1963-07-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund T. Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Text):

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Motions-The Prime Minister:
That commencing on Friday, July 5th, and thereafter during the month of July, in addition to the hours of sitting now provided for in standing orders 2 and 6, the house shall also sit from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Fridays; and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays: and
That on Saturdays, after the reading of prayers, the order "house again in committee of supply" shall be forthwith read and thereupon, the procedure now provided for in standing order 56(1) shall apply.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the house to withdraw this motion in view of the date. My understanding is that it will be put on the order paper again.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that his announcement of the probable elimination of the frigate program will deal a disastrous blow to employment in Canadian shipyards, can he assure the house that before buying any submarines outside the country he will meet the representatives of the shipyards and their labour unions 28902-5-1191
to investigate the possibility and the advantages for Canada of having these submarines built in Canada by Canadians with Canadian taxpayers' money?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the program would be cancelled. I said it was under review before proceeding, and that is the case. I can assure the hon. member and other members of the house that my concern is primarily that the armed forces of Canada will have the very best equipment and the highest operational capacity to carry out those tasks that are assigned to them. In addition, along with other members of the government I am very mindful of the needs with regard to employment and industry in this country, and all these factors are taken into consideration in the course of the review.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that all members of the house are very conscious of the same thing. However, the minister has been faced with these two problems now for over two months and I am quite sure that the employees are awaiting a decision. Can he tell us when a decision is going to be made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot say specifically, Mr. Speaker, but the decision will be made just as soon as it can be done without, at the same time, prejudging or not allowing sufficient time to receive all the evidence on both sides of the argument.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram dated July 3 from Mr. Rene Barras, secretary of the Lauzon shipyard workers union, protesting against the statement of the Minister of National Defence to the defence committee on June 27 that the general purpose frigate program would be carefully reviewed before being proceeded with? I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would give some assurance to the house that if any cutback in defence shipbuilding is made it will be compensated for by the building of ships for the transportation of Canadian goods overseas.


Lionel Chevrier: This is in effect the same question which was asked of the Minister of National Defence, but I am grateful none the less to

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. I think I should advise the hon. member that I believe the hon. member for Levis has made representations along these lines to the Minister of National Defence.
I am not aware of the telegram, but I cannot add anything to what has been said by the minister, who has stated that the program is under review. In so far as the last part of the question is concerned, it is hypothetical and until a determination of the question has been made I do not believe it is proper to answer the last part of the question.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I ask a supplementary question of either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence. Will the decision of the government await also the recommendation of the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no control over the defence committee. I have no idea how long their deliberations will take, nor when they will be in a position to advise the government. I do have, under our constitution, the responsibility for making a recommendation to the government, and I will do that at the proper time.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Will the Minister of National Defence refer this problem to the special committee on defence for their recommendation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the committee will discuss the problem at considerable length, and their views will be taken into consideration along with other representations that have been received.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will that be before or after the decision?
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for the world fair a question. Can the minister assure the house that the 1967 world fair will take place in Montreal, and not elsewhere-in Ottawa, for instance-following a certain pressure which is now being applied?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know exactly what pressure the hon. member is alluding to, but I want to tell him this. We have now to determine the security work to be carried out in respect of the construction of the St. Helen island and Notre Dame island project.
[Mr. Chevrier.)

There are some differences of opinion with regard to this security work between engineers of the city of Montreal and those of the various federal departments. This is a problem which remains to be settled and which will form the basis of the discussion we will have this afternoon with Mayor Drapeau in Ottawa.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker. I did ask the minister whether it was certain that the world fair will take place in Montreal, or not. That is what we want to know.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that supplementary question is out of order.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on the same subject.
(Translation):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the official who said that Mr. Saulnier's statements were untrue and that he was only resorting to blackmail be present this afternoon at the meeting held at the minister's request?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon. member is talking about. The only thing that I can say is that I did not make any comment on Mr. Saulnier's statements, but I am one of those who have left the door open to negotiation, in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution.


Léon Balcer: Has the minister read Mr. Lazarus' article in the Montreal Star reporting word for word a talk he had with one of those officials? If so, could he not silence that official?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, 1 read the article referred to by the hon. member. I think it is valueless, because no name is mentioned.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Public Works-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is taking on the nature of a debate, and there is no useful purpose in continuing this line of questioning.


Georges-J. Valade: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my question is not related in the way which Your Honour has just suggested. My question is by way of clarification of the first answer given by the

Minister of Public Works. I believe I have the right to ask the question, and I do not believe the Chair can rule me out before hearing the sense and knowing the direction of my question. My question is this. Is the Minister of Public Works aware that the city of Montreal will refuse to accept any other site than the island of Montreal for the world fair?


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is giving information.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret there is no point of privilege.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which I hope will be within the ambit of the ruling you made a few minutes ago. Can the minister say if the provisions laid down in the Navigable Waters Protection Act or other statutes coming within his department have been met so that ratification of the choice of St. Helen island as the site of the world fair can be made forthwith.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the act are being respected. It is a public act, and I presume that its provisions are being followed by the government.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. My question is short but urgent, and you will no doubt allow it, because I believe it is in order.
Could the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether he will inform us of the decision to be taken this afternoon concerning the Canadian world exhibition before making a statement to the press?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works, as well as all other ministers of the government, make it a practice to advise the house before informing the press.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It is based on an article in the June edition of Western Fisheries to the effect that Dr. Kask, chairman of the fisheries research board of Canada, is now director of investigations for the interAmerican tropical tuna commission. Has Dr.
Inquiries of the Ministry Kask resigned his position as chairman of the fisheries research board of Canada?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, an official announcement to that effect was made yesterday.



NORTH PACIFIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether, in view of reports that Russian fishing trawlers have been sighted within the 12 mile limit off the Pacific islands, it is the intention of the government to invite the Soviet union to be a party to the negotiations concerning the north Pacific fishing treaty?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I do not see any connection between the hon. gentleman's original statement and his conclusion. However, this matter is being reviewed.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I ask this question on behalf of the anti paddy Sherman trust on the Columbia river. In view of the interest and concern of a number of B.C. engineers in the possible disastrous effects of slides which the high Arrow dam might cause when the water level submerges layers of clay beneath various communities, and the study being given to this question by the same engineers, have the wizards of the water resources branch directed the minister's attention to this possibility?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me prior notice of his question. I think I have already stated to the house that those engineers who are presently working on this job are agencies of the province of British Columbia, and naturally the reports they might make are the property of that province. I think at this time particularly it would be highly improper for me to make any comment upon the validity or otherwise of those reports, or indeed to commend their

Inquiries of the Ministry validity to the house. I am quite certain, in reference to our own officers, that at the proper time and in the proper circumstances they will be quite competent to bring advice to a committee of the House of Commons, and indeed to the government, respecting the safety and feasibility of this project and others in the general scheme.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Will these engineers have an opportunity to present their evidence before the external affairs committee, if such an event should occur?


Arthur Laing: I would think in that circumstance, Mr. Speaker, my reply would be that this would naturally be a matter for decision by the committee. I would rather expect that the committee would be calling some engineers, but I should think that when the treaty provisions go before the committee, the committee is master of its own house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (SI. John's Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the desperate situation existing at Bell island, Conception bay, Newfoundland, due to the curtailment of mine operations there, will the minister say what plans he has in mind to deal with this situation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply I wish to say-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A staged question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like to say, in reply to the question bearing on a very serious matter affecting many hundreds of unemployed on Bell island, that following an earlier exchange of correspondence with the premier of Newfoundland proposals for developing suitable training and work programs to assist the provincial authorities in meeting the existing situation are being sent to Premier Smallwood. These proposals include training classes at the new trade school in Bell island and training on the job projects where a combination of work experience and training is more suitable.
The proposals being made incorporate the increased levels of federal contribution which would result from the proposed amendments to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and the other programs which
[Mr. Laing.)
I outlined to the house on June 10 and which are now before the house.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether this is also the answer to the question I asked him on this matter on May 20.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may take it as an answer to his question, which his own alertness could have made available to him some time earlier.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since Mr. Robert Burnside, director of the seaway authority, has stated before the royal commission on pilotage that the seaway authorities had asked the authorities in Ottawa that the French language be banned in pilotage manoeuvring, could the Acting Prime Minister assure the house that the government will refuse to comply with such a request?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the statement referred to by the hon. member. Nevertheless, I must say that the pilotage commission comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith). I will however make inquiries as to that statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will you give me an answer later?
(Text) :



SOULANGES CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask, in French, a very important question of the Minister of Transport.
(Translation):
Is it true that the Quebec government has definitely given up the idea of buying the Soulanges canal and, if so, for what reason, since an agreement had been entered into under the previous government?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member should recognize that though

the question is very important and very interesting, there is no desperate urgency about it. The matter has been under consideration for many months.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is a very important matter and that-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question about the propriety of asking a question of this nature, but it should be placed on the order paper.
(Translation):



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
On June 24 last, I said in this house that Canada did not have a national flag. Since that date, I received many letters suggesting that I was mistaken. Now, here is my question. Could the Secretary of State inform me whether in fact Canada actually has or has not a national flag?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should look at an order in council passed on September 5, 1945, which he could get from the privy council office. I have no more recent information to give him.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think that order in council provides that the red ensign is Canada's national flag. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that this order in council provides for a national flag and that it is the red ensign?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Secretary of State of Canada, no more than any other citizen, has the right to decide what the national flag of Canada is. This is a matter, I would judge, for the parliament of Canada and I would not presume to express any opinion at all on that question. I believe the most recent official document is the one I mentioned a few moments ago, an order in council passed on September 5, 1945, which can be procured from the privy council office at no cost to any citizen.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question because I think the hon. Secretary of State did not answer my question. My question was as
Inquiries of the Ministry follows. Does that order in council prescribe that the red ensign is our national flag and is that the opinion of the Secretary of State? (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that the order in council is available in both official languages, and I am sure the hon. gentleman can read both of them just as well as I can.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think there is there-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out, first of all, that there is no immediate urgency to this question. Second, the discussion is taking on the form of a debate. May I remind hon. members once more that according to our standing orders the general principles to be applied when asking questions of this kind on orders of the day are very simple. No argument should be advanced, no opinion given. The facts should be concisely stated and the matter should be one of urgent public importance requiring immediate attention. By virtue of those general principles I am sure we can make very fast progress if all hon. members abide by the regulations of the house.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If it is on the same matter I must declare the debate closed on that particular point.
(Translation) :


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
As the hon. gentleman has just informed us that we already have a national flag, is the national flag that has been promised during the last election campaign going to be a second one?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no urgency in this question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has his attention been drawn to the dispute between the Canadian National Railways and the brotherhood of railway trainmen regarding the question of

Inquiries of the Ministry the run-through on two subdivisions in western Canada? Canadian National Railways has in this case altered the conditions of employment unilaterally during the lifetime of an existing agreement which has not yet expired. What steps does the minister propose to take to settle this dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member with regard to this dispute that this particular phase of the problem has not been brought to my attention. I will be glad to look into it and advise him later as to what is the situation, and whether any action can be taken by the Department of Labour.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he yet been able to ascertain at what time on Monday and under what order the Minister of Finance will give his budgetary statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps the Secretary of State, who is the house leader, might give the house some information on that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock today I had intended asking the house whether an order could be made to permit the house to revert to motions at 8 p.m. on Monday precisely for the purpose that the hon. gentleman has questioned me about. If it would be agreeable to the house to have that order made right now it would perhaps save a little time and be of convenience to the house generally. At 8 p.m. on Monday we would revert to motions in order that a statement might be made from the treasury benches, and it would be clearly understood, of course, that the usual comments by spokesmen from each of the parties represented in the house could be made at the same time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a baby budget, is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Does this meet with the approval of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INQUIRIES RESPECTING TAXATION PROPOSALS IN BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Forestry. While answering a question of mine on June 24 the minister indicated to me that he intended to go west later for the purpose of discussing with the forestry industry matters referred to in certain telegrams concerning the harmful effect of the 11 per cent sales tax on the lumbering industry. Would the minister care to make a statement as to his findings concerning the effect of the 11 per cent tax on lumber production and sales?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not say that I would care to make a statement. 1 have had meetings with the representatives of the industry, and I thought they were very constructive and helpful.


David Vaughan Pugh: I have a further question to ask the Minister of Forestry. The hon. gentleman stated in reply to the original question that he had received telegrams. Will the minister be making a statement to the house with regard to the telegrams he received and the discussions he has had with the industry in British Columbia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No.
(Translation):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) asked me a question concerning Canadian students who are now in Pakistan. Those students, 37 in number, are attending the fourteenth annual conference of the world university service association, which is being held in that country this year. That is the fourteenth conference of its kind organized by that association which has secured the support and close co-operation of every government and student organization in countries where it has been in operation, and it has received the same support again this year.
The Canadian delegation has been the target of criticisms expressed in rather violent terms in a pamphlet published by a group of Pakistani students. We have received no indication that our students have been subjected to any other form of attack or are in any kind of danger. Nevertheless, I have asked our high commissioner's office in Karachi, Pakistan, to send us a report and I shall make it a point to keep the house informed of any development which might cause some concern.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY QUEBEC PROVINCIAL MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
In view of the statement made by Mr. Rene Levesque, which appears today in Le Devoir, to the effect that if the government in Ottawa does not change its present attitude it will become the real grave-digger of confederation, can the minister tell us if Ottawa intends to reverse its position in order to dispel Hon. Rene Levesque's fears?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my hon. friend is that the present government certainly does not intend to bury confederation; it will rather work towards improving it, in order to give it at last a new lease on life.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question? Could the minister tell the house whether he feels that Mr. Rene Levesque is a crypto-separatist, considering the statement he has made?


Maurice Lamontagne: I think the hon. member can judge for himself.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council has just stated that he does not want the government to become the executioner of confederation, could he say what precise steps he will take to avoid that?
(Text):


NATIONAL MUSEUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, based to a certain extent upon the controversy developing around biculturalism and bilingualism. My question relates to a national museum of Canada publication, bulletin 190, headed "Contributions to Anthropology, 1960". I wonder if the minister could undertake to have the various articles in this publication, which are now exclusively in French, translated into English for the benefit of the rest of us in this country.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: I should be glad to take this question as notice, and see what can be done at once.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. On June 27 the hon. gentlemen was asked a question concerning a dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and some of its employees. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether negotiations are going on at the present time, and whether they seem likely to be successful.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is ever wise to anticipate in connection with these matters, but negotiations are proceeding and the latest information I have is that they seem to be proceeding very satisfactorily.


INQUIRY AS TO GRAIN SALES TO EAST GERMANY AND RED CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The day before yesterday the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked me a question about negotiations for the sale of grain to East Germany. During the past six years members of the Canadian wheat board or its officials have made many visits to East Germany to attempt to develop sales for Canadian wheat. The latest board visit to this market was made on May 9-10,
1963.	In addition, agents of the board have kept in constant contact with officials responsible for grain purchases by East Germany.
While none of this market development activity has yet resulted in actual sales, the board with the full support of this government is continuing in its attempt to develop sales in this potential market. As soon as positive results are obtained, hon. members will be so informed.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has given us a report about negotiations in connection with wheat sales to East Germany. I wonder if he could inform the house when he expects to make a statement on the negotiations which have been going on with red China.


Mitchell William Sharp: As soon as those negotiations are completed.

Supply-Trade and Commerce THE BUDGET


LEGALITY OF APPOINTMENT OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the hon. gentleman yet been able to obtain, as promised, a legal opinion on the validity or otherwise of the appointment of certain persons to carry out special services in the Department of Finance?
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime
Minister): I am sorry, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether Mr. Stanley, Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Conway are still connected with the Department of Finance?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer that. That question should be directed to the Minister of Finance. I do not know what their present
position is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has not been here for two days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For two days, on the orders of the day, the Minister of Finance has not been here to answer questions.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance has other duties to perform. He was in the house the whole of the week before that and available to answer questions notwithstanding the fact that there had been several discussions on budgetary matters. I do not think there can be any complaint as far as his conduct is concerned.


INDUSTRY
Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of Bill C-74, respecting the department of industry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates and $25,000 for grants to promote industrial design, $5,288,800.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I consider

it a definite privilege to be the first minister presenting his estimates for the approval of this committee. I feel, too, that a considerable responsibility rests upon me, a responsibility which I shall endeavour to discharge. I should also like to say a few words about certain aspects of the activities of the department, and about one such aspect in particular which I think is of considerable interest, namely Canada's policy with respect to the forthcoming round of trade negotiations.
For a number of years we have witnessed in Canada the paradoxical situation of high unemployment together with a large adverse balance of trade on current account. In other words we have been relying upon external resources even though productive capacities have remained unused here in Canada.
While economic activity in Canada has risen considerably in the past two years, the extent of this advance has not been sufficient to bring about a sustained betterment in the unemployment situation. Apart from the usual seasonal variations, the level of unemployment in Canada has changed little during the past 18 months despite an abnormally slow growth in the labour force. On the other hand, Canada's external balance is showing evidence of underlying improvement, and much of the expansion now under way in the economy is attributable to the strengthening trade situation.
A quite substantial improvement in the trade balance is now in sight for the current year. In 1963 to date merchandise exports are up by 8J per cent compared with the same period last year, whereas imports are down slightly. In the latest month for which figures are available there was actually a 5 per cent drop in imports notwithstanding the removal of the import surcharges. Tourist trade is also moving strongly in Canada's favour. As I recall the figures, two years ago we had an adverse balance on tourist account of something of the order of $160 million. In 1962 it was of the order of $50 million, and this year we are looking forward to an improvement such as will wipe out the adverse balance and I hope result in a positive balance on tourist account.
This strengthening in merchandise and tourist trade is, nevertheless, offset in part by adverse movements in certain invisible items including higher interest and dividend payments and rising outlays for various forms of business services. Thus in the last 12 months for which figures are available, namely the 12 month period ending March, 1963, Canada's deficit on all current transactions was still in the neighbourhood of $750 million.
A further substantial improvement in this position, which I hope and believe will come

about, will be necessary for Canada to achieve the external financial strength so basic to a sound and viable economy. A strong current balance position is essential not only to pay our way in the world and to head off the current rise in foreign indebtedness but also for the stimulus it gives to domestic activity. This means that we must strengthen our position in both home and foreign markets. Real and lasting progress in this direction will entail new initiatives on the part of Canadian producers, and it will also-this, I think, is of major importance to the members of the house-require careful attention to every facet of activity having a bearing upon the nation's economic performance.
The Department of Trade and Commerce is keenly aware of its responsibilities in this broad national endeavour. The department's role, as hon. members know, is essentially twofold in character. In the period of intensive international negotiations which lies ahead every effort will be made to improve the access to foreign markets for Canadian goods while retaining fair treatment for producers selling domestically. On the other hand, the promotional arm of the department will be striving in every practical way to help the Canadian businessman to take advantage of opportunities available in international markets.
When we consider trade relations in the rapidly changing world of today we are at once struck, it seems to me, by the need for Canada to respond appropriately to the basic shifts that are taking place in the world around us. Canada is, as hon. members know, a great trading nation. To maintain and improve our prosperity, our standard of living, we must maintain and improve our position as an international trader.
The development of the European economic community and of the European free trade area implies far reaching changes in trade relationships. The movement by the big three world traders, the United States, Britain and the European economic community, toward an extensive tariff negotiation next year has major implications for a country as dependent upon trade as Canada. We can expect keener competition at home and abroad in our efforts to maintain and expand markets for primary products and for secondary manufactures. We should set our sights on meeting this keener competition and on taking advantage of new opportunities and broader markets. I am confident that Canadian industry can respond to new opportunities to secure lower production costs by expanding export sales.
About one fifth of our gross national product is accounted for by exports of goods and services. We rank fourth as a world trader, but what we have to bear in mind is that even though we rank just behind the big
Supply-Trade and Commerce three we have a relatively small population and our share of world trade is only a small part of the total. What is big and vital for us may not seem of critical importance for our trading partners. It is the responsibility of Canada and particularly of the Canadian government in its external trade relations to ensure that our interests are not overlooked and that maximum opportunities are opened for the expansion of our trade. We must always strive to place our weight and influence on the side of the orderly growth of trade on the widest possible basis. We must move forward and help to shape the new conditions for world trade in order to improve our prospects and to avoid the dangers of the re-emergence of restrictionism and the stagnation which is involved in a circumscribed domestic market.
Because of the direction and character of our trade, the position and policies of the United States, Britain and the European community are of particular importance for us. But the world, of course, includes many other countries which are significant markets for our products. We have a large and growing trade with Japan, with other commonwealth countries, and in increasing interest in the market provided by many of what we call today the less developed countries which are spread throughout the world, many within the commonwealth and many outside. We must always be conscious of the need to raise the standard of living in these less developed countries and of the contribution these countries can make to the growth of world trade. I believe that one of the great opportunities which is presented to countries like Canada, rich countries, countries with the highest standard of living in the world, is to assist the less developed countries to achieve higher standards of living. This is not only a responsibility but also a great opportunity.
Our detailed work on ways and means of freeing and expanding world trade is being carried forward under the auspices of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in line with the conclusions of the meeting of ministers of trade of the GATT countries in May, on which I reported to the house on May 24 last. At that time I indicated that the purpose of the ministerial meeting was to come to grips with three major trade problems, the expansion of trade of the less developed countries, world trade in agricultural commodities, and another round of negotiations to reduce tariffs and other barriers to world trade. I reported that the countries concerned agreed to come to the negotiating table and that a start had been made toward resolving many of the current,

Supply-Trade and Commerce complex and difficult problems that emerge in a series of negotiations of this magnitude.
Let me refer briefly to those preparations that more directly affect Canadian trade. Hon. members will recall the nature of Canada's export trade in relation to the nature of our import trade. Although our trade in manufactures is growing and must greatly expand, and I hope will greatly expand, in the main we are still an exporter of primary materials and foodstuffs. These are products for which Canada has already in large part negotiated duty free, low duty or other appropriate access to markets abroad. Terms of access for these products to foreign markets could still be notably improved, of course, and trade expanded, particularly where quotas or other restrictive devices have been applied, but here it is rather a question of maintaining the access we have already obtained and that we have bargained for and paid for.
On the other hand, we are one of the world's largest importers of manufactured goods. It was for this reason that I made it clear that the negotiation plan which had been submitted by the United States, based upon their trade expansion act, and which is applicable to the large industrial exporters, would not yield for Canada the necessary mutuality of trade and economic benefit. I made it clear that Canada would play its part and make concessions commensurate with the benefits we receive. This we intend to do, and our role will not be a limited one.
As I intimated earlier, it is precisely because our range of exports is now relatively narrow, and precisely because we must move forward to expand the range as well as the value of our exports, that we must take full advantage of the opportunity presented by the GATT trade negotiations to improve Canadian access to all important foreign markets and, if I may add, particularly in manufactured goods. I trust that the price we shall have to pay in terms of adjustment of the Canadian tariff can also be negotiated in a way which will make a contribution to the competitiveness and efficiency of Canadian production both here and abroad.
An official committee of the GATT countries which was established by the meeting I attended in Geneva, known as the trade negotiating committee, has been hard at work to elaborate the broad negotiating principles set forth in May by the trade ministers. Another body, the GATT cereals group, has already held meetings to exchange views about arrangements for world trade in wheat and other grains in present international circumstances. This work will be continued and intensified in the months to come, leading to


the major negotiating conference scheduled for May of next year.
We are, of course, also active in other bodies whose work relates to trade and associated matters. We consult regularly and frequently with the organization for economic co-operation and development, with our trading partners of the Atlantic community, and we look forward to welcoming Japan to this important grouping. The OECD is, as the house is aware, a body where many of the industrially advanced countries consult and discuss questions of mutual interest in such fields as broad economic policy, development assistance generally, and international trade problems of various kinds.
We have also recently participated in preparatory meetings in Geneva for the United Nations conference on trade and development scheduled for next year. Further preparatory meetings for the United Nations conference will be held in January, 1964. Canada, of course, has long participated in the work of the United Nations and its specialized agencies which have implications for trade. We have played and are playing a role in commodity agreements concluded at various times under United Nations auspices, particularly the international wheat agreement, and in commodity study groups operating under the aegis of the United Nations such as that for lead and zinc. I had the great privilege last summer of presiding at the United Nations conference on coffee. In the important series of discussions leading up to the United Nations conference on trade, particular emphasis is being placed on ways and means of meeting the pressing trade and economic problems of less developed countries.
As I said when I returned from London and Geneva at the opening of this session, this is to me one of the most significant developments that have been taking place recently in world trade. The less developed countries are eager for developments. They are eager for assistance and they are eager to trade.
May I also comment upon the close contacts we maintain through the usual bilateral channels of trade discussions. We are virtually in day to day contact with our important traditional trade partners such as the United States, Britain and other commonwealth countries, the European economic community, and Japan on matters of mutual interest. I expect that the Canada-United States committee of ministers on trade and economic affairs will be meeting later this year, and at that time we shall be reviewing a range of important trade and related subjects with the United States members, including the participation of each country in

the GATT negotiations and questions of particular concern in the trade between the two countries.
Hon. members may recall that when I was in Washington some weeks ago I proposed that our two countries should do some general studies in the field of energy. I hope that at the meeting of Canadian ministers and United States secretaries we shall move this proposal another step forward. It was well received on an informal basis by the United States secretaries I had the privilege of meeting, and I fully expect we can have a most useful exercise which will have far reaching implications on the development of our energy resources in oil, gas, electrical power, nuclear energy and coal in the years to come. In the meantime, of course, there is a continual interchange between the two countries on trade matters of mutual concern as the need arises or as opportunity for fruitful consultation appears.
In May of this year, at the meeting in London of the commonwealth economic consultative council, I had the welcome opportunity of discussing with British and other commonwealth trade ministers a range of commercial problems of common and particular concern. This meeting was most timely, coming as it did just before the meeting of GATT trade ministers. As the house knows, I was able at that time to have useful discussions with the British minister of agriculture about the important changes pending in their policies affecting imports of farm products. As I said at that time in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I think the changes that are taking place in British agriculture policy could be very constructive and, from our point of view, they are important and I believe perhaps indicate a way in which relations between importing countries with protective policies and exporting countries like Canada could be put on a more secure basis.
Such bilateral consultations complement the work we are doing in multilateral organizations, in concert with other important importers such as the European community and in concert with other exporters, to establish a satisfactory framework for expanding trade in farm products, which is one of the main problems facing the world in the months ahead. Agricultural trade continues to face greater barriers and obstacles to expansion than is the case for industrial products generally. It is our aim to achieve a framework for trade that will permit of a greater exchange of agricultural goods under conditions which recognize more than at present the desirability of drawing supplies from efficient producers. A parallel aim is to limit
Supply-Trade and Commerce the adverse effects on trade of excessive agricultural protectionism throughout the world in both exporting and importing countries. We are also giving careful consideration to our exchanges with state trading countries. I am hopeful that progressively we shall be able to find a stable market in at least a number of other countries, not only for wheat but for other Canadian products. In return, as with other countries, we must expect to see their goods find a place in the Canadian market under conditions which will not pose the threat of disruption to efficient Canadian production.
Many problems are involved in moving in this direction. I know that some hon. members on the other side have had some direct experience in these matters and fully understand that I am not exaggerating the difficulties. However, I am confident that, given the desire on both sides to do so, appropriate solutions can be found and, if I may say so, have from time to time been found.
In my report to the house on May 24 I indicated that reaching international agreement on the broad lines for future negotiations was by no means easy. I said that much remained to be done before there could be confidence that the various negotiations would yield a substantial and positive result. This is still the case. Under the tariff negotiations committee established by GATT ministers in May, machinery has now been set up to deal as a matter of urgency with such key problems as the depth of tariff cuts and the question of exceptions as between the large highly industrialized countries which are expecting to participate in the tariff negotiations on a linear basis, and countries like Canada which will be participating on the basis of an exchange of concessions of mutual value. By the end of the summer we should have a clearer idea than is possible at present of the scope and character of the tariff reductions that may be negotiated by the United States, the European economic community, the United Kingdom and other European countries, both within and without the free trade area.
It is the intention of the Canadian government to establish appropriate procedures and facilities to enable the government to secure the benefit of the views of all Canadian interests concerned both with respect to concessions that may be offered by other countries and with respect to the Canadian tariff. This will be done as soon as enough information about the scope of the negotiations is available to permit meaningful consultations.
I have had a number of inquiries, and perhaps other hon. members have had these inquiries, about when consultations are to

Supply-Trade and Commerce begin. For that reason I emphasize again that I do not think these consultations should begin until we know enough about the scope of the negotiations to make these consultations meaningful, and to avoid having to undertake them twice. The government attaches particular importance to such consultations as we move into the phase of detailed preparations for Canadian participation in negotiations that may well be of very great importance for Canada's trading position and for world trade.
I am convinced, and I am sure the house will agree, that our posture toward these negotiations should be active and positive and that we should use our influence to shape them in a way consistent with our national interests. In this regard we must obviously be prepared to make a contribution commensurate with the benefits to be received and appropriate to the objective of the further expansion and liberalization of world trade.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members wish to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his first statement in opening discussion on the estimates of his department. I am sure he must derive a certain amount of satisfaction in being one who has gone up the ladder all the way in his department. I am also sure he must now view the whole problem of trade and commerce somewhat differently, now that he has certain political responsibility in regard to the policies and administrative practices of that department.
The minister spoke about the objectives of the trade policies of his government, and I hope we will hear something more about them in detail. Doubtless we will later on, particularly with regard to the nature of the development here in Canada and the degree of co-operation between the government and industry as such. I should like to refer to this in greater detail later on.
I was keenly interested in the remarks of the minister when he was speaking about the deficit Canada faces on its current international account. He must of course realize there has been a changing pattern in this regard since the time he was deputy minister; because at that time, going back to 1952 in any event, one of the significant features of Canada's deficit on the international account was the extraordinarily high and unfortunate deficit on merchandise or commodity account, a situation which has been gradually improved to the point where for the last two years we have had a surplus on that account.
There were various factors which led to this result, and I think the minister would agree that the deficit on international account must be tackled in various sectors over some of

which he has relatively little control. He has inherited a cumulative situation going back for scores of years when Canada always had a deficit on international account. This has accumulated primarily through the investment of foreign capital in Canada, particularly since 1945 when there were extraordinary amounts of foreign capital invested here. We now see that we must pay for that capital by way of dividends or periodic repayments.
I think the minister would also agree with me that before this situation gets better it will get worse, in that as economic activity develops in Canada, naturally foreign owned industry will benefit from this healthy climate, and greater dividends will have to be paid abroad unless there are compensatory fiscal or budgetary policies which would encourage the reinvestment of those dividends in Canada to the point where we might look to a Cana-dianization of this foreign capital. In this regard I feel some sympathy for the minister in that I am sure he is holding his head visualizing the potential effects of certain recent budgetary moves on the level of Canadian trade.
In indicating the bases on which we must be able to sell our goods, first of all they must be of good quality, improved and improving Canadian technology will guarantee that. Second there is the question of active selling; and our businessmen, as a result of the encouragement they have received in the past and I hope will continue to receive, can become much more active sellers. There is nothing so disastrous for our trade policies as having people who expect they can stay at home and that buyers will beat a path to their door. Those days are gone. They have to go out and sell and sell and sell. If they miss out the first time they must go back a second time and even a third time.
Finally there is the question of price. We know that a manufacturer has only certain controls over price. He may be a shrewd bargainer with respect to his raw materials. He may be a very competent administrator and have a very efficient plant, but there is one thing about which he can do nothing and that is the level of taxation he faces, and within the price he sells abroad he must include taxation at the domestic level.
I must say that the recent proposal of the government with regard to the extension of the sales tax fly completely in the face of the objectives of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This was the hidden dynamite in the budgetary proposals. I am not talking about building materials but primarily the tax on production machinery and on materials entering into industrial processes. We have seen the immediate effects of this.

When I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce shortly after the budget, he could not give me an estimate of these effects. Two of the main items which enter into international trade are pulp and paper, and we have seen an advance of $7 a ton on pulp as a result of the tax increase on materials going into industrial processes. All the bleaches and industrial chemicals which go into the preparation of pulp and paper have become subject to this tax, and it is bound to follow that everywhere along the line we are going to get a much greater increase than 11 per cent.
If building materials are taxed at 11 per cent, or at least a portion of those that go into industrial plants, and if production machinery and raw materials, which are not identifiable in the end product, are also taxed we are going to get an accumulation of this tax and it will more than exceed 11 per cent. For instance I have been told that in another sector which is very important, our soft woods from B.C. and Alberta, the price will rise by 16 per cent and perhaps more.
I am sure the minister must realize that while the previous administration was faced with some problems with regard to action by the lumber producers of the northwestern United States to get quotas imposed upon Canadian lumber exports, yet as a result of negotiations and representations by the government and other interested Canadian parties such a quota was not established. But with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance has just as effectively established a quota now, and our lumber exporters are going to be faced with precisely the same problem that they would have faced had the United States administration imposed quotas on exports of Canadian lumber. This in effect is going to be the result of the budgetary proposals if they are carried through. However, I am not taking part in a budget debate so I will pass from that point.
The minister indicated, I think quite clearly, that Canada is not a state trader. There is really only one state organization which really participates in our external trade to any extent; that is the Canadian wheat board. We have been very successful with wheat and I trust the minister will see that this success continues, though I have some very grave reservations as to whether the wheat board should be under the aegis of his department rather than where it was, under the Department of Agriculture.
We are faced, and are going to face, greater competition in the international market as a result of our budgetary policies, we are also going to face keener competition in our do-
Supply-Trade and Commerce mestic market. We know some of our problems in the last 15 years were caused by losing the position Canada held in the immediate post-war years. At that time we were competing with countries whose industrial capacity had been either diminished or completely exhausted by the war. We stepped into a strictly sellers' market for a number of years, and unfortunately I think Canadian business and Canadian government thinking at that time was conditioned by this sort of mentality; "You have a free ticket in a sellers' market". Only in recent years have we run into a completely different form of competition, which has not only cleaned us out of many foreign markets with respect to manufactured goods but which came and took those markets away right in our own house, right within our own domestic boundaries.
I realize that trade is a two way commodity, but we have seen time and time again that Canadian industry operating with obsolescent plants could not compete either in quality or price with foreign commodities. Canadian buyers, who are interested like anyone else in obtaining the best goods at the cheapest price, have simply been turning to foreign products. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am rather fearful of the budgetary policies and the effect they will have on the prices of Canadian commodities which are sold within the domestic market.
In so far as Canada is not a state trader, I believe that the best effort which could be made by government would be toward the creation of the appropriate climate for the expansion of our trade. If we have a healthy economic climate we will have industry that is competitive. Undoubtedly the minister will refer to this matter-I hope he will-and will give the house and the country some indication of the government's policy with reference to the continuation of trade conferences at the domestic level or even, shall 1 say, on a bilateral level, rather than these grandiose, ministerial trade conferences which are all very well but which do not sell goods.
I am concerned here with the direct liaison that was established in the past three years between Canada's trade commissioners and Canadian industry. We saw what happened in 1959, I believe it was, and again this spring. These things take some time; we are not going to get miracles overnight, and Canadian industrialists and businessmen are not necessarily going to sell the first time around. But I know from direct reports of businessmen from western Canada-and this is the attitude that seems to be adopted by businessmen in eastern and central Canada-that somehow or other they are not being consulted with regard to the export market because there is

Supply-Trade and Commerce thought to be no great level of secondary industry in that part of Canada. I think this is a snare and delusion, because we have a very healthy and growing level of industry in that part of the country and I am sure it would be in the interest of the government to try and stimulate this industry.
These contacts are, frankly, the most valuable that we can establish. We should also have more trade fairs of the type we had in March and April of this year, where the government of Canada goes out and gets people to come here. We should not adopt a passive attitude in this regard; we have to go out and attract business in this way. We may have to introduce certain gimmicks but the net result, if our businessmen are able to sell their goods, is that the policies of the government are successful. I do not think there is any partisan approach in this regard, but this is what businessmen are looking for; and as far as I am concerned they have been enthusiastic about the relationships with and assistance they have received from the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
In another debate the other day I referred to this matter. I think this is an area in which there is a great deal of scope. A fine start has been made, and it would be a shame to let it either stagnate or diminish. In this area, if businessmen from all parts of the country can come and say "All right, now can you help us with information in this regard?" and if departmental officials and the minister go to different parts of the country and hold regional conferences, as has been done, this would greatly assist our industry. I am sure the minister is fully aware of the value of our trade policies in the last two or three years.
I do not wish to speak about our currency position vis-a-vis other nations or to discuss in a dollar sense the position of this country. It is a fact that the government is not a state trader. There is one aspect of this problem that is often missed by certain commentators on the national scene and people who professedly have free trade interests, who berated the previous administration with regard to the question of quotas. I know it is a knotty problem, but we have to look at the position at home as well as to our economic climate. Are we going to see certain industries completely wiped out by countries which have rather selective policies with regard to exports to this country? I think when we receive complaints from various countries which say they now have a great trade imbalance with Canada on dollar volume, and that they import twice or three times as much from us as we import from them, we must look at the difference in the

population of our country and the country concerned. Having done this, I find it a little difficult to freely accept their observations.
I do not like to single out any particular country, but since certain newspapers have adopted the arguments put forward by certain business interests, let us take Japan. The proposition is put forward that Japan buys from us almost twice as much as we do from them, and that this trade pattern cannot continue. On the other hand Japan's population is some 80 million to 90 million people compared with our 18 million. Since most of the goods entering into trade are consumer goods,
I find it difficult to understand how it can be expected that Canada should more or less arrive at a bilateral balance of trade with such countries.
The same applies to our trade with Great Britain. We are engaging in multilateral trade. We are going to have excesses in some regions and deficits in others in arriving at the over-all picture. So far as commodities coming from Japan and other countries with a lower labour cost element are concerned, we see the effects when the exports of those countries are selective. I think we can certainly work for much more extensive trade with such countries if the trade is on a general pattern covering goods generally, and I say more power to each country if its volume of mutual trade can increase. But we cannot say "All right, our doors are open to you and we will take all you wish to export to us in particular commodities, and we will willingly see our plants close". We have seen textile plants from one end of the country to the other close, as well as plywood factories. These are the facts that are hard to accept so far as the Canadian economy is concerned when we see whole towns made destitute as a result of the closing of principal industries. I think the parliamentary secretary to the minister knows whereof I speak, in particular as to the small textile towns in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
There is one further point I should mention in this opening statement, Mr. Chairman, and it concerns the international negotiations now taking place. We saw last year the negotiations which took place with regard to Britain's proposed entry into the European common market. I wonder what the members of the present administration feel at this time compared with their attitude 18 months ago in light of the events which have transpired. 1 was clearly of the opinion after a trip tc France last summer that what turned out to be the ultimate result was bound to come. I think we must fully realize that one of the keystones of the common market is the protection of French agriculture, and unless that

is taken care of to the satisfaction of France there will be difficulties about further participation in the European common market so far as Great Britain is concerned.
There are also many potential difficulties with regard to Canada and its agricultural exports. We have only to see what was the result on American poultry entering into the European common market and is now barred. In any event these are the ebb and flow of trade patterns. The world is not going to come to an end because there is a temporary check due to a certain move having been taken. After all, no one will beggar himself just for the sake of enriching his neighbour so far as trade is concerned. I think we in Canada must do everything to put our house in order so as to be an active competitor, and I do not think we have gone as far as we could there.
So far as entering into the detail of the various trade patterns being developed at the present time is concerned, I think this must be very carefully watched. Canada must at all times indicate clearly and early what it feels will be the effects upon Canada of the trade proposals of other countries. Sometimes the larger trading nations of the world make certain proposals which are all very well for them, but they are not overly concerned about the splash which hits their neighbours. We must clearly indicate that if certain steps are taken it should be realized that this is bound to be the result as the problem affects us, and we must show that there are two sides to every coin.
Leaving that point aside I should like to come back to the last item of which I have made a note, and that concerns tourism. I have always felt pretty strongly about this. It has always been ludicrous to me that over the past few years 18 million people should have spent far more on tourist travel abroad, which is a straight consumption expense with no return to Canada, than the rest of the world has spent in this country. We must be a nation of people who do not like our own homes and have a psychosis which makes us feel that for a month in the year we must get out of here.


Mr. Matheson:: They try to get warm.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Leeds says that we try to get warm. I do not know that that is necessarily so. Last week people were looking for a place where it was cool. I think the Canadian government must develop on a national basis and in participation with the provinces a pattern or program of tourist attraction for Canadians within Canada. Let us have Canadians travelling across Canada for once. True enough, I think a significant step was achieved last year with the completion through the Rogers Pass link of the
Supply-Trade and Commerce trans-Canada highway. But it goes beyond that. I think the government must give encouragement to the development of proper hotel facilities and the development of motel and service facilities in our national parks, or at least close to national parks, particularly the western parks. They are so vast that you just cannot expect people to visit them at express speed, providing no place for them to stay. It is ludicrous to expect people to go to Banff national park, for instance, if they are not to be received properly. The same applies to some of our other national parks, and I suggest to the minister that he might twist the arm of his colleague, the minister of northern affairs, and have this policy apply to some of our other national parks across the country. People must be encouraged to come to the parks and stay there for some time, not just to pass rapidly through them. They might as well take T.C.A. and fly overhead if arrangements are not made to receive them properly.
Today people expect the best of facilities. Canadians are not going to accept second rate or third rate accommodation, even though we are prepared to offer the best to those who come from outside this country. We must encourage our restaurants to cater properly to tourists, to Canadians as well as visitors from outside. The successful handling of this situation would make an enormous difference to our trade balance. I recall that only three years ago our tourist deficit had reached a point where it was only $200 million or $250 million short-this out of a total deficit of over a billion dollars. That to me is incomprehensible when we have such natural advantages which we could turn to good account. I read suggestions in some papers that Canada was wrong to approach the United States with a request that the limit on permitted expenditure on a customs free basis for Americans visiting this country should not be lowered. The suggestion was that we might expect fewer tourists as a result.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I take 30 seconds longer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure everyone would wish the hon. gentleman, as the main spokesman for his party, to have all the time he needs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am honoured that the Secretary of State should have designated me in that way. I was not expecting it. I believe I have made my main point with respect to the tourist business and expressed my belief that we should do everything possible in this regard.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
The minister has referred to assistance to the less developed countries in order to raise their standards of living. I think we would all agree as to the desirability of doing this. No one wants charity, least of all the recipients, but I think everyone believes we should give these countries technical assistance and go out of our way to develop trade channels between them and ourselves, even not necessarily on a paying basis in the first year. It should be remembered that though these countries may enter into competition with us in certain fields at a future date, as a result of their rising standards of living they may also become good customers of ours on a reciprocal basis.
In this regard I should like to hear the minister tell us when he replies, either today or on some other occasion, to what extent we in Canada are intensifying our trade pattern with the Caribbean islands. I believe this is an area which has been neglected for scores of years. I speak of not only indirect forms of economic assistance but also of help through the economic aid office of the Department of External Affairs. It seems to me we could have done a great deal more in this particularly sensitive area where we can see the hands of these people tendered toward us. I think there is a natural link between this country and the Caribbean islands but we have been very remiss, content to take a passive attitude. I am not suggesting we should extend at this time as far as South America and Central America; let us recognize the limits of our capacities. But I should like to see us doing much more in this field. I am not blaming any particular administration. I think Canadians as a whole have been neglectful of this area, not only with respect to trade but in the field of education.
I suggest there might also be some relaxation in the restrictions placed on immigration. It seems to me we should be able to establish a much closer contact with the Caribbean islands. More and more Canadians who have visited these islands tell us that for certain reasons Canadians are becoming increasingly favoured in the eyes of the inhabitants. Once there is a feeling of this kind among the general population, it will be found that the response to trading efforts is far better than it may have been in the past. It will take some work, but the results in the end will surely justify it. I think both the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs could do more in this direction.
There may be some other points on which I should like to have spoken, but we can


always come back to them. I wish to thank the committee for having given me these few extra minutes.
(Translation):


Mr.   Cole@Chicouiimi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks on the matter now before us.
First of all, I would like to point out that sometime ago I proposed in this house that everything that concerns distribution of our production should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce; in other words, in my opinion, all products offered for consumption should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. This is an extremely practical suggestion because, to date, it seems to me that we have not always realized that the Department of Trade and Commerce has a responsibility for distribution and that it must see to it that our national products or production reach the consumer.
We have also noticed that up to now, the activity of the Department of Trade and Commerce has been rather restricted to foreign trade. As a matter of fact, considerable effort was made to open up external markets at a very high cost, because we keep trade representatives in a large number of countries of the world, but I think we can venture to say that we have one at least in every important country, who is trying to find new markets for our Canadian products.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that foreign trade is important, that we must try to increase it, but why not also be concerned with the market here at home.
In fact, those who are not floating above the clouds can see that millions of Canadians live in a destitute condition because of a lack of means and purchasing power which prevents them from buying all they need.
As a matter of fact, if we examine statistics respecting families who live on social welfare or depend on unemployment insurance, we reach a figure of close to 3 million Canadians who do not have adequate incomes to purchase the food, clothing, in a word the articles of vital necessity or who cannot even afford to live in decent accommodation. This is a market which represents billions of dollars and we are not at all concerned about it.
I know that our present financial system production cannot fill all the needs of Canadian consumers. This is the reason why we, Social Crediters, advocate a reform of the present system. We know that we are on the right track. In fact, if someone among us offered a solution that would enable Cana-

dians to take full advantage of production, we would be the first to support him. Unfortunately, the old line political parties have never submitted any serious solution that would enable the financial system to work efficiently.
We are continuously witnessing thousands of bankruptcies which seem to be essential to the proper working of our economic system. Without those bankruptcies, our trade and our financial system would have been paralysed a long time ago.
Mr. Chairman, a little while ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), stated that Canada is bent progressively towards a freer international trade and that a conference will take place in Geneva in 1964 with a view to concluding new agreements on tariffs and trade.
Our party fully agrees with the minister, because we feel that we should have freer trade.
It so happens at the present time that our international trade is impeded because we only accept currencies which can be converted into gold and we refuse those of other foreign countries. Trade should almost always be conducted in American dollars, because the American dollar is at a premium over practically all other world currencies. That is why, most of the time, we are in a painful situation, in view of the constant imbalance of our international payments. We are unable to correct this imbalance and we shall not be able to do so, unless essential reforms are instituted to promote our international trade with many friendly countries just waiting for us to open our doors to them.
I remember, for instance, that when the international monetary fund was established in 1944, the well-known British economist, Lord Keynes, advocated the creation of an international currency which would be called the "bancor". It would have facilitated international trade without requiring the abolition of national currencies. An interesting aspect of that suggestion was that the currency would not have been based on the gold standard but would have been put on the market in accordance with the actual needs of international trade.
I truly regret that preference was given at the time to the American theories and that Lord Keynes' proposal was turned down. In my opinion, the latter was a lot better and it would have facilitated international trade a great deal more.
Supply

Trade and Commerce
Before too long, and at the proper time, I shall have the opportunity of introducing a bill to further facilitate international trade. At that time, I shall go into the matter more thoroughly and prove that it is possible to amend the Bank of Canada Act in such a way that we could expand our international markets in order to increase our international trade even more.
And now, before I resume my seat, I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that it should be remembered that Canadians, first of all, want to consume Canada's production. This is a most important point and we shall keep on repeating it in the house. Unless that essential point is understood, our country will remain in economic stagnation, precisely because we do not give any thought to directing our trade in such a way that Canadians can consume our whole production.
Of course, I realize very well that we cannot consume all the products we make. We can, however, exchange them with other countries, but we need the means to do so.
I shall therefore have an opportunity, later on, to speak further about this matter when I present a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act, precisely in order to increase greatly our international trade in an extremely favourable way.
(Text):


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I could call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity, and a very welcome one, for us to discuss the trade policies of the government. I might say, in beginning, we consider this particular department to be an extremely important one, and one we believe will play a very important part in the future of the country. Having said that, however, I hope the minister will not think it unkind if I express some mild surprise that we are proceeding with his estimates today. I would have thought that with the need for internal stimulation of the economy in Canada, we might well have used this day to discuss and pass some of the government's very urgent legislation, such as the municipal loans

Supply-Trade and Commerce measure which is designed to provide a very quick solution of unemployment. I would have thought that, while this is an important department, it could have stood a day or two and we could have spent today passing that very important piece of legislation.
However, Mr. Chairman, there are some comments we would like to make on the minister's opening statement. In listening to him, it seemed to us that the whole of the statement was based upon the concept of freer trade in the world. This was a very popular concept, and still is, and was based upon the idea that the United Kingdom would enter the common market, and it would become a very outward looking organization; that there would be a general and fast move towards free trade in the world. I did not see in the minister's statement anything that really sells us on the idea that this is the situation that exists. I hope that perhaps at some stage someone speaking for the government will make out a case for freer trade.
It seems to me that there are one or two flaws in the argument that perhaps could be answered at some later stage in the debate. The first one would be that with Britain not having gained entry to the common market, there is no evidence at all that the European economic community is, in fact, becoming a very outward looking trade group or one which is genuinely interested in making very widespread tariff concessions. In fact, there seems to be a trend in the other direction. It is tending to be an inward looking, insular organization with a highly restrictive policy, particularly in agriculture, and one which will have a very drastic effect presumably on our ability to get into these markets.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, if you examine the statements of some people in Britain, in particular those of Mr. Harold Wilson, the leader of the labour party, you do not get the impression that their views are wholeheartedly in favour of the fast move towards freer world trade. With the political climate in Britain, it is not unlikely that the labour party will become the government in the near future, and in examining some of the statements their leader has made on the subject one would have some doubts about this theory of freer trade becoming operative.
The other difficulty with the doctrine of free trade, which is basic to the government's position, is that it seems to me you are permitting the forces of laissez faire to dictate your external markets or your external policies at the very time when most world governments are operating on a reverse philosophy within their own domestic economy. By the use of planning, incentives, direction

and control over the economy, they are tending more and more to internal control of the economy. It seems to me you are setting in motion forces which tend to be in conflict within the economy itself. I do not really see how you can have the forces of laissez faire dictating world markets at the very time when most modern countries are exercising a greater and greater degree of economic control, economic planning, in their domestic affairs. This is not to say that the doctrine of free trade is not an admirable one, and perhaps it will mean that this will he the trend. In the minister's speech this morning,
I did not hear anything that really made a case for freer trade. This was a popular doctrine a year ago. World conditions have changed since then. I am just wondering to what extent the government has taken into consideration some of the major shifts in trade patterns that have taken place in the last year.
In his address this morning, the minister told us that the government was prepared wholeheartedly to support the tariff negotiations which will be taking place under the Kennedy trade expansion bill. I think, in general, this is good, Mr. Chairman. Again, there should be several caveats lodged in respect of these negotiations. I think, first of all, we have to remember that the Kennedy initiative has been tremendously weakened in these negotiations by the failure of Britain to gain access to the European economic community. The Kennedy trade expansion bill was almost predicated upon the success of the British application, and her failure to obtain entry means that the impetus behind the Kennedy negotiations will be considerably weakened.
It might well be folly to place too much emphasis on the chances of great success coming out of that particular type of negotiation. We also have to remember that the United States trade expansion act is essentially designed to relieve pressure on the American balance of payments problem. This means that the United States is primarily interested in exporting more and importing less. This is not to cast any particular doubts on its good will in these matters, but it is important to remember that it is essentially an act designed to benefit and further the interests of the United States in world trade.
Third, the real advantage to Canada under this series of negotiations lies in having Canadian products included in the 80 per cent group, which would permit negotiations towards free entry of products from Canada into the United States and areas of Europe. With these not being included in this group, then the degree of benefit we will obtain is considerably lessened, and it seems

doubtful to me that such far reaching tariff negotiations will be available to give us the mass entry into some of these markets that is basic to this whole idea of freer trade.
To participate wholeheartedly is all right, provided we are prepared to accept the fact that the degree of success is not as likely to be as marked as we had hoped a year ago. And yet, having embarked on this course, the government has indicated to us that to follow this type of negotiation will require a basic alteration in the industrial complex in Canada. In fact we will probably be required to upset an industrial structure that took four generations to build. In the world of rationalization that will follow these negotiations most, if not all, of our secondary industries will disappear. These industries have been built up under protective tariff walls, and some of them could not survive the lifting of the tariffs and live in the cold winds of international competition.
We would like to hear from the minister, if this were possible, the degree to which our industries will be affected by these tariff concessions. I realize it is perhaps difficult for him to tell us at this stage, but if he can give us some indication of the areas of our economy that will be affected, it would help us in assessing the adequacy of the trade programs.
Having said that, I want to mention a matter raised in the budget, because we have as yet received no answer to it. It is the absence of any sort of government trade adjustment assistance program. If the government is going to ask Canadian industries to bear the brunt of tariff negotiations, then surely our industries and the people employed in them are entitled to a fairly clear statement from the government as to its intentions in the field of trade adjustment assistance. We badly need a strong statement of policy in this regard because the business community is not aware of any strong stand being taken by the government. We need assurance that industries which will be adversely affected will receive financial aid, technical assistance and any other sort of help that is required to take them through the transition stage.
Workers in the plants need to be reassured that their relocation needs will be met, that funds will be available for relocating and training them in the event that their industries are closed. Municipalities also need similar assurance, and so I hope the government will tell the country that it intends to bring into effect a trade adjustment assistance act to take care of the dislocations in our economy which will inevitably follow any widespread tariff concessions in future negotiations. Indeed, it is hard to see where
Supply-Trade and Commerce concessions will be made. After 15 years of tariff negotiations it does not look as though we have much ammunition left in the field of tariff concessions. That is why we would like some indication from the minister at this time on the areas where this type of concession will take place.
As I said earlier, it seems doubtful that the tariff cuts we can make will bring back the type of mass entry into mass markets that is a prerequisite to the whole theory of free trade in the world today.
The real, basic problem we face in Canada-and the minister correctly stated it- is the imbalance between our exports and imports, the release of mass exports of primary products and the lack of exports of manufactured products. The figures we have obtained show that one seventh of our total exports are manufactured goods, and the balance are in primary products. This is one area in which the government should take a very strong stand, and should perhaps examine some of the experiments followed in Europe, particularly in Sweden where a government program amounting almost to partnership and participation with private industry was inaugurated. Gradually Sweden's manufacturing industries have been built up under that program until half its exports are in manufactured products. A strong program of participation by the government with private industry would be beneficial to the Canadian economy.
The other problem that the minister did not deal with, although I hope he will before the debate is finished, is the problem of foreign control of the Canadian economy. Many foreign controlled industries have located in Canada primarily to take advantage of the British preference and of the tariff protection afforded our secondary industry; but if we are to embark on a policy of freer trade and tariff concessions, what will happen to these particular companies, and what plans does the government have in mind to deal with the likelihood that these companies will retreat back into the United States, do their producing there and ship their products into Canada? This, of course, would only accentuate our present difficulties.
I also hope the minister will give us some indication of the impact on the Canadian trade picture of the very extensive campaign being carried out by the Ontario government.
I would like him to assess for us the implication of the "buy Canadian" or "buy Ontario" campaign being conducted by the Ontario government. It seems to me this would have serious implications for the whole policy of free trade.
I would also like the minister to deal with the attempts of the government to have some

Supply-Trade and Commerce of our customers abroad accept quotas on goods they are exporting into Canada. I asked him about this on May 23, and he indicated then that negotiations were taking place. I would like to know how these are progressing and how they fit in with the policy of free trade.
This is not an appropriate time for us to try to lay down an alternative trade program. Perhaps we can do that before the estimates pass; and these are only some of the comments we would like to make on the minister's statement this morning. On the whole, Mr. Chairman, what we heard today does not indicate that the government really has any sort of a trade program. It certainly has given no long range thought to planning. What we were told this morning amounted to many bland platitudes, that there are difficulties, that somehow we will triumph, that the Liberals will carry us through the storm, that they know how to do things, and that they do not have to tell us what their plans are. All we have to do is put our faith in them and everything will be all right. That may be all right from their point of view but it does not satisfy us, in this party. We hope we will have greater clarification on these matters.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, nothing we heard this morning seems to indicate a long range plan to deal with any of the matters we have raised. There are a host of other matters upon which we would like to comment as we go through the estimates. We did not hear too much this morning of the problem of the underdeveloped nations or the fact that the northern communities are getting richer and the southern communities are remaining relatively poor; and the underdeveloped nations look upon GATT as nothing but a rich man's club that is designed to exclude them from developing their own internal economies. We would like to hear what the government's plans are for the underdeveloped nations.
One hon. member spoke this morning about the need to get into the markets of Europe and to make the necessary concessions. Well, Mr. Chairman, if we look at this matter it does not seem that in Europe they are particularly interested, at this stage, in entering into this type of negotiation; they seem to be insular, self interested and primarily concerned with strengthening their own internal economy at the expense of the rest of the world. If this is true, is it not a dangerous course of action to be taking, to be basing all our program upon the likelihood of freer trade, to be asking the Canadian economy to make basic adjustments and at the same time not be prepared to have in this country

a strong government program of trade adjustment and assistance to compensate industries, communities and workers?
I think this is all we wish to say at this stage, Mr. Chairman, in regard to these estimates. We can raise the other matters as the items come before us.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say a few words about a matter I have set my heart on and which I am sure will be of interest to the minister of commerce (Mr. Sharp) as well as his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Pepin) who, as a former professor at Ottawa university, should be concerned with the problem I am going to raise, namely the metric system.
Would the minister or his parliamentary secretary inform us, at the first opportunity, when item No. 1 of the department of commerce estimates is called, for instance of the government's intention with respect to the application, gradually if possible and without revolutionary changes, of the metric system at the national level?
Besides, in March 1962, quite unexpectedly, the metric system almost grabbed the spotlight at the Canadian conference on education. A scientist of the national research council, Dr. J. T. Henderson, advocated the use of that system. He has pointed out that Great Britain, hoping to enter the common market, intended to adopt that system. A day will come when only a small group of countries will cling to an archaic system of weights and measures. We must act quickly, otherwise we will have to put up with serious troubles on the international markets.
The adoption of the metric system faces serious difficulties. It would probably cost a few billion dollars. We would be compelled to change the scales' graduation, clothes' sizes, length and area measurements, containers' volumes, firearms' caliber, etc.
Those changes would not happen overnight; they could be made gradually. Stores, plants and farms would account mostly for the conversion. Several years would be required for older people to get used to kilogrammes, litres and hectares. Even in France, where the metric system was introduced with the French revolution, there are people who still use old measures.
But for the students, this would be a welcome change. Furthermore, scientists and researchers in laboratories at the national research council for example use the metric system in their work as it is the most logical.


Mr. Paul:: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Has he mentioned that the cost of such a system would be of the order of a few billion or a few million dollars?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It would amount to approximately a few million dollars. If I mentioned a few billion, I made a mistake and I thank the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere for having called it to my attention.
But Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I may say that the application of the metric system would bring in trade worth several million dollars.
If the Canadian government was progressively assuming its responsibilities, it would establish an agency similar to that which is found in the United States, for example, where such an organization is now studying the question, and specially in England, where they have now started to report the weather conditions by using the metric system.
Mr. Speaker, the metric system, however artificial it may seem to us, is logical and of easy application. It allows one to pass rapidly from length to surface and cube, from cube to volume, from volume to weight from weight to price.
Indeed, even a Canadian industrialist has insisted on the urgency of such a reform. In his opinion, the longer the delay, the costlier the change will be.
Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to make.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that India, which is part of the commonwealth, has adopted the metric system.
Surely, he must have noted, as I did, that 95 per cent of the world nations use the metric system.
I know that we will come up against difficulties and that is why I do not suggest that the system be applied overnight. But since education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I think that a federal-provincial conference could be convened on that matter in order to enlist the co-operation of the provinces regarding the adoption of the metric system and even of international road signals.
We could also include the metric system in the school curriculum, since it is now used in all research laboratories and by all scholars in the world, including those in Canada. Incidentally, let me point out that NATO, of which our country is a member, also uses the metric system.
I remember that during the last world war, our allies faced great difficulties because
Supply-Trade and Commerce Canada, among others, did not follow the metric system. In fact, when Canadian forces were advancing through France and building Bailey bridges, several adjustments had to be made because those bridges were built according to English measures, which brought about many difficulties for our allies.
I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants to follow in the footsteps of the previous administration under which our trade growth was staggering. As evidence of this fact, I only need to refer to one of the most sensible statements ever made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he praised the previous administration for the expansion given to our trade.
I also know that the Minister, conscious of his responsibilities, and having as parliamentary secretary a past and distinguished university professor, will see to it that the problem is given consideration and, following the example set by the United States and England, will establish within his department, a special agency to look into all possibilities in order to adopt gradually the metric system which would give a stimulus to our trade,
(Text):


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in following the speech of the minister this morning. In view of what he had to. say, I would like to make a few brief comments on four of his statements, hoping that he will later in this discussion resolve the statements from platitudes to expressions of plans and policies. I have written down his statements, and if I have them correctly they are as follows: "There is a need for real initiative on behalf of Canadians and producers". Then again: "Canada must respond to basic shifts in trade". Then again: "We can expect keener competition". And lastly: "I am confident that Canadian producers will respond". Mr. Chairman, I am most interested in all four of these statements by the minister this morning, but particularly in the last: "I am confident that Canadian producers will respond".
We have been hearing platitudinous statements of that nature for some considerable time in the House of Commons, but I am most desirous of hearing from the minister whether he will convert that particular platitudinous statement into something of a definite nature whereby we can believe that the producers of Canada are interested, that they will take some initiative and some action. I say that because, although I regret having to make the statement, it is my belief from experience and knowledge that to a great extent there are far too many of our Canadian producers

Supply-Trade and Commerce who still seem to believe that they are in a sellers' market and not in a buyers' market. There are too many who, even if they do recognize that we in Canada are now facing a buyers' market, seem to think that the majority of the responsibility for initiative and planning rests upon the government, and they expect the government to hand them export trade on a silver platter. Somehow or other a change in this attitude must be brought about.
Hon. members may wonder why I feel so strongly in this way and speak so strongly at this time. It is because of the experience which I and three other members of this House of Commons had last year. I fully realize that in Lagos, Nigeria, in the early spring of last year there was a Canadian trade fair, and there is every indication that it was a successful trade fair put on wholly and solely by Canada. But in the late fall of last year an international trade fair was held in Lagos. Nigeria is the most populated country in that section of Africa, having a population of some 42 million. It is a newly developing country. I and three others from this House of Commons, and two members from the Senate, had the opportunity of spending one day at the international trade fair in Lagos. As a Canadian interested in Canadian exports it was one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. The Department of Trade and Commerce of the government of that day made available to Canadian producers a pavilion. The whole of the space in that pavilion was provided free of charge to Canadian producers.
If my information is correct the Department of Trade and Commerce were prepared to pay for the shipment of Canadian produce to be shown in that pavilion. Yet what did we members of the House of Commons and the Senate see at this international trade fair in this Canadian pavilion? There were only two booths with Canadians to explain the exhibits. I can think of three exhibits with no one to explain them; there were just the exhibits themselves. How can producers in Canada hope to get business by sending an exhibit with no one to explain it and no one to take orders? I also remember very distinctly four booths showing exhibits from Ontario, two displaying refrigerators and deep freezers, and one having to do with mechanical equipment, such as pumps. None of these exhibits had anyone from the companies concerned to explain them or show how they worked, or to what use they could be put. I was there at the same time as the lieutenant governor from one of the Nigerian states and the premier of another state, and when they asked who was the

sales representative handling this equipment the answer was that there was not one.
Let me give just two other illustrations, Mr. Chairman. If my memory serves me correctly there are in Ontario millions of pounds of cheddar cheese for which we should like to find a market. This cheese was exhibited at the international fair in Nigeria. Nigerians are not familiar with cheese. To become so they had to pay a shilling to taste a piece. That just does not make sense to me, when you require initiative from Canadian producers to build export markets. What really upset me beyond all that was a power saw produced in British Columbia sitting on a shelf. The people of Nigeria had never seen a power saw and did not know what it was. No one was there to explain, to demonstrate it or to sell it. This is not the way for producers in Canada who have a pavilion supplied to them free by the Department of Trade and Commerce, with shipping costs paid, to expand our export business. That is something which I saw at a Canadian pavilion at the international trade fair in Lagos last November.
It is owing to that experience, Mr. Chairman, and because I honestly believe that there is a real market there in a newly developing country, that I say more is required from the manufacturers and producers in Canada than the expectation that the government will hand them business on a silver platter in a buyers' market. They have responsibilities also. That is the reason why I rose to speak. This experience was only a few months ago. The minister stated that Canada can expect keener competition; that Canada must respond to basic shifts in trade.
The minister followed that up by saying there was a need for real initiative on the part of Canadian producers. He was confident, he said, that Canadian producers would respond to what was demanded of them. Well, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would give us some indication as to how he came to that conclusion and what policies and plans he has in mind in order to activate some of our producers in Canada whose business must be maintained and expanded, not only in their own interest but in order to be able to provide employment in Canada.
I note that for the balance of the present year the Department of Trade and Commerce is taking part in only two exhibitions in the United Kingdom-an international packing exhibition in London from September 4 to 12 and the building trades exhibition also in London from November 13 to 27. It is true some thought is being given to taking part in an exhibition called the Belfast ideal homes exhibition in September of 1964. I want to plead with the minister that he

should follow through with his project of activating industry. On my way back from Africa last December I met with the British Columbia trade commissioner at British Columbia House in London. I found very little was being done at that time by either the lumber industry or the building industry of Canada to show at these exhibitions what Canada can do and what Canada possesses in the way of modern building materials. I hope that in the past few months this situation has been corrected. I trust the minister will go beyond platitudes and give us information as to the plans he and his department have in mind so see that we do take action, and that all this action does not come from the government side; because responsibility for the expansion of our markets in the interest of Canadian employment also rests with industry itself. Unless industry is told bluntly and emphatically to get off its backside and accept that responsibility, I am afraid we shall have difficulty in meeting what the minister has called the shifting changes of trade patterns throughout the world.


Mr. Nasserden:: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on his appointment to his present portfolio. The people of Saskatchewan and of my area in particular were interested in that appointment and were glad to see it made.
I was most favourably impressed by the general tone of the hon. gentleman's remarks here today although they did not seem to follow the line which government spokesmen have taken for months, and even for years. Be that as it may, this department is concerned with one of the most vital and challenging fields of government activity. The problems associated with trade are becoming more complex with each passing day. The establishment of the European common market with its internal co-operation and external restrictions is a feature which to my mind deserves more consideration than it has so far been given by the party opposite. One of the most disturbing developments of the last couple of years has been the emphasis placed on the idea of an Atlantic trading area. In the normal course of events 25 years ago this would perhaps have held for Canada some measure of promise. The situation today is very different. Canadian industry is faced with almost insurmountable obstacles in trying to compete in the highly industrialized and heavily populated areas of Europe. No one is suggesting that we should ignore the opportunities in this market. However, the future of Canada as a great trading nation and I believe as an independent nation as well, is more fundamentally to be 28902-5-120
Supply-Trade and Commerce found in association with the nations of South America and other emerging nations of the world.
At the close of world war II, Canada enjoyed for a brief period the right to claim third place in the trade of the world. That situation rapidly evaporated with the recovery of industrial activity in Europe. The unemployment situation that resulted from the slowdown in Canadian trade at that time has, to a large extent, remained with us despite the greater numbers absorbed into the labour market as a result of the normal growth of demand on the domestic market for goods. The present government has provided us with a number of proposals designed to improve employment. The previous government was also responsible for a number of measures which were helpful. I think it would be fair to say that something much more substantial is required than anything which has already been proposed.
It is my belief that we have to take an entirely new look at our trading problems and thrust the whole pattern of unemployment problems into our plans to build the trading image of Canada around the world. I was pleased to hear the minister refer to state trading patterns with evident approval. There is an almost unexplored opportunity in this area. I was also heartened to hear the minister voice his attitude in regard to the role that Canada might play in the economies of the underdeveloped nations of the world.
I would be remiss in my duties here if I did not point out that the attitude of the government is somewhat different from that which has been expressed by the minister today. This is particularly true in regard to the need for Canadian industries to achieve an increased measure of efficiency and economy of operation. The imposition of a sales tax of 11 per cent on production machinery and building materials appears to be a factor adverse to the increase in production for which the minister expressed hope in his remarks today.
I imagine the future of Canada as a trading nation will depend largely on the measure of boldness and decision with which we approach our target. As far as I can see, this government has given us no target toward which we should work at the present time. I hasten to assure hon. members who sit on the treasury benches that I am not suggesting they have not been concerned with this matter. Nevertheless, the general attitude of the government has shown carelessness in its approach to these problems. When one takes a look at the legislation which has been placed on the order paper, and when one

Supply-Trade and Commerce considers the provisions made in the budget itself, I would say that neither is good enough to solve our problems.
I believe that the people of my area and some other parts of Canada as well want the government to be made aware of the fact that an effort must be launched to arrest the continuing rise in what is already a high priced economy. This morning we passed a bill to provide for a new department of industry. All of us wish the new department and those who staff it a successful and fruitful mission. However, as I pointed out last night, there is a danger that the legislation may tend to encourage uneconomic industry in areas of chronic unemployment. If this were allowed to happen it would to my mind be a tragedy. I wanted to mention this to the minister at this time because such a result might have an effect on the domestic market in Canada and that, of course, is a factor to be considered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I hope the minister will continue to direct his attention and that of the department to the "buy Canadian" campaign. We have a great domestic market in Canada. We have been buying more goods from other countries than we should. Buying Canadian goods is one of the things that Canadians can do for themselves and perhaps with continued encouragement we will finally be able to put more Canadians to work at the task of producing goods to satisfy consumer demands.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that expansion is now under way in the Canadian economy. During the past several years the attention of the former government led by the present Leader of the Opposition was focused on trying to extend that expansion, and one of the matters that received their attention was power development and the energy resources of Canada generally. The devaluation of the Canadian dollar, following as it did so many years after the devaluation of the currencies of other countries, brought the products of Canadian industry more closely and intimately in competition with the products of other countries in world markets. These actions were taken by the government led by my leader. I might say that the decisions were not easy ones to take. However, they have already been of great assistance to the primary and secondary industries of this country.
I believe I should say a word or two about grain marketing. My constituency is one of the great grain producing areas of Canada and was one of the first to focus attention on the quality of Canadian grain when the late Seager Wheeler of Rosthern won the world wheat championship three times in a row. That was a long time ago. I notice


that the export figures for rye and oats this year are above those of a year ago. The price of Canadian wheat in world markets today has reached a level in excess of what would have been imagined possible only a few short years ago.
One of the factors involved in this, of course, has been the credit sales that have been made and among those sales are those that have been made to red China. We on this side of the house believed that when those sales were made it was the breaking of the sod in an effort to supply Canadian grain to those areas where people were hungry and where there was a need. We believed that resulting from that agreement there should follow a greatly increased impetus on the part of our own Department of Trade and Commerce, and also in the markets of the world, that would see an increasing measure of Canadian grain going to such countries. I will not say anything further with regard to the agreement or the grain position at this time. I know this matter is being discussed in other places and perhaps the less said at this time the better.
Another problem that concerns the people of western Canada has to do with the oil industry and the oil market in this country. We would like to see greater use being made of the oil resources to be found in western Canada. When we look at the imports of oil into Canada we sometimes wonder whether all is being done that could be done in that regard.
I do not intend to say anything further. I know that the Secretary of State was over here a little while ago with a big smile on his face hoping that we would not take too long. He wants to get on with the business of the house. There will be other opportunities in other debates to deal with some of these matters. Finally, may I say that I believe that the future of Canada as a great trading nation perhaps lies more with the underdeveloped nations than with the other nations of the world. There is a great opportunity for us there, not only with regard to agricultural products but also industrial and heavy machinery products that our people can produce.
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, if I rise now I can assure you that it will be only to say a few words.
First of all, I want to congratulate the new minister who-I think this can be said without any partisanship-has done a good job as the head of that important department. He is ably seconded by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Pepin), a former teacher at the University of Ottawa.

I am also glad to see that the minister had the good sense to recognize the progress accomplished by his immediate predecessors in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Thus he will be the first one to recognize the advance in our external trade in the last years, especially in the last two years, when Canada kept in the forefront among the great trading nations in the world. I see that he is willing to pursue the reforms undertaken and especially the aggressive campaign launched by the previous government, under the direction of Hon. George Hees and Hon. Gordon Churchill, in order to increase our trade on world markets.
I regret that this department is to be divided shortly on account of the establishment of the new department of industry. I feel that what the secondary industry of Canada needs above all at this time, is a minimum of interference on the part of the government and a sensible fiscal reform of which the government has given no indication up to now.
I wanted to speak at this time, Mr. Chairman, in order to urge the minister to convince his colleagues, and especially the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) who, unfortunately, is not in his seat at present, that it is absolutely necessary that a final decision be reached respecting the world exhibition to be held in Montreal.
1 notice that the minister is giving me a stern look; he seems to wonder why I am dealing now with this question. It is merely because the exhibition administration comes under the authority of his department and that as a matter of fact, his supplementary estimates include an item with respect to the world fair.
Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Chevrier) said that the first stage, that is the question of the site of St. Helen island, had been settled. It is amazing that we cannot get from the minister, who is responsible for the world fair, a definite answer to the numerous questions that have been asked by the hon. members on this side of the house. I think it is most urgent that the government come to a decision and indicate clearly that the site that has been chosen is St. Helen island and Notre Dame island.
It was stated that according to the engineers' reports there was no real drawback, from an engineering point of view, to the site which the authorities of the city of Montreal consider as appropriate. In my opinion, the authorities of the city of Montreal have in that respect the support of the Quebec government.
This morning, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) whether under the 28902-5-120i
Supply-Trade and Commerce Navigable Waters Protection Act the world exhibition could be held on those islands. He did not give me any definite reply, but he said that he presumed that the requirements of the act in that respect had been complied with.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter which can be held up. When the previous government was in power, it took the necessary steps and, due to its efforts, Canada made a successful bid for the world exhibition. We know that it is only after Moscow refused to hold the world exhibition that Canada again submitted her application. And thanks to the dispatch of the federal government, Canada was successful in obtaining that it be held in our country.
One knows that preparations for an exhibition of that scope take years and that the authorities of the international exhibition bureau are greatly worried about the inexplicable, needless and ridiculous shilly-shallying shown by the government so far.
I understand that a meeting has now been held between the ministers interested and the municipal authorities. I hope that, following that meeting, the minister will inform the house, without delay, that a final decision has been reached, so that the last phase of the preparations can be undertaken right away. And there is no time to lose. If the government refuses to assume its responsibilities in that respect, I feel that we run the risk of losing the exhibition. It would be a real loss not only for the city of Montreal and the province but for the whole country. I know that the minister means well, and I hope that he will put pressure on his colleague the Minister of Public Works as well as on his other colleagues so that an intelligent decision can be reached as expected not only by the authorities of the city of Montreal but by all the people of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Rapp:: I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce presenting the estimates of his department. I was particularly pleased to note that he indicated our exports are still going up; so they are continuing the trend set in
1962.	He indicated also that there were prospects for an increase in some exports to other countries. I believe this situation results from the approach of the previous government to this very important aspect of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Last year was the first time for quite some period when our trade surplus amounted to nearly $700 million. This was a very good indication of economic conditions.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
However, my interest in this subject is mostly as a representative of an agricultural constituency, and my concern is mostly with agricultural imports and exports. I am particularly interested in the export of grain. Our exports over the last five years were quite a bit higher than the exports during the term of the previous Liberal government. This was a source of great satisfaction to all of our farmers. At the moment the situation does not look quite so good. I am not saying this has anything to do with the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, far from it. However, the prospects for a crop this year are extremely good. As a result of this, we may be faced with surplus grain. Since the Canadian wheat board comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the great concern of the people in the three western provinces.
I should like particularly to direct the minister's attention to one matter, and that is the quota system as it exists in our provinces. I have before me a little map which shows that my constituency of Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale is one that has hardly any areas on a 12-bushel quota. As a matter of fact, I did bring this to the attention of the minister earlier, and I am sure he will take steps to see what can be done about it. Of the 67 delivery points in my constituency, I find that there are about 50 that are on an eight- or ten-bushel quota and there are only 16 that are on a 12-bushel quota. This brings me to a point I raised not so long ago when I introduced a bill. I am not going to discuss that bill at the moment, but I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the great need for storage space in my area. Previous governments which investigated this situation were told that they could have grain terminals built in this area to expedite the export of grain through the port of Churchill.
At the moment grain exports through the port of Churchill are at a very low figure, amounting to approximately 20 million or 25 million bushels. My area is one of the closest to this port, being only about 600 miles from it. If we had a terminal in our area we could have expedited the export of grain through Churchill, thus alleviating not only the surplus position in which my constituency finds itself but also increase the total amount exported through this port. This is an important consideration because producers save approximately seven cents a bushel on grain which is exported through Churchill to Liverpool.
Another matter pertaining to the same problem is that in the very near future we will be faced with an abandonment of railroads. In my constituency many farmers will

be left without storage facilities because of this abandonment. All indications are that the crop this year will be very heavy and farmers in my constituency will not have storage space. Because of this, the terminal which I have suggested to the minister would be a great thing.
At present we have two government terminals, one in Saskatoon and the other in Edmonton, but over the years they have been used only to half their capacity. One reason is that during a surplus year private grain companies are reluctant to have grain stored at government terminals because they lose revenue on account of that. This is a very serious matter. I know I am not disclosing any new information to the minister, but in view of the seriousness of the matter I ask him to make strong representations to the government.
In conclusion I wish to say the farmers in my constituency are looking forward to an active approach in the selling of grain. During the past four or five years the previous minister in charge of the Canadian wheat board made very good efforts, as a result of which we were able to dispose of our surplus grain. With active efforts on the part of the present minister I believe markets can be found for our grain. If the right approach is taken, the minister will be able to see that more grain is sold to the customers we had over the last four or five years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Supply-Trade and Commerce With regard to the other two there, one was running at 50 per cent of capacity and the other was running at 55 per cent of capacity. There was one mill, I understand, in Goderich, Ontario, which was completely shut down, another in Peterborough which was completely shut down; there was a plant at Port Colborne with a capacity of 26,000 cwt. daily that last fall was operating at a rate of 7,000 cwt. daily, or something less than 30 per cent. At Keewatin there was one plant which was completely shut down, and another that was running only part time. In Winnipeg there was a mill being remodelled. It had a capacity of 7,000 cwt. daily before it was remodelled. I think it is back in operation now. Anyway, they cut their capacity back to 3,000 cwt. daily.
I am not going to read all the rest of the statistics, Mr. Chairman, but this is the pattern all across Canada. The flour mills that we have today are running at something below 50 per cent of their capacity. The point I want to impress upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and I am sure he is already aware of it-is that here we have a long established industry which did have traditional and what we considered to be reliable markets for its finished products. We find that other countries which are not in the business of producing the raw material for these mills have all gone ahead and built flour mills and have almost squeezed our secondary industry, if you want to call it that, out of business. I think it is important to take note of the fact that we grow the raw material here in Canada; that it is of the highest quality and is the most acceptable product grown any place in the world. Surely we ought to be able to take action and initiative so we can also change this raw material into the finished product that is used, and maintain our present markets and find new ones so we may at least keep the mills going that are already established.
There is one other trend, Mr. Chairman, that I think we must consider very carefully, and I would like to impress this upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As long as we are selling Canadian flour to any nation it is assumed, and I think it is pretty safe to assume, that we use 100 per cent Canadian wheat to produce that flour. But when we get into the position where we are exporting wheat to be milled in other countries and then transshipped to the ultimate consumer through international trade, we get ourselves into a less competitive position with regard to supplying the raw material.
I am a little disturbed about this. I said that I do not wish to take up a great deal of time now; but there have been cases where new mills have been established in

some of the countries to which we were supplying the flour. In the initial stages they bought from Canada the grain and the other additives that go into the finished product, but after these mills became established and got under way they began buying wheat from other nations in the world. Of course, this is actually drying up some of the traditional markets of our own grain farmers. I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that one of the things we as a country could do would be to give flour the same treatment as wheat; in other words, offer it on the international market on a long term credit basis, as we do for wheat in the wheat form. Another thing we could do would be to take some action along the same lines as have Germany, France and the United States in subsidizing the movement of flour into the export market.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up any further time of the committee at the moment. There has not been a great deal of publicity attached to the almost destruction of this industry, because it has been a gradual and slow undermining of our markets. A few years ago it was one of the most important export commodities we had in Canada, and today it is gradually sinking down so that many of the people who have had long established jobs and job security in this industry are having to be retrained, and look for jobs outside the industry. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will give us some idea as to what he plans to do to re-enhance Canada's position in this regard and make us more competitive in the international market.
I have just one other quotation I should like to take from the Northwest Miller of June 24, 1962. It points out that the calendar year 1962 was another post-war record year for the production of flour, with total exports of approximately 96.4 million hundredweight. That is the amount of flour which moved on to the export markets. So certainly there is more and more flour being traded, and the reason Canada is losing out is simply because we are not competitive in relation to other countries. I hope something can be done to re-establish the market for this very important industry.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to keep the committee very long. I am sorry to disappoint my old friend the Secretary of State who has been urging us to hurry up, but there are one or two things I would like to say on vote No. 1 in the hope that I may be able to elicit some comment on the points I intend to raise from the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

I am always a little disturbed when I hear public men, as I have been hearing them all my adult life, intone in almost reverent terms the phrase that Canada is a great trading nation. This is always good for a round of applause, of course, but very few people stop to consider just what the end result of having been a great trading nation may be. This morning the minister told us quite plainly that after many decades of being a great trading nation in our own estimation we are in this position, that we have been relying either on duty free or low duty agreements for the sale of our primary products, and that Canada is one of the world's largest importers of manufactured goods. In addition to that we have 60 per cent or more of our industry and resources owned by non-Canadians.
I think that in considering this whole question of trade we should first of all decide just what is our purpose in world trade. I think we have to distinguish between the purposes of the Canadian community as a whole and the purposes of certain Canadians. Obviously one has only to think for a moment or two to realize that there is only one purpose in external trade that we could have as a community, and that is to supplement our own economy. There would be no other purpose or gain that you and I as citizens of Canada could achieve from it. On the other hand there are Canadian citizens who do have another purpose, a much more narrow purpose though quite legitimate one, and that is the purpose of making money by the sale of Canadian primary products.
I believe a lot of our confusion arises from the rather careless use of terms. We speak of Canada's exports. To my knowledge there are only two classes of goods which come into that category. One is wheat, which has been dealt with quite extensively this afternoon and the suggestion made that the methods by which Canada sells wheat should now be extended to take in manufactured products as well; and the other commodity, of course, is uranium, which we are having some difficulty in selling. Apart from that we have the situation of a number of Canadians engaged in selling commodities on the world's markets.
I am fully aware of the theory, if it could be dignified as that, on the division of labour throughout the world. This, of course, is something one should aim at, at some time in the future. But I would point out that this question of trading on the world's markets cannot be considered in purely economic terms, or rather in the statistical economic terms in which it is usually considered. The world as a whole is not going to be able to meet its requirements for the goods of the
Supply-Trade and Commerce abundant life for the greatly increased population which every demographer tells us we can expect in the next 50 years, unless every part of the world is fully developed to its utmost capacity. And we are not going to do that so long as we stick out our chests and say that we are a great trading nation, overlooking the fact that what we are is a nation which has sold ever and ever greater proportions of its resources, both natural and manufactured, to non-residents. We are a nation which is dependant on a stream of exports of primary products with very little effort having been spent on the development of our secondary industries to satisfy the needs of our own people.
I think it is illuminating to realize the stage at which a nation decides that it is all in favour of free trade. I know that even to suggest that some qualification may be required about free trade is almost heresy, if not sacrilege. I know quite well there is something moral about free trade and something immoral about any obstacles in the way of free trade. It is rather curious how these moral attachments came about. I think we should remember that the concept of free trade arose in the Manchester school of liberalism within the sound of the whirring spindles of the Lancashire textile industry. It was a very sound proposition for those people. It is interesting to note that the United States of America, which has quite recently reached the position of having the most productive economy in the world, has now suddenly come to the conclusion that there is something moral in free trade on which she turned her back during the whole of her years of development. No economy was ever developed behind such high walls as that of the United States. The development has now taken place, and suddenly we find a new apostle for free trade.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Canada has to consider her position in the light of these developments. I do not think there can be much doubt that if a real liberalizing program of trade were to be undertaken with no holds barred, at the present time Canada would find herself in an increasingly difficult position; and unless at the same time we were taking steps to develop the economic facilities required for the satisfaction of as large a part of our own needs as possible, then we would be relatively in the same position as the undeveloped areas of the world about which the minister was speaking this afternoon. We should not be deceived by the fact that we are a fairly comfortable and affluent undeveloped area of the world. It is only a question of degree as between the position of Canadians and the positions of the inhabitants of the new emerging

Supply-Trade and Commerce countries in that they too are dependent entirely at the present time on the sale of raw materials and primary products in world markets, and are having the greatest difficulties in developing their own secondary industries.
I suggest, sir, as I said earlier, that it is absolutely essential that before we embark on any vast unlimited campaign of liberalization of trade we should keep in mnid the fact that the world is going to require something more from Canada than merely a storehouse of primary products; that the demands of the ever increasing world population are going to make it necessary for Canada and every other part of the world not yet properly developed to become developed to its fullest capacity in order to satisfy as much of its own needs as possible, and to place on the world's markets the surpluses which may accrue. I think that is our domestic problem.
I also think we share in another and perhaps more important world problem. My colleague from Danforth touched on it briefly earlier this afternoon and I should like to explore it a little further. It is the question of an expanding economy in a world in which exchange difficulties are becoming ever more critical and ever more frequent. I think we must bear in mind in fact that the two great reserve currencies of the world, the dollar and the pound, are now in a dangerously weakened position and may well become weaker still, unless some steps are taken in the international field to overcome this difficulty. My colleague made particular reference this afternoon to some comments which were made not long ago by Mr. Harold Wilson. Mr. Wilson was, of course, merely echoing the views of many other economists who have pointed out in recent years the dangers which lie ahead in the world today unless we can establish some better basis for international liquidity than the present international monetary fund. Unless that fund is enabled to move into a new sphere of activity as, in effect, an international central bank, we shall experience recurring exchange crises which will come about precisely as the developed areas of the world begin to expand. We shall find that the less developed areas of the world will not be able to develop secondary industries. They will find themselves with a continually declining price level for their primary products and will not be in a position to establish secondary manufacturing industries, because the price of being able to sell their primary products will be the acceptance of manufactured goods from the developed countries.
I should like to know whether the minister and his officials have given any thought to
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowiehan-The Islands) .1
this-whether there have been any discussions within the international monetary fund about this possibility. I should also like to know whether the minister and the government have given any thought to the possibility of abandoning, to some degree at least, the fixed rate of exchange established by the former government. This fixed rate of exchange also has serious danger attached to it in a period of economic expansion, and it seems to me that though it might not be practicable at the present time to abandon such a rate entirely, it should be possible at least to widen the band of fluctuation which would be permitted each side of the fixed rate. The present variation is, of course, one percentage point on each side of the fixed rate. I suggest that at the start the spread should be permitted to extend to, say, five percentage points on each side of the fixed rate. If this were done, many of the dangers and difficulties inherent in a fixed rate of exchange might be overcome. I am well aware, of course, that these matters do not come within the immediate purview of the Minister of Trade and Commerce but are questions for the consideration of his colleague, the Minister of Finance. None the less, they are inextricably bound up with these problems in international trade and I think the minister and his colleagues will have to consider them in laying any plans for Canada's future.
These are matters upon which, at some time, I would hope to hear the hon. gentleman's comments.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Rosthern. My hon. friend raised a matter which I should like to place before the minister this afternoon. It concerns the use of export credits in the export of Canadian products to various parts of the world, including South America. I think this particular market has proved to be of great value as a market for our manufactured goods and I wish to urge the minister to carry on the work of the former government by following an aggressive export trade policy.
Among the goods which have been exported to foreign countries are rails to Mexico from Sydney, Nova Scotia, electrical plants and railway rolling stock. The Montreal locomotive works has sold a number of diesel engines to Brazil, as also has General Motors. I have followed the course of events in this field in the hope that rolling stock would be sold by a company in my area, the Eastern Car Company which is one of the Hawker-Siddeley plants. It was expected that this firm would be able to sell a substantial quantity of rolling stock to Argentina, but

through no fault of the company or of the government circumstances developed as a result of which the deal fell through. A revolution took place in Argentina and it was not possible to complete the sale. A contract had been signed but political conditions made it impossible to carry out that contract.
I hear tell of the possibility of selling rolling stock in other parts of South America and also, perhaps, to the state of Israel. My reason for taking part in the discussion this afternoon is to remind the minister that the staff of his department are well versed in export credits procedures. They have done a good job in this field and I hope the department will carry on the aggressive policy adopted under the former minister. The loss of this $25 million order to the plant in my area was a serious matter. We had hoped that this order would inject new life into a labour-surplus area. I realize that each company must sell its goods in these various markets abroad. They must be able to compete with the products of other countries, as was the case in relation to this particular rolling stock. I hope the minister will cooperate with his colleague, the minister of external affairs, and that their officials stationed in countries abroad will do their best to assist our export trade. It is a matter in which we are all vitally interested, and we hope that the years to come will see as good progress made as in the last few years which have set a record in this regard.
Item stands.
28a. Canadian government travel bureau, $123,000.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I was pleased to hear in the hon. gentleman's introductory statement the comments he had to make on the activities of the Canadian government travel bureau.
I have also been pleased to note that since he assumed the portfolio he has shown a keen appreciation of the economic significance of the activities of this very important branch of government. I suppose I might term my remarks today somewhat of a swan song because up until last fall the branch was a part of the responsibility of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. At that time, largely because of the impressive upsurge in the tourist industry, the work of the Canadian government travel bureau was transferred back to the Department of Trade and Commerce. This was recognition, which I feel came far too late, of the economic value of this important activity.
It has not come about accidentally that tourism is now recognized as an important segment of Canada's economic activity. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the director of the bureau, the assistant director and the excellent staff associated 28902-5-121
Supply-Trade and Commerce with them. They have worked hard and diligently and have planned carefully over recent years with the objective in mind of making tourism the significant industry they have long realized it could become, provided it was given support by government.
During the past five years a deliberate program of tourist promotion was embarked upon. It was not only a matter of encouraging the activities of the travel bureau but also involved the co-ordination of all aspects of the Canadian economy which might be identified with the encouragement of the tourist industry, such as the construction of roads, the roads to resources program, the completion of the trans-Canada highway, the establishment of a network of air terminals adequate to meet the demands of modern air transportation, the development, refurbishing and expansion of our national parks system and the development of historic sites and monuments which are always major tourist attractions. We only have to point to the impact of the changing of the guard ceremony on parliament hill, which all hon. members recognize has become one of our major tourist attractions. Small business loans were another feature of this broad planning program to encourage the development of the tourist industry.
Then there is also the newly developed interest in that huge area north of the 60th parallel, northern Canada. Here too it has been recognized that the tourist industry is one of its major economic assets and as a result of the activities over the past years it can now be said that tourism in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory is their second most important industry.
As a result of these activities it can be said-in fact it has been stated many times- that the year 1962 can be designated as the year of the tourist. As the minister said in his opening remarks, for the first time dollar income from the tourist industry reached a level of more than half a billion dollars. Now we press on to the next five years and I am certain that the attitude displayed by the minister will ensure that the program announced at the federal-provincial tourist conference in Ottawa last October will be achieved. At that time it was estimated that by 1967 the tourist industry would realize a dollar income of $1 billion a year. This estimate was based on the continuing expansion and rapid upsurge last year and also on the impact that will be made by the celebration of Canada's centennial.
It is also predicated, of course, on the degree of success anticipated from Canada's invasion of a hitherto unexploited market, that of the United Kingdom and Europe. As

Supply

Trade and Commerce hon. members know, the decision was made last year to move into this market. We had a very auspicious opening in the city of London near Trafalgar square last September and already there has been an encouraging response from that initiative. I am delighted to see that the minister, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the government are going to continue the expansion in this encouraging market during the course of the present year.
As a matter of fact, I think I am correct when I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has brought forward the $1 billion target set for 1967 by one year and is now forecasting that we will reach that target in 1966. I heartily concur with him and I am sure he has come to that conclusion having had an opportunity to realize the tremendous progress that has been made in this economic activity and because he is now fully aware of the buoyancy of the Canadian economy in the last year. It even exceeds the expectations of the former government, and the fact that he is able to bring forward our forecast by one year indicates that he agrees that last year was an exceptional one for Canada in all respects.
One final word, Mr. Chairman. These things cannot be achieved without broad co-operation in many quarters. I have already referred to the quality of the staff of the Canadian government travel bureau. These men have established very cordial and friendly relations with the provincial departments. I think that one of the happiest contacts a federal minister can have with his provincial counterparts occurs during the annual federal-provincial conference on tourism. This is an atmosphere that has been cultivated over the years. The spirit of co-operation has been well established and is recognized as being important because tourism is important to all segments of Canada.
Then there are the activities of the Canadian tourist association, a voluntary group which has served Canada well in promoting this important industry. It has had such illustrious Canadians identified with it as John Fisher who is now in charge of Canada's centennial planning. I must commend the minister and the government for continuing the special grant of $37,000 which will make it possible for the Canadian tourist association to expand its important work in this area.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a word or two on tourism, the second largest industry in Canada. I have not spoken before on these estimates, but having in mind the importance of the tourist industry to western Canada and Canada as a whole I would feel that anyone who would permit the

vote to go through without having something to say on it would be indicating that he was not interested in it.
I do want to say to the minister that of all the industries that are dealt with by the Department of Trade and Commerce, there is none that is more important than the tourist industry. I say to the minister that within the Department of Trade and Commerce there are branches dealing with historic sites and monuments, battle monuments, and various branches dealing with particular aspects that attract tourists. It is my feeling that there should be closer co-ordination within the travel bureau of all these various activities of the government which are primarily directed towards sites to attract tourists. At the present time each branch has a policy of its own. They formulate policies of their own. One goes off in one direction and another goes off in another direction. Each one is subject to a certain amount of pressure to do this, that and the other thing. There should be closer co-ordination and an overall policy directed towards the attraction of tourists from all the corners of the world.
This concludes what I have in mind. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will carry out policies which the former government established in connection with matters of tourism and will also, in co-operation with the provinces, do everything possible to further this second largest industry in the Dominion of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a couple of questions I should like to ask in connection with the estimates of this department. However, I have a train to catch at a quarter to five, and it is the last one leaving for my constituency, to which it is my duty to go every week end. I think, in such circumstances, we might ask the minister to stand these estimates until Monday. However, perhaps we could solve the problem very quickly. The questions I wanted to ask the minister are almost all on the order paper and have to do with bilingualism.
How many employees are there in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and how many in each salary classification are bilingual? If the minister can assure me that we will have answers to these questions on the order paper within a short period of time, I would refrain from asking these questions today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I will be able to satisfy the hon. member on all of his points. However, I have two pieces of information that might be of some interest to him. I asked in the department how many French speaking employees we had, outside of the bureau of statistics. I find that there are 319. I asked also about the trade com-

missioner service in which I thought the hon. gentleman might have some special interest. Out of 174, I think there are 86 French speaking Canadians in the trade commissioner service.


Gilles Grégoire: I think one of the main questions asked, and the one in which I would be interested, was as to how many employees are in the department, and how many are bilingual. I did not necessarily want to know how many are French Canadians, but how many of the total number employed by the department are bilingual?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry; perhaps the hon. gentleman misunderstood. These 86 French speaking Canadians are bilingual. They can speak English as well. In the department as a whole, outside of the bureau of statistics, there are 319 who speak both English and French.


Gilles Grégoire: Out of how many, sir?


Mitchell William Sharp: Out of an establishment of 3,690.


Gilles Grégoire: Which would make that proportion about 10 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is about right.


Gilles Grégoire: I have another question concerning construction contracts-
(Translation):
-building, maintenance and repair contracts awarded by the minister. Could he tell us what is the total amount of these contracts and out of those how many have been awarded to French Canadian firms?


Mr. Pepin:: What contracts?


Gilles Grégoire: Contracts for the construction, maintenance and repair of buildings and other structures. Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us what percentage of those contracts has been awarded to French Canadian firms?
(Text):


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot give this information now. As a matter of fact, the Department of Trade and Commerce does not have many contracts of that kind. It is a rather minor part of our activities. Most of our buildings are provided for us by the Department of Public Works. The only kind of construction in which the department engages would be that in connection with trade fairs abroad or the world's fair, and so on.


Harold Edward Winch: I believe, sir, we are discussing item 28. I understand that this is the last administrative vote for this department, the balance being statutory. May I, therefore, ask the minister if he is prepared now, before this last vote carries, to make a statement on 28902-5-121i
Supply-Trade and Commerce some of the important issues that have been raised by members of the committee and some of the important questions which they have asked?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I am quite prepared.


Harold Edward Winch: It will be done now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if it would not be wise to complete the estimates in front of us and then, by unanimous consent, revert to the first item so that the minister might make a reply. We are so close to completing the estimates-we almost got through earlier than was intended, which would have embarrassed the house leader no end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a bit.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We do not want to make the mistake of being too co-operative. We are in the final stages of completing these estimates, and then we could revert to item 1 for the minister's reply.


Harold Edward Winch: This procedure is quite all right. I raised the question as a result of previous experience with the former government. When we had passed the administrative item, we could not get back to item No. 1 for a statement.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National energy board-
30. Administration, $634,000.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the minister would say a few words of explanation concerning the work of the national energy board? I am exercising great restraint today by not making a speech on the estimates of this department, including the national energy board. I should like to hear something about it.


Mitchell William Sharp: The national energy board is now in its fourth year of operation. Its functions may be classified broadly as regulatory and advisory, and the general nature of its activities is reflected in the make up of its personnel which are predominantly professional and technical.
On the regulatory side, the board is interested in the interprovincial and international movement of hydrocarbons by pipe line and the exportation of electrical power. Its regulatory functions may be divided into classes of action which are quasi judicial, in that they establish or vary rights and interests in property and those which are administrative.
The quasi judicial functions include the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for international power lines and for interprovincial and international pipe lines for the transmission of oil and gas; the

Supply-Trade and Commerce issuance of licences for the exportation and importation of gas and the exportation of electrical power; the authorization of pipe line companies to expropriate land; the authorization of crossings by or of pipe lines; and the regulation of the traffic, tolls and tariffs of pipe lines under its jurisdiction.
It might be of interest to the house to know that last year the board held 11 public hearings which resulted in the issuance of certificates and licences. In addition the board is empowered to approve the construction of certain pipe lines and pipe line facilities by exempting such construction from certificate proceedings, and in this connection the board issued 18 such orders for gas and oil pipe line facilities. Some 98 orders were issued under various other regulatory sections of the National Energy Board Act.
The regulatory functions of an administrative character include those having to do with the protection of public safety as it may be affected by pipe lines, and the miscellaneous matters involved in ensuring that pipe line companies under the jurisdiction of the board comply with the terms of their acts of incorporation and with the provisions of the act. The staff of the board conducts field inspections relating to the safety of pipe lines under its jurisdiction. One of the chief provisions of the act relating to safety has to do with the issuance of crossing orders, and in this connection last year the board issued some 295 such orders. In addition the board issued 28 leave-to-open orders for pipe lines under its jurisdiction. The board is currently participating in the work of a Canadian standards association committee to establish a Canadian code for the design, construction and operation of oil and gas pipe lines.
An increasing portion of the board's responsibility relates to its advisory functions under part II of the act, which charge the board with studying and keeping under review all matters relating to energy falling within the jurisdiction of this parliament. In pursuance of this obligation, the board has continued the preparation of detailed supply and demand forecasts relating to energy, and indeed just today I authorized the publication of a short term forecast. In co-operation with other agencies of government it has endeavoured to establish more comprehensive and more accurate statistical series for energy. It has been engaged in the preparation of a short term energy forecast, in the course of which it has consulted federal and provincial agencies and industry groups.
The board has participated in arrangements for studies of a national power grid and in studies of the feasibility of developing certain remote hydroelectric power resources. The advisory work of the board will be intensified

as we move further in the development of joint energy studies with the United States, concerning which I reported to the house a short time ago.
I mentioned a moment ago the regulatory function of the board in connection with tolls and tariffs relating to the operation of pipe lines under the board's jurisdiction. To prepare itself for any formal action which it might be called upon to take in this respect, the board has prepared and prescribed uniform classification of accounts for gas and oil pipe line companies, which provide uniformity in accounting practices and which facilitate the board's review of the financial records of companies under its jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. That concludes the items of estimates for the Department of Trade and Commerce. Shall we by consent revert to item No. 1?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you going to take the supplementaries?


Lucien Lamoureux: The supplementaries have been passed. Shall we return to item No. 1 for purposes of discussion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates and $25,000 for grants to promote industrial design, $5,288,800.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I take this opportunity to thank hon. members for their contributions to the discussion of these estimates and for their kind words, which are greatly appreciated by a new minister. I should like to comment on the remarks of various speakers in reverse order, which may not suit hon. members who spoke first, but which will help me in recalling what they said.
I attempted to answer some of the questions put to me by the hon. member for Lapointe. The hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris made some comments about the importance of the tourist industry, with which I am in full agreement. I would like to thank the former minister, who at one time had responsibility for the Canadian travel bureau, for his words of encouragement, and also to commend him for the work that he did in promoting the tourist industry in this country when that bureau was under his jurisdiction. I can assure him that I took over the travel bureau in excellent shape. I do hope we shall be able to carry forward its work and that we shall attain those objectives which I stated, and which

I hope will result in there being even greater encouragement to the tourist industry than under his administration.
I might add that I had the privilege, when I was in London, of visiting the travel bureau office which is just off Trafalgar square. Perhaps the house will be interested to know that the results of the new efforts made to promote the tourist trade in the United Kingdom, have been excellent. The travel bureau inserted a series of advertisements for the first time in United Kingdom newspapers, promoting travel to Canada, and in the first week received 10,000 inquiries, which was really a very remarkable result from a single series of advertisements.
The hon. member for Pictou referred to the importance of export credits, and I want to say to him that the government is fully aware of the importance of making export credits available, particularly for the export of those heavy industrial goods that he was talking about. I hope he will not think I am speaking too politically when I say it was under the previous Liberal administration that these policies were first introduced and developed, and I am happy that these initial efforts, which proved successful at the time, have been carried forward. I hope we shall continue to expand our exports and that these credit facilities will help us in that respect.
I am also conscious, of course, of the importance of the South American market. I happen to have spent some time in Brazil when I was in private business, and I am aware of the tremendous potential. I am also aware of the great difficulties of doing business in those countries, and about the importance therefore of having credit facilities to enable those countries to go on purchasing goods from abroad during their period of rapid development.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made a very interesting series of comments about trade policy. I shall not attempt to answer all his arguments, but I would like to put forward a few comments upon the thesis or theses that he presented. First of all he said that I, like so many other speakers, had spoken about Canada being a great trading nation. He somehow felt that this had been said too many times.
I do not think it can be said too many times, and may I suggest to him the reason I said it, and this I draw particularly to his attention, is that we have a high standard of living because we are a great trading nation. This is the reason that 18 million people are able to exploit the resources of Canada so efficiently. Because we have foreign markets to which we can sell the surplus we
Supply-Trade and Commerce create, we have our high standard of living, the second or third highest among the countries of the world.
He also spoke about the desirability of promoting industrialization. The reason I as Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the government as a whole, are profoundly interested in the success of the trade negotiations that are about to begin, is that we believe it is only through successful trade negotiations that we shall be able to achieve the kind of industrialization we all want to have in this country.
One of the main reasons this country is an exporter of primary materials and foodstuffs to such a high degree is the structure of foreign tariffs. It is because in the United States there are very high tariffs against manufactured goods and very low tariffs against raw materials and foodstuffs. The purpose of the trade negotiations that are under way today, as far as we are concerned, is to reduce those high tariffs on manufactured goods so that Canadian manufacturers have an opportunity of getting into foreign markets with their products, not only in the United States but in Europe and Britain. I really am quite surprised that the hon. member should be guilty of the sort of interpretation of history that he gave, because I would have thought, to judge from some of his other remarks, that he might have a rather more sophisticated view of these matters. But I suggest to him that the reason the United States developed as a great manufacturing nation was not because of the external tariffs around that country but because of the existence within that country of the world's greatest common market. The United States is still the world's greatest common market. It is because, when those 13 colonies were formed, they decided to form a common market that the United States today has become the greatest industrial nation in the world. It is not because of their external tariffs; it is because of the lack of internal tariffs among the states.
The other point I would like to emphasize -and this arises not only in connection with What the hon. gentleman said but in connection with what has been said by other hon. members-is that no one on this side of the house has ever proposed that Canada should enter into unlimited trade negotiation.
In the statement I made to the house after returning from London and Geneva I made it quite plain that Canada was going to bargain for access to foreign markets, for which we were willing to pay equivalent value. Our negotiating position is that we will pay for what we get. This, surely, is the essence of anyone's bargaining position and it must

Supply-Trade and Commerce be the position that is taken by Canada. We did not accept for Canada the pattern of trade concessions that the United States is proposing or that Britain is willing to accept or, we hope, that the European common market is willing to accept. We said that would not be suitable for Canada, and therefore we insisted upon the resolution on which these negotiations are based containing a clause which says that countries in our position shall offer concessions of equivalent value, not necessarily of a linear character.


Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might interrupt the minister and ask him a question at this time. A few moments ago he suggested that Canada's aim should be to get other countries to lower their tariffs against manufactured goods in order that our manufacturers could get into those markets. On the basis of what he now calls negotiating equivalents, does he feel that Canada also will have to give away something of a similar nature; and what adjustment will have to be made by some Canadian industries to compensate for gains of other Canadian industries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West was last on my list and I would not have reached the point he made in his earlier comments until a little later. I can say at this time that until we know how far the United States, Britain and Europe will go in reducing tariffs on a linear basis we will not know how many benefits we have to buy. Therefore it is very difficult for me to answer the question directly. All I do say to him is that I think we shall have to make some concessions, but they will be concessions that will be matched by benefits available in foreign markets.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made some comments about Canada's rate of exchange. May I suggest to him, Mr. Chairman, that for a minister of the crown to discuss the rate of exchange is something like revealing budget secrets.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat made some interesting observations about the flour milling industry. I wish to assure him that I have had representations from the flour milling industry along similar lines and that the government is fully aware of the problem, which arises in the main from the export subsidies being paid by the United States. By way of encouragement, however, may I put on the record one point that shows that the Canadian flour milling industry is in fact competitive on a commercial basis. It is noteworthy that Canadian commercial exports, which totalled the equivalent of 30 million bushels of wheat last year, continue to exceed

commercial exports from the United States.
I have a table before me which shows that apart from non-commercial exports made by the United States under its assistance programs, United States exports have declined from the equivalent of 53 million bushels of wheat in 1957-58 to 22 million bushels in 1961-62, whereas Canadian commercial flour exports have declined from 36.8 million bushels to 30.2 million. So that in fact our commercial flour exports have been better sustained than have those of the United States.
To my hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale I am tempted to read a letter I received today, a copy of one that has been sent to him by the Canadian wheat board, which I hope will help satisfy him with regard to his problems in connection with quotas. Perhaps he has not received it. It has come to me by telex, and it is dated July 3. I hope the information contained in this letter will show him, first, that I have been, as I promised, willing to place before the wheat board his particular problems and, second, the prompt way in which they have been dealt with.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue spoke about the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with the world trade fair. Our responsibility in the department relates to the Canadian exhibit at this fair. It does not relate to the fair as a whole, either to the selection of the site or to any of these other matters; it relates to the building of the Canadian exhibit.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, my remarks were made in the hope that the minister would make the necessary representation to his colleagues in order that definite action can be taken on the choice of a site, so that we do not lose this fair that is very important to Canada's trade.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the hon. gentleman that I will be glad to do so, although I do not really think my colleague needs to have the matter drawn to his attention at the moment. It seems to me that there are other people outside this house who have brought the matter forcibly to his attention.
The hon. gentleman for Rosthern made a number of comments. There is only one on which I will take time to comment. He asked me about "buy Canadian" programs. I would like to suggest to him that the emphasis ought to be on "sell Canadian goods" rather than on "buy Canadian goods". I feel that if we place the emphasis on this direction we can achieve much more than by suggesting we ought to discriminate in our buying among suppliers. The hon. gentleman from Vancouver East gave Canadian industry a lecture

about their responsibilities in the promotion of trade. I really do not think that it is appropriate for a Canadian minister of the crown to lecture Canadian businessmen on their own businesses. I believe it is the function of the Department of Trade and Commerce to assist Canadian businessmen. I do not believe I ought to be going around the country exhorting Canadian businessmen to act in their own interests in promoting trade, and I do not intend to. I intend to make available to businessmen for their use the facilities of the Canadian government. I intend from time to time to encourage them to exploit the opportunities which I hope will be opened up as a result of negotiations, and encourage them to exploit the opportunities now available. But I do not think I should tell businessmen that they do not know how to run their own businesses. I believe that Canadian producers will respond to the new opportunities that will emerge from these trade negotiations, and as evidence I could produce many recent instances where Canadian businessmen have been successful in breaking into new export markets.
The hon. member for Vancouver East referred to the Lagos international trade fair. My department has told me that of the 40 Canadian companies displaying their goods, nine sent company sales executives from Canada to man their exhibits. Twelve more Canadian manufacturers arranged to have agents in Nigeria staff their exhibits during the fair, and ten hired Nigerian university students to handle inquiries which were received. As a result of this most of the booths were adequately manned for the duration of the fair.


Harold Edward Winch: If that is so I never saw them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the best indication of the results achieved by Canadian participation in the Nigerian trade fair is that our exports to that country more than doubled in 1962, when goods valued at nearly $7 million were shipped as compared with less than $3.5 million for the previous year.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a question. Is he referring to the Canadian trade fair held in January and February last year, or to the international trade fair held last November?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am talking about the Nigerian international trade fair held from October 27 to November 20, 1962, which was a followup to the Canadian solo trade fair held in that country in January 1962. I am speaking directly to the question raised by the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, if I may use some non-metric language, gave us pounds and miles and
Supply-Trade and Commerce acres of good sense on the subject of the metric system. I have just one comment to make, and it is a very practical one. The hon. gentleman has a logical mind like so many of his French Canadian colleagues. The problem Canadian producers face is that they have to produce goods in a form that can be sold abroad successfully. Therefore I do not think that a country like Canada can make more rapid progress toward a metric system than do our principal customers, the United Kingdom and the United States. That does not mean that it would not be sensible to move toward a metric system, but I think it places some limitation on the rate at which we can proceed.
I now come to the remarks made by the hon. member for Danforth. I should like to comment on one point he made: An apparent conflict between economic planning and freer trade. My view, and I am sure it is the view shared by all those who have had some practical experience in these matters, is that for a country like Canada that is so heavily dependant upon trade, and likely to remain heavily dependant upon trade, economic planning must take into account the realities of our international position. Any idea that there is a conflict between these two objectives is, I think, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of true economic planning, or upon a misunderstanding of our position in the world. There is and can be no conflict. These two objectives of planning our activities and promoting trade must go hand in hand, so I really do not think that most of what he said really bore on the problem that faces our country today.
He also made some statements to the effect that I did not make a good case for freer trade. Perhaps I did not. I will grant that. However, as I said in replying to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I do believe that the objective of the round of trade negotiations which is just about to begin is to promote the industrialization of Canada. The case for freer trade is that it enables us to raise our standard of living. Otherwise we would not engage in it. We are not doing this because of adherence to any Manchester school or because we have any predilections for any particular economic theory. We are doing it for good practical reasons, namely to promote the welfare of Canadians.
Now, I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West who opened the discussion. While I did not deal in my opening remarks with more than one subject, it was not because I could not have spoken all day about the activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I wish to assure him that as

Supply-Trade and Commerce minister I intend to carry forward the work of trade promotion just as actively as the work of trade negotiation and policy. I have been reviewing the activities of the department over the past few years, during which time some very good work was done in the field of trade promotion. But you cannot go on doing the same things over and over again, and it will be my objective to adapt the trade promotion program of the department to meet the needs of the coming year, and not to copy the program of previous years. I intend to have regional trade conferences across the country. These will differ in form, perhaps differ in membership. I intend to continue the promotion of trade through international conferences, but perhaps not in exactly the way it was done before. There were some weaknesses in the previous programs as well as some very strong points. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that the work of trade promotion will be carried on just as actively, and perhaps even more effectively, than in the past.
I do not agree with the hon. gentleman that the failure of the United Kingdom to enter the European common market has made the current negotiations abortive. I think it would have been better if Britain had been able to negotiate herself successfully into the European common market. Then there would have been even greater scope for trade negotiations under the Kennedy round. There are nevertheless great opportunities still available. The best evidence of that is that the strongest advocates of the Kennedy round are not the Americans but the British. At the Geneva talks the United Kingdom said that they were prepared to go as far as any other country in the world in linear tariff cuts. They took this view for obvious reasons. Not having joined the common market by negotiation they now want to reduce the tariff barriers against them in Europe, in the United States and in all other countries. So this could be a very important round of tariff negotiations and I believe we should, as I said, do everything possible to ensure that the negotiations succeed.
Finally, the hon. gentleman spoke about the value of expanding our trade with the Caribbean. I should like to agree with him. This is an area in which we have had traditional ties over many years. It is an area of great potential and one in which Canada has already done some very useful things. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the extent of our trade relations with this area. In 1961, for example, we imported from the British West Indies $84 million worth of goods, mainly sugar and bauxite. This is one of the largest exports of that area; we are one of its biggest customers. Our exports to that

area were somewhat less. So this is an area which is dependant upon Canada and it is one in which we can take advantage of the good will and of the excellent relations which have existed in the past to develop even closer trade to the mutual benefit of both the West Indies and ourselves. We have trade commission offices in Kingston, Jamaica, and Port of Spain. We are sending an appliance and houseware mission to visit Barbados and Trinidad during October and November of this year. This is part of the program of promoting better relations and closer ties with that area. Over the last five years we have granted $2 million in aid, and $2 million have been requested for 1963-64 to supply economic assistance. Many Canadian teachers and technical advisers have gone to that area. I expect that more will go. I could give many more instances of the influence of Canada in that area.
I would like to conclude by saying once again how much I have appreciated the cooperation of the committee this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Translation):
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In order tc allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise, report progress of some resolutions and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Text):
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if before you proceed to any other item of business, Mr. Speaker, the house will permit me to say just a word. I want first of all, to thank all hon. members for the wonderful co-operation we have had today. In the second place, I wonder if I might be permitted, because of an engagement which I have, to announce the business for next week or for the part of next week I am in a position to announce it for, that is Monday and Tuesday. I have explained to hon. gentlemen opposite why I do not want to go beyond that at the moment.
There is, I think, general understanding that on Monday we would take the two resolutions pertaining to the two northwest territories. The debate will be very brief and we do not intend to proceed beyond the resolution stage and the first reading of the bills. The reason is that certain arrangements

of long standing have been made-the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, in particular, will be familiar with them. There is a meeting of the Northwest Territories council arranged for next week and the commissioner is anxious to have the bills available for consideration by the council because of important constitutional developments which are likely to result from these bills. So if there could be an understanding that perhaps one speaker from each party would take part in the debate, so that we might get these things through in a reasonable time, it would be the government's desire to go ahead with those items.
Then we intend to take the Atlantic development board bill and the economic council bill. If there should be any other item required before Tuesday is over we would call the resolution respecting the Department of Agriculture. I should like to confer with hon. gentlemen opposite some time on Tuesday with respect to the business for the rest of the week.
Having announced the business for Monday and Tuesday, I wonder if the house would consider the desirability of forgoing the private members' hour today and adjourning. We have in this building as a guest with us the prime minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies. I understand a reception is being given for this distinguished visitor who first visited Canada and spoke in this house 22 years ago-there is nothing significant about the 22 years. It occurred to me that since we have accomplished so much in the last two days perhaps hon. members would like to have the opportunity of meeting the prime minister of Australia for a little longer. I just put forward this suggestion realizing it would need unanimous consent.


Mr. Nowlan:: As far as we are concerned we would be very happy to adjourn and give all hon. members an opportunity to meet this distinguished visitor who is an old friend of Canada. The hour is rather late and it would be awkward for some hon. members to stay here too long, so I think it might be helpful if we were to adjourn as soon as possible.


Mr. Patterson:: We in this group would be quite amenable to accepting the suggestion made by the Secretary of State.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to take this opportunity of speaking on behalf of our group and to express our agreement with the suggestion which has been made. I do so for two reasons. I have had the honour of meeting the prime minister of Australia both in Canada and in Australia. The second reason is that I happen to be half kangaroo, my
Supply-Items Passed
mother having been born in Australia. That is why I sought the privilege of rising on behalf of this group to accept the suggestion which has been made.



PRIVILEGE


Mitchell William Sharp: May I be permitted to rise on a question of privilege? I gave an answer today which was incorrect and I would like to take the earliest possible opportunity to correct it. When I was asked by the hon. member for Lapointe how many bilingual employees there were in the department I gave the figure accurately, 318, but I said that was excluding the dominion bureau of statistics. When I gave the figure for the total number of employees in the department, I gave a figure which included the bureau of statistics. The correct figures are: 318 bilingual employees in the Department of Trade and Commerce, excluding the dominion bureau of statistics, out of 1,860.
On motion of Mr. Pickersgill the house adjourned at 5.22 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
1.	Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates and $25,000 for grants to promote industrial design, $5,288,800.
Trade commissioner service-
5.	Administration and operation, $6,011,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $68,000.
15. Exhibitions branch, $1,429,900.
20. Standards branch, $3,026,800.
25.	Dominion bureau of statistics including the fee for membership in the inter-American statistical institute, a contribution of $500 to the international statistical institute and a grant of $30,000 to assist in defraying the expenses of the 1963 international statistical institute conference to be held in Canada, $11,328,900.
26.	1961 decennial census of Canada, $1,122,200.
28. Canadian government travel bureau-to assist
in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $37,000 to the Canadian tourist association (formerly under northern affairs and national resources), $3,656,300.
B-General-
National energy board-
30. Administration, $634,000.
A-Department-
General administration-
10a. Trade commissioner service-construction or acquisition of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $80,000.
17a. Canadian participation in the universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967, $130,000. 28a. Canadian government travel bureau, $123,000.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, July 8, 1963