingenuity to devise some method of promoting and increasing our tourist trade.
The third criticism I have to offer is that the statement of policy given by the minister today did not indicate any appreciation of the kind of world we are living in and the forces which are influencing our relationships, and particularly our trade relationships, with other countries and are going to influence them a great deal more in the future. I think the minister caught the imagination of the Canadian people with his conference of trade commissioners, and also with his follow-up provincial conference for trade promotion. The minister brought his commissioners here, as well as businessmen. They pooled their ideas
fMr. Carter.]
and explored prospects. They got a pep talk from the minister, I am told, and were sent back to work harder and harder to promote sales. No one will deny that this in itself is good, but I think the question we must ask ourselves is whether it is sufficient.
It seems to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is somewhat in the position of a general. He has his intelligence service; he has his commissioners who are his reconnaissance troops; he has his captains of industry, and he has his little army of merchandisers. A good general not only has a good plan of action but also briefs his troops. As members of the house representing the people I think today the minister should have briefed us and the Canadian people generally more fully on the facts of life in the field of world trade.
What is Canada's position in a rapidly changing world? What are the forces influencing our trade efforts? What should be our plan of action taking all these factors into consideration? I think the first step that should be taken is self-examination. We profess to believe in a system of free enterprise and, in fact, we are not a state trading nation. Most of our deals with other countries are carried out between individuals. We have developed a system which has operated on the belief that out of the competitive efforts of individuals all striving to get the best for themselves will come the greatest efficiency; that the weak will go to the wall and the strongest and most efficient will survive, resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number.
There is no doubt that the free enterprise system we have built up has developed some great advantages. It has developed some good qualities in the individuals who are engaged in business; qualities of alertness, imagination, courage, endurance, initiative and responsibility, skill, flexibility and determination, and that is all to the good. It has also produced great material benefits in the form of inventions, manufacturing processes, jobs in the development of resources and the harnessing of power.
But we must not permit these advantages to blind us to any weaknesses that may be inherent in our system, and it cannot be denied that weaknesses do exist; because against the benefits I have mentioned we must set a list of less happy results. We know that good, sound businesses have sometimes been destroyed and that workers have been exploited. We have had walk-outs, strikes and the bitterness that results from them. We have sometimes had bad goods and sometimes when shortages were in sight we have had unwarranted stockpiling regardless of the needs of other people, with the result that production has slowed down elsewhere for lack of the materials lying unused in frozen stockpiles.

We hear sometimes of price conspiracies and conspiracies to restrict competition. We have had some examples of that in the electrical industries south of the border. There was also a report in the papers last night of something similar in the drug industry. In addition, sometimes the opposite occurs; surplus goods are flooded on the market regardless of the damage that may be done at home or abroad.
These weaknesses must be corrected if we are going to withstand the forces that we shall have to contend with in the future. I think they have developed mainly because we have had no goal outside of our own selfinterest. We have been engaged in developing what has been called the affluent society, and once we have created this affluent society we somehow bend our efforts mainly toward preserving it and increasing the affluence. In other words we become security minded, and we tend to lose the driving forces, the skill, determination and initiative that created this society in the first place.
I think the irony of this situation is that once a certain stage has been reached, free enterprise people themselves clamour for government interference which in the end must destroy some of their liberties. Every time the government passes a law some individual liberty or freedom is interfered with.
For a general to encourage his troops to go out and work harder doing the same things may not help to solve our problem. I think the minister is to be commended for the emphasis he has placed on taking responsibilities. If I have read the reports of his activities correctly, I take it that he has encouraged individual businessmen to assume more responsibility for the nation and for the welfare of our economy. But I think we must go beyond that, because what we do will be determined by the goals we have in mind. We need new goals now, new motives and a new direction, because the affluent society as an end in itself does not satisfy human aspirations and the longing in human hearts. The individual businessman must have a broader and more far-reaching aim than simply running a smoothly operating enterprise purely for the purpose of making a profit or getting ahead of his competitors. If he continues to be dominated by these motives he will in the end be destroyed. We must have new, specific and overriding purposes which will govern our policies and our practices.
Yesterday our leader set forth some of these goals. The Liberal party has always stood for the freest trade possible consistent with our national security. This, he pointed out, is to be achieved not overnight but under a long,
28. 1961
Supply-Trade and Commerce well planned program, step by step. He suggested, as a first step, that we try to work toward an Atlantic trading community.
That point was very well developed yesterday and other speakers will be developing it still further today, so I shall pass on to another point which I think should have been included in the minister's statement. The minister gave no indication today that our national security and survival depend practically as much on his department as on the Department of National Defence. We cannot separate our security from our trading activities. I feel it would have been wise if today the minister had given a much fuller outline of the forces that are at work in this part of the field of world trade.
He mentioned the emergence of trading blocs, the inner six and the outer seven, and this situation, too, will be further developed by other speakers from our party. However, he did not mention the fact that trading and industry today are a battleground in the struggle for world domination. If we are going to develop a plan we must take that into consideration. The minister did not make any reference to it at all.
We have had some very stirring examples of what is happening in this economic battleground. Russia has developed a well thought out and well integrated program which contains four points. The first point is an intensive industrial expansion inside the Soviet bloc itself. A measure of that expansion can be seen when we realize that in 1927 Russia produced only 3 per cent of world production, whereas in 1955 she produced 20 per cent and doubtless today it is much higher than that.
The second point in that program is industrial sabotage in the industrialized countries of the west. We have seen some examples of that. The third point is a selective disruption of normal trading relations of the free world. We have had examples of that, the tendency of the Soviet union to weld its satellites into an economic bloc with an economy complementary to its own.
Perhaps I might just mention one example. In 1957 there was a world surplus of tin. Russia is a great importer of tin and buys a great deal of it from red China. When we have a situation in which there is a surplus of a product, as there was with tin, we would normally expect a country to buy that product. What did Russia do? Instead of buying and stockpiling tin at that time, Russia sold between 10,000 and 11,000 tons of tin at a price lower than the world market. By so doing Russia disrupted the economies of Bolivia, Malaya and Nigeria,

Supply-Trade and Commerce as well as other countries. This is the sort of thing we must expect on a much more intensive scale in the future.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to successfully meet that kind of challenge we must develop a well co-ordinated plan. I think the first part of that plan should be concentration on building up trade with countries whose economies are complementary to our own. We have certain economies very close to us. We have the West Indies Federation, and it was a great disappointment to me that the minister did not even mention that country during his presentation today.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might call it one o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired in any event. If the committee wishes to give leave to the hon. member to continue after we resume on the ground that he is the chief or leading critic of the opposition, that can be done now. Would the committee give its consent to permitting the hon. member to continue?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, this morning the minister outlined certain actions which his department had taken to improve our world trade position. In reply I pointed out the fact that trade and industry are now a battleground in the struggle for world domination and that further action was essential based on that consideration. In order to be successful such action must have a global purpose, a global strategy and involve total commitment.
As a first step I suggested that, without diminishing our efforts elsewhere, we should place special emphasis on developing economic ties with those countries whose economies were complementary to our own. I then cited the British West Indies Federation as an example and expressed disappointment that in his presentation the minister had made no mention of trade possibilities with these countries.
The British West Indies Federation and the Caribbean area have been a market for salt cod for over 200 years and for that reason are of special interest to the Atlantic provinces, and in particular to my own province of Newfoundland. I am informed that this market has seriously deteriorated during recent months owing for the most part to the

inability of Cuba to purchase our salted fish products. In this connection I call to the minister's attention the fact that one of the most glaring omissions in his presentation this morning was his failure to give the committee a progress report on our trade relations with Cuba. While I am on the subject of omissions, may I also mention his failure to make any reference to uranium contracts. I do not intend to take the time of the committee to dwell on these subjects because they will be dealt with by my colleagues.
To come back to the subject of fish markets in the British West Indies and in the Caribbean area, I remind the minister that fish exporters now claim that the abolition of NAFEL has handicapped their marketing efforts. I have never held any particular brief for NAFEL. It had many features which did not appeal to me personally. Nevertheless it had a purpose to fulfil. If it had not had a purpose to fulfil, it would never have been created. It now seems that the mistake has been not so much the abolition of NAFEL as the failure to put any other organization in its place.
Before I leave the subject of the British West Indies may I remind the minister also that the selling of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships fleet now also seems to have been a mistake. These ships were not costing Canada very much. The continuance of the link they provided between the British West Indies and Canada, at a time when these countries are coming together in a political federation and are trying to integrate their economies, would have well repaid the small deficits the country incurred on their behalf.
As a second step in this plan of action I suggest that some means should be developed in order to protect Canada from economic aggression and penetration. Also, on the world scale, there is a need for a body to be organized as a sort of counterpart of NATO in the economic field in order to help countries resist economic penetration and to offset any efforts that might be made to disrupt their economies such as those I mentioned this morning with reference to the Soviet purchase and disposal of tin when there was a world surplus.
Lest my C.C.F. friends misunderstand what I am proposing I should like to make it clear that I am not advocating state planning. What I am suggesting is voluntary planning by free people within the country and under government leadership and direction and, among the nations of the world, voluntary association on the part of free nations which have come together to plan with a common goal and a common purpose.

This will no doubt involve some painful decisions on the part of different industries, different sectors of the economies of the countries involved and on the part of individual countries in their relations with one another. However, on our capacity to rise above self-interest and accept this challenge may depend our survival as free men and free nations.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, to this House of Commons and to the people in general all departments of government are important, but I do not think I will be challenged when I say that in my estimation one of the most important departments of government is that the estimates of which are now before us, the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Canada is rather unique in the world. She is a country which is, I believe, almost 4,000 miles in breadth, extends from the joint U.S.-Canadian border up to the Arctic circle, is one of the wealthiest countries in the world in natural resources, is one third larger in territory than the United States, has a population of 18 million, and whose maintaining the second highest standard of living in the world is dependent upon the fact that we are an export nation.
That is why I say that the estimates we have before us now are from a department of the utmost importance. We listened this morning to a quite comprehensive statement by the minister. He undoubtedly gave us some interesting information and statistics. I must say that in my opinion a general analysis of the statement given by the minister is that it was tempered in a manner which gave a rosy hue to the export-import picture as far as our country is concerned. Because of that I must admit I was a little disappointed in the approach of the minister.
Over the years I have often heard it said that the difference between a statesman and a politician is that a statesman has read a book. I do not agree with that interpretation. I think the right definition is that a statesman says what has to be said, whereas a politician says that which he thinks will meet with the approval of his party and the people.
There are times when a tough decision has to be made. I am afraid the minister did not make that decision in his remarks this morning. He presented rather, a picture of the past and statistics, instead of what is now required from a statesman, an analysis of our present situation.
We should have been given an analysis of the possibilities, potentialities, problems and dangers of the future and how Canada, as an export nation, is going to face up to those problems, potentialities and, I am going to say, dangers.
28, 1961
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I admit that the minister did mention some of these things, but I think the emphasis was on the wrong place. Naturally we are all very happy to receive any and all reports from the minister as to any progress that has been made, or any change that has been made to bring our trade into balance as between exports and imports.
However, I do feel it is imperative that we have on the part of the minister and the government, of which the hon. gentleman is a distinguished member, a recognition of the difficulties which we face. The statistics, as rosy as he can make them, do not take care of the 700,000 or 800,000 unemployed persons in Canada. Because of the situation in our Canadian economy, with that number of unemployed, statistics are not enough. We need an enunciation of policies that will put every Canadian to work. Canada is an export nation, and we need at least an outline as to the real and serious danger that we face today, or we will face tomorrow, because of the growing number of economic trading blocs, the inner six and the outer seven, and because of what must now be recognized in the economic cold war, which is not only being threatened by the Soviet bloc but of which we have already seen many instances in these past 18 months.
Therefore with that grave and serious responsibility, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to face not only the situation in Canada, with its present high unemployment, but the economic cold war, the establishment of trading blocs, and the increased efficiency and automation which is going on in other countries of the world with whom we have to compete. If Canada does not compete, our economy will come very close to collapse.
Interesting as the minister's remarks were, it was that kind of emphasis, that kind of truthfulness to the Canadian people that I hoped he would express when he opened vote No. 1 this morning.
We are facing difficult problems; there is no question about that. Nobody in Canada wants to see a reduction in our standard of living. Everybody wants to see full employment. I am afraid that very often we members of the House of Commons-I include all hon. members-are not honest enough with the Canadian people in giving them the true picture that we, as an export nation, face in world affairs today.
I feel this is a responsibility that many of us do not accept to the degree and depth that we should, because unfortunately too many of us are more interested in saying things which we consider necessary.
With the establishment of the trading blocs, and perhaps more to come, the recovery of the nations of the world from the impact

Supply-Trade and Commerce and holocaust of the last world war, the efficiency and automation that is going on at a more rapid pace outside Canada than it is here, there has to be a recognition that we can only maintain our status and standards by an understanding among government, management and labour. We must produce goods of quality and in a quantity to supply our consumption needs. If we fail to meet competition from abroad because of poor production efficiency and lack of co-operation by all sectors of our industry the consequences will be serious to all concerned.
As I have already said, I think that in view of the world situation in trade and commerce an increased investment in the services of the trade commissioners of the department is imperative. I heard with great regret only the other day some of the most experienced and efficient trade commissioners in the department have either left or are leaving the service at the very time when we are in greatest need of their knowledge, experience and brains. Because of their experience and their contacts they are being bought up by free enterprise in Canada, the offers made being so fantastic that despite the loyalty of these men and their love of the service they cannot reject them. I am very sorry to hear this, because if ever there was a time when we need the services of these men it is right now and in the days and years that lie ahead.
I sincerely hope the Minister of Finance is not being penny wise and pound foolish; I hope a policy of that kind has not been responsible for what occurred. Private industry may need these trained men but Canada needs them even more in these days of competition. I know the government cannot match some of the offers which have been made by free enterprise, but something more could surely be done. In the last two years it has been my privilege to meet a good many of these trade commissioners in their posts throughout the world. I think I know of their love of the service and their loyalty to it, and I have no hesitation in saying that money spent to hold these men in the service of Canada is money well spent and its provision would be supported, I am sure, by the Canadian people if the picture were made clear to them.
A few years ago when I was in provincial politics and came within one elected member of being a premier, somebody said to me "You are an electrician. What are you going to do?" I said "Hire the brains and pay for them." I think that is a good practice in government as well as in free enterprise. As I say, we have serious problems before us. We shall require clear headed and sensible thinking if we are to face up to what is developing

throughout the world in the export field. The government, as well as all hon. members of this committee, will realize the complexities of this problem. They will realize that as individuals, or as groups of individuals in industry, we cannot put selfish interest before the good of Canada as a whole. This is definitely one of the problems involved in government policy inasmuch as we want protectionism at home sometimes in relation to certain industries while failing to recognize that since our economy is mainly based on export we cannot export unless we import. If we are going to be paid for export in Canadian dollars we have to import, too, whether we like it or not, rough as that may be. I have no hesitation in saying that we are not explaining this sufficiently to the Canadian people so that they may realize that individual or partisan interests must depend upon policies designed for the benefit of Canada as a whole. I have said this outside the house and I have no hesitation in saying it here.
I have until this moment been speaking in generalities, but, I hope it will be recognized sincerely and on broad principles. Much more has got to be done in the future, even if it is admitted that everything possible has been done in the past by the minister and by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We must intensify our work and effort. We must not only draw attention to those things which are rosy; we must also point out the difficulties and shortcomings which are of a serious nature and try to figure out how to correct the situation. Perhaps we have failed in the past. Let us, then, do something different in the future.
I understand that over the last four months the minister has received a somewhat voluminous correspondence from British Columbia, from a firm which has been and which still is, I think, one of the major exporters of timber from my province. I, also, have received correspondence. It disturbed me and intrigued me so much that when I was last in Vancouver I made an appointment to see the president and the executive officers of this company, and asked them to produce the material in front of me. I regret I have not had the opportunity of checking completely the information given me, but the minister can challenge it if he has found it to be incorrect.
Accepting the statistics which have been provided me, it would appear that until about five years ago Canada used to enjoy about a 50 per cent share in the sawn lumber, logs, poles and pilings imported into Japan from North America. However, the figures for exports of these materials in the five years ending in 1960 show a different picture. Of sawn lumber entering Japan from North

America 11.9 per cent came from Canada and 88.91 per cent from the United States. Log exports from Canada dropped to 3.12 per cent compared with 96.8 per cent in the United States. Poles and pilings dropped to 10.51 per cent from Canada and 89.49 per cent from the United States. Information which I received in Vancouver indicated that in the first 10 months of 1960 sawn lumber exports from British Columbia to Japan were only 3.53 per cent of the exports from British Columbia and the United States Pacific states; that our exports of logs had dropped to 1.92 per cent. Our poles and pilings stayed fairly stable; they dropped from 10.51 per cent to 9.98 per cent.
I wish to make one point unmistakably clear. I am fully in support of the principle that Canada and British Columbia with their vast resources, should not have an economy in which we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. To the absolute extent possible we should process our own natural resources and not export our raw material. But, in the processing of our raw material, the timber of British Columbia, what has happened? If the information I have from this major exporter in British Columbia is correct, our sawn lumber exports to Japan which used to be 50 per cent, on a five-year average had dropped to 11.09 per cent and in the first 10 months of 1960, they were down to 3.53 per cent. I am certain that with the resources in timber which we have in British Columbia and the efficiency of our logging industry, we should be able to compete, but we have lost out.
Of course, it is important to know why we lost out, but what is more important is can we regain the market? I hope the minister will comment on this. However, there is also another point that I wish to raise, but in doing so I do not want to be misunderstood. If we can process our raw materials in Canada, let us do so. We must process. Secondary industry is a must. A manufactured product means a lot more to the economy of Canada and the standard of living of our people than exporting the raw goods and importing manufactured goods. But if there is a time when we cannot process the raw material and we cannot export and therefore the logs, let us say, are going to go to waste, then there is something wrong.
In those circumstances if because of provincial and federal responsibility a situation arises under which we would rather have the teredos eat up the logs in the water than export the logs, then there is something wrong. From the talk I had with the executive officials in Vancouver and from the large amount of correspondence I have had with different people concerned it is my understanding that because of certain regulations
Supply-Trade and Commerce we would prefer to see the teredos attack the logs in the water than accept contracts from countries which would like to buy the logs. I am not speaking of our major timber, I am speaking of what is known in the terminology of the trade as short ends. I think my hon. friend from Kootenay West will tell me if I am wrong.
By reason of the provincial and federal responsibility we have this situation. There may be short end logs in the water. If a buyer in Japan, for example, should write to an exporting broker and ask him to fill an order he would be told that he cannot answer. Why can he not answer? He cannot answer because the regulation says that in order to get an export permit the logs must be in the water for no fewer than 60 days. There must have been a scaling 30 days before the expiration of the 60 days, and the logs must be offered to saw mills or pulp mills for purchase. Then, at the end of the 60 days and the 30 days scaling and two companies, the saw mills or the pulp mills, have rejected the offer to buy the short end logs for processing in British Columbia, they can then apply for an export permit.


Mr. Pugh:: Will the hon. member permit a question for clarification? To my mind it is a provincial regulation. Is it in fact a provincial regulation that demands this?


Harold Edward Winch: There is a combination of the two. I have in front of me information having to do with the federal regulations. What I have just said applies to the federal regulation, but there is a combination of the two, and I tried to make that clear. That is why I think there has to be understanding and cooperation. But here is the point. When I was at the meeting of those forestry executives in Vancouver there were two offers which came from Japan that morning to buy millions of board-feet of those short end logs. I said to the president of that company, "What are you going to do with it?" He said, "I am going to turn them down." I said, "Why; are the logs not available?" He said, "There are whole booms of logs within three miles of where you are sitting. I cannot get them because they have to be 60 days in the water and scaled, and then I have to go to the saw mill companies and the pulp companies and get one of them interested enough to come down and say 'We will not buy'."
Under the circumstances this would mean work for the loggers of British Columbia. Those are logs which are going to be attacked by teredos; they will be attacked by teredos because that is the situation. I think this is a very serious situation. But the province of British Columbia does not want any change. In principle I can understand why. Let us

Supply-Trade and Commerce process in our pulp mills and saw mills in British Columbia. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask this question and I hope the minister will comment on it. These logs are going to be attacked by toredos and once they are attacked by teredos they are no good for pulp and no good for saw mills. Why do we have to waste that natural resource; why do we have to leave these short ends on the ground or in the water, if nobody will process them in British Columbia or in Canada? Why do we have to say, "Let this natural resource rot" rather than get some return for it?
I hope this is understood by all hon. members. I repeat it the third time. I want the material to be processed in Canada. In circumstances such as these it would mean very much to our young men and much more to the British Columbia economy. Why do we have to retain provincially or federally this kind of regulation? Could something not be worked out to protect the processing in British Columbia and protect secondary industry also in that province?
With respect to the short ends left in the water or on the land when the good stuff is taken out, can a plan not be evolved whereby Canada will get a return from the export of these short ends instead of their being left for food for the teredos? There are some here who are well acquainted with the timber industry of British Columbia and they know how the teredos go to work on the logs in the booms in the ocean waters of British Columbia. I want to draw that particular point to the attention of the minister and ask for his comment thereon.
In particular, I want to draw to his attention the change not in the amount of our exports of sawn lumber, logs, poles and piling to Japan but rather the drop in the percentage we are able to export to that country compared with the amount exported by the United States. Something has gone wrong, and I draw this matter to the attention of the minister and ask that particular attention be paid to it.
In the matter of exports generally to the countries of the world, I feel quite certain that if the minister could have more men, retain his trained personnel and persuade the Minister of Finance that the expenditure of money to maintain and increase our exports is money well spent and directly or indirectly results in returns to our economy and the people of Canada, he would be able to bring about some improvement.
I conclude as I started by saying that I consider this department to be one of the most important departments of government and I hope the minister will be able to give us more information later as to how the

problem facing us in going to be attacked. We will give him every assistance we can but where required we will also criticize.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I am not as well prepared at this time to speak on this important subject as I should like to be and my remarks will be directed primarily toward problems that affect the area in which I live. First of all, I should like to extend to the minister my sincere congratulations and those of the people of the riding I represent for the splendid effort he is making in building up Canada's export market and also preserving our home market. As I said, I intend to deal more or less with local matters. I might say that in the area from which I come we grow a very large proportion of the tender fruits and vegetables that are grown in Canada and we also have more than 200 diversified industries. When I review these industries it surprises me to note the number of different types of industries we have. Some of them depend almost entirely on the export market, and I am thinking particularly of the pulp and paper industries of which we have several. We also have some industries which depend on both the export market and our own market and we have a very large number of small industries that depend almost entirely on the Canadian market.
For these reasons it can be seen that in my riding we depend very much on a balanced economy. M^e cannot afford to have too much in the way of imports come into the country because it may ruin industries that depend on the home market and yet we must not set up road-blocks that will interfere with our export market.
It would sometimes seem that the Customs Tariff and the provision respecting value for duty are regarded as bad words in this house but nevertheless these are two very important pieces of legislation in controlling our trade and commerce and they must be brought up to date from time to time. In reviewing the problems of our local industries one is often very much convinced that there is reason for changes in these measures. I might cite one instance that came to my attention a few weeks ago in connection with a plant that was established in our area in 1955 and started production in 1957. Many millions of dollars are involved in the building and machinery and the development that took place in order to get the plant into production. The industry in question has been able to supply its product to the Canadian trade and has also done a considerable amount of export business. The company produces a type of specialized fire brick. A considerable

amount of reinforced steel is used in this production of the fire brick but the basic material required is magnesite ore.
I presume there is a lot of magnesite ore in Canada which may be suitable for this type of brick, but at the present time only two bodies of ore are in production and both are under the control of another company. The firm to which I refer is in the very unhappy and unfortunate position of having to pay a duty of 15 per cent on the raw material they bring into Canada while the finished fire brick is allowed to enter Canada duty free. There is a case where an industry is being penalized for being in business.
The point I should like to make is that there are many different items in our Customs Tariff that should be reviewed and changed. At the present time, unfortunately, practically all of these items are tied up under GATT and it is very difficult to get anything done. I might say that this industry flourished and did well. It supplied a very fine type of brick to such industries as the Steel Company of Canada, the Portland Cement Company and the International Nickel plants at Sudbury but today they find that a similar product is entering Canada from other countries duty free. This is affecting their sales and unless they receive some protection they are going to be out of business. I feel that trade and commerce is not only a matter of export but also a matter of our home market as well, and that is one of the problems I should like to place before the minister at this time.
There is also the question of value for duty purposes, something that is often debated in the house with some heat, but from my observations in connection with the values for duty on certain items coming into Canada I find that the values for duty on some goods are very unrealistic.
I might cite just one example, the matter of radio tubes. I mentioned this in the committee before, but I do not mind bringing it up again because I find the value for duty placed on these tubes coming in from a certain country is 29 and 31 cents whereas the value which has been arrived at in the country from which they come and used by the trade commissioner of that country is 60 cents. This represents a very unfair situation with which we in this country have to contend. I think that if our values for duty on imports from low wage countries were realistic, I do not mean the actual Canadian cost but the costs arrived at in the country in which they are made, we would find our imports from those countries would be very much higher than they are at the present time in dollar value.
This puts the Minister of Trade and Commerce at very great disadvantage. I hesitate
Supply-Trade and Commerce to mention Japanese products, but that is one country I have in mind. We are told all the time that Japan is buying much more from us than we are buying from them. However, if a realistic value for duty were established on the goods coming into this country from Japan, I am sure the tables would be turned and we would be buying much more in dollar value from Japan.
There is another matter about which I am deeply concerned and that is that many of our industries in the Niagara peninsula have reached a point in their production where they can compete with the United States. Now, that is quite a statement to make but I know it is a fact in some cases. Many of these industries have built up quite a business with the United States. There is one practice in which the United States indulges, although I do not know whether or not they do it intentionally, and that is the changing of tariff regulations practically overnight.
I could cite the experience of one firm in this connection. This firm received a substantial contract from the United States. The goods were manufactured and a substantial shipment made. The firm received another big contract. The goods were made ready for shipment but instead of being shipped via Niagara Falls as they had been before they were put across the border at Detroit. The American customs appraiser at that point held up the shipment. Apparently he is a power unto himself because he increased the tariff from something like 30 per cent to about 45 per cent and told the company that if they did not want to accept his ruling they would have to appeal to Washington. In the meantime, the goods were held up at the border for three weeks and demurrage was paid on them. The decision of the appraiser at Detroit was confirmed. As a result this firm lost money instead of making a few dollars. This is a condition about which perhaps we cannot do anything, but I think it is a condition that should never be forgotten when we are dealing with the United States in matters of trade and commerce.
I am sure many hon. members will recall that a short time ago, almost overnight, the United States raised its tariff on bicycles imported from Canada from something like 30 per cent up to 50 per cent. This had a very vital effect on the Canadian bicycle industry.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a problem that is developing in Canada today in connection with not only our coastal shipping but also our lake shipping. We all know that Great Britain built up a tremendous world trade through having ships to take the goods to their destination. The condition in Canada today is deteriorating. Living along the banks of the Welland

Supply-Trade and Commerce ship canal, as I do, I have noticed that the number of European ships going through the canal is increasing all the time. These ships are hauling freight at prices that Canadian ships cannot meet. I had the opportunity of visiting a British freighter last year, a 10,000 tonner, which was engaged in bringing cargo from South America. This vessel carried a crew of 40. There were five white officers and 35 Hindus who were paid $40 per month. They got their food and cooked it themselves. The agreement under which they were hired stipulated that they would sign up for three years and that they would be taken home at least once during those three years. This is a condition which we in Canada simply do not want to match.
We know that at the present time some Canadian vessels are being transferred to British registry, just as the Canada steamship lines are transferring some of their vessels to Bermuda registry. Scott Misener is considering action along the same lines. This type of thing could spread very rapidly and, in a short time, we could find we had very little in the way of Canadian shipping on our great lakes. This situation applies not only to lake vessels but also to vessels plying the St. Lawrence river and our coastal areas. I am greatly concerned about the transfer of these ships to foreign registry because I feel that should some world disturbance take place these foreign ships would be withdrawn from our service and we would not have any vessels with which to move our own goods. I feel this is a matter which the Minister of Trade and Commerce should take into consideration. If we are going to build ourselves up as a trading nation, then it seems to me imperative that we have a strong merchant fleet not only on the great lakes but also a fleet that would be capable of taking goods to practically all parts of the world. The situation is certainly not developing along those lines at the moment.
I have not got a great deal more to say, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to make some comment on a speech delivered by Mr. Coyne. If Mr. Coyne is on your side then he is your friend, but if he is against you then he is not. In this case, as always, I think his words are very true, and I should like to quote them:
We cannot expect to go on indefinitely buying goods and services from abroad in amounts greatly in excess of our exports, that is, buying on credit on a scale which requires large further increases in our foreign debt.
Then, he goes on to say that corrections must be made and he concluded by saying:
The sooner we can make substantial progress in this direction, the stronger and more secure will be our economic future and national integrity.


We all know that our imbalance of trade, while it may have improved somewhat, is a matter that gives us a great deal of concern. The other day I saw some figures, and I probably cannot quote them exactly, which indicated that Great Britain purchased goods abroad to the extent of something like $54 per person per year; Germany, something like $46; the United States, $19 per person per year, and Canada, the small country that we are, was purchasing abroad about $275 worth of goods per person per year. These are figures which stagger all of us because, after all is said and done, running a country is just like running a business or a household. If you spend more than you bring in you are soon going to go broke.
This concludes my remarks at this time, Mr. Chairman and I hope I have contributed something of value toward this debate.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, it is generally conceded that Canada is going through a difficult period, more fundamental than a mere period of business recession. Were it not for the unusually large number of unemployed, the situation would not be so serious. However, we are confronted with this problem in which no one finds satisfaction; and as we analyse the causes we cannot help but point the finger to, at least as a contributing factor, the inability to maintain Canadian exports at a level which would ensure increased growth in the economy.
I have had occasion to say it before and I repeat that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notwithstanding his industrious application to the job, which is commendable, has not been able to shake off the shackles of a tariff policy, imposed upon his department, which is not conducive to improving our trading position with other nations. I do not propose to repeat what I said here last Tuesday on the subject of tariffs. I shall, however, endeavour to indicate to the minister some of the reasons why I think we are suffering from competition in the markets of the world, the effects of which are plainly visible in our unemployment picture.
The first reason which comes to my mind is the government's attitude toward United States capital. The sport of giving United States investments another punch in the nose seems to be in some quarters as popular as ever. Indeed, some speakers seem to be forever dedicated to fostering animosity towards anything American, whether it is newspapers, telecasts, radio programs or capital investment. They do this in the name of rugged "Canadianism", perhaps not realizing that by doing so they are actually hurting themselves.

The president of the Royal Bank of Canada in a speech he delivered early in the year warned the Canadian people against what he called "The almost hysterical wave of sentiment against the import of foreign capital". Mr. Chairman, we cannot hope to expand our export business unless we have first sufficient capital to develop our primary industries. A case in point is a recent statement made by Mr. M. S. Fotheringham, president of Steep Rock Iron Mines, to the effect that it might be impractical for his company to proceed with developments at Lake St. Joseph without extensive financial backing from United States firms. This is a company which has been responsible for the export to the United States of more than 25 million tons of iron ore. The cost of the development of the Steep Rock Iron Range Mines, including the Caland Company of Cleveland ore deposits leased to that company by Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd., was well in excess of $100 million. These ore bodies are continuously being subjected to progressive exploration. This gigantic enterprise would not have been possible without ample capital. I scarcely need to add, Mr. Chairman, that this mining operation has meant millions of dollars to the credit side of our exports. Contrary to the opinion of some people that investments in our primary industries especially from the United States are merely exploiting and are interested only in the accumulation of profits, I wish to quote from the annual statement of the company which reveals the fact that this mining project since commencement in 1945 has netted a profit of $60 million from all of which there was reinvestment in expansion and development, giving employment to hundreds of millions and not one cent has yet been paid in dividends to its shareholders. I may add that Canada expects to be exporting some 80 million tons a year of iron ore by 1975 and about 100 million by 1990. This is a statement also made by the president of Steep Rock Iron Mines.
United States investment in Canada is the story of a great contribution to the development of Canada which was made in the first instance at the instigation of private industry as well as at the invitation of the Canadian government of the day which was chiefly responsible for the great manufacturing facilities which provide most of our exports, outside of grain such as pulp and paper, nickel, aluminum, automobiles and parts and other products. Only yesterday, an account appeared in the Montreal Gazette which reported a substantial sale of car radios to the United States by R.C.A. Victor Co. Ltd., the Canadian company, designed and developed here in Canada. Incidentally, I may say that
28, 1961
Supply-Trade and Commerce this company during the past three years has sold to the United States more than $4 million of technical equipment, and in competition with some of the largest manufacturers of electronic equipment in that country. It seems that this company policy of developing its own products has paid off and it should serve as an example to other manufacturers in adopting similar methods of enterprise.
Our economic ills have been dissected by several so-called experts. One of them, the governor of the Bank of Canada, made numerous pronouncements on the economic state of the nation. He has chosen several vehicles to launch his views. The latest was his appearance before the Senate manpower committee. According to reports, here again he was voicing the opinion that the Canadian people were living beyond their means. He pointed out that consumer debt of the Canadian public, once well below that of the United States in terms of personal income, was now almost at the same level. If he had said that we are living beyond our means in the sense that we are importing more goods in terms of dollars and cents than we are exporting, I would go along with him. But I am not of the belief that we are living beyond our means when we spend our money on goods manufactured here in Canada.
What created the prosperity and high standard of living which those of us who are employed are privileged to enjoy, is made possible precisely by the spending of the people in purchasing automobiles, appliances, better housing accommodation, clothing, furniture and a host of other commodities. Our banks and finance companies, in the majority of cases, provided the credit to finance these purchases which in turn created prosperity and not depression.
Contrary to the old fashioned thinking of putting your pennies into a sock and burying it for a rainy day, I believe that employment and a higher standard of living can be achieved in direct proportion to the velocity or speed of circulation which our currency attains and the revolving of credit.
The No. 1 objective-and I am sure it is the aim of the minister-is to trade with every country willing to trade with us on a reciprocal basis and remove the obstacles of unfair tariffs with nations who are buying more from us than we are buying from them.
While speaking on the amendment to the supply motion last Tuesday evening I gave credit to the minister for the trade commissioners' conference which he promoted last January. By way of suggestion I wish to bring to his attention that the department of commerce of the United States have
4116	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce arranged for exporters to explain to small businessmen and manufacturers how to break into the export market.
The exporters will explain to these groups how it might benefit them to work together. They will also offer to act as consultants and brokers, cutting through red tape and making contact with buyers.
The department of commerce of the United States has also quietly lifted a 20-year old ban on publication of who receives export licences for the shipment of critical materials to foreign nations. Exporters encouraged continuation of the practice, which dates from world war II, because I presume they did not want competitors to know who their foreign customers were. Here, perhaps, is something our own government should look into and cut all the possible barriers to markets abroad.
However, the problem of export trade cannot be solved by any single remedy. There are many sides to the question and these should be examined. I propose to suggest ways which may be found worthy of consideration by the government.
Let us take a look at what is happening in some of the major trading nations of the world. Let us first take Japan as an example. We think of Japan as a country of 90 million people all busy making cheap goods to dump on world markets. It is a comparatively small country with a very small agricultural area. The Japanese cultivate every inch of it that will grow anything; but the area is pitifully small to feed 90 million people.
Japan must therefore import 40 per cent of her food or her people will starve. To make matters worse, she lacks raw materials. She imports iron ore, nickel, chromium and copper from Canada for her industries, and wheat for the major part of her food.
Japan must pay Canadian currency for the wheat and raw materials she imports from Canada. To earn Canadian dollars she must sell something to Canada. Without natural resources she can sell only the products of her factories. In other words, there has to be a two-way trade in order that other nations may do business with us.
The objection to this is that we import things that could be manufactured here. But can we not benefit more by selling that which we can produce better, and in abundance, in exchange for things which Japan may be better equipped to provide our markets?
We can honestly say competition for Canadian manufactured goods has been brought about not by the wish of the Japanese but by the sheer necessity of their so doing, or starving.
Let us take a look at Belgium. The Belgian government has a set policy of encouraging new industry to start new factories by


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, during the last ACFAS convention held at the University of Montreal, a resolution was passed unanimously asking the federal government to establish a committee formed of experts in various fields-science, trade, engineering, administration-which would consider the methods of gradually introducing the metric system in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, these past few years the metric system has been used increasingly in Canada, more especially in the scientific field. It is known, for instance, that the Department of Fisheries, in its work, as well as in its publication, The Journal of the Fisheries Research of Canada, has been using this system of measurement exclusively. Moreover, at the outset of the work on the continental shelf project it was decided to use only the metric system. Finally, since the beginning of 1960, two of the most important geographical Canadian magazines, La Revue Canadienne de geographie and Les Cahiers de geographie de Quebec have decided to use the metric system on an exclusive basis. In the geo-90205-6-260
Supply-Trade and Commerce graphical branch itself, although the metric system is not used as a matter of course by all geographers, it is nevertheless used by those who co-operate in the continental shelf project.
On January 1st last, England and all the overseas territories coming under its jurisdiction adopted the centigrade degrees to measure temperature. This change applies not only to the scientific field but also to everyday life. In other terms, since the first of January last, English newspapers, radio and television stations have been giving their weather forecasts in centigrade units, according to the metric system.
It must be noted that this change is a first step toward the generalization of the metric system in all the spheres of everyday life in England. As a matter of fact, the adoption of the metric system was recommended in England in May 1960, following an extensive survey in the course of which a very large majority of personalities and qualified organizations took position in favour of the metric system.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to mention a few disadvantages due to the fact that our country has not yet adopted this metric system.
When tenders were called for the purchase of equipment required by a Middle East country, the Canadian bid was the lowest. However, it was not accepted.
The reason given the Canadian representative was the following:
Your equipment is very good and it can manufacture products that meet the requirements of the metric system, which is the one used in this country. But the trouble is that parts are machined according to your system of measurement. When the time comes for replacing those parts, this fact may mean expensive delays for us. Sorry.
The contract was therefore given to a German firm. Its bid was higher, but it was using the metric system for manufacturing parts. Those parts are available throughout the Middle East.
Mr. Chairman, these facts were reported in the December issue of the newspaper Perspectives.
A prominent Argentine manufacturer who came here on business spent hours consulting a Toronto firm's catalogue. The sales manager did not fail of course to point out to him machines which were lower priced than those offered by competing European companies. The South American scribbled figures over several sheets of paper and then closed the catalogue, took his hat and said:
Your prices may be more attractive, but I am so confused by your measures that I would rather pay more to European suppliers. They have the same measures as we have. What I would save
4118	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce on the purchase price would be more than erased by the loss of time and the unavoidable mistakes in converting yards into meters and gallons into litres.
Such incidents illustrate a harsh fact: our foreign trade will probably be conditioned by our system of measures. Throughout the world, Canadian products must compete with those of foreign manufacturers who have a great advantage in that their weights and measures are easily understood by customers, whereas ours are above the understanding of most of prospective purchasers.
Since our standard of living is closely related to world trade, all Canadians are affected by this confusion about measures. Furthermore, our unpractical system only makes things more complicated for everyone, mother and student, artist and engineer, scientist and farmer.
At present the standards of measure divide the world in two blocs. The commonwealth and the United States have the British system while the metric system is used in most of the rest of the world, namely Europe, U.S.S.R., red China, Japan, South America, Central America and the new African states. That means that 90 per cent of the world population enjoy the advantages of the metric system.
On our side, we are beginning to fear for the future of our exports. Yet, sentimental attachment to a traditional system may soon be upset by the necessities brought about by economic pressures.
India adopts the metric system. Eager to industrialize, India has bought just about everywhere the things that she needed. Will she now continue to import machines that will create nothing but confusion? Would Canadians buy lathes or tools of metric standards for their plants?
Again, I have quoted from the last December issue of Perspectives.
A parliamentary committee in New Zealand has recommended the adoption of the decimal system for money, to be followed by the adoption of the metric system. South Africa started on February 14 to convert her monetary system.
In the United Kingdom, a parliamentary committee has already recommended a total revision, and conversion of the monetary system has been advocated in a report prepared by several committees representing the British chambers of commerce association and the British association for the advancement of science. More than 2,000 organizations have submitted evidence and ideas.
It seems that the English monetary sys-


tem of pounds, shillings and pence, which has tormented generations of English students and innumerable tourists, is bound to disappear.
Another significant fact is that, according to the report, the metric weight and measures system will finally have to be adopted, but the report does not recommend that it should be made mandatory at once.
I would mention at this point, Mr. Chairman, that in the Department of National Defence, the metric system is fully accepted, particularly in the department's relations with our European partners in NATO.
The difficulties arising from different systems can be many and unfortunate. As an example, Bailey bridge sections made in the United States and in Great Britain could not be fitted together because the measurements were different.
Some Canadian businessmen see the situation realistically, but they are a minority.
The Canadian association of drug manufacturers made the change-over a few years ago and is now very happy about it. Measurements in electronics and photography are based on the metric system. Many of the firms involved have in fact found that the changeover had been less costly than anticipated.
Conversion on a national scale will probably depend to a large extent on the passing of a similar measure in the United Kingdom or the United States, but that is no excuse for inaction.
It is important, however, that eventually a committee be set up to consider the adoption of the metric system in Canada.
If a Canadian exporter finds he would stand to gain from the metric system, he should convert to it immediately.
Before applying the metric system across the country, we would have to have the answers to various questions. Should we act in conjunction with the United Kingdom and the United States? Should we apply a crash program or a long term one?
Some U.S. experts estimate that it will take 30 years to carry out conversion, in view of the high degree of that country's industrialization. The Indian plan provides for a 10-to 15-year period; the Japanese plan has a much shorter term. The South Africans expect it will take 18 months only to change their monetary system. A study of the metric system should be compulsory teaching in the schools. Of course, this point comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
We could also indicate the weight or volume of some products, such as groceries, in grains or litres; we might replace miles by kilometres on road maps and road signs. The biggest problem and the longest to solve will be the

conversion of machine tools, dies and gauges. Both systems would be used concurrently for a few years, while obsolete machines were being progressively replaced.
It would thus be possible to carry out conversion in 10 to 15 years. What is most important is that the organizations primarily concerned, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Engineering Institute, immediately start tackling the problem.
At a time when the Soviet threat to our foreign trade is a cause for concern, it should be remembered that Russia holds a tremendous advantage in the metric system. The customer always prefers the easiest alternatives.
Our scientists use metric measurements, while our engineers measure things in inches, pounds and gallons. They waste precious time converting figures in either direction to co-ordinate their work.
We can well wonder to what extent the Russian advance in the field of space research may be attributed to closer co-operation between its engineers and scientists, all of whom use the metric system.
If we do not adopt the metric system, we run the risk of incurring enormous economic losses.
A moment ago, I gave a few examples in that connection. Some day, Canada will adopt the metric system and, Mr. Chairman, we must prepare for it now.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with two matters. First of all, about unemployment statistics, and then about our trade policy.
Mr. Chairman, item 399 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce includes an amount for the dominion bureau of statistics. For some time, I have wanted to raise that matter. As I represent a typical working-class riding, I submit that the unemployment figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics give us an incomplete picture of the situation. In my opinion, if we want to solve that problem, we must first of all realize its scope.
That is why it is important that the dominion bureau of statistics, on the basis of new standards, should submit each month on the basis new standards, figures that accurately reflect the gravity and scope of the unemployment problem.
90205-6-260i
Supply-Trade and Commerce
On April 15 or 16, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) told us that, according to the D.B.S. figures, there were, in Canada, 714,000 unemployed at the end of March. Now, as everyone knows, those figures are the result of very incomplete sampling. Perhaps they give us a picture of the situation, but I fear it is a rather sketchy picture.
A few days later, I asked the Minister of Labour how many Canadian citizens were drawing unemployment insurance benefits from our offices, at the end of March. He replied that on that date the number was 837,961.
Now, it is quite obvious that the unemployed, the man who draws unemployment insurance benefits, is unemployed within the meaning of the unemployment insurance act, because he has to submit evidence that he used to have a job, that he no longer has one for reasons beyond his control, that he has the required quantity of unemployment insurance stamps, and that he is available for work.
Now, how is it that, at the end of March, 837,961 persons were drawing benefits, while the figure given us by the D.B.S. is only 714,000?
This proves, therefore, that the D.B.S. figures are incomplete and do not show the extent of the problem.
Besides, there are millions of Canadian citizens who are out of work and who do not draw any unemployment insurance benefits.
If the minister, anxious to set up an adequate statistical system, would only refer this matter to the industrial relations committee, I would be in a position to prove that the number of unemployed who do not draw any benefits is about one third the number of those who do. At any time with the help of a few witnesses, I would be in a position to prove that.
Mr. Chairman, if we add the number of those who draw those benefits to the corresponding third of that number, we get a total of 1,110,114 unemployed. The purpose of my remarks with regard to the D.B.S. is to establish that, if we all want to solve this problem, we will have to change the standards for those statistics, because we have to know how many unemployed there are.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is the responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), and not, of D.B.S. officials, even if they are experts in the

Supply-Trade and Commerce matter. If the minister did set up an adequate accounting system-and we have the necessary organization to do so-we might obtain every month figures which would prove that the situation is much worse than shown in present D.B.S. figures.
Again, I think that we, in this house, who are looking for an answer to the problem, should have more adequate figures. I therefore ask the minister to pay particular attention to my request, because I propose to raise the matter at every opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I now want to say a few words about our policy in trade matters.
If I understood the minister well this morning, when he dealt with the matter his statement was read rather rapidly, but I jotted down as much as possible of the following remarks-he said:
We are trying to protect Canadian industry against the excessive risks of importations.
Now it is regrettable that we should have to recognize that results did not fulfil the government's hopes.
It is all right to wish and to express pious hopes, but this morning we expected a quite definite policy with regard to trade to be worked out.
In order to make it quite clear that our Canadian industries, in some sectors, are in an intolerable position, just because of imports, I would like to read a paragraph from an item published yesterday on the financial page of La Presse, and signed by Mr. Eugene Lafond, who said:
The flooding of the Canadian market by imported textiles now seems to be beyond all control. In fact the Canadian Apparel and Textile Manufacturers' Association reports that shipments of clothing and textiles from Hong Kong to Canada have increased by 38.6 per cent last year, and have now reached a value of $8.3 million, whereas it was $6 million in 1959, and $3 million in 1958.
For a number of years, the Canadian market was submerged by imports of Japanese textiles. Since Hong Kong textiles have appeared on our market, the latter is literally flooded; the situation has become unbearable, and when looking at the figures quoted by the association we find that, in 1960 alone, Hong Kong shipped to Canada 1,071,600 blouses, 2,366,364 shirts, 3,993,396 pairs of trousers and popular clothes of that kind, as well as 4,938,804 other pieces of woven clothing.
It has often been said that if the Canadian industry is unable to meet this competition, it is due to the extremely low level of salaries paid in the countries of Asia.
It is noted by the association that textiles sold in Hong Kong by Canada are not competing with the local product since ours are only partly finished goods which are finished, then re-exported;

this is not at all like the situation which prevails on the Canadian market.
Now, Mr. Chairman, our position is quite clear concerning Canada's trade policy. It was set forth unequivocally during the debate held this week, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and other opposition members dealt with this matter. We are advocating the establishment of an economic community of Atlantic countries which, in my opinion, is one of the schemes likely to promote the development of Canadian trade.
Here is what I find in yesterday's issue of La Presse, in an editorial dealing with this debate and this matter:
What will Canada do when Great Britain, as she now seems resolved to do, decides to join the six of the common market, thereby granting preferred treatment to the products of those countries and putting our exports in the British Isles at a competitive disadvantage. We must ask ourselves whether, under the circumstances, the Canadian government should not consider right now modifying its trade policy to ward off the blow.
Canada has done nothing so far, nothing tangible at least, to protect our trade interests.
It must be recognized that, so far in the debate on this subject in the house, the position of the government has been purely negative.
Would it not be possible for our country to take part one way or another in the regrouping arrangement thought up by the European countries. It is the solution that was put forward by the opposition when it suggested the setting up of an Atlantic economic community as a complement to the defence community based on the North Atlantic treaty.
Mr. Chairman, those are the only remarks I wanted to make at this time. I will surely have questions to put when the different items of the department estimates are being looked into. Right now I should like to say to the minister that I am looking forward to the information he will give us in connection with vote 399. This vote has to do with unemployment statistics which, as I have said before, do not give a true picture of the seriousness and extent of this problem.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be quite brief as usual and normal. First of all, I want to express my appreciation of the minister's courtesy and his very prompt attention to any matter I have brought to his attention. The same thing applies to his parliamentary secretary. I give them top marks as far as industry and courtesy are concerned, and I am sure all members appreciate that. I also want to express my appreciation of the work of the staff. A number

of times I have had occasion to make inquiries and I have always found my letters and all my inquiries replied to promptly and the information given as fully as possible.
While I listened with interest to the minister's review of the activities of his department, like former speakers I believe he failed to emphasize to some extent the difficulties that Canada is facing at the present time with respect to overseas trade particularly and the possible intensification of these difficulties in the months and years ahead. I refer to the difficulties which are caused by the formation of trading blocs, by the groups of countries that indulge in state trading, various pricing policies and the lowering of costs made possible through efficient arrangements as the result of co-operation, co-ordination and planning within the country or between certain countries.
The department's report this year is most attractive in format and very informative. I think there has been a great improvement in recent years in the reports put out by various departments. This is the second one within recent days that has shown great improvement over previous years. It is a credit to the printers, the persons who design the format and the material is well drafted and presented in readable and logical sequence.
My few remarks, Mr. Chairman, are really going to be in the nature of half a dozen questions which I wish to ask the minister. Will the minister, when he speaks, tell the committee what is the difference between trade and commerce? This has always been a rather intriguing question in my mind when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce come before this committee. So far as the dictionary is concerned, I can find very little distinction. I wonder why the department is named, trade and commerce. There must be some reason for it. This is a question which arises out of my native curiosity.
I should like to direct the minister's attention to an item that appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 28 which, incidentally, is my birthday. It is entitled, "Canada doing little to meet challenge from trade blocs", and was written by Bruce Macdonald. I shall quote from it briefly and then I want to put a number of questions to the minister:
Despite the problems created for Canada from increasingly intense foreign competition, at home and abroad and from radically changing trade patterns resulting from the creation of new
Supply-Trade and Commerce economic blocs, so far there have been few changes in Canadian policy to meet the challenge. That these developments do have serious implications to this country, there is little doubt, deputy trade and commerce minister James Roberts emphasized in a Montreal speech today.
I would not be surprised if he were present in this building today.
"Economic decisions are now being taken by governments and businessmen in the free world which are far-reaching and which will have a profound effect on the future economic well-being of all Canadians," he asserted.
There is another paragraph of this article which I should like to quote. Mr. Roberts is a man of great experience whose opinion is highly regarded. He is reported as saying:
Mr. Roberts, who plays a key role in the development of policies to meet the challenge facing the country, provided no prescriptions of his own. For the first time, however, he did disclose some of the findings of the trade mission of 13 prominent Canadian businessmen which he led on a tour of the six-nation common market countries of Europe last fall, findings which may hold a lesson for this country.
"It is apparent that a major contribution to the area's economic development has been achieved through the effective co-operation and co-ordination of labour, management and government," the businessmen concluded. "The current prosperity in the community (European economic community) has been greatly influenced by the development and application of economic planning-"
Just think of it, Mr. Chairman; economic planning. This is C.C.F. policy.
-in the individual countries. These plans are gradually being integrated in an over-all economic plan for the common market.
In order to provide goods at lower costs to meet increasing competition, these countries in the European economic community have decided to do some over-all planning, some integration and working together on the basis of co-operation. My second question is, will the minister tell the committee what is being done by his department to develop in Canada between the various groups mentioned similar economic planning, co-ordination and co-operation which, from recent information, have proven so successful in western Europe? I do not blame the minister because he is working within a set of circumstances that exist at the moment. We all know that the minister is very active, and he is doing the best he can as an individual. I feel we have unplanned production in Canada and that production is unrelated to planned marketing, co-ordination, investment policies and so on. Members of this group believe we are going to have continuing difficulties, and possibly greater difficulties, until we develop some system which provides for over-all economic planning, co-ordination and co-operation. I should like the minister to

Supply-Trade and Commerce tell the committee what is being done in that respect. This is my second question, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member for Vancouver East made some reference to the importance to British Columbia of the export of primary products, particularly products of the forest, of the sea and of the land, including minerals, fruit and other commodities. This is a very important question in British Columbia because of the extent of our primary industries. While secondary industry can be developed to a certain degree in British Columbia, we must recognize that our economy is essentially based on the successful development of the primary industries. This is the reason there is so much interest in British Columbia in the development of overseas markets. In recent years there has been great interest in the development of markets in Pacific countries. In British Columbia, when there is a federal election-the hon. member for Vancouver East will bear me out on this-you will find Progressive Conservative candidates readily urging from the platform the recognition of red China. When these men come here, their voices are rather dim. This is due to the fact that in British Columbia they are voicing the opinions of the working people of that province.
My third question is, in view of the recent success in the sale of wheat to China and in the extension of our market in Indonesia as well as some other countries, would the minister tell the committee what his department is doing to obtain similar success in the sale of various Canadian forest products, products of the sea and soil, fruit, minerals and other commodities, to China and other Asiatic countries. I think the sale of this wheat is a very encouraging sign. I have heard that this sale will be increased in the near future. I certainly look forward to the minister making an announcement soon. We would like him to tell the committee what he is doing to obtain similar success-we do not expect everything to happen overnight-with respect to the other commodities I have mentioned.
Some years ago, in 1959, it was brought to the attention of this house that Alcan, a Canadian company, was not permitted to accept a million dollar order because the parent company in the United States said it was against United States foreign policy and interests. There was a good deal of protest at that time against this subsidiary's failure to recognize the fact that it was operating on Canadian soil and using Canadian national resources and Canadian labour to make these profits. At the same time the Globe and Mail of Friday, January 23, 1959, in an editorial under the heading "What Price Sovereignty?" had this to say:

What is the burning topic in Canada today? Unemployment. Yet a large company meekly permits the Americans (or its fear of the Americans) to impose unemployment upon us. And how easy it is for them. They don't have to say anything, they don't have to do anything. The company's concern over what they might say, what they might do is enough to paralyse it; enough to make it take actions directly contrary to Canada's own welfare, Canada's own prosperity, Canada's own interests.
I understand that the situation was taken up at that time and that there was some improvement and some adjustment.
My fourth question is this. Will the minister inform the committee whether there have been any incidents of this type in Canada since he has taken office. I refer to incidents with respect to a Canadian subsidiary of a United States parent company refusing to accept orders from China or other countries of similar political ideology, because of instructions from the parent company or because it was against the policy of the United States.
I have two more questions. I am sure the minister takes a great interest in all the sayings and writings of people who are interested in improving our trade and commerce in Canada at this time. I am sure his attention has been directed to a speech by Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside who made some suggestions with respect to the improvement of our trade. There are many people making suggestions without much knowledge or experience. However, I read this speech very carefully because Dr. Keenleyside was a former deputy minister. He was in charge of the technical assistance program for Canada at the United Nations through one of its agencies and he is now chairman of the British Columbia power commission. He has bad a distinguished academic and administrative career. I therefore read with interest what he had to say. I am not going to read the article in full. I am just going to read one paragraph. It appeared in the Financial Post of May 7, 1960. It is entitled "He Charts a Fresh Course for Canada" and it reads in part as follows:
Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside, in over 30 years of distinguished public service-both in Canada and with the United Nations-has rightfully gained a reputation as an able administrator and an imaginative policy-maker. Few Canadians, in short, deserve a better hearing. He says:
"We should work out a system of selective free trade with the selection based on the willingness of U.S. countries to allocate an appropriate portion of their total (North American) production to factories established in Canada.
"There is no reason why it should not be extended to any country that is willing to meet the basic qualification: The establishment of new factories in Canada and free access for its products to the consumer market of the other country."

Then The Province of May 10 had this to say in an editorial entitled "A Challenge to Canadian Ingenuity . .
Dr. Hugh L. Keenleyside's formula for "selective free trade" as an answer to Canada's increasing economic problems offers so many logical and practical features that no time should be lost in examining it more closely.
The steps suggested by the British Columbia power commission chairman and former United Nations' official... have received enough preliminary publicity and discussion to warrant an exhaustive and critical study by both government and private business.
We say both government and private business because the agreement and co-operation of both is manifestly necessary if anything is going to be done about this proposal. Neither government edict nor private business policy could, alone, bring about the desired result.
I am extremely pleased just to note in passing that even The Province is beginning to speak the language used by the C.C.F. over the years. It mentions the necessity for cooperation between government and private business in dealing with economic problems. We have advanced those views throughout the years in our development of what we call the theory of a mixed or dual economy.
My fifth question to the minister is this. Has he read of these proposals by Dr. Keen-leyside and has he given them his careful study and attention? If so, will he inform the committee as to his opinion of their practical nature and of the possibility, as a result of the application of Dr. Keenleyside's proposals, of improving somewhat our position with respect to trade and commerce in Canada and consequently the unemployment situation?
My sixth and last question is simply this. I was reading the departmental report in my office, especially one section of it that is of great interest to me, namely the section that deals with small business. It was established largely to gather information, to offer advice, to publish literature and to undertake activities of that type. It is of interest to hon. members and I quite frequently receive letters making inquiries about this branch. On occasion people confuse the branch with the organization under the bill that provides for loans to small business enterprises and their improvement.
When the minister replies, will he give the committee some illustration of the work this small business branch is doing at the present time? I should like to have something a little bit more detailed than what one reads in the report. I should like to know about the literature that is being published or the pamphlets and whether this literature or this publicity is available to members. Can he give us some idea of the nature of the inquiries, of the number of small business firms that have been
28. 1961
Supply-Trade and Commerce served by advice, by literature or by information since the establishment of this branch in this department?
With those few brief remarks I conclude my words at this time, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Granger:: Trade and commerce historically have been the physical body of the nation. If national idealism and principles are the spirit of the nation, then trading is its blood and commerce its bone, and sinew. I may be pardoned for saying that I come from a province which for hundreds of years has depended for its very existence on trading. In the days before we entered confederation and became a part of the Canadian family, Newfoundland exported everything it produced. It imported practically everything it consumed. Since confederation we still export practically everything we produce and we buy practically all we consume from the mainland of Canada, most of it, of course, from the industrial provinces of central Canada.
If I may make a personal observation, I should like to say that I grew up in Catalina, a seaport on the east coast of Newfoundland. As a boy, in the days of sail, when our own ships carried our own products to the foreign markets, our horizons were Spain and Italy, Portugal and Greece and the islands of the Caribbean. If you walked down the streets at any time, you would rub shoulders with sailors who were just home from "across" as we referred to foreign markets, or who were getting ready to sail to foreign markets with fish. The means of shipping has changed and steam and diesel power and vessels of other registry carry our products today but the pattern of trade remains the same as it was. Hence trade and commerce is of vital importance to us in Newfoundland. It is important to those of my constituents who are fishermen, it is important to those of my constituents who are loggers, and to all who work and depend upon the production of pulp and paper for their livelihood. It is also important to the growing number of my constituents who are engaged in mining. Thus the Department of Trade and Commerce, to us in Newfoundland, the Atlantic provinces and all Canada, is one of the most important departments of government. This is because it is the basic department of government. I wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment as head of this department, although in a way I have lost a constituent from Gander.
I wish to speak particularly of the position relative to the marketing of salt codfish. I think I can say with assurance that Canada is not holding her own in this sphere.

Supply-Trade and Commerce Certainly the number of nations now engaged in fishing off our coasts, and the increasing pressure of competition from them- competition which we are feeling in our historic markets-indicates that we have slipped rather than made headway. I have felt for some time that insufficient attention has been paid to the selling of salt codfish. I believe there are not enough trade representatives detailed to sell this product.
The minister's department has some capable men who are doing very good work in this respect, but they are too few. I feel, also, that the fish business is not receiving the proportion of attention which it needs. I believe that an intense effort should be directed toward the sale of fish, the promotion of fish sales and the development of new markets. I believe that more officials are needed to get out in the various countries, promote fish sales and interest new customers. We should not be content to do business merely with our old customers.
We must keep our old customers, of course. We must sell them larger quantities of fish, if we can; but we must keep a weather eye open for new markets. In this respect I suggest that the potential of Africa as a market for Canadian fish should be explored. I think too, that the productivity council may be interested in the developing of new products, because it is possible that in order to develop new markets some change may have to be made in the type of product we are now offering for sale to the world.
If we are to obtain new markets and develop old ones it is perhaps important that we pay more attention to either new developments or perhaps a greater production of one type of salt codfish over another.
Certainly it seems that we are suffering a loss of sales by not producing more of what is generally known as light salted shore fish. In the past, light salted shore fish has been produced largely by hand labour, and sun dried. The cost of production is high. Heavily salted fish can be produced by artificial driers, or finished by them. The cost of production is cut down in this case.
It is very possible that we are producing, proportionately with the volume of sales now being made, too much of the heavy salted article and not sufficient of the fight salted article.
However, in order to produce the light salted article economically it is necessary that a means of artificial production be evolved, and this is certainly possible. I mention this in passing because I know that in these modern days it is unrealistic to expect the old, traditional method of producing fish to be used successfully.


I do not think I should go into further detail on these estimates, but I will have something to say about this matter when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries come up later. However, I do think this has a direct bearing upon our trade and our trade potential.
It is possible that by not producing enough of this particular type of fish we are rapidly losing a potential market, because if a product which people have been used to buying over the years is cut off, or is withheld long enough, the demand will soon cease to exist. I ask the minister to bear this matter in mind.
I now come back to the question of the sale of fish. The fact is that Newfoundland and all the Atlantic provinces feel-and, I believe, justifiably-that there is not enough attention and serious effort put into the building up of the fish trade. It is felt there could be more effort in this direction.
Perhaps if the same attention were given to the development of trade in fish as is given to the sale of grain, for instance, the position of the industry would be vastly improved. Certainly we have an immense wealth of food in our Canadian waters. We have the product with which trade began in the new world.
The minister is undoubtedly aware of the fact that when John Cabot discovered Canada, on sighting Cape Bonavista on St. John's day, 1497, he discovered that the waters were full of fish. At the time, according to tradition, John Cabot was looking for gold and precious stones for Henry VII who had, shall I say, an orthodox sense of values. But John Cabot discovered fish instead of gold and jewels, and fish proved to be a greater source of wealth to England than gold or jewels would have been.
It is a matter of historic record that one year after the discovery of Canada, in 1498, British merchants were outfitting fishing ships and sending them to Canadian waters, to the waters of the new world, to develop a fishing trade. Pretty soon they were followed by the French, the Portuguese and the Spaniards. Competition became keen, and that pattern has continued to exist. These historic competitors are still fishing in the waters off the coast of Canada. They have been joined by many other nations today, including Russia. They have been developing and building up their fish trade to an extent perhaps never known before in history. They recognize the value of developing this great source of food.
Certainly we in Canada, where trading in fish began, can meet and beat this competition. The methods, the means and the brains all exist. It is just a matter of focusing them

on a very real problem. This is not only a Newfoundland problem, but it is an Atlantic provinces and a Canadian problem. We in the Atlantic provinces are among the best customers of central Canada. Newfoundland was at one time the third best customer of Canada. What she buys today from the mainland of Canada is very difficult to assess, but it would be more than she bought prior to confederation.
If it requires money, if it means the employing of more trade secretaries to increase our trade in fish, to build up the ancient trade and commerce of the new world, it will be a sound investment because it will mean the building up not only of the economy of Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces but the creation of wealth in which all Canada would share. I ask the minister to take a very close and sympathetic look at the development of trade and commerce as it affects the fish industry and in particular the salt codfish industry. I should like him at the appropriate time to tell this committee what the department may be doing in this respect.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Trade and Commerce is fortunate in having the dynamic leadership of the new minister. Trade, as everyone knows, is the lifeblood of our nation, and I wish to speak principally today of just one product, oil.
We have to balance our trade with the other countries of the world and there is nothing which could balance the trade of Canada quicker than the development of our oil resources. I represent the great district of Athabasca and it should now be well known, if it is not already well known, that contained within the Athabasca district alone is the largest known deposit of crude oil on this planet. It has been conservatively estimated that anywhere from three hundred to five hundred billion barrels of oil at present lie in the sand hills there and are available whenever we are ready to take them out.
I should like to bring this to the attention of our new minister because one of these days the supply of world crude oil may suddenly be cut off from us. If proper steps are taken now-and I mean now-to tap this well nigh unlimited source, Canada and possibly the free world may be saved in time of crisis. But we have to get this plant going. It has to be financed. It has to be encouraged by the provision of both federal and provincial money. I think it would be an eternal disgrace to us if we left this, the largest oil deposit in the world, untapped and unready to be used.
It has been erroneously said on many occasions that this oil could not be taken out 90205-6-261
Supply-Trade and Commerce of the sand or that it would not be economic to take it out. Neither of these statements is correct. We have a well known process now for extracting this oil and there is only one bottleneck, namely the development of a suitable market for the product. But we have that market here in Canada if we were to take the proper steps to utilize it. The Montreal district alone uses in the neighbourhood of 80,000 barrels of heavy industrial fuel oil a day and I understand from properly informed source that if we had the benefit of this market in Athabasca we would go into full production. I know that we have at the present time very extensive plans in co-operation with our United States neighbours with reference to oil but I think we should take a long look at this situation and lay plans now for the development of the industry here.
We shall have to do it sooner or later. I do not think we want to be caught without oil at any time when it is physically available to us now. Cities Service Oil Company have a pilot plant going now at a cost of $1,500,000. They are working on an oil face which is very limited in extent but they could produce from this one cliff alone 80,000 barrels of oil a day for 60 years without moving their plant. Such figures are astronomical and it is hard to understand-the people up in my area certainly find it hard to understand-why more attention is not paid to these enormous deposits. We have the fresh water there. We have the oil itself to supply the fuel needs. We have the people of Canada willing to get in there and work, and I think we can expect the full co-operation of the Department of Trade and Commerce as soon as the province of Alberta gives the go-ahead to these farsighted and progressive companies which are doing and wish to do the exploratory work.
This tar sand country is not only rich in oil but it has great potential for the delivery of many important by-products including sulphur, tar, salt and the crystal clear sand which remains after the process is completed; sand which would provide an excellent basis for a glass industry. I see the day when northern Alberta will become another Ruhr. All it will take is the planning and the financing which the companies concerned have already started-a progressive plan which they are looking to government at both federal and provincial levels to assist.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 as provisionally amended.

Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT EXCEPT FOR TREASON

Frank Charles McGee: the second reading of Bill No. C-21 to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: When the two-day debate on this bill concluded last February approximately 20 speakers had supported the opposite view to the one proposed in this measure. In fact, a clear majority of the members of the House of Commons had indicated their opposition to the bill and Gallup polls which were taken at the time when the debate took place indicated that a slight majority of the people of Canada shared that view. It is my purpose today to attempt to review the 20 speeches made by the retentionist group and to reply to the questions and objections which were raised to this bill.
I should like to put on the record certain information such as the Gallup poll results, which I mentioned earlier, and other information, in particular that dealing with the state of Delaware. The state of Delaware, as you will recall, sir, was mentioned in the debate last year as being a state which has most recently abolished capital punishment in the United States. One particularly interesting piece of information which I should like to place on the record today deals with a letter written to Senator Fred Farr, of the state of California. It will be recalled that about the time of the debate on my bill last year the Chessman case was very much in the news and the state of California was contemplating a debate on the merits of capital punishment at that time. Senator Farr apparently was a member of the legislative committee of the senate of the state of California and he wrote to the governor of the state of Delaware. The interesting thing about the questions he asked is that these are the questions or, if you like, the doubts which obviously were in the minds of hon. members of this house during the debate last year and during other debates in previous sessions. This letter written by Governor Caleb Beggs to Senator Farr, reads as follows:
I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of March 7 which was received here on March 8. I regret that through a misunderstanding here a reply to your telegram was not sent for your hearing on March 9. However, I am only too pleased to answer your telegram and do so as follows:
1. Has abolition of death penalty increased homicide rate in your state?
The answer is as follows:
Abolition has not increased the homicide rate in Delaware. Abolition became effective April 2, 1958. A comparison for 12 months prior to abolition with 12 months after showed no change in

the homicide rate. The number of criminal homicides for 1958 was 12; for 1959 it had dropped to seven.
This, Mr. Speaker, of course, deals with the anticipated rise in the homicide rate which certain people suggest will follow abolition.
The second question reads:
Does lack of capital punishment add to danger of police and other peace officers?
The answer is:
There is no evidence whatsoever to show that attacks upon police officers have changed because of the absence of capital punishment. Actually in Delaware throughout the years we have had very few attacks upon police officers and there has been no change in this situation. After reviewing the evidence prior to the passage of the bill the superintendents of the state police and certain other police forces in the state in our larger cities took the position they would not oppose the passage of the bill for abolition.
The third question reads:
Is there any substantial movement for restoration of death penalty?
The answer is:
There is no movement whatsoever.
The fourth question reads:
Has absence of death penalty made it harder or easier to obtain jury convictions in murder cases?
The answer is:
We have had only a few murder trials since abolition. It is our belief that the jury is less reluctant to bring in a first degree verdict where the facts warrant it.
The fifth question reads:
Has absence of death penalty in any way increased danger to public safety?
The answer is no.
The sixth question reads:
Does absence of death penalty create security problem in prisons?
The answer is no.
The seventh question reads:
Based on your experience, would you recommend abolition of death penalty by California?
The answer is:
Our experience of two years since abolition has shown a decrease in the homicide rate. Based solely upon our experience, therefore, we can recommend abolition. Delaware's experience follows the pattern shown in all the studies that the removal of the death penalty does not increase the homicide rate.
I trust that the above answers your inquiry and will be of service to you.
And so on.
This, Mr. Speaker, is another piece of the growing pile of evidence in answer to the understandable questions and doubts which are and still remain in the public mind.
The first hon. member who spoke against this bill in the debate last year was the

hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). In the early part of his remarks he said as reported at page 1195 of Hansard of February 18, 1960:
I completely reject the arguments they have put forward.
He continued.
It is rather surprising to me that people so far from public opinion could find themselves in the House of Commons.
This question of public opinion is a very interesting one indeed and particularly when you examine the trend of public opinion over the last few years. Public opinion polls were taken on this subject by the Canadian institute of public opinion in 1943, 1953, 1958 and 1960, which as I indicated before was shortly after the second day's debate of this bill last year. This was the question put:
Some people say we should do away altogether with capital punishment; that is, executing a person for murder. Do you think we should or should not abolish capital punishment?
In 1943, 18 per cent replied that capital punishment should be abolished. In 1953, the figure had risen to 22 per cent; in 1958, it had risen to 33 per cent; and in 1960, it has risen to 41 per cent. Those who would retain capital punishment amounted to 73 per cent in 1943; 71 per cent in 1953; 52 per cent in 1958; and it was down to 51 per cent in 1960. The "no opinion" factor makes up the remainder. For the record, in 1943, they amounted to 9 per cent; in 1953, to 7 per cent; in 1958, to 15 per cent; and in 1960, to 8 per cent.
The indications are clear, Mr. Speaker, not only in these public opinion polls but in the actions of juries and in other manifestations across the country that there is a growing body of persons in this country who favour the abolition of capital punishment.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question. Were there public opinion polls taken in the same area and could the hon. member give the areas where they were taken?


Frank Charles McGee: I cannot answer the question completely but I will say these were taken right across the country. I imagine the hon. member might have reference to the fact that Newfoundland might have been included in later polls and not in other ones. I do know that these polls are accumulated on a four-region basis, the so-called Atlantic provinces region, the Quebec region, the Ontario region and the fourth region being western Canada.
It is interesting to point out that in the breakdown of these figures in the most recent poll there is very little difference between the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario in terms of for and against; the only difference 90205-6-261J
Criminal Code
being the larger group in western Canada who favour the retention of the death penalty.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway went on to say:
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) has on the order paper a bill which I believe comes a great deal closer to meeting the wishes of the people of Canada.
The bill of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, which was patterned closely on the English homicide act of 1957, is a move toward abolition and an attempt to reduce the application of the death penalty.
Before hon. members become too enamoured of the British experience, I should like to point out in passing that some serious difficulties have been encountered in England with this measure which, as hon. members well know, attempts to set up five categories of murder which are defined as capital murder, all other grounds being punishable by life imprisonment. One category, for instance, is the committing of a murder in the process of a theft. Another category involves a murder using a gun or a bomb. Another category is a second murder. Another category is killing a policeman or prison guard, and so on.
This attempt to stop part way along the road to abolition has produced some serious contradictions. One of these was described by Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., who happens to be the head of the British society for the abolition of capital punishment. In a speech recently he had this to say:
For instance, if a man comes home and finds his wife with another man and picks up the nearest weapon to murder her, it is a capital offence if that weapon happens to be a gun, but a noncapital offence if it is a hatchet.
I might add there, Mr. Speaker, that presumably if the type of crime is determined by the weapon chosen a man could boil his wife in oil, strap her to a board in the style of "The Perils of Pauline" and run her into a buzz saw or use any other sort of peculiar and unusual method to commit murder and if he adopts any of these quaint methods he cannot be hanged whereas if he happens to use a gun he will hang. Mr. Gardiner goes on to say:
If someone rapes a woman and steals her handbag, it is a capital offence; if he does not steal her handbag, it is non-capital.
Contradictions and difficulties have evolved in reaching and determining the point in the degree of culpability of murder at which a person shall be hanged. When you draw that line a case which qualifies for capital punishment will differ so infinitesimally from one just on the other side of the line that for all practical purposes there is no real difference.

Criminal Code
I offer this also as a word of caution and advice to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the cabinet because, as hon. members know, they are preparing a bill to limit the application of capital punishment which will be presented to the house later this session.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway went on to say, as found on page 1195 of Hansard for February 18, 1960:
-having regard to the protection of our police officers, surely common sense would tell us that, if a man has committed a crime where he is going to be committed to life imprisonment, is being apprehended by a police officer and is armed, there is going to be the temptation for him, knowing that he can escape, knowing that if he shoots the police officer he can be no worse off than he was before. Surely it is going to act as a deterrent to that man if he knows he is going to be hanged, something which is considerably more abhorrent to him than is life imprisonment in most cases.
This is one of these apparently attractive arguments held by those who would retain the death penalty. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others have tried to get inside the mind of the potential murderer and have reached certain conclusions about what his reaction will or will not be. I am certainly voicing no suggestion that I can make any better evaluation of what goes on inside a criminal's mind, but I would say to the hon. members who hold this view that if they examine the 42 jurisdictions -I mean countries and states within countries where capital punishment is a matter of state jurisdiction-they will find that when capital punishment has been abolished the incidence of murder, as indicated in the letter of the governor of the state of Delaware, has not risen suddenly.


Mr. McPhillips:: But you have got lynching.


Frank Charles McGee: Further on in his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said:
I believe that one of the things the public do not like about our present system is the hanging, and perhaps some other method of carrying out the death penalty should be instituted-
I suggest that this particular facet of the argument is in one sense beside the point and certainly in another sense it is inconsistent. Those who favour the retention of the death penalty by means of hanging put forward the argument that the menacing quality of death by this means forms the essential deterrent. That is the deterrent argument, but if hanging is something which is unacceptable to many people I cannot understand why a person advocating the retention of the death penalty would want to lessen the menacing character of that deterrent. It seems to me that the hon. member is on two sides of the argument at the same time.

The next speaker in the debate to whom I wish to refer was the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau). I must say that in preparing my speech one suggestion occurred to me which I might throw in at this point. I suggest it might be more desirable to have one completely English Hansard and another completely in French. I find that skipping backward and forward between translations and coming back to the place where I started is difficult. The hon. member for Dollard made this statement, as found on page 1204 of Hansard for February 18, 1960:
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if public opinion is divided about the abolition of capital punishment, we should be even more cautious about this matter than we have been in the case of a Canadian flag.
Without meaning to be facetious, I would say it would be hard to be more cautious than that. The hon. member went on to say that a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was established to consider the advisability of abolishing capital punishment. The decision of that committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was that for the time being it should be retained. I came across some information concerning that decision which I found rather unusual. Apparently it is the only committee in the history of the House of Commons to take its final vote on the basis of telegrams from all parts of the country. However, the committee certainly reflected public opinion at that time which indicated, as I said, that 71 per cent of the people of Canada favoured that proposition.
References were made to the fact that a private member should have brought forward such a bill. The hon. member for Dollard made such a reference and it was repeated by a number of his colleagues in the Liberal party. It seems to me that this attitude overlooks the essential function of parliament as a debating forum. Surely the debate that took place on the bill caused considerable discussion both in the house and throughout the country and as a result the government, whose function it is to assess and evaluate public opinion, was assisted tremendously.
The hon. member also made the statement that we must not forget the victims or the dependents of the victims. This was a trend in the debate which the hon. member for Dollard started and which gathered force as the debate continued on the second day. Speaker after speaker called out for sympathy, consideration and compassion for the victims of murder and their dependents. Certainly, the impression I gained in view of the rather loud applause which accompanied these continual references was that those of us who favoured the abolition of capital

punishment were lacking in sympathy, understanding and appreciation of the plight of those people who remained.
I would remind the hon. member for Dollard, as well as other hon. members, that the first words I uttered in this debate were that I was not prompted by any lack of sympathy for the unfortunate victims of murder and their dependents, nor was I overly sympathetic to the accused. This rather unfortunate trend in the debate certainly was not accompanied by any positive suggestions from the retentionists to do something about the widows and orphans of the victims of murder.
I should like to put a suggestion before the house and the record will show that it was an abolitionist who put forward this proposal. A proposal has been circulated in England in these terms. In the case of murder, why should not the person responsible for the damage to the family of the victim be required to pay compensation in the same way as he would be if he were driving a car and, through negligence, killed somebody? The courts could decide that certain damages would be awarded to the victim or his dependents. It seems to me there is much merit in a proposal to have those found guilty of murder sentenced to life imprisonment in an institution where some money earning occupation could be undertaken. The money earned could be placed in a fund from which could be drawn money to assist, in a practical way, the victims and their dependents who may be in need.
Another factor worthy of consideration is that a fund could also be provided from which assistance could be given to the accused's family and children who may be in need. As I say, I am not putting this forward in any concrete form, but it seems to me this proposal is constructive and demonstrates some real interest and concern for the victims of murder and their dependents.
The hon. member went on to quote from the Bible. Many members on both sides of this question quoted from both the Old and the New Testaments in support of the views that they took. I do not want to make any reference to those questions now, but I would refer hon. members to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who, after studying the representations on both sides of this question, found an equal number of biblical quotations which were applicable to each side of the argument.
In concluding this portion of my statement, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member said that capital punishment does not reflect any desire for revenge on the part of the public. I should like to agree with the hon. member in that connection but, as I
Criminal Code
have mentioned before, I am forced to conclude there is some element of revenge in the public attitude. A little while ago, I heard an hon. member shouting for a lynching and I have heard statements in buses and in the office following a particularly heinous murder that "hanging is too good for him; I should like to pull the rope myself".
This fact was never better illustrated than recently in New York when a person accused of raping and killing a child in that city was captured after an extensive search. A throng gathered outside the prison in which he was being held and many of these persons carried placards or shouted slogans.
I should like to read into the record some of the statements to indicate the feelings that may be aroused and ask you, Mr. Speaker, if perhaps revenge is not an element of the public's attitude. One person carried a sign reading, "The electric chair is too good for him; he should be burned alive." Another read, "I wanted to get him myself. The electric chair is too good for him. I'd like to set him on fire." Still another read, "We want to kill him piece by piece-not all at once."
I had a very interesting conversation with a member of the press gallery, who shall be nameless, over a cup of coffee today. He thought candidates for the gallows should be whipped every day before the hanging took place. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is an ingredient in the public mind which would lead one to believe that revenge is an element of the public attitude toward these cases.
At that point in the debate the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) made an interjection which he later withdrew but which was raised again still later in the debate. He asked the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) whether or not he was aware that before a trial took place each individual called to serve as a juror has to state whether he is opposed to the death penalty. I interjected to say that was not so. As I say, the hon. member corrected that statement later, but the subject did come up again. I think a statement to the effect this is not so should form part of the record of this house. It has been so in certain cases where the prosecution has seen fit to question individuals as they were reviewed before being selected for jury duty, but certainly there is no requirement that this be done.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time? I think he will agree that when a prospective juror is called in these cases and he declares he is against the death penalty, he cannot serve on the panel of jurors?

Criminal Code


Frank Charles McGee: As I indicated, this has happened. I believe it happened recently in Hull, and I also recall another occasion when a judge decided that one particular gentleman who put forward that view was, in a sense, malingering. The judge evidently thought this was an excuse to avoid duty. At that point the judge, in effect, I suppose, called him a liar and the man took his place on the jury. The point I wished to make was that there is no requirement that a statement of belief concerning capital judgment should be made.
The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) was the next one to say something about this question of commutation and the number of commutations which had been granted by the present government as compared with its predecessor. This, Mr. Speaker, affords me the opportunity of correcting another public impression. I shall not attempt to deal with the pattern and the place in our system served by commutation, but I should like to put into the record a statement by no less a person than Dean Wright of the University of Toronto law school. I must say that I was astonished to find a person in his position who, apparently, is not aware of how the law functions in Canada. When being interviewed by Mr. Howie Somerville on C.B.C.-T.V. he was asked the following question:
What impact is the federal government's policy of commuting the death sentence having on Canada generally?
Dean Wright replied:
It is obviously limiting capital punishment in a very real sense. While your opinion on capital punishment is purely a question of personal conviction. you cannot say it is right or wrong.
And this is the statement with which I took issue.
I think it is definitely wrong for the cabinet to allow the courts to impose the death penalty, put a man in jeopardy of losing his life and then come along and disregard the letter of the law by following an entirely different policy.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is an astonishing statement to have been made by a dean of a law society.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stewart) followed and made a speech in which he made certain statements. I should like to apologize in part for the number of interjections I made at that time. I think the hon. member perhaps misread my intention. In outlining the safeguards inherent in our system he was making the statement that any person with good standing in a community is guaranteed a fair trial, and there followed a series of exchanges during which I tried to get him to. amend that statement

because it certainly was not consistent with any definition of a fair trial. Finally, he said:
. .. any person In the community is entitled to a fair trial and will get a fair trial if he is of decent standing.
It was the qualification "of decent standing" with which I took issue. As I say, in our philosophy of law or in the concept of law, as I know it, there certainly are not and certainly should not be any conditions attached to the persons in our society who are entitled to and guaranteed a fair trial. However, the hon. member proceeded-


Mr. Stewart:: May I point out that the hon. member is not quoting me correctly. I did not use the word "guaranteed" at the time.


Frank Charles McGee: I beg the hon. member's pardon. That was one of the questions that arose.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Quote me correctly.


Frank Charles McGee: His statement was:
... any person in the community who is entitled to a fair trial will get a fair trial if he is of decent standing.
I apologize. This is the statement that was made. However, the hon. member did come to grips with the propositions which I and other members put forward and he dealt with them point by point. He said that the first point I had raised was that capital punishment was not an effective deterrent. In reading back over my remarks I again say that does not square with what I said. I said that the point at issue here is whether capital punishment is a unique deterrent, whether there is something in the death penalty that makes it the only answer as a penalty for the crime of murder.
The whole argument with regard to deterrents in this debate has been that life imprisonment is a satisfactory alternative and has been demonstrated to be a satisfactory alternative by the experience of other countries, in some cases going back over 100 years.


Mr. Drysdale:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Charles McGee: Yes.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: One of the things that troubles me with regard to the hon. member's original statement in connection with life imprisonment is this, and I do not believe he clarified it at that particular point. By life imprisonment does he mean imprisonment for a person's natural life? The reason I am curious about that matter is this. He said that we can never be sure that everybody being hanged really committed a crime, but we may occasionally make a mistake. If the hon. member were going to be logical it appears to me that the converse would be true, namely that

once a person has exhibited a tendency to kill, perhaps we could never be sure, it we released such a person, that he might not kill again.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member is not rising in his own place.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who rose is not the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, the point of order is well taken. This is a point of order which should be observed. The hon. member is not in his seat and is not entitled, in the house, to speak except from his seat.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to challenge that point of order but perhaps at some other time.


Mr. Johnson:: Could we remain on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, until the hon. member is able to reach his place and carry on with his question?


Frank Charles McGee: I should like to reply. At one point in the earlier stages of this debate I stated that I would accept as an alternative for capital punishment the punishment of imprisonment for life. That would mean that anybody convicted of murder would go to a special institution from which he would never be released unless some new evidence might be produced which would cast doubt on the original conviction. That was the view I held at that time.
During the interval that has elapsed since giving expression to that view a 14 year old boy by the name of Stephen Trescott was sentenced to be hanged. His sentence was very properly commuted. I have had second thoughts about that original proposition, attractive though it might have been in terms of gathering support for my bill. I simply could not convince myself that our society and our penal institutions have nothing more constructive to do with a 14 year old child than to put him in a cell and throw away the key. I find that I am not willing to accept that to be the case.
In the speech I made last year I said that the general criteria concerning the incarceration of convicted murderers should be based on the following general proposition, namely that no person convicted of murder should be released from custody in a correctional institution so long as his retention therein is essential to the welfare and safety of society and/or to his reformation or rehabilitation. Those would be the general standards which I would offer to those who would be working out the particular details.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Will the hon. member permit a question for clarification?


Frank Charles McGee: Yes.
Criminal Code


John Andrew W. Drysdale: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in the present standing orders there is no provision indicating from what seat I should speak. However, I should like to take this matter up at some other time.
I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question in reference to the statement he has made. Is it not logically inconsistent with the statement he has made that people should not be hanged because it is possible, through all the procedural methods, for some mistake to be made? Is not the converse true? Is it not possible that a mistake might still be made with respect to a person who has been incarcerated for life? Therefore, if he wishes to be logical in the one case, should not the person be kept in for the period of his natural life?


Frank Charles McGee: I agree. As I say, in order to be completely logical and consistent I should hold both views on both sides. But again I perhaps will reply by asking a question, a procedure which possibly is not a good debating tactic. However, I simply ask the hon. member this question. Does he not share my view that our penal institutions can have something more constructive to do than to lock up a 14 year old boy in a cell and throw away the key? As I say, I recognize that I have weakened my position or have given rise to the difficulties expressed by the hon. member. But those are my views as I hold them.
The next point raised by the hon. member for Charlotte was that capital punishment was morally wrong. This gives me an opportunity to clarify the record in another respect.
On February 18 a story appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, the heading of which read as follows:
Duty of the State to Hang Murderers, R.C.'s Insist.
This heading was clearly not consistent with the content of that story and the release by the Canadian Catholic conference. This story was picked up and transmitted across the country, and as far as I have been able to determine this heading remained intact.
I heard earlier today that in fact the story was challenged by a number of letters to the Citizen and a correction was issued. I suggest this was in the terms of corrections to other news stories; it did not have the impact and coverage which the story originally received.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry; the hon. member's time has expired. Without the consent of the house he has no time in which to answer a question.
Is it agreed that the hon. member who is moving this motion shall have additional time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, normally this would be quite agreeable, but I think it does place in an unfortunate position hon. members who wish to answer some of the points raised by the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. McGee). We have only a limited time available. I am not adverse to the hon. member proceeding for a few more moments, but 1 would not want this to cut off entirely the opportunity for other hon. members to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member has the concurrence of the house to continuing for, shall we say five minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member for York-Scarborough has in mind so far as time is concerned.


Frank Charles McGee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter previously with several hon. members of the party to which the hon. member belongs. I indicated to them that it was my desire to try and complete an argument to rebut the great number of speeches made last year. That request was acceded to at that time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That does not answer the question about the amount of time the hon. member requires.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter raised is not a point of order. The hon. member has 40 minutes in which to speak, except by unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member may proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the house. As I was saying, this statement was repeated and reissued. It was corrected by the Ottawa Citizen. Mr. Ed Mahoney, who has since graduated from the press gallery to editorial writer for the Toronto Telegram, was sufficiently concerned about the misconception involved in this statement that he approached this group and placed on the record of his own newspaper, and I presume others, the following statement:
"The state possesses authority from God to take the life of a criminal only when such a penalty is necessary to preserve the common good of all.

"If it should he discovered that long imprisonment serves equally well in deterring crime, then the death penalty would have to be abolished, for as soon as the need for it ceases, the state no longer possesses God's authority to use it".


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I understand the hon. member to say that I contended that capital punishment was morally wrong?


Frank Charles McGee: No, Mr. Speaker. I simply used the hon. member's reference to the question of morality in order to correct the record. If the hon. member would like to check his remarks, they are to be found on page 1210 of Hansard for February 18, 1960. Perhaps the hon. member would allow this reference to stand for those who are interested in following this matter through.
The hon. member then went on to say:
Then the third argument was that we hang convicted murderers with a feeling of revenge.
I dealt with several of the points raised on that matter earlier in my remarks, and I do not propose to pursue it further.
The hon. member went on to say:
Apparently the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough has forgotten those many safeguards which British and Canadian law provide for a person accused of a criminal charge.
I made it clear on previous occasions that I have the greatest respect for our judicial system. This was impressed upon me at every turn in my experience of serving on two successive murder juries. I am impressed by the British system and also others.
I suggest that the hon. member and others might find it more than interesting to read a book called "10 Rillington Place" written by Ludovic Kennedy and published by Gol-lancz press in England. This book deals with the evidence in the Christie case.
Hon. members will recall that in England a few years ago a man called Evans was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife and child. He was brought before the courts. The chief witness for the prosecution was a man called Christie, Evans' landlord at 10 Rillington Place. Evans was hanged.
A few years later Mr. Christie ran foul of the law and it was discovered that there were a number of bodies buried in his backyard. He had a number of bodies under the floor and a number walled up in the walls of the house. The victims included persons who had obviously been murdered before and after the departure of Evans. The method of murder followed an identical pattern throughout.
Christie was eventually hanged. I offer this case simply as one example where grave, grave, grave doubts have been raised concerning the guilt or innocence of Evans. An inquiry

was held, and requests have been made for a further inquiry into the facts surrounding this case in order to determine whether Evans was guilty or innocent.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that Evans confessed? He later retracted that confession, but he did make a confession.


Frank Charles McGee: In reply to the hon. member I should say that I sat up reading this book until about two o'clock the morning before last. I got about half-way through, and at the point when I put the book down reluctantly I think I was reading Evans' fifth confession. All his confessions differed materially.
Evans was a man with a mental age of 10J years. He could neither read nor write. The strong suggestion of the defence and others who inquired into this matter was that the language and pattern of those confessions were dictated by the police to suit facts of which they had knowledge at that time.
However, I commend the book to the hon. member. If the second half is as fascinating as the first half, he will find it extremely interesting. And perhaps there are a couple more confessions which may vary as well; I do not know.
I should like to agree with the hon. member for Charlotte. We have an impressive judicial system, but it is a system made up of human beings. There are impressive guarantees in our system, but as long as human beings are human beings, mistakes will be made; and mistakes have been made.
The hon. member went on to discuss the question of deterrent. He said:
Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent or a sufficient deterrent is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it acts as a deterrent to the professionals who plan the crimes they commit-
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. This deterrent argument is not sound, because there are people in our society who have accumulated their motives, selected their victims and proceeded to commit murder.
The suggestion is that they are restrained from committing murder only because of the existence of the rope. If this seemingly plausible argument is sound, surely if the deterrent and the threat of the rope is removed the incidence of murder will increase.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) was next to speak on this subject. He put forward a very cogent argument. He challenged my submission to the house that the onus, or responsibility of proving the case that capital punishment is necessary rests upon those who would retain it. 1 repeat that statement. I offer again the accumulated evidence of 100 years, for this matter is no
Criminal Code
longer in the experimental stage. I submit that we are hanging persons for murder, and unless we can demonstrate the necessity for so doing I find it difficult to understand why support for it continues.
The hon. member for Calgary South made reference to certain increases in the crime rate in the interval when capital punishment was suspended. He quoted a figure of 14.8 per cent at one point during that interval. I am prepared to accept that statistic as being possible but I should also like to refer him and the house to the pattern of the crime rate during the 18-month period before abolition, the period during abolition and the period immediately after abolition. I think the figures are 285 before, 260 during and 310 or so following. This indicates that although there may have been a slight increase within the period, as an experimental period it supported the abolitionist contention.
The hon. member concluded his speech by making reference to the theme that those of us who would abolish capital punishment are not concerned with the victims, and an impressive statement it was. Again I would remind the house that all through those debates the only constructive efforts which were put forward to provide in a tangible way for an approach to this question came from those who would abolish the death penalty.
The hon. member went on to say that we were being asked to abolish a provision which had made Canada relatively free of crime as compared with other countries. Here we come to an old argument. The hon. member says we should retain capital punishment because our crime rate is low. Persons writing to me from Toronto and Montreal where crime rates have increased say we cannot abolish the death penalty because crime rates are increasing. As I said last year in the debate, one cannot have it both ways. It cannot be argued that we should retain the death penalty because the crime rate is decreasing while at the same time arguing that we should retain it now that the crime rate is going up.
One other matter which I wanted to cover was raised by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) who also had a motion or a bill on the order paper; it may still be there. The hon. member had this to say. He said that we had in Canada partially abolished capital punishment, and then he went on to suggest that we should consider leaving the judges free to inflict the death penalty or to condemn those accused to life sentences according to the gravity or the circumstances of the crime.
It seems to me that this proposal fails on two important grounds. It fails on the one hand because it attempts to pass the buck- in other words it asks somebody other than

Criminal Code
parliament to render a decision on capital punishment. The second shortcoming of the proposal is this. It seems to me that after a relatively short period-a year or so-a pattern would emerge. Certain judges would be known as hanging judges and certain others would be known as non-hanging judges. It seems to me that the variations in the equal treatment of persons who appear before the courts are sufficient at present without adding this extra factor where the decision as to whether a man lives or dies would depend on the judge selected to try the case. I think on these two grounds the proposition fails.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I ask the hon. member a question? I preface it by saying it deals with the indication in the speech from the throne that the minister himself will bring in some amendment regarding capital punishment. I wonder what the hon. member's thoughts are concerning the probable comments of his colleagues who were either vehemently opposed to or in favour of capital punishment. How does he think they will vote when the minister presents his bill?


Frank Charles McGee: I am not prepared to speak for anybody in this house apart from myself, but if that bill develops so as to limit the application of the death penalty I would certainly support it as a measure moving
towards abolition. I pointed out earlier in my remarks some of the difficulties which have been encountered in the United Kingdom in attempting to stop half way; but it strikes me as reminiscent of a young fellow in our gang as a youngster who every time the score was going against him in a ball game took his ball and went home. I would not like to be in that position. I would support any move toward abolition. I feel that the public attitude and public opinion on this matter will ultimately be such that we shall see capital punishment abolished.


Mr. Speaker:: Six o'clock.
Before adjourning the house I should like to say that the adjournment which I propose will be on the basis that the house accepts local official time. As we go on to daylight saving time next week the adjournment will be on the basis of daylight saving time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr, Chevrier:: May I ask the leader of the house if there is any change in the order of business which is being announced?


Mr. Churchill:: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no change.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[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: How many homes, If any, purchased under the National Housing Act have been repossessed, by years since 1950, in (a) the Hamilton area (b) Ontario (c) Canada?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
(a), (b) and (c)
Question
Hamilton Area	Ontario	Canada1950 	... 1	1	71951 	... 1	2	131952 	... 0	6	131953 	... 0	3	81954 	.. . 0	6	181955 	.. . 0	3	71956 	.. . 0	8	91957 	. . . 0	13	181958 	.. . 0	7	181959 	... 1	29	501960 	... 1	121	211Total	.. . 4	199	372
Monday, May 1, 1961