1964-10-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise on a question of privilege under rather painful and unusual circumstances. My question of privilege refers to an article in the Chronicle-Herald of October 7 which reads as follows: under the heading "Suggests Age Limit for MPs",
No member of parliament should be allowed to be in the Commons for more than 10 or 12 years, and no person over 60 should be a member, Douglas Fisher, New Democratic party member for Port Arthur, said Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The article continues:
Mr. Fisher, 45, now in his eighth year in the Commons, was speaking to the Canadian club here. He said that if men over 60 were eliminated from the Commons a breath of fresh air would be let in.
I trust there is some inaccuracy in this report. There may be. But if it is correct I rise on a question of privilege because I consider these remarks to be a reflection on the contribution by many experienced, mature and competent members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MR. GREGOIRE-ENGLISH SPEAKING CONDUCTORS ON OTTAWA-MONTREAL TRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege on my own behalf and also on behalf of all French Canadian members of this house.
Yesterday afternoon I received a visit from a few students from the University of Montreal and, while they were in my office I did my best to convince them that bilingualism was making headway within the federal government and the crown corporations. In fact I almost had them convinced that considerable progress had been achieved in that field.
However, a few minutes later with the same students I boarded the 5.20 p.m. C.N. train which runs between Ottawa and Montreal, two cities with a very large proportion of French speaking people. However, I was most disappointed and humiliated when I noticed that the two conductors on that train did not speak a single word of French. Needless to say, I was subjected to the sarcasm of those students whom I had tried to convince that bilingualism was growing within crown corporations. They were especially critical about the Quebec members of parliament who, they said, were making no headway in their representations to the federal government. Such representations, they said, were merely a subject of derision.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister to have an inquiry made in that respect so that steps may be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a situation.



MR. CHAPDELAINE-LETTERS ON HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY FROM DEFEATED CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Agreed.\n[Editor's note: For text of letters referred to above see appendix.]"]
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, although the matter is of general interest to all members.
Recently the defeated Conservative candidate in Sherbrooke county during the 1962 general election, has sent, as still do most Quebec Conservative members, to someone in Sherbrooke county, a letter of congratulations. This is something I have no objection to. However, this letter was typed on a House of Commons letterhead and was placed in an envelope also bearing the House of Commons heading. The letter is addressed to Mr. Robert Delisle, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Quebec. It reads as follows:
Dear Robert. May I join your parents and friends to congratulate you warmly for the Molson trophy you won at the golf tournament of Sherbrooke University. I wish you a great success in your studies and a very brilliant career. My best wishes are with you. Sincerely. Maurice Allard, Member of Parliament for Sherbrooke from 1958 to 1982, present secretary of Hon. Leon Balcer.

Water Levels and Pollution
Mr. Speaker, I think that the paper placed at the disposal of the members of the House of Commons is not intended to be used by defeated members or candidates. I am ready to table this letter so that all the hon. members might see it.
1 would like this matter to be referred to the privileges and elections committee to find out who supplies Mr. Maurice Allard, former member of parliament for Sherbrooke, with the stationery he uses to promote his nomination or his popularity in view of the next general election.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no motion to this effect, I can only proceed with the business before the house.



Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to inform the house that the governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to place jointly before the international joint commission a reference on the level of waters of the great lakes. I also wish to inform the house that the governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to place jointly before the international joint commission a reference on pollution in the great lakes. In view of the interest which the house has taken in these matters it may be the wish of the house that these references, which are in the form of letters written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the international joint commission, be printed as an annex to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to this method of proceeding and to printing these letters as an annex to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letters referred to above see appendix.]



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that a deficiency payment of 2 cents per dozen will be paid on eggs marketed during the price support year ending Sep-
[Mr. Chapdelaine.l
tember 30, 1964. Payments will commence at the end of this week.
The national weighted average price received by producers for grade A large size eggs for the 12 month period was 32 cents per dozen, or 2 cents below the support price of 34 cents. Producers are eligible to receive the deficiency payment on grade A extra large, grade A large and grade A medium size eggs, to a maximum of 4,000 dozen. Based on 1961 census information, it is estimated that the full year's production of about 95 per cent of the egg producers is less than the 4,000 dozen eligibility limit.
Total payments will approximate $14 million.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered by Hon. Eric W. Kierans, the Quebec revenue minister and one time president of the Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges, regarding the floating of the $60 million security issue in Canada by the Union Carbide corporation. Does he agree with Mr. Kierans when he says that this action will have a serious adverse effect on the Canadian balance of payments, and would he tell the house what ideas he has as to the steps which are to be taken to prevent the prejudicial effects of things like this in the future?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the speech referred to has not been brought to my attention. As to the last part of the question, I hope more Canadian subsidiaries of foreign concerns will follow the example of Union Carbide.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he agrees with Mr. Kierans, who took a pot shot at the mentality of this government, when he said that if there are any more deals like Union Carbide in this country we will have a balance of payments problem all over again very soon.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is taking pot shots at whom, but I do not agree with the allegation of my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked about what Mr. Kierans said.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding a story which appears in this morning's issue of a Toronto newspaper concerning a Jamaican nurse's aid who came to Canada from England about a year ago and who has been denied permission to bring her two children. The ground given by the special immigration inquiry officer was that these children were illegitimate. He is quoted as having said that Jamaicans were not allowed to enter Canada if they had children who were born out of wedlock. I want to ask the minister if the decision in this case, which was heard last Friday by the immigration appeal board, has been upheld and, if so, would the minister not agree with the statement made in this newspaper report that this whole business smacks of injustice?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as my attention was drawn to the events which took place in Toronto with regard to Miss Daisy Maud Henry, I asked my officials to supply full particulars on the case.
First of all, I would like to say that all the proceedings instituted in Toronto, either at the time of the inquiry or at the time of the appeal, were based solely on the fact that when Miss Henry filed her application for admission to Canada she failed to mention that she had two children. All subsequent proceedings were of a technical nature and dealt with the fact that Miss Henry is alleged to have made a false statement, which effect was to disqualify her for admission to Canada.
Now at no time was action taken by the investigating officers, or by the court of appeal, which might lead to believe that Miss Henry was being discriminated against in any way.
On the other hand, the newspaper Globe and Mail reported certain statements made by some high official of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I admit that if these words were spoken about a person who is not of the white race, the matter is very serious and, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I shall see to it that the official concerned, if in fact he did say these words,
Inquiries of the Ministry bears the consequences of such an attitude toward a person who is not of the white race.
Let me say then that the case was judged by a court of appeal and that it has now reached my office. In my capacity of minister I shall be able to use my discretion in reaching a final decision in the case of Miss Henry..


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is correct that this lady is to be deported from Canada because she made a declaration in which she failed to mention the fact that she had two illegitimate children in England, will the minister exercise his discretionary power to reverse the order of the appeal board deporting her from Canada?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.. member is aware, the minister, under the Immigration Act, has the power to reverse the decision of the court of appeal.
Also, besides the technical aspect where there was a false statement, surely there are other factors the minister must take into account when considering the problem. For instance, the fact that this person now wishes to settle in the country, bring her children, over and get married. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds, the minister will have to take into account some other factors and that, in-the interest of the country and of the family involved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question I should like to direct, to the right hon. Prime Minister, asking him whether it is not time to introduce amendments to the Immigration Act to end the state of affairs under which the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is a law unto itself, by providing for the right of appeal against decisions of this department to the legitimate courts of the land?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting all the observations made by my hon. friend about the department of immigration, I agree that it would be desirable, as has been stated more than once in this house by this government, to make some changes in the Immigration Act. I hope the time will come when we will be able to do that, after completing the business now before the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister as yet received the report of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick concerning the custody of persons held on immigration charges and appeal procedures?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive lately any report on Mr. Sedgwick's activities.
I simply know that Mr. Sedgwick had to go to England for a few weeks and that he will be back in the country on October 15. With the co-operation of my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), I hope to receive Mr. Sedgwick's report by the end of November at the latest.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are two members who wish to ask supplementaries, first the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and second the hon. member for Royal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, mine is related to the previous question. Does the minister intend to table the report or to make it public when it is received from Mr. Sedgwick?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I will be very glad to table the report in the house so as to permit all the hon. members to look into it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider the possibility, as was urged at an earlier time, of establishing a committee of the house to study and discuss the ramifications of the Immigration Act so that situations like this Jamaican case can be dealt with by law and not by discretion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that question.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While we


are talking about immigration, is the Prime Minister willing to consider the fact that the immigration department is at the moment helping or paying Canadian citizens to go and establish themselves in the United States?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. He said he hoped to be able to do this when we get the business now before the house completed. I put this question to him. Has there really been a serious study and review of the law and regulations governing immigration matters, and is there now legislation ready to put on the order paper in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been a serious study made, Mr. Speaker, quite as serious as was made between 1958 and 1963 and with better chances of results.


Mr. Starr:: Are we ever political today. [Translation]


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. minister a question.
A while ago when I asked another question some members thought I was referring to Mr. Hanks.
Could the minister tell the house why the Canadian government is spending money to make people come to Canada, while in the Thetford area money is being spent to pay the expenses of Canadian citizens who are leaving Canada to settle in the United States?
Why does not the government spend money to help those Canadian citizens settle right here in Canada?
Will the minister inquire as to where this money comes from? Will he also amend the law to remove these anomalies?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member is extremely vague. If he could give me further information in this respect, I would be very glad to make an investigation in order to determine to what extent my department may be concerned by the incident to which he referred.


Raymond Langlois: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.

[Later:}


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has set up a committee of cabinet to study the Immigration Act and the general procedures followed under it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This important matter is under continuous consideration, and there is a cabinet committee dealing with it.


Edward Nasserden: Could the Prime Minister supplement the reply he gave to my question by telling us who are the members of the cabinet committee studying the Immigration Act, so that if hon. members have suggestions to make they can send them on?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Send them to the minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand the hon. member is asking for the names of the members of the cabinet committee which is studying this subject. It is not customary to give publicity to the membership of cabinet committees and I do not think this custom should be broken.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CASES OF GREEK SEAMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It has to do with some 12 or 15 Greek seamen who have been convicted of illegal entry into Canada and have appeals coming up in Toronto. I refer particularly to the case of one Elios Veitsas. Is the minister not of the opinion that these people, good potential citizens, should be given the opportunity to settle in our country regardless of the circumstances under which they entered Canada? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that the officials contend that the minister has given instructions that the appeals of these people should be opposed with all the force at the command of counsel appointed by the government. Those are the words that are given to me. Will the minister not reconsider this matter, inasmuch as these men have been in jail for a couple of months, they want to come into Canada, and are good potential citizens? Rather than persecuting them should we not encourage them?


René Tremblay: 1 am quite astonished at the statement which was made a few moments ago by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to the effect that legal advisers are instructed by officials of the department to be as strict as possible in every case brought to court.
Inquiries of the Ministry
On the contrary, I think that officials of the department and legal advisers should merely ensure that justice be meted out to all citizens of this country and that existing laws are respected.
Respecting the attitude of the minister and the persons who enter this country legally, normal proceedings are provided for by the law. An appeal may be made before a court, and a final appeal may be made to the minister under the Immigration Act.
I wish to assure the members of this house that every time I must exercise the prerogatives granted to me by parliament, I exercise them in the interests of the country and of any immigrant who may be an asset to Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the
minister what he means by "in the best interests of the country". In particular I ask him whether he instructed the officials that these appeals were to be opposed, to use the expression that is before me, "with all severity". I would also ask him to look into the case of Elios Veitsas, this 19 year old sailor whose brother lives in Toronto, and who has been subpoenaed to appear on October 15. [Translation]


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, at the right hon. Leader of the Opposition's request, I shall be pleased to investigate this particular case in order to establish what procedure was followed; however, the principles I mentioned a while ago still stand.



HAL BANKS-REVOCATION OF LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I shall be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister considered the provisions of section 3(b) of the Immigration Act, which are mandatory and which have the effect of revoking Canadian domicile in such a case as that of Hal Banks? If so, and if he feels that this section applies as I do, is the hon. gentleman now considering the revocation of the landed immigrant status granted to Banks?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed checked this section and, a few weeks ago the department authorized all immigration officers in the country, if by chance
8888	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Banks appeared at some immigration office, to immediately make an inquiry in order to ascertain whether Mr. Banks' departure from the country affected his Canadian domicile. If, in fact, Mr. Banks left the country to reside abroad, on a permanent basis, under the Immigration Act this may affect his Canadian domicile, and then he may no longer be admittable to Canada unless he can claim admittance under other sections of the act.


Erik Nielsen: Since the provisions of section 3(b) are mandatory, does the minister not feel he should apply those provisions to the case of Mr. Banks?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker. An inquiry has to be made first.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last week I asked a question related to Cyprus, following the agreement for military aid that was signed between the government of Cyprus and the government of the U.S.S.R. At that time there were no details available but now, in view of the fact that Archbishop Makarios is playing a rather prominent part in the meeting of non-aligned nations in Cairo, and also in view of the fact that there has been no improvement in the Cyprus situation, can the Prime Minister inform the house what is happening in relation to the negotiations at the UN level and also in direct contacts between the governments of Canada and Cyprus?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot answer this question at the moment. I know my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs did ask for a report on the first part of the question. However, he is not in his seat today as he is indisposed, but I shall try to get the answer tomorrow.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him has the government made any representations to the United


Nations to change the role of Canadian troops in Cyprus, in view of reports that they have been handed all the dirty jobs on that island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I saw that report, I have made inquiries, and the information I have received indicates that it is most inaccurate and unfair to say that only the Canadian contingent in Cyprus had been given difficult assignments.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I shall pose it to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to protest to the government of France over what would appear to be a serious interference in the domestic affairs of Canada by a member of the French assembly? I refer, of course, to press reports that appeared in numerous papers last Monday.
I have before me a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of October 5, reporting the address of one Xavier Deniau, French deputy from Loiret, to a meeting of the St. Jean Baptiste society in Trois Rivieres last week, in which he advocated that the province of Quebec separate from Canada, pointing out the advantages that might accrue to that province by so doing. As a further question I would ask the Prime Minister if he would investigate the matter to see whether these alleged facts are correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether there had been an agreement between the Canadian government and the Peugeot and Renault plants in order to facilitate their establishment in the province of Quebec. At that time he informed me that he would inquire.
Can he tell the house whether his officials have had the time to supply him with this information since yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration, but I hope there will be an announcement for the house within a day or two.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Inasmuch as the government for many years has had in various cities across the country a class of employees known as prevailing rate employees, who receive a rate of pay based on the average wage for that type of work in their specific areas, instead of having one established wage rate for all such employees across our nation, as is the case with civil servants and military personnel, what steps does the government intend to take to end this discrimination against its employees in low wage areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate it tonight at ten o'clock.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for the Northwest Territories asked a very important question of the right hon. Prime Minister, who replied that he was not familiar with all the details of a certain aspect of the question but would look into it. Is he now in a position to reply to yesterday's question relating to Indian affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not today but perhaps tomorrow, or Monday at the latest.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the min-
20220-561J
Inquiries of the Ministry ister aware of the greatly aroused feelings of Saskatchewan turkey producers since it was announced over the radio that one farmer sold 99 turkeys and after he paid for dressing them all he was left with was $10? Would the minister look into this serious situation?


Harry William Hays: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: As a
supplementary question, in view of the large number of questions we have had on this matter does the minister intend to replace the quotas on United States turkeys coming into Canada, or does he intend to increase the tariff on live turkeys so as to bring it more in line with the tariff on dressed turkeys?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a policy matter on which we will be glad to inform the house when it is formulated. We are looking into it now.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This matter of import quotas and an increase in the tariff on turkeys coming into the country is very important, and an announcement of government policy may be too late to do anything for turkey producers if the minister does not give an answer now and say something will be done. Is he prepared to say the government will take steps to assist such people?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy, but seeing there is such great interest in this question perhaps I should make hon. members familiar with it.
Yesterday the hon. member for Huron made certain statements and inquiries concerning the importation of turkeys into Canada from the United States. A supplemental question was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar which related to the relative rate of current turkey imports in comparison with those earlier this year.
The latest information on the turkey import situation is that up until the end of August a total of 7,763,903 pounds of turkeys, both eviscerated and live expressed in terms of eviscerated weight, had entered Canada from the United States. Subsequent to that date the imports have been as follows. During the week ending September 5, 185,892 pounds; week ending September 12, 135,500 pounds; week ending September 19, 83,752 pounds and the week ending September 26, 45,112 pounds, making a total for the month of September of 450,256 pounds, bringing the total imports to that date to 8,214,159 pounds.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The hon. member for Huron indicated that at the turkey growers' convention in Winnipeg* about a month ago, I made the statement that no turkeys had come into Canada during the previous two weeks. The actual statement I made-and I quote from the manuscript of my address-was:
-with the result that imports of American turkeys into Canada all but stopped during August-in fact, in recent weeks the only movement has been a relatively minor one involving only one plant.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has queried the statement that imports are levelling off, basing this query on the assertion that one third of a million pounds of turkeys have come into Canada during September. As I have indicated, under one half million pounds came into Canada during that period, but in comparison with earlier months this figure does represent a distinct levelling off or slowing up of imports, since during the month of June in excess of two and a half million pounds were imported, while the figure for the month of July was in excess of two million pounds. In August imports dropped to about three quarters of a million pounds.
As I have indicated previously, I have asked the Canadian turkey federation, both at a special committee meeting held at the time of their annual convention and subsequently in writing, for their suggestions as to the best way of meeting this problem consistent with Canada's over-all trade interests. As yet I have received no reply. However, I can assure the house that this matter is one which is engaging the active interest of the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I thank the minister for those statistics, and having heard them I should like to ask him this question. Is it a fact that imports as of the end of September show an increase of considerably more than 100 per cent when related to imports under the previous system of import quotas during the last full year of imports from the United States?


Harry William Hays: I whould like to check the figures in that regard, but what the hon. member says could conceivably be correct. He will understand, however, when considering trade between Canada and the United States, that we had to export from this country $1,300 million of agricultural products this year, and that 30 per cent of all the agricultural products we produce has to be exported. In these circumstances we must consider the over-all picture of these exports very carefully if we are not to hurt one area or another.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is this question really pressing? It is probably important, but must it be answered at this moment? We have had a long discussion on the turkey question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I agree with the minister that we must move carefully in making some of these decisions, but does he not think that the previously accepted pattern working to the benefit of Canadian turkey producers was a satisfactory one?


Harry William Hays: Of course that was contrary to our international obligations, and I suppose this is something we much watch very carefully or other exports are liable to be hurt, to the detriment of Canadian producers.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chailerton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. With regard to the Fraser-view subdivision, the Postmaster General told us on Tuesday he would deal with individual cases. A pensioner widow with two young daughters, Mrs. E. Johnson of East 55th avenue, was taken to hospital with a stroke because of mental anxiety-


An hon. Member:: Order.


George Louis Chatterton: I am preparing my question, Mr. Speaker. She was taken to hospital with a stroke because of mental anxiety over possible eviction and will not be in a position to make representations on her own. Will the minister look into this case and refer it to the Postmaster General for compassionate consideration?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Velerans Affairs):: I will be glad to look into the matter, certainly.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the full knowledge of the fact that there are 31 days in October, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to undertake that the new legislation respecting the Canada pension plan will be on the order paper before the end of this month?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is safe to give the hon. gentleman that assurance.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the critical remarks the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) made yesterday, the C.B.C. have informed me that there was no discrimination, that no unfairness was shown toward the French speaking members who are on the flag committee.
According to regular procedure the cameramen in Ottawa whom the producers had appointed took the pictures required for this type of program for both the English and French networks of the C.B.C.
The silent pictures taken at yesterday's conference were televised over both networks last night in exactly the same manner. The films merely showed the tremendous number of designs that have been submitted and the various members of the committee were only seen in the background.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should have ascertained the facts before raising such a grievance which, under the circumstances, has no foundation whatsoever.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, on the point just raised by the Secretary of State, could he tell us why the C.B.C. saw fit, this morning, to set up its cameras at the door of the flag committee in order to shoot what had been forgotten the previous day?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Acting Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Did the president of Air Canada consult the government before adopting the company's new maple leaf emblem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether, if reports to the effect that a number of officers at defence headquarters are to be released during the next nine months are accurate, it would not be possible to give these gentlemen at least six months' notice of the termination of their employment. Press reports indicate there will be just three months' notice.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes; according to a press release by my colleague the Minister of National Defence it is expected that between now and May of next year perhaps a thousand officials will be compulsorily released. The question of notice prior to release has been considered very carefully, and it is felt that a 90 day notice is sufficient.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the plan has been made to retire such a large number, surely they are entitled to more than 90 days' notice. I do request the minister to give them notice now so they can make their plans for next May.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been understood for some time now that members of the services will be released. I believe most people who are in the services now have looked into this possibility. We have of course to decide which people will be compulsorily released. This will be done in three stages. I think some will be advised in November, another group will be advised in February, and the last group will be advised in May. We believe that a 90 day notice is a sufficient period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister really believe that keeping these gentlemen in suspense-


John George Diefenbaker: Keeping everybody in
suspense.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: -is a satisfactory method of dealing with this matter? The associate minister has said they have already decided who shall go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming very argumentative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a fair question, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can give the house and the country any idea as to how many of these officers are near retirement age.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I could not answer that question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a question for the order paper; there is not any immediate urgency about it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Last year the government made grants to municipalities with respect to winter works. Certain municipalities have not yet been reimbursed for the works undertaken last winter, and they are now faced with the obligation of borrowing to carry out this year's winter works. Could the minister tell the house whether he is going to live up to his responsibilities in that respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, this is a question for the order paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one more question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning Banff. I will put my question in two parts. Is the minister prepared now to meet the elected council of Banff; and second, is he not well aware that one of our land developers of Alberta, namely Mayor Hawrelak, is the man behind the syndicate building this partic-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
ular motel in that area which is zoned against this kind of development?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve notice of my intention to debate this question at ten o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the detals of the estimates, $5,180,500.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply; vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965.


Mr. Scoit:: Mr. Chairman, since the adjournment last week I have had an opportunity to read the speech of my colleague from Burn-aby-Richmond in which he dealt in general with the policies of the government. I do not want to repeat any of those matters, except to say that I certainly endorse the views that he expressed.
This afternoon I would like to lay before the committee a problem that concerns almost every household in Canada, and urge upon the government that some action be taken to meet the problem. I am referring, of course, to the old problem of the consumer in Canada and the extent to which he is deprived of adequate protection against such things as unfair packaging, high interest rates and a general lack of information upon which he can make an intelligent choice. The size of this group is to me astonishing. The recent studies that are available indicate that approximately 90 per cent of the personal disposable income of Canadians is used to directly satisfy the demands of individual consumers for goods and services. This represents two thirds of our gross national product and amounts to some $27 billion each year being spent by the consumers in Canada.
It is therefore obvious that this group is represented in every household in Canada, and it is urgently necessary that something be done to deal with the problems they face. At the present time the government is active in the general consumer field, but the degree of activity is so scattered among the various

departments that it is very doubtful that any really cohesive plan can be developed for the consumer market. For example, the Department of Trade and Commerce has a weights and measures division; the Department of Agriculture has a consumer section and a section for the inspection of meat and other foods; the Department of Justice has an anti-combines section for price fixing, which is relatively ineffective; the Department of National Health and Welfare has its food and drug directorate; the Department of Defence Production has a consumer section; the Department of Fisheries has an information and consumer branch. In short, Mr. Chairman, while there is activity in this field, it is scattered among all the government departments.
The suggestion I would like to put to the government is that they create a department of consumer affairs, headed by a full time minister to devote all his attention to the affairs of this new and important department. As you know, Mr. Chairman, every other economic group in Canada has a department to speak for it. We have the Department of Trade and Commerce, concerned with business in general; we have the Department of Industry; we have the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour. All these departments deal with important organized groups in the community, but for the consumer there is nobody to speak on his behalf, at least in any co-ordinated way. We feel very strongly that the time has come for the creation of a new department of consumer affairs.
This, of course, is not our own idea alone; members of the house in speeches outside the house have advocated a similar program. The hon. member for Northumberland in a recent speech advocated such a change; the consumers association of Canada has advocated such a change; the credit union associations of Canada have made representations to the government along the same line. All these groups have tried to point out to the government the urgent problems of this important section of the community and the very real need for a special department to handle their affairs.
It is interesting that the United States is again ahead of us in this whole field. In that country there has been an enormous amount of research undertaken, and various legislative acts have been passed for the protection of the consumer. We should like to suggest to the government that they bring into effect
Supply-Trade and Commerce a bill of rights for the consumer setting out what are his rights in the jungle of the competitive trade world.
I think there are four basic rights. First of all, the consumer ought to have the right to safety, to be protected against the marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or life. Second, the consumer should have the right to be informed; to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful or grossly misleading information, advertising, labelling or other practices; and above all to be given the facts he needs to make an informed choice. Third, the consumer ought to have the right to choose; the right to be assured wherever possible access to a variety of products and services at competitive prices; and in those industries in which competition is not workable-and there are many-a government regulation substituted constituting an assurance of satisfactory quality and service at fair prices. Finally, the consumer must have the right to be heard; to be assured that the consumer's interest will receive full and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of government policy and fair and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunals. I think if we were to bring into effect a bill of rights for the consumer we would go a long way toward dealing with this very important problem.
There have been various voluntary agencies at work in Canada, the most notable being, of course, the Canadian consumers association. This organization has done a great deal of work in testing various products which are on the market and in making the information available to the general public. But it is handicapped for money and just does not have the tremendous machinery for publication that is available to the government.
I am thinking of some of the tests they have made. For example, they recently issued a statement declaring that they had conducted tests of thermometers of Japanese or German origin. These thermometers bore the following statement: "This clinical thermometer has been rigidly inspected and tested in accordance with standards established by the national research council". On examination, Mr. Chairman, it turned out that none of the thermometers which bore this guarantee passed all the C.A.C. tests, and the C.A.C. magazine concluded that they considered this to be misleading to consumers and that it was contrary to the section of the Canadian Criminal Code which forbids the use of the national research council's

Supply-Trade and Commerce name in advertising unless all its specifications are met. This is just one of dozens of examples where the public are being hoodwinked by this type of fraudulent advertising.
In other cases the same organization, the consumers association of Canada, conducted tests, for example on cans of fruit juice, and it was found that of the 20 ounce cans in particular which were tested only one in every nine contained the full 20 ounces. Again there was a whole series of misleading representations on the packaging. Although one particular instance does not sound very serious, when this is multiplied millions of times over, thus reflecting the quantity of sales, it is evident that the public are being gypped and fraudulently treated.
The same organization conducted tests on milk cartons and found that the contents of the cartons which were investigated varied in amount all the way down to four fluid ounces below the amount specified on the label. Thirteen brands were found to be below the amount advertised, which again is another flagrant example of how consumers are gypped. The files of those interested in this subject are bulging with examples of fraudulent and misleading advertising to which the public are being subjected by various companies, apparently with immunity to our present laws.
Another tricky gimmick which is used is to state the number of ounces contained in the various packages. Indeed, to analyse them the housewife would need to have an I.B.M. computer in order to establish whether the various ranges were competitive. These are some examples which can be seen at any of our local general stores. Spic and Span have a one pound three and a half ounce package for 41 cents, a two pound eight ounce package for 82 cents and a four pound six and a half ounce package for $1.40. How on earth is the housewife in the busy rush of the day going to divide up all the fractions of ounces so as to decide whether one package is more economic than another? Surf sells a two pound 10 ounce package for 73 cents and a five pound package for $1.19. Again, how is the shopper to divide the fractions back and forth? Another example; Colgate toothpaste sells at 44 grams for 39 cents, 82 grams for 61 cents, 162 grams for 94 cents and 238 grams for $1.19. Again how is the housewife to break this down so as to establish whether or not there is a proper price relationship for the product? Pepsodent toothpaste sells at 41 grams for 33 cents and 80.5 grams for 59


cents. How is there any assurance of a properly calculated price unless the housewife takes a calculating machine to the cashier's desk with her? Another example; Clover Leaf pink salmon, three and three quarter ounces for 25 cents, seven and three quarter ounces for 35 cents and 15J ounces for 69 cents. I challenge anyone but a brilliant mathematician to do the fast calculations required to establish whether this is a proper competitive price.
I have a whole list of these examples here, Mr. Chairman, which I could read into the record, but I do not intend to do so because I think it is quite clear that this business of the broken ounces and the variations in price make it absolutely impossible for the consumers of Canada to know whether they are being gypped or are in fact getting true measure. We are all aware of the gimmick on the package which declares "10 cents off" or "15 cents off," whatever it may be. We can all go into a supermarket and buy a large can of coffee which has on the label "10 cents off," or "15 cents off." In fact these printed labels are part of the package itself and bear no relationship whatever to the price paid by the consumer. In short it is another gimmick to hoodwink the public.
Those of us who are serving on the special committee on consumer credit along with the gentlemen of the other place are already shocked and dismayed at the evidence which has been given of the degree to which Canadian consumers are not aware of the interest charges which they are paying. All of us are astounded at the mountainous rate of interest being gouged out of the Canadian public through lack of disclosure, hidden bonuses, special charges, all of which are lumped together in the price of the product being sold. So as I say I think the housewives and the general consumers of Canada simply do not have the faintest idea whether or not they are being properly protected. Indeed, the whole business of the way in which goods are packaged and the housewife defrauded is, in my view, something which comes down to the responsibility of this government.
As I have said, the late President Kennedy was very aware of this problem, and early in his term of office sent a message to the United States congress in which he accepted on behalf of the federal government that the federal government, by its very nature, was the highest spokesman for all the people; and he accepted the principle that the federal government has a responsibility to the unspoken-for consumer to see that ade-

quate legislation is brought in and that adequate provision is made for his protection.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, if there is going to be any serious attempt on our part to get into this subject it simply cannot be done by leaving the problems of the consumer in the hands of each individual minister in so far as they relate to their departments. All we will have by doing so is a disjointed and generally chaotic approach to a $27 billion industry. It seems to me that the representations which have been made by various groups to the government ought to receive serious consideration.
We should like to suggest, for example, that the post office be used for the displaying of information which would be useful to the consumer. There is already a great deal of material that could be made available to the consumer. Second, we should like to see stiffer laws, for example, for the testing of drugs and cosmetics before they reach the public. All of us will remember the thalidomide tragedy of a year or so ago. All of us will want to see that never again will there be any possibility of anything of this sort getting on the market. We should like to see a re-examination of this kind of thing before it is allowed on the market, because there is nothing so cruel as to permit the sale of useless material, or material which will perhaps do harm.
We should also like to see stiffer laws in respect of credit abuses. Many members in all sections of this house have introduced bills calling for greater disclosure of interest charges so the buyer will know precisely what he is paying for the money he is borrowing. I have yet to see any formula which would work, other than the one proposed by the credit union league representatives when they appeared before the special committee on consumer credit. They did produce a formula which would make this clear. We should like to see some limitation upon interest charges generally. We realize this is a dangerous area, because in many ways we merely drive the money supply somewhere else, but something should be done about an upper limit on gross interest charges.
We should like to see some consideration given on behalf of the consumer to the opening up of alternative credit sources. I understand, for example, that chartered banks would be very interested in getting into the field of consumer credit, and would provide it at less than one half the price Canadians are now paying, if certain changes in the Bank Act could be brought in. We hope to 20220-562
Supply-Trade and Commerce raise this question when the Bank Act is under revision.
We should like to see something done in the form of the truth in packaging legislation which has been introduced in the United States. There has been considerable discussion there in this regard, and I think it was Senator Hart who pioneered in this field. He has introduced an excellent bill called the truth in packaging bill, which goes through all the abuses to which the consumers are now subjected and attempts to regulate the exploitation that is taking place. I think there is a good lesson to be learned here so far as our internal commercial policies are concerned.
We should like to see a department of this kind have an up to date statistical flow of information concerning the whole field of consumer credit. Many of the economic shifts that have taken place in Canada have been due to the very pronounced change in the pattern of spending of Canadian consumers. After all, when there is a shift in the method of spending by a group who consume $27 billion worth of goods and services, there is a profound effect upon the economy of the country as a whole.
I do not want to labour this point because I think an examination of the record and the information already available will make it very clear that there is an urgent need for something to be done in this field. I hope if the minister does not feel this is strictly within the terms of reference of his department he will at least pass it on to whoever in government should give it consideration.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I merely want to summarize the proposals we have suggested. 1. That a new department of consumer affairs be created with a full time minister to look after the affairs of the consumers of Canada as a whole, because at the present time there is nobody to speak for them.
2.	A bill of rights should be adopted for the consumers to set out and guarantee to them those things I raised earlier in my speech.
3.	We suggest the introduction of the necessary legislation to deal with credit, unfair packaging, distasteful advertising, and all the other abuses to which the consuming public is being subjected at the present time.
4.	We suggest such a department should be operated in co-operation with provincial agencies which now exist in order to be sure that the ultimate amount of consumer protection will be made available.
5.	We want to urge that a really serious examination be made of this problem by the
8876	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce government rather than just the active consideration to which reference has been made on orders of the day. We urge that a serious attempt be made to give representation to this tremendous section of Canada, which at the present time is unrepresented, but whose problems affect the lives of every Canadian.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I have been inspired to make a few comments during our consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce because of certain things that have taken place recently, one being the statement made by the minister.
First of all I should like to thank the minister and congratulate him for his statement to this house last week, in which he included a list of the achievements of the Conservative administration which preceded his. He was very courteous in pointing out in his opening sentence that Canada is now in the fourth year of advance and is moving strongly ahead. Thank heaven most of us can subtract and look back to the spring of 1961, when this advance received tremendous impetus by the budget of that year.
Even though all the things the Conservative administration did are not listed in those opening remarks, when one goes through his speech and picks off all the items he did mention, including the so-called power policy, national oil policy, the balancing of the merchandise account trade balance, and general economic improvement, I think the minister should be congratulated for bringing these to public attention, and for noting that the efforts made by the previous government to carry out a policy of expansion to meet our world commitments on balance of payments was the right course to follow.
I do not intend in my remarks to discuss the obvious schizophrenia of the present government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce talks in one language while the Minister of Finance talks in another language, which is restrictive. If one looks at the statements of the Minister of Finance which are included in the royal commission report- particularly the preliminary report, and repeated in a more general fashion in the final report-the minister's statements made in his paper read to the Kingston conference of 1960, and the statements made in the minister's book "Troubled Canada"-which I call Mein Kampf; then if one looks at the recent actions of the Minister of Finance, he will see a government under the control of policies leading toward restriction. This is the wrong policy for Canada.


The Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks in an entirely different language. He speaks of multilateral trade. That is a sound policy and the only course that Canada should follow if we are to consider our national interests.
I think on this occasion I should put forward those proposals which I believe are of interest to the Department of Trade and Commerce and to the whole country. In my opinion the world is at the crossroads of decision so far as trade is concerned. Ever since the time of the industrial revolution trade has developed tremendously among those nations which can be classified as industrial. They have learned the hard way that they have to work together, and in working together there have been tremendous achievements.
But a new factor has now entered the picture. This new factor is that there are a tremendous number of new countries which are not industrialized to any great extent and whose people cry out for a better standard of living. This is the quandary in which Canada finds itself. We have such tremendous volumes of energy and resources, and we know that all the fingers of the world are pointing at us and wondering which course we will take.
There are two main paths that the nations seem to be considering. One is the traditional path whereby industrial nations gather together in various groupings, primarily GATT. They look at the world from their vantage point of rich living and progress. They are aware of the new nations on the outside, and they condescend to look at the problems of the newly developing nations and wonder how they can let some of their products into this rich men's club without seriously lowering the standard of living within the magic circle. This is the one path. Each one of the people sent by Canada to the hard and heavy negotiations in Geneva concerning new agreements under GATT is sent there with instructions that he must get the best possible deal for his country and make it as difficult as possible for anybody else to get into our markets.


An hon. Member:: Get more and give less.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To sell at any cost is the philosophy with which they are sent there. This is the direction that ministers, not only under the present government, give them. It is a traditional policy of all the western industrial nations.
I suggest that the other path should be looked at. This other path is a strange, new

one. It is based on an attitude of mind just the reverse of what I have described. Canada's decisions in the next few years will be very important not only to us but to all those countries of the world that are looking for some breach in the wall that the people of the industrial nations are trying to build around themselves.
Before I embark upon a description of the other path and the course of action we can take if we are genuinely interested in this path, let me review recent trade tendencies in a very general and incomplete way. Generally speaking the western world has given lip service to multilateral trade, but in practice it has tended to group itself into regional groupings. We have the regional groupings of E.C.M., of EFTA, of South America and most recently of Africa. We have the Kennedy round of negotiations concerning GATT which in effect is an acceptance of the regional concept. This is one tendency, and I am afraid this regional tendency still stands in high favour in the minds of many of the economists in our western industrial nations who write articles to advise politicians.
On the other hand we still have those in the western nations who are putting up a fight for the multilateral principle, and in all fairness I think Canada under all governments has been consistent in advocating this principle even though a few years ago we heard in the house from the then opposition side great claims that we should enter into these regional blocs, that we should join these rich men's clubs and bar the door to the poor at our gates. Fortunately this phase did not last long, because so far as the general philosophy in Canada is concerned the multilateral side seems to be winning out.
Having given this general and incomplete history I should like to suggest now that the basis of the new path that could be considered is an attitude of mind. The attitude of mind is that there are two billion people in the world who at the present time do not play much of a role in world trade, certainly far less than 20 per cent, and this vast number of people who enjoy such a small percentage of world trade want a better living standard. They know they can only achieve a better living standard by trading with the rich industrial nations. They do not want to have to come to our door at GATT and plead for crumbs.
Canada, on the other hand, is not so rigidly bound by the fears of the past that crush the minds and spirits of leaders in 20220-562i
Supply-Trade and Commerce
western Europe. We still have a spark or two left in us that will pioneer a new course. But I say first of all that the attitude should be that the needs and wants of these people must be paramount, not our own. Let me give an example. In 1943 men of high principle enunciated the principle of a world food bank. It was not until 1961 that we got the world food bank program on its feet, and it is in action today. What caused that sudden reversal of the field in 1961? It was the declaration by those representing Canada at the world conference in Rome that we put the needs of these people first, that our thought was not just to get rid of surplus wheat or surplus something else but that what these people wanted they should have a right to. The practical way in which we did this, of course, was to offer to put cash into the fund, and we agreed that Canadian money could be used to buy food anywhere in the world. This won the support, not opposition, of the newly developing nations.
I could go on and talk about this at great length, but over and over again as I go through Hansard for the last year and a half I find the opposite attitude on the part of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think many of us who tried so hard to sell Canadian wheat must have been shocked at the answer of the minister just yesterday to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. With regard to the failure of crops in Europe the minister said, as found on page 8837 of Hansard:
-I am satisfied that if these reports are correct- and I hope they are from the point of view of Canadian wheat prospects-we shall get our full share of the business that is going.
This is my point, Mr. Chairman. If you are going to be a good salesman of wheat, if you are going to be a person who helps these countries get on their feet, you will only succeed if your attitude is right; namely that you want to help them because in helping them you will always help yourself. This is the key to the path that in my opinion will lead to the bringing of all these people into the trade picture in the world of today.
What are some of these trading techniques? Some are old and some are new. Some may be proven no good, but at least we should take a look at them. From the questions I have asked in the last year and a half the minister knows that I am tremendously interested in international commodity agreements. Generally speaking there are two classes of international commodity agreements. The first

Supply-Trade and Commerce class comprises those between the traditional traders of the world, hard headed and experienced people who can look after themselves. They establish a minimum and a maximum and trade within those two limits.
But there is a new type of international commodity agreement yet to be developed and which must be developed if we are going to break the barrier between the newly developing nations and the industrialized nations. These newly developing countries need to accept the fact that we in the rich countries of the world recognize and want them to join, not to take away their shirts and their livelihood from them by grinding them down to the lowest possible prices, but by deliberately going out to raise and double their prices.
Most of these countries are producers of staple products. These are all they have got to sell and we could double their basic income, and it would not mean very much to us at the retail level. In that way we could give them a chance to buy the things they need from us. This is the way you can move forward; but you have to have the attitude.
We can remember the debates and questions we had last year on an international sugar agreement. I went through the record again this morning and I should like to give one quotation which shows a classic example of the attitude that exists in Canada, and in particular in the minister's mind. Everyone knows why there is not a sugar agreement today, because of the dispute between the United States and Cuba, but this is what the minister said in one of his answers:
I am of the opinion that it would be unwise at the moment to enter into long term agreements with commonwealth suppliers or any other suppliers.
And further on he said:
-until the market has settled down before we commit ourselves to any long term contract which would oblige Canadian consumers to pay higher prices in the long run.


Mr. Sharp:: Would the hon. member give the date and the page of reference?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. This was the answer to one of several questions, and was recorded in Hansard of April 27 last, at page 2643.
On another occasion in answer to a question, the minister indicated we should wait until the prices were lower. This is my point, Mr. Chairman. It is in our interests to get the sugar prices to the producers raised, and without holding me to precise percentage points I would point out that the average
IMr. Hamilton.]

Supply-Trade and Commerce met with officials of the Kennedy administration in 1961 and this question was discussed informally at that time. The Americans were not ready to proceed, then. It was not until 1963 that we had our answer publicly in the form of a statement by the secretary of the interior, Mr. Udall. He made a statement in the fall of that year that the United States were willing to discuss with Canada a general policy of pooling resources. But no answer came from the present government. I can only conclude that either this government did not understand the significance of what Mr. Udall was proposing, or that they were so set on keeping this pattern of the past-so set on following a path leading in the wrong direction, that they could not understand that a new administration in the United States was trying to interest what was then a new administration in Canada in a new concept of growth based on the principle-and this is the reason behind the suggestion as far as Canada is concerned-that if you have a comparative advantage it is a good deal to go in and offer that advantage in any bargaining session.
We know that because of the energy and natural resources available to us we can manufacture automobiles and many steel products cheaper than it can be done in the United States. We have all the basic ingredients of success in this field. Why does not United States capital come in to build the plants? The reason is obvious: They never know what their own government is likely to do when they try to send their products back into the United States. The Americans know they are likely to run out of iron by 1975 or 1980, not taking into account the new finds of ore in Alaska. They would like access to our stable supplies of iron. We could supply them part of our iron for the next 30 or 40 years and guarantee them a suitable deal. We, in return, want a faster growth rate in processing than we have at present. At the beginning, progress is slow but over the years the percentage climbs and we can visualize in 20, 30 or 40 years, equality with our neighbour. Why should there not be that equality? We have the energy and we have the resources. The capital will certainly move around, provided we get rid of the present Minister of Finance. Given equality in taxes and the movement of money we could hold our own with any country in the world; we could move into the world pattern with lower costs and a better chance of selling. If any hon. member doubts this, let him read the Paley report in the United States of 1952, and the


latest report entitled "Resources for America's Future" dated in April, 1963.
I have to agree with the minister that we must go all out and negotiate in GATT- the biggest bargaining table over pennies the world has ever seen. But to me, coming from an agricultural background, it is like putting your best hired hand to milking a dried out cow: You must put him on it because it is very difficult to get milk out of her. But look around and you can see miles of green pastures full of heifers newly freshened. That is where the milk is. Let us get cracking and go where the milk is.
I could go on to deal with a lot of other related matters but I think I have made my point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I followed the remarks of the previous speaker with a great deal of interest. I was much taken by his down to earth approach. The hon. member is one whom I consider as being a countryman with a lot of common sense in his attitude. He demonstrated this when he was a minister in the former government. However, I must be very careful before saying any more in that direction.
I do want to say I appreciate the courtesy shown by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when dealing with questions I have brought to his attention. I recognize his ability and keenness-and when an old socialist says that of a man who is, ultimately, a free enterpriser, he is going a long way. But I give credit where it is due from my point of view, and I recognize also the good work the officials of the department have been doing both in Canada and abroad.
From correspondence I have received and from what I know, I think everything possible should be done to upgrade the importance of our trade commissioners overseas in their dealings with countries abroad and with private interests in those countries. I think that throughout the years there has been a tendency in some quarters to look upon trade commissioners in the same way as my mother looked upon shopkeepers, that is, to feel they were not as important as were some other people. I do think everything should be done to upgrade the importance of our trade commissioners, in view of the great value of their work to the Canadian economy.
Before proceeding to make a few other remarks on the subject of trade I wish to say that I support wholeheartedly the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Dan-

forth, particularly with regard to the need for a department of consumers. I trust the minister will give those suggestions serious consideration because I know that coming from a member of this group they were made on a strictly non-partisan basis in the best interests of all concerned.
I was particularly interested in his reference to the necessity for "truth in packaging" legislation. We were told that such legislation is in effect in the United States and I think it is greatly to be desired. Only two or three days ago a clock came into my hands. It had been sold or given away in return for coupons by the I.G.A. stores in Ottawa. This clock came enclosed in a carton about eight inches by 15 inches and in large letters across the side of the carton the words "Made in Canada" appear. The letters are at least an inch high. But if you take the clock out of the carton and look closely, in letters you almost have to use a microscope to read, on the bottom of the clock, appear the words "made in the United States". I think this is thoroughly dishonest packaging, and I believe there should be some legislation to protect the Canadian consumer against this type of deceit. This instance was brought to my attention by a consumer in Ottawa who was most indignant, because at the time of the transaction he thought he was getting a clock made in Canada.
I wish to make a few observations about our trade balance with Great Britain and the prospect of improving it from the point of view of the British as well as ourselves. We all realize the situation which exists with regard to our trade deficit, our deficit balance in dealings with the United States. The reverse is the case with regard to our balance of trade with the United Kingdom. I have always been of the opinion that we could do more in this respect, not in a large scale way but particularly with reference to the products and services which smaller organizations have to sell.
Because of my interest in this aspect I did inquire into what had been the result of a venture made by a relatively small company, compared with the large corporations we have in this country, which had come to Canada after being interested by some of our officials years ago. I am referring particularly to Gestetner (Canada) Ltd. I believe there is a possibility of interesting larger numbers of this type of British firm to locate in Canada. The activities of this company have been of great benefit to the Canadian economy since
Supply-Trade and Commerce their arrival. I want to bring to the minister's attention that this company came to Canada, after the possibilities of the market were directed to their attention by some of our people, in November, 1924. They formed a Canadian subsidiary of the English company and opened a small store, I understand, in Toronto. Then they began plans for selling in the eastern Canadian market, and later throughout the whole of Canada. They have expanded until at the present time they have 19 branches operating in Canada and a staff of over 500 people. These employees are concerned with direct sales and service amounting in Canada alone to over $3J million.
All these Gestetners are imported from Great Britain; they are sold in Canada and they are serviced in Canada. This company has continually expanded because it sells an excellent product. But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that all the profits of this company have been plowed back in reinvestment in Canada, which I think is the sort of thing that assists the Canadian economy. I know that in terms of the very large companies dealing with our natural resources, and so on, this is not a large company; but I do think there is an opportunity to interest more of these companies in Great Britain to establish similar branches in Canada in order to assist the British people with the marketing of their goods and to lessen the gap, shall I say, between our sales to Great Britain and our purchases from Great Britain.
The company has had excellent relationships with its employees; it has an excellent pension plan, and so on. Its policy is to sell first class products and provide first class service, to plow all the profits back into expansion in this country and the improvement of the firm's operations. As the result of this policy, this company which started in 1924 is worth over 200 times what it was at that time.
I give this one illustration, Mr. Chairman, because I was interested in seeing how this type of company developed in Canada and what possibilities there were for the development of similar companies. I do urge the minister and his officials to give some consideration to cultivating particularly what I consider to be a fertile field in this direction, because the British manufacturers produce some very excellent products, in many respects similar to those produced by the company I have mentioned, namely Gestetner (Canada) Ltd.

Supply-Trade and Commerce [Translation]


Marcel Lessard: I have some very brief comments to make in connection with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I especially want to raise a point mentioned yesterday, or Tuesday more precisely, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) with respect to sanctions some American groups would like to see imposed on the Canadian aluminum industry so that it would not be as competitive on their markets as it is now.
I raise this point because I consider that the aluminum industry needs, just as any other sector of industry, a reasonable measure of assistance from the Canadian government. The day before yesterday, when this question was raised, the minister answered rather briefly and said that the government had made representations to the American authorities on this matter. He did not use exactly these words, but when asked the following question:
Has the government made representations to the government of the United States regarding proposed changes in tariff duties on certain classes of aluminum products imported into Canada?
He answered:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I feel, consequently, that this government is aware of the problem which we face at the present time and has made recommendations in this respect. The minister must be aware of the importance it has for the Canadian economy particularly in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia where those aluminum plants are located. In the Saguenay area particularly, if there were some kind of embargo or an increase in tariff on aluminum products exported to the United States, it would be a harsh blow for the economy of my area, since for all practical purposes the Saguenay area relies almost exclusively on the aluminum and pulp and paper industries to keep up its economy.
I believe our minister of commerce gets through a lot of work, but when he speaks later, I should like him to tell us what he has done to prevent the Americans from carrying out this threat against the aluminum industry of Canada.
He will have to take into consideration that this Canadian company is probably our largest international company, and I believe that we are justified in being proud of it since it has subsidiaries in almost every part of the world. It acts as a very good ambassador for Canada abroad, through the

exchanges of its Canadian personnel and that of its subsidiaries all over the world.
I believe it does a very good job, which promotes better understanding between the various countries and automatically helps to restore the economy of some countries. I have in mind the facts I personally witnessed while working for Alcan, where numerous engineers from underdeveloped countries were also working to complete their technical know-how and to go back later to their own countries in order to operate Alcan plants there. I think it is the duty of the minister, and mine also, to raise this point.
Should that come about, it would deal a heavy blow to the Canadian economy; to our trade balance with the United States, since 60 per cent of Alcan's sales of semi-fabricated aluminum products go to the United States, representing about $1 million annually. Surely the minister sees the danger and I hope he will do everything he can to make necessary representations in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) dealt a moment ago with the problem of the automobile industry. I would like to go one step further and discuss the problem facing the Canadian automobile industry and arising out of the control of that industry by American parent companies.
Last year this government through the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) introduced a program to increase the percentage of parts made in Canada and going into the manufacture of automobiles. But, in my opinion, we have before us a glaring example of the urgent need to rapidly increase the percentage of parts going into the manufacture of automobiles sold in Canada. What we need in Canada is automobile parts which are 100 per cent made in Canada.
There is a strike going on at the plants of General Motors in the United States and we find that Canadian subsidiaries of that company in Oshawa are also affected. As a matter of fact, it is reported in the press today that more than 5,000 Canadian workers are now idle because of a shortage of parts on the assembly lines. I think that is conclusive evidence of the growing need for the Canadian automobile industry to become 100 per cent Canadian and, therefore, independent from the United States industry.
In the past some Canadian industries were denied the right to export their products to other countries because they had to yield to the policy dictated to them by the American parent company. I think the Americans are

quite wrong in maintaining such a situation in the automobile industry, because to my mind they should realize that the Canadian market is now large enough to justify 100 per cent Canadian production and the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce who are in close contact with their American opposite numbers should strive to make them accept the Canadian point of view and realize that such a situation, to a certain extent, is the cause of some of the prevailing grievances against the Americans.
While the United States is a very powerful neighbour that we respect they must also respect our country's economy and in allowing such a situation to prevail in Canada, I think they are doing a disservice, not only to their own country, but also to Canada. If the Americans wish to maintain in Canada manufacturing plants under their control, they will have to allow them to export to the United States without cost. Indeed, I trust that the agreement the Canadian government is hoping to sign with the American government in order to remove tariff barriers on Canadian exports to the United States will be a success and, as far as I am concerned, I would support the complete removal of such tariff barriers between Canada and the United States.
I admit that some industries will perhaps be affected, but on the other hand, I am aware of the fact that this would help the establishment of many other industries which would be able to expand and be more competitive on the American market.
Mr. Chairman, there is also another matter I wanted to discuss. I have in mind the publicity that the Department of Trade and Commerce is supposed to give to Canadian products.
We all know that the Department of Trade and Commerce is very much interested in the sale of wheat. Of course, it is important for the department to do so, because wheat is a most important product. It is interesting to note that we can ship this product abroad and have Canadians take advantage of the operation, but on the other hand there are other sectors of Canadian industry which need help. I wonder if the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce strive as hard to find markets for farm produce other than wheat.
For instance, we have the problem with respect to cheese production. That industry is now faced with a rather difficult problem, especially in eastern Canada.
For many years farm production in eastern Canada was looked upon as limited to dairy
Supply-Trade and Commerce products used in the manufacture of powdered milk and cheese.
In my opinion, it is a mistake to a certain extent, to force our farmers to change their type of production, ostensibly because there is no longer any market for the kind of dairy production in which they were engaged in the past.
As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of evidence in support of the contention that the demand for dairy products will be increasing, like that for all other products, for that matter and I believe that we must promote the dairy industry so as to provide for the needs which will increase proportionately.
In my opinion the Department of Industry should strive to find and secure a market for Canadian cheese in various countries. I know that England is one of our good customers as far as Canadian cheese is concerned, but when we look into the possibility of producing this commodity we cannot but conclude that we have still a long way to go.
A great deal could be done to stabilize the farm industry in eastern Canada, if a market could be found for cheese and for other dairy products.
It is a well known fact that Canada produces a high quality cheese, and I am of the opinion that the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce should do the promotional work required. In a word, they should be the salesmen needed to find the markets required for this product.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point I would like to deal with. It has been discussed often, but for a while it seemed to have been overlooked. The problem with which this industry is faced is a very difficult one, inasmuch as this industry was established in Canada many years ago.
Several of our Canadian spinning-mills forgot or neglected over the years, to modernize and now they find it difficult to compete with the production of other countries, particularly of Japan.
The textile industry employs a great number of workers, and the federal government should grant it very special attention.
I know that the minister must take into account existing international agreements and that he must avoid protecting any individual mill, because that might inspire the leaders of the countries to which wa export to enforce certain restrictions.
But considering that the textile industry employs many workers, I think that it is an industry which especially deserves the minister's attention and when he or his officials
8884	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce go to Japan, for instance, to discuss with their Japanese colleagues, the desirability of increasing Japanese exports in Canada, I think that they should bear in mind the serious implications which could result from any increase of Japanese exports in Canada, so far as textiles are concerned.
There are two major factors, in my opinion, which should be taken into consideration with regard to the identification of imported products. There is certainly a deficiency in that respect. If the Canadian people could more easily ascertain the origin -of the products, I think that with a proper educational campaign, they could be convinced to buy Canadian products instead of imported ones. In brief, if the trade mark or the identification of the imported product were clearly shown, I think it would greatly encourage Canadians to buy more goods made in Canada, as they would realize that they are thus helping to provide employment for their fellow countrymen.
Such are the comments I wanted to make and the points I wished to bring to the minister's attention in this connection.
I trust that when the minister takes the floor a little later on he will give me an answer to the various aspects peculiar to the aluminum industry that I have brought to his attention.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think it only fitting to refer to some of the remarks made by the member for Qu'Ap-pelle, the former minister of agriculture, who set out six points in reference to trade in this country which should be taken very seriously by the minister.
Perhaps I do not need to say this, because it has been said on many occasions, but Canada is always in the unique position of being a country with surpluses, whereas most countries of the world are countries with Shortages. Our problems are always related to surpluses, whether we are dealing with grain, petroleum or coal. At the present time, as well as in the past, we have difficulty competing in so far as our surpluses are concerned, and we must compete because without trade Canada would fail. I should like to direct my remarks particularly in respect of two industries in Alberta, which I am sure the minister has considered. I refer to the coal and petroleum industries.
I do not wish to spend much time talking about the coal industry in Alberta, because I


have spoken in this regard on several occasions in the House of Commons, but I do wish to point out several things. It is a well known fact that the production of coal in Alberta and throughout Canada is declining because of competition with the natural gas and other petroleum products industries. Canada has one eighth of the entire coal supplies of the world and there was a time in the history of this country when people in the coal industry felt we were exporting too much coal because we were likely to run short. I might say this is the same attitude now taken by a great many people in respect of the natural gas industry. I wonder what those people would say today about their attitude toward coal exports. On one other occasion I said that we in Canada went to bed with our coal, -and if we continue our present attitude we may well have to go to bed with some of the natural gas in this country.
For many years in Alberta I have advocated the export of not only coal but of natural gas. The only substantial market left in the world, as far as we are concerned, for the sale of our coal, is the Japanese market, and it is interesting to note that the only way we can maintain our position in the sale of coal to that market is by paying a subvention on the per ton shipment of coal. It must seem strange to individuals engaged in the coal industry that we have to use taxpayers' money to help this minor resource compete. There are two sides to that story. We must always remember that by paying a subvention we not only help this industry compete in world markets but also provide employment for miners.
The matter of coal subventions has been before parliament on several occasions and is the subject of a number of orders in council. Perhaps I may be allowed to review these for a moment. On December 5, 1939 the subvention on coal for sale to Japan was $1 per ton. In 1949 the subvention was $1 per ton. The subvention remained at $1 per ton until 1957 when, on July 22, it was increased to $2.25 per ton. On April 9, 1958 by order in council the subvention was increased to $4 per ton. In 1959 it was increased to $4.50 per ton. On April 2, 1962 the subvention was reduced to $3.50 per ton, and on October 25, 1962 it was further reduced to $3.15 per ton. One can readily see that subventions are necessary in respect of this industry, not only to assist it to compete, but to provide employment for miners. An increase in trade is naturally followed by an increase

in employment, but I am sure hon. members from the maritimes would agree with me that even during boom periods in the rest of Canada there is somewhat of a depression there and in other coal producing areas, because it is a seasonal industry.
We have been able to increase our coal exports to somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 tons. Last year I think the export of coal increased to 845,000 tons while at the same time the subvention was lowered.
Mr. W. C. Whittaker, the president of the coal operators association of western Canada, suggested that the industry would benefit from a reduction in transportation costs. We have talked in this house a great deal about rail abandonment. I suggest that we must work through the Department of Transport, in conjunction with other departments, to organize our transportation facilities in such a way that transportation costs can be reduced. Mr. Whittaker made a speech last month at Lake Louise, Alberta, which was reported in the Calgary Herald, and I should like to refer briefly to that speech. He was referring, as I said earlier, to the reduction of transportation costs, and I am sure everyone will agree that if such a reduction was followed by a reduction in subventions on coal, it would be to the advantage of the coal operators of Canada and the taxpayers as a whole. In such event perhaps the coal industry in Canada would be able to compete with the Australian coal industry, which is one of the largest suppliers of coal to Japan. Mr. Whittaker said at Lake Louise that unless the present rate of $6 per ton cost for railroad transportation and ship loading was reduced to about $4.50, coal exports could well pass -out of the picture in Canada.
I should like to congratulate the minister upon his fair handling of subventions on coal. Everyone has paid him a compliment today about his opening remarks, and I should also like to be in that positive position. The export of coal from Canmore and the Crowsnest pass may well range this year from 900,000 to 1,000,000 tons. That increase in exports would create an increase in employment in those areas. Mr. Whittaker suggests that we must cut transportation costs from $6 per ton to $4.50 per ton. I remember when we not only exported more coal but used more coal for home consumption, and at that time the coal was being transported on mixed cargo trains. With our streamlined transportation industry of today coal is moved in trains strictly limited to the transportation of coal. I am sure the transportation industry would be
Supply-Trade and Commerce delighted by an increase in the production in coal transportation. Serious consideration should be given to some method of cutting costs of transportation so as to help the Canadian coal industry compete for the Japanese market, which would naturally be followed by an increase in the amount of coal transported by those railway companies.
When I was in Japan in 1958, with an industrial firm rather than in connection with my duties as a member of parliament, I was talking with one of the major steel manufacturers of that country who told me that the difference of 10 cents to 20 cents in the cost of coal per ton would have a serious effect on their decision as to where they would buy a particular kind of coking coal. Ten or 20 cents does not seem to be a great deal of money, but when exchanged for Japanese currency in Japan it is indeed something to be considered.
In this regard Australia has been able to outdo us in competing for the market and that is the reason we have had to keep the subvention as high as it has been. It was the Conservative government that established the subvention. The minister has admitted that many of these programs were initiated by the Conservatives and have been carried on by the present administration. When we established the subvention we opened up a market for this coal. They now know in Japan that we have good hard, bituminous coal mined in the mountains. Our quality and kind of coal can compete with any other kind of coal in the world. Therefore when we open up a market we can then cut down the subvention and cut down the cost to the taxpayer. So this does prove that this method is the way to open up avenues to get trade. Maybe this is what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle meant when he was dealing with those countries where they do not have as high a standard of living, and suggested that we should open up avenues of trade so that in future they will be able to compete with the more wealthy nations.
So the first recommendation is that we have to take a hard look at costs. The coal operators themselves cannot do anything about transportation costs. They can do something about the costs of mining. I might say to the minister, and I do not say this in too critical a way, that when I first went to the Canmore area in the foothills of the Rocky mountains, and right in the Rocky mountains, unemployment was rampant everywhere. Up to that time this coal had been used by the railways, but with auto-
8886	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce mation they changed to petroleum and all these miners were put out of work and the coal operators were placed in an almost bankrupt position. When you think that in one coal area of Alberta there were 20 mines at one time, I believe, and today there are only two left you can see the importance of this matter.
Once again, with the scientific developments that are taking place and the byproduct commodities that may be made out of coal we never know when coal will become more important. It is well within the imagination, and I said this eight or nine years ago I believe, that some day coal will be processed at the minehead, piped like natural gas across the country and will compete with natural gas. Nylon stockings and many other things can be made out of coal and I say the coal industry is a long way from dead. During the period of transformation this government, because it is their responsibility just as it was our responsibility when we were in office, has to keep these mines operating. We assumed the responsibility of keeping them alive and, if Mr. Whittaker is right, unless we can cut the transportation costs it is impossible to compete even with the subsidy as it is today.


An hon. Member:: And loading costs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is true, off the docks. As I pointed out, one of the great steel producers of Japan said that a difference of 10 or 15 cents a ton decides where they will buy this product. The minister may run into something I have encountered when he goes to Alberta. He will find that our Social Credit friends will stand on the platform- I see they have looked up immediately-and they will blame-I cannot use the word in the house I should like to use-all governments because we import coal into Canada.
I got the latest figures today from the coal board, and in 1963-64 we imported 13,880,000 tons of coal. When the Conservatives came into office Canada was importing some 20 million tons of coal. I think that is correct because I have made speeches on that point before.
Because of the policies implemented in the maritimes and, of course-I want to be fair in this regard-because of the competition of natural gas in the large urban centres of eastern Canada we have been able to cut down our coal imports. But there is one great fiction always uttered in western Canada and you have to explode it at least once a year before it gets away on you. The Social Cred-

iters will stand on the platform, especially in the soft coal areas where people are out of work, and blame everybody but themselves. The former minister of labour came to speak in my riding and he said that the worst thing he had ever seen was the living conditions in the East Coulee, Rosedale and Nacmine areas around Drumheller. He said he had never seen worse poverty than in this soft coal mining area.
These Social Crediters send speakers down there and they say that Canada is importing coal and that is the reason the miners are out of work. This is a fiction. The coal we bring into Canada is hard bituminous coal and the coal that is mined in the Drumheller valley is sub-bituminous, soft coal which is not suitable to be used for the same purpose for which the imported coal is used. The coal mined at Canmore and the coal mined in Nova Scotia are similar in energy and quality. This kind of fiction probably wins votes at the right time, but it causes a lot of headaches which people have to try to iron out afterwards. I believe this myth has now been exploded but I have heard it on many platforms. That particular coal is domestic coal and is not the kind of coal I am talking about.
I want to complete my remarks in that regard. We in Alberta are interested in the export of coal to Japan. We are interested in the export of coal from the Canmore and Crowsnest areas. A subvention was necessary to open that market, and to be able to keep it we must cut transportation and loading costs wherever we can. I would ask the minister to give this matter serious thought. If he really desires, and I believe he does, to carry out the important program in this regard that was started by the Conservative government, this is one thing that must be looked into if the program is going to survive.
I want to say something about another industry which is in competition with coal. I suppose one might say it is very difficult to talk about both industries at the same time when they are in competition with one another, but we have to be realists. They are in competition, and I must say that in many ways the natural gas industry has been able to undercut the costs of the coal industry, and that is one of the reasons for the problems of the coal industry.
I am glad to see that the minister does not belong to that school of thought-I know he does not-that used to prevail in Alberta, the Prowse school of thought under which the provincial Liberals at that time opposed the export of any natural gas because they

Private Bills
were frightened there would not be enough for use in the foreseeable future, or enough today. The Conservatives set up the national energy board, and I want to say something about that.
If I may review the situation first, up to 1957, I believe, very little natural gas was exported. One of the promises in the 1957 election which I heard the Leader of the Opposition make was that when elected the Conservatives would set up a national energy board. That promise was kept. It was a good promise and a good program. It is interesting to note that in 1959 we exported to the United States $16.5 million worth of natural gas. In 1960 it increased to $22.9 million, in 1961 to 40.6 million, in 1962 to $87.5 million, and in 1963 it almost reached the $100 million mark, or $93.8 million. The departmental officials have projected the increase. I know I am not breaking any confidence because they are always available to give expert advice if you seek it. I have had the best of cooperation from the experts in these departments. The officials hope that it will increase by another 9 per cent.
What does all this mean? With the imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada, and still worse the imbalance of dollars between our two countries, this dramatic step in exporting gas has helped bring about a balance of payments. The Department of Trade and Commerce alone cannot solve the problem, but with proper government policy, and working in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, every means of encouragement should be given to those people who form companies to build pipe lines to export natural gas, from Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or whatever other area produces it.
The Borden commission was set up by the previous government, and from it and the reports emanating from the department, and from the Canada Year Book we have learned we have enough guaranteed natural gas in Canada for energy uses, not only for industry but also for domestic use during the next 30 years. If we continue to export it and if the Canadian consumer market increases, then of course we will get more exploration. At present exploration is taking place in the Northwest Territories where there have been some large findings, and now that the C.C.F. government has been defeated in Saskatchewan some natural gas may come to light that has been kind of tapped off in secret from the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew that would bring some life to the hon. member. Previously when I was dealing with certain benefits in income tax concerning pipe lines I said these benefits should be extended to other pipe lines. I believe there is still enough private enterprise spirit left in western Canada that if people could only get income tax benefits they would form new pipe line companies and invest Canadian money in exploration for natural gas and petroleum products, when there is a demand for them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Aren't you interested in energy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend seems to have lots of it, but is it not five o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Since it has been called five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there a suggestion that the house should suspend the hour for private members' business?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee last adjourned we were considering clause 1 of the bill with an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Is the committee ready for the question?
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing Bill No. S-27, an act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to the effect that if five new directors were added to the Bell Telephone Company, three would be appointed by the federal government.

Private Bills
I consider the amendment to be very sensible. Seventeen would be appointed by the shareholders and three by the government.
Some members may ask why should the government intervene? Needless to say it is not a matter of nationalizing the Bell Telephone Company, for in that case I would object for several reasons. First of all, I must say that the Bell Telephone Company is giving good service to the Canadian citizens at the present time. Anybody who wishes to have a phone can get it and in no time at all. The rates are not too high, except perhaps in the case of long distance calls. Moreover, I see two great benefits deriving from the fact that the Bell Telephone Company is a private enterprise. First, its services are tax-free, as far as the people are concerned. We are accustomed to the deficits, often substantial ones, shown by the majority of the crown companies and which are at the expense of the taxpayers. I suggest then that to have a nation-wide telephone service, available to everybody, and not requesting subsidies from the government to finance their deficit at the end of the year, is something of a tremendous value to Canadians.
The second advantage, and not the least, is that at the end of the year, not only does the company not request subsidies, but it pays taxes which fill the federal treasury and enables the government to earmark more money for social security, hospitalization insurance, family allowances and old age pensions. Naturally, we should be even more pleased if we knew this money was not being spent as interest on the debt; but in any event, I have mentioned two great advantages which make it clear why the Bell Telephone Company of Canada should not be nationalized, or handed over to the state. We have seen many cases where, as soon as a company is nationalized, deficits begin to accumulate; red tape and bureaucracy take over, and we are strongly against it.
But if three members were then appointed by the government, the majority of the directors could still continue to administer the company in a normal way, that is, to make profits. We have no objections to that because, any Canadian citizen who has money available for investment, like some members of this house probably have, may invest it in companies such as the Bell Telephone Company or a pulp and paper mill company and thus assist in developing the country.
Canadian citizens should be able to invest money in their national companies and help to develop their country. If there are profits
[Mr. Grtgoire.l
at the end of the year, the shareholders will draw dividends, and this will prompt other Canadian citizens to make investments in other similar Canadian companies. Every time Canadian citizens invest in Canadian companies, it is a good thing, because such companies foster the prosperity of the nation.
Therefore, there would still be seven directors to see to it that the Bell Telephone Company operates according to set standards, the three directors appointed by the government being there to see about protecting public interest. What is the public interest in a company such as the Bell Telephone? It may be thought of in terms of rates. The three government appointed directors would look after the public interest, and would make sure that telephone customers can get the best service possible with the least possible expense.
Would three directors appointed by the government have enough influence on the whole group of shareholders to enable them to look after the public interest in that field? At the present time there are 15 who are businessmen, directors, men of action. Hereafter, there would be five more, including two appointed by the shareholders and three by the government.
I am wondering if the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would not have been better advised to raise that percentage, requesting that five out of 20 directors, or a quarter, be appointed by other people than the shareholders?
For instance, three of those directors could be appointed by the federal government, another one by the 10 Canadian provinces after reaching an agreement, or two might be appointed by the federal government and two by the ten provinces and a fifth one by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities since the municipalities form another public body; there are municipalities throughout Canada and they avail themselves of the Bell Telephone Company services.
If we increase by five the number of directors of that company, it seems to me that instead of suggesting action or a compromise as was done by the hon. member for Timiskaming, it would be more appropriate to suggest a good solution, by saying: These five new directors will be appointed on the following basis: two by the federal government, two by the ten provincial governments, after reaching an agreement, and one by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.

In that case 25 per cent of the members of the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company would represent various public bodies. It would not amount to nationalization exactly but it might satisfy those who want better representation of public interest in a company of national importance, a company that has no competitors and, in fact, operates more or less as a monopoly.
In this type of company public interest would be more satisfactorily safeguarded if five rather than three members were appointed by the public bodies. Five out of 20 is equal to 25 per cent of the board of directors, whereas three out of 20 only amounts to 15 per cent.
So, instead of having three new directors appointed by the federal government, two would be appointed by the federal government, two by the provincial governments and one by the municipalities as a whole.
There would be then representatives from public organizations, at all levels, within a national company such as the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. This company is doing business throughout Canada on a non-competitive basis. The individual Canadian citizen, be he a member of parliament, a prime minister, an alderman or anyone else, has no choice between two companies. If there is only one set of telephone cables passing in front of your home or your office, you have to use them. In fact, there is no competition.
It is a good thing that some of the decisions taken by the directors of such a company be influenced by members of public organizations, but not entirely so, not even by a majority, for it has been proven that whenever a majority of businessmen are appointed directors of a company, we can be sure that the company is better managed than by government officials or bureaucrats.
That is why I intend to move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Timiskaming, to the effect that not three directors be appointed by the federal government but that five directors be appointed by various public agencies, namely, two by the federal government, two by the provincial governments and one by the union of municipalities. It is merely a matter of substituting the figure five to the figure three.
I think I pointed out that it was a good thing that the businessmen who at present manage the Bell Telephone Company of Canada continue to do so and hold a majority of the votes in the company. However, on the other hand, they would be assisted by 25 per cent of the directors who would rep-
Private Bills
resent the public and see to it that the interests of every Canadian be better safeguarded whenever a decision is taken.
Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a reasonable suggestion.
If the telephone company finds that 15 directors are not enough and wishes to increase their number, it means that the company has greatly expanded and is doing so much business that 15 directors will not suffice. We are therefore in agreement, since the company itself realizes that 15 directors are not enough to supervise its operations.
But the five directors are added to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company, these five new directors will have to bring something new, something which does not exist at the present time within the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
It is true that there are businessmen, but representatives of the public interests are missing.
Working for a profit is not everything- it is the purpose of any business firm, of any concern-there ought to be some directors to see to it that the public interest is looked after. I am not saying that it is the case at the present time; maybe it is. But the public interest would still be better taken care of if five directors out of 20, or 25 per cent of the company's directors were appointed in a more specific manner in order to look after the public interest, two at the federal level as I suggested, two at the provincial level, and one at the municipal level.
Moreover, it would be possible to change this formula again. This is merely a suggestion. The school boards might also like to have a representative or a director on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company. In that case it might be possible to introduce a further subamendment in order to include a sixth director who would represent the various school boards in Canada. In this way all public bodies in the country would be represented. We would then be sure that the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada would better cover our citizens as a whole.
At the present time the board of directors of the company only represents the shareholders' interests. This is necessary, I admit, and we recognize that the majority of the directors must represent the shareholders. But we would also like to see all our public bodies represented in a company of this kind so that all points of view can be expressed within the board of directors.

Private Bills
If 20 directors are not enough, we are ready to increase the number beyond that figure so that everyone will be represented.
There is nothing-and I am sure that hon. members will agree on this point-there is nothing either to prevent labour unions also from the privilege of appointing a director to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Let us keep in mind that there are more than five million workers in Canada, five million wage-earners, most of whom are telephone users, and whenever they use the telephone they have no choice but to subscribe to the company whose cables run in front of their homes. Yet, when policy decisions are to be made, those people have no say in the matter.
Therefore, it would seem to me normal that the workers themselves be entitled to choose a representative on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company.
Therefore, before my time is up I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) the following:
that the figure "five" be substituted to the figure "three" in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
Thus, five members only of the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada will be appointed by public bodies. If this is not sufficient, more can be added, so that the federal and provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and labour unions be represented on the board.
The farmers should not be forgotten either, because, unfortunately, they have no say in the matter. And they are possibly the ones who suffer most from certain attitudes taken by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
It is obvious that farm houses are more distant from one another than city houses, and that is why not all hamlets or farms in Canada have telephones. Now if farmers were represented on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, they would be in a position, they would be in a better position to suggest to the company that telephone service be provided, not only in towns, but also on farms across the country. I think that would be of benefit to a large segment of our population, that is the farmers, just as it would be a good thing to have a representative of the labour unions.
Let us not forget businessmen. If we go into a business office or a commercial establishment and look at its telephone account at the end of a month, we find that quite a few long distance calls have been

made, and that they run into quite a bit of money.
If the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada were to include a representative of every social class, those representatives might be in a position to suggest to the management various improvements, especially in the matter of long-distance charges.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada would benefit in many ways if all classes of citizens in Canada were represented on its board of directors.
Even then, Mr. Chairman, I am overlooking some. If some unemployed worker were appointed director, perhaps might such a person, sitting on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, suggest that, during periods of unemployment, the unemployed should not be requested to pay their telephone bills. The unemployed need the telephone as much as anyone else. In cases of emergency, to call the hospital, the police or the fire department, they need the telephone service as much as any other class of society.
If there were an unemployed person on the board of directors of that company to suggest that an individual who is out of work should not have to pay his telephone bill, that again would be beneficial to society. It would be another benefit among all those which the Canadian people are getting from a company such as the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I may have overlooked other benefits, but I begin to realize that for the Bell Telephone 20 directors would not be enough-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lafontaine would like to direct a question to the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well.


Mr. Lachance:: The hon. member-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before the hon.
member puts his question, I must inform the hon. member for Lapointe that his time has now expired. Therefore no question can be put to him without the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have the unanimous consent of the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry, but the hon. member did not get unanimous consent of the house.

Mr. Gr&goire: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I have heard "yeas" to the effect that I
had unanimous consent.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps, but the Chair heard objections to unanimous consent.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there was no objection on the part of the Liberals.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe that the word "five" in the amendment be substituted for the word "three".
Is the committee ready for the question? [Text]


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I do not think it really matters whether it is three out of 20 or five out of 20 in so far as the difference between those two numbers is concerned. The principal point of having some representative of the general public on the board of directors is well worth while supporting.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to repeat his remarks, which I did not hear very well since my earphone was not properly adjusted? May I ask him to repeat his remarks, which seemed to the point?


Frank Howard: I merely said, Mr. Chairman, that in essence it does not really matter whether it is three out of 20, or five out of 20, or four out of 20, or some other number or percentage around that figure. The principal point that we should concern ourselves with, which initially was raised by my colleague from Timiskaming and which we have been dealing with for many, many years as a political party, is that the general public should somehow or other have some say in the internal operations of a public service utility such as Bell Telephone.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I believe that in committee of the whole I am entitled to speak again on this subject and to qualify my idea. I shall then explain further my opinion, for the benefit of the member for Skeena.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that it is not necessarily the figure three or the figure five that counts. What matters is the principle that there be also representatives of public bodies.
Private Bills
In my opinion-and I believe the hon. member for Skeena shares such views-there are many public bodies which would benefit from some representation within the Bell Telephone Company of Canada: the decisions taken might be improved and the interests of the various levels of society better protected.
I suggested five directors out of a total of 20, but perhaps I should have suggested even more, for I would also like someone to represent the federal government on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I just gave that figure as an example because the provinces and municipalities should also have a say at board meetings. In other words, the three levels of government should each have a representative. In addition, I should like the labour unions to have a representative and, as I said a moment ago, the farmers should also have a voice; they may be the class of people where one finds the highest proportion of citizens who are deprived of telephone service on account of the fact that farms are too far from one another.
I further stated that a director should speak for the unemployed since such a person could suggest that an unemployed subscriber should be exempted from paying his telephone bill during the time he is out of work.
Then, it requires more than the three directors mentioned by the hon. member for Timiskaming in his amendment. But I stated clearly that I want the majority of directors to be representatives of the shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, because they must administer the savings of those people. It must not become a state-controlled corporation, but remain a company managed by a majority of directors representing the shareholders.
However, it would be helpful to have, in addition, representatives of all public bodies so that they could bring forward their views, as well as those of all classes of Canadian society.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to finish my comments, I would draw attention to the fact that, when I was listing the various social groups that could be represented within the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, I mentioned five directors appointed by public bodies but I unfortunately forgot to mention those who would be appointed by various social groups which should also be represented on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company.

Private Bills
If the amendment and subamendment are adopted, it would then be probably appropriate to ask that the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company be increased not from 15 to 20, but from 15 to 25, as an increase from 15 to 20 would allow for representation of the public bodies, and that of 20 to 25 would allow for representation of the various social classes of Canada.
This is very important, and I should like to point out that, when all the social classes in Canada shall have representatives on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, every Canadian citizen will be proud of it.


Mr. Boulanger:: Parish priests, bishops, the whole clergy.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the hon. member is not in order. He is not confining his remarks either to the amendment moved or to his own amendment.


Frank Howard: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman. If that is to be considered a serious point of order may I point out that I have been listening attentively to the hon. member for Lapointe and he is precisely and exactly dealing with the number of directors to be appointed by the governor in council namely five, and he is explaining in what manner they should be appointed and whom they should represent.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Lapointe is quite in order when he deals with the subamendment and the amendment calling for more directors to look after the operations of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
To me the hon. member for Lapointe is not making a mistake, he is not off the track; on the contrary, he is quite right in suggesting that the number of directors be increased to 25, 30 and even 35 according to need, so that all public organizations may be represented in a public telephone company. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Brantford. I feel that the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe are relevant to the amendment and to the subamendment and I would invite him to continue his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and just to show the benefits that would rej Mr. Gregoire.]
suit from such an amendment, I think the number of directors should be increased to 25 instead of 20 and that the five new directors be appointed by the social classes. A worker would be proud to see on a telephone pole the picture of his union representative who would be a member of the board of directors of the company.
Then all labour in general would endorse the decisions taken by the Bell Telephone Company, since there would be labour representatives on the company's board of directors.
Mr. Chairman, there is another important point. If a representative of the farming community were appointed to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, taking into consideration the number of telephone poles planted on farm lands, farmers would be quite proud to see a picture of their representative on those telephone poles. That would be an asset for the Bell Telephone Company.
At first sight this may seem odd, but it must be admitted that then all sections of our society would be represented within the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
The Bell Telephone Company is a large firm which serves our entire population, and that is exactly the reason why, from Vancouver to Halifax, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, all classes of our society must be represented on the board of directors.
Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Mercier has a question to ask. If he rises, I will be glad to answer it, but if he remains seated, I will not hear the question.


David Réal Caouette: The number of telephone poles would have to be increased.


Gilles Grégoire: If the member for Mercier has a question to ask, I will be pleased to answer it.
Mr. Chairman, Bill S-27 reads as follows:
An act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Under this bill, we are asking:
That it be enacted as hereinafter set forth and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Mr. Chairman, this shows that, to have their charter amended, the directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada have to call on the members of the House of Commons. They are asking us to amend section 8 of chapter 67 of the statutes of 1880.
Since they are asking us it is a pleasure today, to offer some suggestions which we

think are constructive and proper and also beneficial for the Bell Telephone Company of Canada itself.
Mr. Chairman, I agreed that the number of members of the board of directors be increased to 20. I regret that it is only 20 because I would like to see the number raised to 25, to allow for the representation of ten public bodies.
I see that the hon. member for Timiska-ming is indicating that he will introduce an amendment to raise that number to 25 instead of 20. Then we shall support him, at least for the first 20 directors. When they have five instead of three, five to represent public bodies, then we can make a new attempt.


Gerald Augustine Regan: You will never get a line.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) wishes to ask me a question. If he will stand up,
I shall be pleased to give him an answer, but if he remains seated, he is out of order because standing order No. 5 requires that any hon. member wishing to speak must rise in his place and take off his hat-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. members that they be somewhat more serious, and I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the amendment and the subamendment now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that when the five million workers read the proposal to represent the working class in the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, they will not look upon it as a matter of levity, nor will the farmers, the municipalities and the provincial governments. If the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) wants to ask me a question-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question? In view of the fact that the company would be able to pay better wages and offer better working conditions, and I am sure they could do so if all accounts were paid, would the hon. member agree that one of the new directors should be appointed as a collector to collect all outstanding debts?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, later I shall move an amendment for the purpose of adding another director who would present to the board the suggestions of all citizens whose payment of telephone bills is overdue and who find it difficult to pay their tele-
Private Bills
phone bills. People who cannot pay their telephone bills far outnumber those who can pay them easily. Therefore, if there is a director appointed to bring forward the views of those whose telephone bills are outstanding it will perhaps be easier to get them to pay.
I now continue the amendment of the clause so that it will read as follows: that the business of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada be managed by a board of directors of not less than five members and not more than 20 members, as may be determined by a resolution of the shareholders.
Then the shareholders have the right to decide who the five, 15 or 20 directors are going to be. We are asked to increase the number. Why limit the number to 20 when a good suggestion has just been made to add to them? The number can be increased to 25. We suggest to them 10 representatives of the social classes and public bodies.
I ask that the subamendment we moved be seriously considered by the managers, the directors and the shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada so that this company will no longer represent solely certain private interests but that, while the latter may include the majority of represented, it will become a company representing the whole of Canada, all Canadians, of whatever race, religion, language, province or social status. Then this company will be dearer to the hearts of Canadians.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have not before now participated in the debate or study of this particular bill, but in view of the number of cabinet ministers now in attendance, and the attendance of the hon. member for Kootenay East, it is becoming obvious that this bill is about to be transferred on the order paper to a government order. Perhaps the increased interest on the part of the members of the cabinet is because they may have to make some of the new appointments to the board of directors of this company. Undoubtedly they want to listen to the various proposals that are being made in order to be in a position to select the best possible persons for these positions.
In view of the principles referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming, which were supported by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I am beginning to wonder whether I should welcome him to the ranks of the socialists, or whether this is just a passing interest. It is obvious that he is thinking in terms of public interest, though

Private Bills
his thoughts are much more accurate than his arithmetic. He proposed that five members, or 25 per cent of the members of the board should be appointed by the government. I have totalled up the number of members he wants appointed, and I have now arrived at a total of 12. He suggests that two members be appointed from the federal government, two from the provincial governments, and one from the union of British Columbia municipalities, making a total of five so far. He wants one member appointed from the unemployed. I do not disagree with him in that regard, but I have always felt that an individual appointed to a board of directors of a company was appointed on the basis of his being virtually unemployed. The hon. member wanted another member appointed on behalf of unions, and I think that is an excellent idea. Such a principle has been advocated in many parts of the world and here in Canada for some time. I think there should be an invasion into management control by the workers of industries in order that they may see how their immediate benefits and relationships are being handled. He suggested another member should be appointed on behalf of the company subscribers, farmers, housewives and many others who are vitally interested in the operation of this public service or utility.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Skeena has suggested that I am becoming a socialist. I should like to point out that this is a Social Credit proposition, and perhaps he is becoming a Creditiste.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You had better apologize to each other.


Mr. Baldwin:: You deserve each other.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the interesting thing about that question of privilege is that the member for Lapointe was smiling when he raised it, which would indicate that he is not really serious about my becoming enamoured of the philosophy espoused by his leader.
There is no doubt that members of parliament are concerned with making sure that the public interest is served, and that the public is assured that this company has its best interests in mind. I think the public should be provided with some mechanism by which it can take part in making policy decisions. I am sure the sponsor of this bill is vitally concerned with the public's interest. Perhaps I should remind the members of

this committee that the principles contained in the proposal we are now discussing were originally initiated by members of this party, which has always had the public's interest at heart. I am sure the Bell Telephone Company officials are concerned about public interest and want to make sure that the public is served in the best possible manner.
Perhaps this is an appropriate time for the sponsor of this bill to communicate to the officials of the Bell Telephone Company, if he has not done so already, that there is a growing concern, as far away as Halifax, about the operation of the Bell Telephone Company. He should perhaps concern himself with some method by which the general public could have representation on this board of directors. He may be well advised to communicate the fact that there is growing interest in parliament in respect of the operations of the Bell Telephone, and he may well ask those officials what they intend to do in this regard. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill should allow it to stand while the Bell Telephone Company officials consider the proposals which have been made, and perhaps meet with members of parliament who are interested in this matter in an attempt to find some compromise or arithmetical solution to the obvious differences.
It is easy for the member for Lapointe to say 25 per cent and that may be a good figure. It is equally easy for some other hon. member to say that he does not think it should be 25 per cent, that a more proper division would be 30 per cent or 26 per cent, or six members, or some other ratio of members of the board of directors selected by the governor in council and appointed to represent the public interest, compared with those appointed by the company under the normal rules of corporation activity.
In this discussion with the Bell Telephone Company we might reach an agreeable figure. After all, in something of this nature I do not think anybody wants to say to Bell Telephone or any other public utility: This is what we think is a proper ratio, 25 per cent appointed by the governor in council and 75 per cent selected at the annual meetings of the company in the way it is normally done. I do not even think we should say arbitrarily, as was suggested by the hon. member for Timiskaming initially, that three out of the 20 should be appointed by the governor in council. What percentage that would be I could not say. It is around 15 per cent. This

is just as arbitrary a figure as the 25 per cent suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I think a far more reasoned and reasonable approach would be to communicate with the Bell Telephone Company through the sponsor of the bill and indicate our wishes to them so that we can arrange to sit down and talk about the matter in an informal way. Of course, whatever figure we arrive at, it also will be arbitrary. Unless we had a board of directors numbering 1,000 I do not think we could possibly have representation for all sections of the economy and all groups of subscribers. But some balance should be sought and there should be acceptance of the idea that if one person is appointed by the union of B.C. municipalities, for the sake of argument, it will be generally understood this is fair enough representation of that particular group of people. If we agree that the people working for the company should have some representation, it may also be possible that one such person will be sufficient to represent that block of people. And so on down the line.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Frank Howard: But certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: Under those conditions,
would you agree that if labour unions could appoint a representative to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to protect the interest of workers, the salary of that representative should be paid by the unions as a whole rather than out of the funds of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, so that the union representative would be entirely free from any links in order to represent adequately the unions on the board of directors of the company.


Frank Howard: My friend from Lapointe is obviously a crystal ball gazer because I was about to come to something akin to that point, although not particularly that point. I was going to say that in the normal relationships between companies such as the Bell Telephone Company and governments such ns the Liberals it would be very simple for the Bell Telephone Company to say that they would accept the sort of amendment now before the house. They could say: We will accept three or five. We have the other 15 in our pocket in any event and we have the
Private Bills
Liberal government in our pocket so we will just go to them and ask them to handpick these three or five people, and then we will have the whole 20.
I was about to proceed to that line of argument and the hon. member for Lapointe assisted me in reaching it. With regard to so-called advisory boards established under the aegis of government and whose members have been appointed by the governor in council, we have found in the past that even though they may be suggested by outside groups such as unions there is not the degree of independence of thought there should be because the individual is not paid by the people he represents. I think it would make for a better connection between the representative and the people he is representing if he were unfettered financially so far as any connection with the Bell Telephone Company is concerned. He would have a much more independent attitude of mind. In that sense the hon. member for Lapointe and I have reached a meeting of minds and there is no disagreement whatever.
There might be some difficulty though with regard to the appointment of the person who was unemployed, as suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe, unless that hon. member would undertake to pay his salary. But there would be this problem, and it is a question that is unanswerable at the moment. If it were considered advisable to appoint a person who was unemployed in the normal sense that we use the word, and we wanted to ensure that he had some sort of income or salary from his position on the board of directors, we would have to work this out. The hon. member for Lapointe could say "do it this way" and some other member could say "do it that way." This is another reason why I suggest that what we need is an indication from the sponsor of the bill that he will not seek further progress for the bill until such time as we can sit down and iron out this question in an informal meeting with the Bell Telephone Company. Did my friend have another question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, concerning the unemployed representative on the board of directors. Maybe his salary might be paid out of the unemployment insurance fund. Then he would not be dependant on the government but would be responsible to the unemployed because he was being paid out of their money.
8896	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Frank Howard: There may not be any left in the fund to pay him. I understand the hon. member for Danforth had a question.
Mr. Scot!: Not of the member for Skeena. I should like to see a vote at this time-


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Reid Scott: -but before we do that I should like to ask the sponsor if he has taken up this proposal with the directors and what has been their reaction to the suggestion that some of these new directors be appointed by the government?


James Elisha Brown: I might remind the hon. member that I have given him the answer to this question on September 10 and on October 1-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the following question will be raised at ten o'clock this evening:
The hon. member for Halifax, public service, equalization of pay for prevailing rates employees.
The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

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, $5,180,500.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, when we recessed I was speaking about the report of natural gas, and I would like to conclude that phase of my remarks by saying that at present there are two applications before


the provincial bodies which will likely come before the national energy board. One is an application for trans-Canada allotment in the Alberta southern system, and in my remarks before the evening recess I said the Borden commission, the reports of the petroleum industry itself, and the Canada Year Book all have indicated we have sufficient natural gas and proven reserves to enable us to export natural gas from Canada which would help us with our imbalance of trade with the United States, and our imbalance of dollars.
Everything possible should be done to encourage companies that are in the pipe line business, and to provide assistance for them in the tax structure so that we can help the flow of Canadian dollars into our own industry. I question, and I am sure the minister would question also, whether there is a single company in Canada today owning crude petroleum supplies, or natural gas or any of its by-products that is not probably 70 per cent controlled by foreign capital, irrespective of what the Minister of Finance may have said in the past. In fact Canadian Oil, B.A. and some of those other companies that were true Canadian companies have recently passed into the hands of foreign control; but if a little more encouragement were provided in the tax structure for Canadian companies, then Canadians with savings would be prompted to put their savings into investments in Canadian companies and syndicates.
The national oil policy is one which was devised by the Conservative government. The eastern market in Canada gets its oil supplies from Venezuela and other countries, but we know that the oil producing companies in those countries are financed with United States money, so naturally the Americans are interested in that supply of oil coming into what we call the Montreal market. Naturally we have to work out details with the United States on such markets, and it was during the term of office of the Conservative government that a very good deal was worked out on a three year basis. I want to drive that point home, because today the authorities are working such negotiations out on a year to year basis.
Everybody who has experience in the oil industry knows that after the Suez crisis was over the demand for Canadian crude oil, particularly crude oil from western Canada, fell off, and it was necessary to hold talks and conferences with the United States on the problem; and it was by getting into the United States western market that we were able to improve the market for Canadian crude oil. For example, as I said earlier this

afternoon, in 1960 we were able to export about 113,000 barrels of crude per day, and because of our national oil policy and the deal which we worked out with the United States, in 1963 we were able to export into the United States market 248,000 barrels per day.
I would ask the minister to remember that when this deal was made by the then minister of trade and commerce, Hon. George Hees, the petroleum industry was very happy with it. This industry appreciates the problems in reference to the imports of crude into the eastern market. It appreciates the problem that if there were quotas put on the eastern market it might increase the cost here and, moreover, might cause trouble in those countries from which the oil is coming. It might cause the kind of trouble and create the kind of philosophy which neither Canada nor the United States wants.
In this regard the United States worked out a compromise involving its western market on a three year basis. We said we would try to increase our exports to 250,000 barrels of crude a day and hoped to raise it to a level of 800,000 barrels a day. I think the minister can take some pride in the fact that in 1963 we almost hit that target by producing 786,000 barrels per day for home and export consumption. However, I am told by petroleum men in Calgary that now, instead of a three year target they have only a one year target, and this has led to a new development in Montreal where a new refinery extension has been built for B.A. Oil.
The reason for this is that with this one year target, or one year deal with the United States, they feel the market might fall off, and so they have built an extension to their refinery in order to refine an extra 25,000 barrels of foreign crude a day. There is anxiety among people in the oil and petroleum industry in western Canada about this one year deal, and I urge that our efforts should be bent, as they were when the national oil policy was announced, to having a three or five year plan. By so doing we will not have the kind of development which will continue to encourage imports into this country, thus creating greater imblance of trade and imbalance of dollars between Canada and the United States. When we talk about currency in this country let us face the fact that if you go overseas, whether you buy pounds sterling or dollars you pay for them in United States dollars. They control the markets. We listened to the suggestions made today by my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-
Supply-Trade and Commerce pelle. If we are to be a mature country we should set up the proper institutions internationally so that we would be dealing in Canadian dollars as well as in United States dollars. Then we could talk. Then we could trade and then we could sell in world markets. The oil industry is prospering in Canada today, due to the national oil policy implemented by the former government. I know the present minister is going along with that policy. I will go further. I will congratulate him and the officials of his department on going ahead with it. As a result of that national policy we were able in 1963 to produce 786,000 barrels of crude per day compared with 462,000 barrels in 1958. When I say "produce" I mean production in the sense that consumers at home and in the export market are using that amount, and this spells dollars for Canada. I say that the oil industry is one of the most important industries in Canada today, along with agriculture, and that its prosperity or otherwise affects the whole of our economy.
We heard today an enlightened speech by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I went along with him in his six points. He was enthused. I am sure the minister was really interested. But it seems to me that when we are discussing the building up of trade with countries having a lower standard of living than our own we should begin to take a hard look at our relations with China. We have made wheat deals with China and we have made oil deals. There may be other deals in store. If we are going to trade with a country of 600 million people the Department of External Affairs should take a look at the situation because if we deal with these people by selling them goods we may have to deal with them otherwise. It seems to me that as the parties change places in this house, officials of the department continue to advise and curb the ministers to whom they are responsible. I can speak freely because I am in opposition. I believe it is time that Canada, in spite of what the United States may do, should recognize China as a country. Remember, there are six or seven hundred million human beings there and they cannot be ignored. We are a country of 19 million people and we are sitting on surplus resources. We have reserves of wheat, natural gas, petroleum, iron ore; we have a surplus of everything. Can we continue to hold these resources for 19 million people unless, first of all, we begin recognizing the countries we must deal with and, in the second place, we begin to change the archaic and out of date

Supply-Trade and Commerce rules which govern immigration into this country? You cannot have one without the other. If there is to be peace in the world we have to show ourselves as businessmen of good will.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member to clarify a point? When he spoke about agreeing with his hon. friend from Qu'Appelle did he mean we should increase our imports of oil from Venezuela to carry out the suggestion he made?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody laughed, and the man who laughed would not know grease if he saw it. The minister has asked an intelligent question and a proper question and I want to answer it. I appreciate the problem thoroughly. I said we must negotiate and work out deals. I am confident that the industry in western Canada is happy with the deal the Conservatives put over when they developed a national oil and petroleum policy. I would say that if we were self-sustaining and if we were not so dependant on the economy of the United States we could probably take a different attitude. But one has to be a cold realist, a cold businessman. What is the best policy for the petroleum industry? The best policy is to work out a deal. I hope this government, when an interparliamentary group is set up to work with our counterparts in the United States, will not make unnecessary changes in the personnel. What happens is that just as the members get briefed and become knowledgeable, the composition of the delegation is changed because somebody needs a trip. This is a very serious business and I believe that once these delegations have been set up their composition should be changed as little as possible so that we can continue to work out in the future such deals as we now have in the national petroleum policy.


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I only have a few minutes left. I was glad to answer the question raised by the minister but I know the kind of question I would be asked by the hon. member for Renfrew South-and I do not mean to be disrespectful; I know he has a well oiled machine when it comes to leadership.


An hon. Member:: Squeaky.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to repeat the point I was making. If we intend to trade with communist China and with countries behind

the iron curtain, we must remember that it is no longer 1924 or 1934 or 1944. It is later than you think. Maybe Churchill was right. Sir Winston Churchill said.-and I hope I can get his words right-that if the iron curtain were lifted and the millions of good-hearted human beings on either side could have free intercourse one with another, then the 14 men who control the millions of good-hearted human beings behind the iron curtain would be undermined and peace and security would be ours. I think this is true in the field of economics.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John James Greene: He has not said anything, anyway.


Mr. Davis:: The hon. member for Bow River said he could speak freely because he was in the opposition. I also intend to speak freely tonight. What I say does not involve the government in any way; nor it is necessarily in line with government policy.
I want to talk about energy and more particularly about our trade in energy. I should like first, however, to congratulate the minister. The last time he brought his estimates forward we congratulated him because he was a new minister. This time we are all congratulating him on the tremendous performance of his department. Certainly he has shown great qualities in leadership with respect to our very successful trade drive.
One of the best tests of what is happening to our economy is our balance of payments. Three years ago our expenditures abroad were far in excess of our earnings and we had a balance of payments deficit of roughly $1.5 billion. It has now been reduced to half a billion. This improvement is one measure of the government's accomplishments in the field of foreign trade. It is of interest to all of us, not only in respect to trade, but in respect to foreign ownership in Canadian enterprises.
In the energy field there has been a remarkable improvement. At the end of world war II we were importing two thirds of our fuel. The bulk of it came from the United States, but some oil came from Venezuela. Today we are approaching a balance. We are, roughly, 70 per cent self-sufficent in respect to oil. We are more than self-sufficient with respect to hydro power and natural gas. We are still importing some coal. But, over-all we are 90 per cent self-sufficient in respect to energy. The progress made in this field is

one of the reasons why the affairs of this nation are in much better shape today than they were a few years ago.
Our changing pattern of trade reflects Canada's changing patterns of fuel consumption, in particular the tremendous increase in the importance of oil. Now it accounts for 60 per cent of our consumption of energy, having risen from 20 per cent. We are using more oil than anything else. Oil and gas together supply roughly three quarters of our energy requirements. Wood has almost disappeared as a source of energy and the importance of coal has declined not only in relative but also in absolute terms.
All over the world we are witnessing this progressive shift from what we thought to be the more durable forms of energy to the more exhaustible forms such as oil and natural gas. This shift is a matter of great concern to many people. Today oil is on the crest of the wave, so to speak. It accounts for 40 per cent of all world trade at the present time. Ten billion dollars worth of oil moves between nations annually on this globe of ours, but this increasing volume of
011	is being recovered in the context of increasing reserves. In the world today, if not a single additional exploratory well were drilled, there is still 40 years of supply at the current rates of consumption. On this continent, where oil has been in extensive use for over a century, there are still about
12	to 15 years supply. This 12 to 15 year figure frightens some people, and yet if one goes back over the past century he finds that there has been a 10 or 15 years supply proven out and available at any one point of time. The reason this has happened is that the oil industry has found it necessary to have something which you might call a working inventory in the order of 10 to 15 years supply on hand. It does not pay the industry to find too much oil, and consequently the industry keeps a limited amount of proven oil ahead of itself. It has been drilling deeper and using new techniques, and the proven oil reserves have mounted roughly in line with the immense increase in consumption on this continent.
Going overseas, mankind has found even greater quantities of this energy. In the world today there is at least as much natural gas, physically speaking at least, as there is oil; yet the consumption of natural gas lags behind that of oil by a considerable margin. In many parts of the world natural gas is hardly used at all. Even in Canada it is largely a post-war phenomenon. So if oil 20220-563
Supply-Trade and Commerce were to show some signs of exhaustion, natural gas is coming along behind it. Again, behind natural gas and oil are these tremendous quantities of bituminous sands, oil shales and the like. For example, we have in northern Alberta alone more oil in the form of tar sands than has been found in the entire world in conventional oil pools. So we have a larger oil inventory in the form of tar sands than we have oil and gas in the conventional sense.
Then of course we have coal. We have coal in vast amounts, hence the prospect that the alarmist sees only a decade or two away, that of making synthetic oils and gases from coal, could utilize the pipe lines through which oil and gas now move to market. This possibility has been there for a long time. In the 1860's in the United States when oil was beginning to be used extensively for lighting lamps, greasing wheels, and so on, there was concern amongst the conservationists of that day who were saying there was only 10 to 15 years of proven oil left in the ground. They said, "What will we do?" The chemists of that day said, "We can turn to synthetic oils and gases made from coal". That was 100 years ago. Technology was on the horizon then, and it is on the horizon now. Its promise may still be 50 years away. So we may not want alternative forms of energy, including the production of synthetic oil and gas from coal, for a long time to come.
We have hydro power. In the world perhaps 5 per cent of the hydro resources are developed. On this continent only about 40 per cent have been harnessed. In Canada an even smaller percentage has so far been utilized, and in a province like British Columbia only 10 per cent has been put to work. In other words, there are immense quantities of hydroelectric power available and it will become increasingly available as water is developed for other uses and as its multipurpose applications make power in effect a by-product of water for industrial purposes, agricultural, human consumption, and so on. Behind all this we have nuclear energy. We have tremendous amounts of uranium, thorium, and resources of that kind.
The concern about energy, in other words, has evaporated over the last 20 years. It is no longer a matter of whether mankind will run out of energy; it is now a matter of which is the cheapest of a number of alternative sources. We are tending to concentrate today on the more exhaustible forms of energy like oil and gas, but we know we can

Supply-Trade and Commerce turn to the tar sands, the oil shales, to coal and eventually to the nuclear sources of energy. It is merely a matter of cost. And today costs are coming down; we know they are not out of reach. Hence we are likely to see some important applications of nuclear energy within the next decade or two.
So supply is not really a problem. This has a very important implication, if true. It means that a country like Canada that has abundant sources of energy can trade with some confidence; that it does not have to worry about keeping all its forms of energy at home.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question? During the last two or three years has the hon. member always been in favour of exporting all types of energy from Canada, particularly in the case of natural gas and electrical energy-I am thinking particularly of the Columbia river-from Canada to the United States? Has the hon. member always taken that position?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, I have always felt that we could export energy, with proper safeguards. We can export energy if we do not export it at prices lower than Canadians have to pay. We should not export our lowest priced energy to neighbouring areas of consumption. But I would say that we should be prepared to trade, as long as there is an advantage in financial terms of that trade.
Another test of the availability of energy is its price; that is, the price of energy compared with other things. The delivered price has been tending to fall not only in Canada but, generally speaking, throughout the world. Therefore, when the price test is applied, I suggest that energy is becoming more abundant. Delivered costs are coming down even more rapidly than the cost at the source of the energy, because the means of transportation have been very much improved, the oil pipe line is very much more efficient than the gas pipe line-it is three or four times more efficient than the gas pipe line-and the gas pipe line is several times more efficient than moving coal by rail.
Coal can only be moved a few hundred miles in comparison with oil, which can be moved thousands of miles. In other words, oil can move much further from its source to its market: it can move halfway around the world. Natural gas can move across a continent and still be competitive; but coal can move only a few hundred miles and be competitive. It should really be consumed at its point of origin.

These are among the facts of life that the long term forecasts reveal, and long term planning in the freest or most indicative sense indicates this is the most sensible way of managing the energy resources of a region or a nation. Basically we are seeing a lowering of the ceiling on the price of energy because of these improved means of transportation, increased availabilities and more efficient utilization. The average thermal power plant 50 years ago was only 15 per cent efficient; today it is 30 per cent efficient. Recent discoveries are suggesting efficiencies of better than 50 per cent. So much more of the energy delivered to a given point is being utilized. The diesel engine is more efficient than the old steam engine. Today we are not wasting energy and we have an increasing supply. We have greater competition, falling transportation costs and much greater efficiencies of utilization. Energy is being put effectively to work to a much greater extent and much more effectively than ever before.
This leads on to another conclusion. This conclusion is that the area, or the region or the country that is able to put energy to work most effectively is the one that is likely to prosper most in economic terms. This test can be applied in the United States. For example, you find that the states of the U.S. which have the highest per capita energy consumption by and large are the ones with the highest per capita incomes. They are the most industrialized states.
In Canada, the province which puts the most amount of energy to work per capita tends to be the one with the highest per capita income. Throughout the world it almost always follows that where energy is consumed in quantity there is the greatest prosperity. This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that it is to consume which is important, and to consume efficiently, and not necessarily to produce. Canada can do both. In most forms of energy we can not only be a producer but a consumer as well. The implications for trade are obvious. We can export with more confidence as long as we export intelligently; but we should also be importing in areas where importation means lower costs than if we were self-sufficient in respect to that particular form of energy.
This applies perhaps most graphically in respect to oil. Forty per cent of the oil used in Canada is refined in the maritimes or the Montreal area. Our western Canadian crude oil does not come as far east as Montreal; it fills out British Columbia, the prairies, southern Ontario and even the Ottawa valley, but

not Montreal. It is cheaper for 40 per cent of our users in Canada to use Venezuelan or Middle Eastern oil imported into the maritimes or the Montreal area and refined there rather than bring Canadian oil all the way across Canada.
To resolve our balance of payments problem under those circumstances and to resolve it efficiently, we should basically be exporting more oil down the west coast and into the U.S. middle west; exporting it in at least as great amount as we import it from other countries into eastern Canada. This pattern will lend to the lowest cost and encourage the greatest consumption and will, I suggest, be the most rational pattern for a spread out country like Canada to follow with respect to the utilization of energy.
There are certain industries which use energy intensively. Aluminum is one example and the electro-chemical and metallurgical industries are others. We have these industries in some numbers in Canada and they are among the best equipped and most efficient in the world. They are our bread and butter industries-the resource producing industries which help pay our taxes, build roads and schools and help pay for better services generally across the nation. We should where possible encourage research in respect to the establishment of more of these energy intensive industries.
One in which I have been interested for several years is an industry which would process uranium. It is the largest single user of electricity in the United States, for example. It can upgrade uranium into a variety of forms. We do not have an industry like that in Canada but we might have one one day. For the time being we might ship our uranium to the United States, or even to the United Kingdom where a small plant exists, and have it upgraded; but as I say perhaps we will be able to do this in Canada in the 1970's or 1980's. That is the type of industry we should be sponsoring in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit another question. As I understood his argument, if we had to sell our surplus energy to the United States cheaper than what the consumers of Canada have to pay for it, we should not sell it at that price. The hon. member said it must be a competitive price. In other words, if we had a surplus we must not sell it to our foreign friends at a cheaper price than the price our own consumers pay.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


John (Jack) Davis: In neighbouring areas of Canada and the United States-assuming Canada is the source of the energy-the price should be lower to Canadian consumers than to the consumers in a neighbouring area in the United States. Given those circumstances I would be in favour of a continuing exportation of that form of energy. The national energy board will make sure that the reserves in Canada are sufficient to look after our foreseeable requirements. This provision would also safeguard long term Canadian requirements. These would be among the stipulations which I believe can be met and are being met in respect of the export of oil, gas and power from Canada at the present time. We will have more of this trade and I suggest that this would be to our advantage and that we should not be apprehensive about it.
I want now to go on to the governmental approach-I do not mean only this government but I include all future governments as well-to energy development. It should not be unalterably opposed to export. That is one conclusion. Another is that it should be interested in focusing more of its research activity, export trade promotion, and so on, on energy intensive industries so that we make greater use of energy at home. Also I believe it should be looking across the whole spectrum of energy commodities and carefully trying to bring them on the same footing one with another. I suggest that in the long run it would be healthiest if there were no subsidies at all in respect to the various forms of energy. One form of energy subsidized more than another, for example, is not an altogether healthy situation.
We are spending more than $60 million a year at the present time on nuclear energy. That is more than $3 per person per year. I do not imagine that we will go on subsidizing the creation of a new energy industry like that forever. That is a lot of money. We are not spending anything like that on the development of oil or gas, or even on facilities for the production and transmission of electricity. We are favouring one form of energy to that extent. At the other end of the spectrum, we are subsidizing some of our uneconomic coal producing areas. These areas-should be oriented more to consumption at the pit head, and so on. We should progressively work our way out of having to move coal over vast distances, because coal does not move over great distances naturally in competition with oil and gas. Roughly $18 million a year, or $1 per person per year, is,
8902	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce being spent in this country on subsidizing an industry which could over the years readjust to a more competitive position and be in healthier circumstances.
What sort of agency do we need in government to work this out? I should have thought that a national energy board should be an energy board and should take a comprehensive approach to energy. It should not merely be concerned with interprovincial and international movements of oil and gas and the export of power, but also with developing a long term policy with respect to coal. Coal, as hon. members know, is presently administered by the coal board, which falls to a certain extent under the jurisdiction of the minister of mines. In the long term I think it would be better for coal administration to go to the national energy board and be within the orbit, as it would be today at least, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I also think that atomic energy, this new industry which is coming along, should also be within the purview of the national energy board and that atomic energy should be taken, at least in respect to our long term programs, out of the Department of Industry and included along with the other responsibilities of the national energy board. In the United Kingdom there is a ministry of fuel and power. On the continent of Europe today there is a treaty in effect between the six nations of the European common market. They are developing a common policy with respect to all forms of energy. They are trying to put them all on the same footing eventually. The coal mining industry there is in even more serious straits, at least locally, than it is in Canada, but there are attempts to rationalize the whole energy picture and to take an over-all long term approach to the problem in individual nations and in the common market areas. I think that Canada would do well at least to organize its governmental approach to energy in a similar way.
There is only one other aspect I should like to discuss this evening and that has to do with what I might call rigidities which are creeping into the energy field. Increasingly, these forms of energy require vast investments of money for plants and equipment. A pipe line, once it is laid, cannot easily be altered or moved to another location. An oil refinery, once it is built, will continue to be located in a specific area. A large atomic energy installation, which is many more times expensive than a conventional coal or gas burning plant, is similiarly difficult to change, modify and, certainly, to move.


Consequently, you have long term contracts developing. One cannot chop and change. We do not have spot sales of products. We cannot have the same retail situation such as existed 50 or 100 years ago in respect of fuel wood, or even in respect of coal. These things involve long term investments, and do so increasingly.
We have, paralleling these long term investment situations, long term export commitments, so that contractually and financially we have an institutionalization of things. Long term planning is certainly called for, and individual firms involved in this economic activity have to plan over a long period of time. Consequently government, if it is to think in step with these industries, has to be looking a long way ahead, not just for five or ten years, but over a period of time at least as long as the lifetime of the investment, many of which run for 20, 30 or over 50 years ahead. Some pipe lines will last as long as 50 years and some power dams will last for as long as 100 years.
These investments are being made as though we know what is going to happen 10, 25 and even more years ahead, and our plans should be made in similar terms. When I say "plans", I mean our thinking, our forecasting and the whole process of decision making in this context. The thinking of private individuals and government should be in step with each other in this way.
I should like to emphasize the need for voluntary programs. I think our oil policy, a policy which has evolved over the last three or four years, has been remarkably successful. The Gordon commission studied energy, and the Borden commission studied energy even more intensively. Both commissions recommended the establishment of a national energy board. Following the establishment of a national energy board the previous government followed through effectively with other recommendations of the Borden commission. We had an oil policy which established targets in respect of exports and the movement of Canadian oil to the east and penetrating into the United States.
These targets were not set up arbitrarily by the government, but in close consultation with industry. Indeed they largely resulted from forecasts made by industry. The industry forecast that it might move oil as far east as the Ottawa valley, in respect of its eastward movement of crude oil, and remain competitive, and that it might also sell oil to the Detroit, Minneapolis and Seattle areas. These forecasts were brought into reality. The government said: These targets can be

realized; you agree that they are possible, so get on with it. The small amount of oil being imported at Sarnia, for example, dried up. Oil is no longer being imported west of Montreal. We are now exporting oil into the United States. Consequently we had a set of targets which have largely been achieved.
By 1967 perhaps we will be producing, as a result of these voluntary programs, as much as one million barrels of oil a day. That will mean this will be a billion dollar industry. The oil industry in Canada will be a billion dollar industry by 1967. That is a projection which the industry has largely made. Whether these industrial management decisions were made entirely within this country or not, it was recognized that these targets could be realized, and the government of the day decided that these things must be achieved in order to set our balance of payments right. They have come into being in order to set our financial house in order.
These things are being achieved and this is the type of voluntary program which I think can produce the lowest cost of energy consistent with an improved balance of payments and greater self-sufficiency. In other words, as some people refer to it, we have national programming. I do not think it could be properly called an indicative program because the government did not really initiate them. Rather, the industry made the forecasts and the government chose those which would yield the best over-all results.
In any event, we have experienced a program of development which not only put industry in a favourable competitive position, but lowered prices. I think this is the type of national planning that many people in this country want to see extended in respect of energy and other industries in this country. We have witnessed declining prices for energy in this country. We still pay slightly more for energy than do the people of the United States, and their price level has tended to remain about constant. I think we can move into a position of competitive advantage generally in respect to energy within the next few years.
We have always had an advantage in respect to power, mainly because public power entities do not pay income tax and have the advantage of lower interest rates. We are coming into an increasingly competitive position in respect to oil and gas, even with the United States, and this augurs well for the future. We will have more investment in energy in this development, and this favour-
Supply-Trade and Commerce able trend will be due in part to a rational program of development in which companies and associations participate, and in which the government is fully informed. This is the type of development which I believe and understand the minister favours, and I am certain it will pay dividends as years go by.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit one more question. He refers to competition. Is not one of our big difficulties in Canada in respect of the sale of oil a result of the fact that Venezuelan oil costs approximately 10 cents per barrel of crude at the wellhead, whereas it costs $1 per barrel of crude at the wellhead in Alberta? The hon. member has been referring to transportation costs. Even if you have to ship crude from Venezuela it can still be delivered in Canada cheaper than it can be produced at the wellhead in Alberta. Is that not one of the main problems?


John (Jack) Davis: I understand that Venezuelan oil, as a result of a much lower wellhead price, plus transportation costs to Montreal, is cheaper in Montreal than western Canadian crude oil. That is why, under present circumstances, it is better for us to rely on imported oil. However, one can envisage a situation where we cannot obtain our crude in this fashion because some countries are following discriminatory practices, in which case we might find it to our advantage to bring Canadian oil to the Montreal refineries. To do so would be, in my view, an act of desperation, and would only happen under extreme circumstances-that is as a result of other countries not following liberal trade policies. I think we should follow liberal trade policies.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, the topic with which I intend to deal this evening may not be regarded as completely new in this chamber. I will be discussing the Northern Transportation Company and government policy with respect to crown corporations. I should like to make it clear to this committee that I am not indulging in a crusade against the activities of crown corporations, but since we are considering item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for which the minister is responsible, I should like this evening to obtain some answers from the minister about this government's policy as it relates to the question of crown corporations, vis-a-vis private enterprise.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
On February 3 and February 4 I spoke for some time in this house placing certain facts on the record which I thought were relevant to the present competition on the Mackenzie river between Northern Transportation Company, which is a crown corporation, and the Yellowknife Transportation Company, which is a privately owned company.
I should like to begin my remarks by referring to the competition which exists between them. I think that is a good starting point. Northern Transportation, and in fact most of these crown corporations, date their start or certainly their importance from the days of C. D. Howe, who had a genius for setting up big crown corporations to get a job done quickly. I certainly have no argument with the purpose for which Northern Transportation was set up and for which the minister says they are still continuing to render service to a part of the country that needs that type of service. The question in my mind and which I should like to bring to the attention of the house is: Is it present government policy that a crown corporation should do this when private capital is ready, willing and able to do it? How far should a crown corporation be allowed to go in competing with private enterprise, when both are in the same field competing for the same business?
I have put this on record before but I should like to quote again a sentence or two from a speech by C. D. Howe in 1946. As found on page 2176 of Hansard for June 4 of that year, he said:
... it has never created a company that is in competition with private business in any way, shape or manner. If private business was able to carry out the war objective, private business was given that opportunity. The government has created crown companies only to undertake work that private industry was not willing to undertake.
That was the policy of the government at the time the crown corporation was set up. I am sure that most of the parties in the house who believe in private enterprise, and I have heard all parties except the N.D.P. campaign on that basis, feel that this is the ideal situation, that the real justification for crown companies is where private enterprise is unwilling, because of the financial risks or difficulties, or is unable because of those same difficulties to carry out a service that is essential to the country or to a part of it, perhaps to help open up a new area. But I think most of us feel that, if the original justification or excuse for setting up the crown corporation has disappeared, the day
[Mr. Nugent.)
must come when the crown should vacate and leave the field to private business.
In this regard I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce on several occasions for a statement on government policy at the present time in relation to private enterprise versus government enterprise. I got an answer from the minister on October 9, 1963 to a question I had asked much earlier. I suggest to the house that the answer the minister gave was far from being a clear and concise statement on the part of the government as to how far the crown corporation should go in competing. In fairness to the minister I will read two paragraphs at least of what he said. My question to the minister had been based on how far Northern Transportation was going to be allowed to go in competing in the Arctic against Arctic Shipping and on the Mackenzie against Yellowknife Transportation, and what the role of the crown corporation was. I quote from the minister's answer as found on page 3369 of Hansard:
It is the government's intention that Northern Transportation Company Limited shall continue to function as a common carrier in the Mackenzie basin and along the Arctic coast, and in so doing help to provide these areas with an efficient and dependable transportation service. In performing this function the company will, as it has done in the past, operate as a normal business corporation.
I should like to pause for a moment and repeat those words, "operate as a normal business corporation". In the past I have put on the record many instances and many ways in which this crown corporation is not operating as a normal business corporation, in that it takes unfair advantage through having avenues and advantages open to it that private corporations do not have. I will refer to this point again later. I continue the minister's explanation of the policy:
It will, for instance, continue to replace and improve its equipment when, from the viewpoint of service and economy, such action is justified, and will provide additional equipment if the volume of traffic or the development of the area indicates that such equipment is needed.
I would ask the committee to pay attention to those words regarding volume of traffic. In the last paragraph of his statement dealing with the relationship of this crown company to private enterprise the minister said:
Private enterprise is also providing service and will probably continue to do so. It seems to me that under existing circumstances both Northern Transportation and the private companies operating in the north are needed to provide a dependable and efficient transportation system.

That was the minister's statement of policy, such as it was, in 1963. I put a question on the order paper in July of 1964 to make sure I had not missed anything the minister might have said that would be more definitive as to the policy of the government, as well as to see if there had been any change. In answer to my question No. 1,588 the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied that there had been no change in government policy since his statement of October 9, 1963. If the minister has made a statement of policy in the meantime and I have missed it I apologize. However, I have been watching most closely and I do not believe I have missed anything. I do not think the question of what the government's exact policy is has been cleared up yet.
I should like to review the present position. Northern Transportation Company is a crown corporation operating as a common carrier, with tugs and barges on the Mackenzie river section of the highway to the sea. It is also a common carrier operating on the Athabasca sector in our northland and it also operates in the Arctic. On the Mackenzie section Northern Transportation Company has as competition Yellowknife Transportation Company, a private carrier, and in the Arctic it has as competition Arctic Shipping Limited, another private carrier.
It has not been the purpose of my speeches on this matter in the house to malign Northern Transportation Company or to complain of the way in which those public servants are carrying out their duties. It is a well known fact not only throughout the north but in Edmonton that Northern Transportation Company does provide a very good and reliable service to the people of the north. I have said before and I say now that I have no quarrel with the dedicated public servants working for that company who do their best, as we would hope all public servants would do, to make the company grow, to make it more efficient and to please the customers, while at the same time taking a great deal of pride in the service they render to the people of the north. That, Mr. Chairman, is exactly the course that must be followed by private enterprise companies.
My quarrel is with the policy being pursued by the government. I have pointed out in the house many ways in which the crown corporation does not compete "as a normal business corporation", to use the minister's words. The minister has said:
Private enterprise is also providing service and will probably continue to do so. It seems to me
Supply-Trade and Commerce
that under existing circumstances both Northern Transportation and the private companies.. .are needed-
Right now the government has out for tender-and I am not sure whether it has received bids and let the contract-the building of a new boat to operate in Arctic waters.
I am sure the minister must understand by now, certainly I have told him enough times, that this new boat which is to operate in Arctic waters will almost surely ring the death knell on private competition in the Arctic.
I should point out to the committee that Northern Transportation Company, this crown agency, has taken over from the Hudson's Bay Company the operations it used to undertake. It took out the Banks Land, the boat the Hudson's Bay Company had; but contrary to what was said in the house as to the purposes of that takeover, the crown corporation has not been content just to provide the service the Hudson's Bay Company was operating. In fact there has been an expansion of the service provided, and this new ship will make it possible for Northern Transportation to more than hold its own against private competition, and in fact drive out private competition from within the Arctic.
The minister owes the committee a new definition of government policy. Certainly he cannot be heard to say there is room for both when the crown corporation is deliberately pursuing a policy which is bound to have the effect, perhaps next year, of putting out of business one of its competitors in the transportation field in the north.
Next, in connection with this last statement, and I say this "last" even though it is over a year old, when the minister says, "compete as a normal business corporation" he must have his tongue in his cheek. I would like him to explain how he can call competing as a normal business corporation the effect which this will have on Yellowknife Transportation, and particularly the effect of the surplus equipment which the crown corporation has been allowed to get licensed on the Mackenzie river.
For many years it was necessary for a common carrier in that area to go to the board of transport commissioners if it wanted to put as much as one extra barge on the Mackenzie. Yellowknife Transportation had to prove that public convenience and necessity required the expansion of its fleet; in other words, that there was the volume of business that in order to handle the transportation requirements in the area an extra barge was

Supply-Trade and Commerce needed. It had to do this for every single barge, and for several years Northern Transportation had to do the same thing. I might add that Northern Transportation operating in the Athabaska sector had to do the same thing for that sector.
In the Athabaska sector Northern Transportation had no competition, and one year when there was a tremendous upsurge in the demand for transportation facilities it built a tremendous number of barges and put on some new tugs, but a couple of years later these were found more than necessary to meet the limited demands in that sector. I have requested the documents, and I could not find in the record a real application on behalf of Northern Transportation to have this system of licensing changed, so that its licences would not be for one sector or the other, but all licences issued would be automatically for both sectors.
What this meant was that Northern Transportation, a crown agency, in one fell swoop, so to speak, had all its barges in the Athabaska sector, whether surplus or not, suddenly made available to it in the Mackenzie sector in competition with Yellowknife Transportation, and was allowed to move and did move a considerable part of its fleet into that area.
It should not be necessary to remind members of the committee that a crown corporation does not have to justify its expenditures to its shareholders. It does not have the necessity of returning a dividend on its investment. Further, this particular crown corporation has the advantage of having the D.E.W. line supply and Eldorado business to give it a sufficient volume that it always has what the private company does not-a solid background of business to help to meet ordinary operating costs. I wish the minister could explain to the committee how he can pretend that this crown agency is operating as a normal business corporation when it is allowed such an advantage as that.
Next I suggest members of the committee look at some of the answers to questions I put on the order paper concerning the amount of equipment Northern Transportation has, how much it uses and the amount of freight it carries. According to the calculations I make by answers given me by the minister, Northern Transportation Company had a great many barges last year that it did not even bother to use at all. I believe it has 19 extra barges that it never had a single bit of use for during the year, and that figure does not include those it leased to Yellowknife Transportation Company.


This is the crown corporation which is now building a new boat in Vancouver. This is the crown corporation which did not itself come up with the idea of building this new boat in order to give better service. Three years previously the private company tried to bring in an L.S.M. It was a surplus vessel, but under our maritime regulations it was found too old, and could not, with due regard to our shipbuilding industry, be allowed to be brought into the country. But that did not stop Northern Transportation Company from buying it.
I believe the initial cost price was $119,000. It bought the L.S.M. and brought it into Vancouver at a time when it knew the maritime regulations did not permit the use of it. I accuse the head of the Northern Transportation Company of hoping that he would be able to get a special order in council passed so that his company would be able to move above the law and do what the private company could not do.
This boat sat there a long time, and I do not mind telling the committee that I watched very closely what Northern Transportation was doing. This crown agency, now finding it cannot use this boat, is building a new hull. It states it is going to take the propulsion machinery out of the old boat, whatever parts of it are good, and put them in the new hull at something less than what it would cost to build a completely new boat to provide the sort of service in the Arctic that the company thinks would be most efficient.
Considering the amount of money the crown agency has already tied up in surplus barges, I wonder how the minister can justify calling this method of doing business as the way a normal business corporation would operate. I am sure there is not a member of the committee who believes in private enterprise who does not doubt fundamentally whether he wants to see the government going this far, at least in policy. Do we really want to see the government go so far as to say that there is a place for competition between a crown agency and private enterprise when private enterprise is ready, willing and able to do the job? I am certain that those of us who pay lip service to private enterprise have many a doubt about that.
I know that even the members of the New Democratic party, who perhaps would have no difficulty with that first statement, are likely to object strenuously to a proposition that, in an area of the country where business undertakings are risky in the extreme and where it is a very tough and continuing task

to get private companies interested in opening up the country, these companies should have to face the fact that not only will they be in competition with a crown agency but that this crown agency will have many advantages open to it and will continue to take advantage of every natural advantage which it has. This is borne out by the situation here, where it is obvious, from the way the government let out the contract, that it is the open intention of the government that its agency should drive out private shipping from the Arctic, leaving competition only on the Mackenzie, knowing that if they are the only transport agency in the region it will make it very difficult for Yellowknife to continue transportation even on the Mackenzie; because if the destination is in the Arctic the crown agency will be the only one which can say "We can carry right through".
I mentioned some of the other tactics which have been used and how closely this situation has to be watched. Take the ordering of houses for Eskimos, for instance. They were made deliverable at Waterways, Alberta, where only the crown corporation operates, so they would be put on crown corporation barges. Why they should be delivered at that midway point is a mystery to everyone except Northern Transportation. If delivered at Edmonton they could go by road to Hay River or by rail to Waterways, and in that case both Yellowknife and Northern Transportation would have a fair chance. I say there was some persuasion on the part of the crown agency which influenced the department of northern affairs to provide for delivery at Waterways in order that Northern Transportation might not be able to compete.
Figures can be produced to show what all this has meant in terms of practical service to the people in the Mackenzie and Atha-baska sectors. The record shows that while competition between Yellowknife Transportation and Northern Transportation has existed, the unit cost of shipping has gone down. Over the last seven years shipping costs have gone down by more than 50 per cent. But in that same period, when the crown agency was the only one operating in the Athabaska sector there has been no change in the rates. I suggest this is some ground for suspecting that a little healthy competition for the crown agency is a good thing.
There is another factor which the minister should take into account when considering the policy to be followed in respect of this crown company. Where a crown company has as many natural advantages; where it has, 20220-564
Supply-Trade and Commerce as I say, the complete D.E.W. line hauling; where it has a monopoly in one sector; it is difficult for any government auditor to look at the affairs of the corporation and estimate its real efficiency. It is not so bad in the Mackenzie sector. I am not sure how close an accounting is kept, but in order to get business in that sector they have to be efficient. But what standard or guide does the government have as to business efficiency in other places? Whether you believe in private enterprise or not, if you have people in a crown corporation doing business in this way you must be concerned with their efficiency. How much is this costing the taxpayer? What gauge can be used to determine the efficiency of the operation?
I do not wish to review the whole history of the operation of these companies but I am bound to tell the committee that I think the time has come when the government should make a new statement of policy. The last clear policy statement was that made by Mr. C. D. Howe away back in 1946. The present minister must tell us what the government intends for the future. I think he would be less than honest if he did not say that of course he believes crown agencies should compete with private enterprise, even though there is private capital ready and able to do the job. Perhaps, however, he will go as far as to say it is not fair for a crown corporation to have this extra advantage. If he does, then he owes us an explanation why this crown corporation is permitted to operate in the way it does. He should inform this committee how far the exploitation of Northern Transportation is to be allowed to go. Next year, it is Arctic Shipping which will be squeezed out. How long will it be before Yellowknife Transportation will be squeezed out?
The situation is so serious now that no private shipper will want to get into the north. No one in his right mind will invest money in a transportation system which has to face competition in the manner in which the government is running this transportation system in the north. Maybe many people in this committee feel there is so little in the north that it is not worth striving for. But I think the government has said they want to expand and attract private investment. I hope the minister will have some encouraging words and be able to tell us that there is at least some hope.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, tonight we have before us the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce and before

Supply-Trade and Commerce going into details, I should like to take a look at the expenditures for the year 1965 in order to ascertain, in terms of expenditures, the importance of that department in our present administration.
In looking at the figures at the beginning of this book and comparing the figures for the Department of Trade and Commerce with those of other departments to see where this department ranks, we find that it ranks 14th as regards the expenditures of the federal government. This is a very important department because it is somehow the general administration of trading in Canada.
But if we look at the amount of money granted or that we are called upon to put at the disposal of this department, we see that although this department is very important, in fact, there are too many departments which I think have less importance for our national economy but which on the other hand get a very large share of the budget.
When I consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which is also very important, I see it comes before the Department of Trade and Commerce. There I admit that agriculture must be as important as our trade since it gets a vote of $140 million.
Now, if I consider the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I see that we are asked for a vote of $83,037,540. And if we compare those estimates with the estimates of the C.B.C., which amount to $88 million, we see that the Department of Trade and Commerce gets $5 million less than the C.B.C.
It seems to me that it does not make sense that our federal Minister of Trade and Commerce should have at his disposal only $83 million to meet the needs and obligations of such an important department. Yet, the C.B.C. has at its disposal $5 million more than the Department of Trade and Commerce. I think this does not make sense.
If you take a further look you find that the Department of External Affairs comes before the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Department of External Affairs is an important one. But, in my opinion, from the Canadian dollar point of view, it should come after the Department of Trade and Commerce.
We also have another department which I believe is far less important than that of trade and commerce; I refer to the Department of National Defence, which altogether costs the Canadian government or the Canadian taxpayers the sum of $1,525 million.

This is much more important, as far as government expenditures are concerned, than the amount which might be available to our Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I should not like to review the expenditures of all the departments but if, with respect to expenditures, we compare figures, we find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce ranks 14th. However, I think that, in Canada, trade must be placed on an equal footing with agriculture; it is a very important department.
It is silly that, in our government, some departments of lesser importance should take precedence over that of trade and commerce.
When we take a closer look at the trade and commerce estimates for which we are asked to vote $83,037,540, we note the following: general administration, $5,180,500; trade commissioner service, $6,500,000; exhibitions branch, $2,190,700; universal exhibition of 1967, $970,000; travel bureau, $4,907,300; administration of standards branch, $3,372,100; dominion bureau of statistics, $13,195,800. We notice also that there is a special vote of $46,700,000 for wheat.
This means that out of $83,000,000, an amount of $46,700,000 was allocated exclusively to wheat, or more precisely as a form of indirect assistance to the farmers of western Canada.
Now, if I add, in this same book, the number of federal civil servants directly associated-I do not say indirectly, but directly- with the Department of Trade and Commerce, I see that it employs 4,500 people.
I find it ridiculous to expect so much from our Department of Trade and Commerce and give it such a small budget.
It is a good thing to make suggestions to the department and also to voice certain criticisms; but when one realizes that the minister has so little to accomplish so many things, one cannot be surprised that his achievements should be limited.
I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that at present there is a large production of raw materials in Canada-I mean in industry-and I suggest to him that he should co-operate with his colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) to try and find means to help the provinces in establishing heavy industries in Canada.
I shall give only two examples of the abundance of our raw materials. We have steel in Quebec and there is some also in the other provinces; and yet, we have practically nowhere in Canada a steel plant to process our

steel or our unfinished metal on the spot in order to turn it into a finished product.
The province of Quebec is very rich as far as steel is concerned-especially the northwestern area of the province-and it would be desirable to see a heavy steel industry settle there in order to be able to turn our unfinished production into a finished product. By the same token, we could reduce our trade deficit because, at present, our raw materials are exported to the United States to be processed and sent back to us with the consequence that the Americans take all the profits and get all the employment opportunities.
Considering that Canada has a population of over 19 million and large quantities of raw materials, it is time more than ever for the Department of Trade and Commerce to consider giving some assistance to the provinces and to co-operate with the provincial ministers of trade and industry so that we may do our own processing and keep both our raw materials and those profits we surrender to foreigners when they do the processing.
Each year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) racks his brains to find some way of reducing the balance of our international payments, the deficit balance of our national budget, and yet each year we allow almost a million dollars in profit, it was approximately $900,000,000 last year, to pass over to the United States. I do not say that all this profit was earned by the United States alone by opening up our raw materials, but this anomaly has been one of the causes of our deficit balance.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister of commerce to the fact that we are not short of anything in Canada. We have a population of 19 million. We have raw materials and crude products; yet we have men, unemployed people, engineers who would be able to establish a heavy industry for the processing of steel, asbestos and other products.
Thus we know that asbestos extracted in Asbestos and Thetford Mines is exported as raw material to the United States which is selling it back to us as a processed product. We could set up heavy industry plants in Canada, where Canadian ore could be processed and this would in turn encourage other secondary industries to produce ancillary products.
Before concluding, I should like to point out to the minister a number of anomalies in our import trade. Canada is buying from other countries machinery, implements and 20220-5644
Supply-Trade and Commerce various products that she does not have or does not produce or that we ask other people to produce. Furthermore, in the province of Quebec, we are buying heavy machinery, equipment. And the people who are selling us this machinery or equipment do not take the trouble to supply us with instruction handbooks written in French. They are glad to come over and sell us their machinery, in the province of Quebec, and to take our money; therefore, it seems to me that it would be rather easy for the Department of Trade and Commerce to call this fact to the attention of manufacturers of farm machinery, so that they may give satisfaction to our French Canadians who need these machines, but find it difficult to operate them, because their handbooks are not written in our language. There are those who do not understand English. Yet, in the province of Quebec, machinery or equipment is bought which comes from England and the United States.
In fact, the case of one of our municipalities comes to my mind. It bought some machinery from the United States and it had some difficulty to use it because there was no French handbook.
I call the attention of the minister to those facts so that he will insist that these manufacturers supply us with French handbooks which will enable us to put those machines or that equipment to good use.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words, express a few ideas concerning the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I wish, first of all, to congratulate the minister on what has been achieved through his officials and the existing agencies, thanks to his own work and devotion to the cause of Canada.
Still, in spite of his own efforts and those of the loyal and dedicated officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the minister might change direction, change his attitude or even his philosophy.
Everyone knows that Canada has to compete with various countries. This competition is a good thing, even a necessary thing, as the minister said; if we want Canada to export, we must accept imports. That is quite normal.
On the other hand, respecting imports, we think about imports from Japan, and particularly textile products.
In my riding a textile industry suffered from Japanese competition. However, we must admit that the Japanese are industrious, intelligent and hard-working people and that

Supply-Trade and Commerce they decided to resolve their problems themselves-that is their economic development- and that is why they produced goods which can compete on the Canadian market, in the United States and almost everywhere in the world. I do not think that they should be penalized because they took this initiative in order to improve the economy of their country. I rather think that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) should find some means of favouring Canadian industries in the case of identical competitive products.
Having said that, I just want to point out that during my recent trip to Taiwan the existence of a joint company was drawn to my attention; the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and I witnessed the laying of the corner stone of a building which will be occupied by a Sino-Canadian dairy at Tamsui. That joint company was set up by means of Canadian and Formosan capital. The Canadian capital was supplied by the Granby Farm Co-Operative Corporation exporting powdered milk. With this combined capital, powdered milk has been produced, put on the market and distributed in that country as well as in neighbouring countries.
I also heard about a similar experiment tried out by a Beauce company, the Vachon company. It has recently established a sugar refinery in Haiti which will employ a large number of people. I think the funds are furnished by Canadians and Haitians.
I believe this is a very good way for Canada to enter the international field and to promote not only the sale of its products but also our trade in general, for let us not forget that, even though we now have a trade and commerce department, until recent years Canada was rather dependant on work done by other countries who needed our raw materials to manufacture their finished products, or had to buy some of our grains and subsequently came and asked us whether we could not give preference to some of their goods. I believe the department should change its policy altogether, hire some people and train them as commercial travellers.
One of my friends who worked in Latin America as representative of a firm told me that trade representatives of some countries were travelling salesmen. As far as the promotion of a group of products is concerned, they were not satisfied with marketing them but that they sold those products to the benefit of private or joint companies.
I do not think that we have here a travelling salesman policy. I fail to see how Canada with such a small population can otherwise
[Mr. Marcoux.l
hope to grab a good part of the world market. Indeed, being part of America, Canadians enjoy a very high standard of living and earn high salaries; therefore, as far as competition is concerned, we can only succeed in getting a foothold on a market by offering a high quality product or a product that other companies are not in a position to make.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much of the time of this committee, but I want to point out that in the field of textile industries, Japan particularly has made enormous progress in manufacturing those products and, indirectly, this country is prejudicial in some instances to the textile industries of Canada. In my opinion, when we want to bring about some balance between our exports and imports, in a word, if we want to set some quotas in this field, we must show a very keen interest respecting this commodity, textiles.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, I want to say a few words about a man who is indirectly attached to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and who clearly shows how officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce should work in the country. I wish to refer to Mr. Pierre Dupuy, commissioner general for the world fair.
Mr. Dupuy has decided to sell the world fair to the various countries we wish to attract here. He did not wait for the leaders of those countries to come to enquire about the possibility of setting up a pavilion; he decided, regardless of the cost, to travel around the world several times; he is not through, for he is about to resume his travels around the globe. He decided to sell the idea of the 1967 world fair to as many countries as possible. He was successful and I think that he will also succeed in increasing the official number of participating countries. That is, in my opinion, the only way for Canada, and especially for the Department of Trade and Commerce, to really sell Canadian products. We have to take them abroad, to the countries we want to do business with. We must prove to them, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Canadian products are the best on the market.
Mr. Chairman, it is on this note with this thought in mind, since it is getting late, that I wish to conclude my remarks.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, as we turn to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I wish to make a few remarks about the textile industry which, as everyone knows, ranks among the oldest established industries in Canada and provides

work for a great many Canadians, especially in the province of Quebec.
It is an industry which suffered neglect at the hands of previous Liberal administrations, and since I represent a constituency where many workers have jobs in textile plants, I cannot refrain from calling the minister's attention to the fact that he should not yield to the temptation of lending too attentive an ear to those who surround him, especially his cabinet colleagues.
I said just now that the textile industry suffered neglect under the previous Liberal regimes, and I want to remind the minister that, between 1951 and 1956, the number of textile workers in Canada has dropped from 98,000 to 91,000.
In Quebec and Ontario, there were about 745 textile plants located in approximately 218 localities. In 1953, the annual production reached $240 million and investments by the textile industry totalled $700 million. In the province of Quebec, 354 mills provided employment for the workers.
In 1954, 47,000 Canadians, most of them French speaking, worked in such mills. It was in the mid-thirties that that industry was neglected.
During the two decades before 1957, the tariffs protecting that industry were constantly lowered and that is why I say that the previous Liberal governments neglected that most important sector of our economy.
I will provide some even more convincing evidence of the Liberal attitude with regard to the textile industry by suggesting to the minister that he again read through the speech his leader made in 1958 as shown in Hansard, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated, more or less, that it was somewhat superfluous to give too much protection to that industry since it was not considered a native industry.
His colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), stated quite clearly that we were only wasting our time in attempting to save the industry.
As can be seen on page 3465 of the August 13, 1958 Hansard, the present Minister of Transport said the following:
I consider that to increase the tariff on wool against the British is a very bad thing in itself. I will say something more about that, though I cannot add much to what was said so admirably by the Leader of the Opposition on that point (the present Prime Minister). But I say this is just part of the policy, this is just the prelude to an increase in the most favoured nation rate against a country which is an essential market for our primary producers.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Later on, he added the following:
It is rather difficult to think of any industry that is much less indigenous.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, is how the present Minister of Transport pointed out that special attention to the textile industry was not something worth while.
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that during the years 1950-1954, 70 companies engaged in the textile industry which was providing employment for 21,000 Canadians, had to shut down.
I do not need to say any more to convince you of what I am stating, Mr. Chairman, since even in the town of Cornwall in your riding, several textile industries have had to shut down and lay off employees who, certainly, have come to you on many occasions to tell their story.
My purpose, therefore, is to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give very special consideration to one of the oldest and essential industries in our nation's economy.
The minister knows, as well as I do, that during the last world war, especially, the textile industry played a most important, even indispensable, part in supplying our fighting forces.
As all other industries, the textile industry has to get modernized in order to face the automation problems which followed the last world war. Tremendous amounts of money have been invested to cope with the requirements of progress and to have at least a chance to compete with foreign products on the foreign markets, more particularly with those coming from underdeveloped countries where wage levels are well below those of the men working in this industry.
Not only have Canadians invested their money in that industry, they have also put in a great deal of know-how, in order that this industry, which is essential to the nation, may continue.
That sector of Canadian industry is worried and alarmed because of the competition from Japan, more particularly, as well as from Italy and some other countries.
We should not, in order to sell certain of our products, such as wheat, overlook the interests and the position of our citizens who have long been heavy taxpayers in this country.
During the last few minutes at my disposal I should like to ask the hon. minister to give all his attention to this industry. I should also like to draw his attention to the fact that a large number of industrialists are
8912	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce desirous of benefiting to a larger extent from the advice of the officials of his department, with a view to getting a foothold on foreign markets.
Recently I received a letter from a prosperous company from the city of St. Hyacinthe, the Rogar Company, which is interested in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and would like to get help in finding possible foreign markets. This company got in touch with certain officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the reply it obtained was absolutely discouraging. I have, in this connection, a letter which was addressed to the minister.
I am confident that the minister will pay all possible attention to this question because he wishes to increase to the greatest extent our trade with foreign countries. Like myself and all my colleagues in this house, he knows that if we increase production in this country, we will also increase the number of workers and the number of income taxpayers.
I will end my remarks by saying a few words respecting the world fair.
I am glad that the minister decided to grant his support to a project which was proposed by the previous government. He realized that many new jobs would be created by the fair and that a relative prosperity would ensue for many of our compatriots who thus would obtain steady employment for a fairly long period.
I should like to ask the minister to be our spokesman within the cabinet in asking his colleagues to look ahead, as of now, to the impact of the world fair. While it will provide jobs for many Canadians, it is obvious that once the fair is over, a serious problem will surely follow and any undue delay in taking steps to meet it would be prejudicial to Canadian workers.
Therefore, I think it is time, right now, to show the same degree of foresight as did the previous government. This government should show as much foresight as its predecessor to forestall any such problem after 1967, and see to it that the prosperity produced by the legislation passed by the Conservative government during the years 1957 to 1962, will not lead to failure. The administration that was called upon to manage the business of the nation in 1962 must show as much foresight as did the administration at that time.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that it is ten o'clock?

Progress reported.
[Mr. Ricard.l



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, acting house leaders come and go. I wonder who will answer tonight and let us know what the business is for tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to follow the order as announced by the Minister of Justice last evening. I shall continue with my estimates. If they are completed they will be followed by the balance of the estimates for which the Minister of Industry is responsible, namely the remainder of the Department of Defence Production and the votes for atomic energy and the national research council. If these are completed we will then turn to the estimates of forestry and public works.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the system of prevailing rates for government employees known as prevailing rate employees, which exists in defence establishments and some other government branches across the country, was brought into being by order in council P.C. 3271 on December 31, 1934, a long while ago, and I suggest that it is as hopelessly out of date as would be the minimum wages that were set out in that order in council in 1934, which provided a minimum hourly wage of 30 cents for men and 20 cents for women.
Originally the government applied this so-called fair wage clause to employees who were taking part in construction and such work, and therefore it was largely tradesmen who were involved. Over the years the government has not applied to its other employees this idea of paying one level of wages in one part of the country and another level elsewhere in the country, both for the same work.
For instance, with the railways we have the same wage rate across the country; with the civil service we have the same wage rate across the country; with the military services we have the same wage rate across the country, and with Air Canada we have the same wage rate across the country; and in this era of assistance to slow growth areas I think it is obvious that the railways, civil service and military policy of paying, in slow

growth areas, the same rate as they pay in other areas has helped build up those areas. This prevailing rate policy does exactly the opposite, and has the opposite effect to minimum wage legislation.
Only the passive acceptance sometimes accorded to situations of relative antiquity has prevented earlier, massive opposition to a policy which allows Canadians to be paid different amounts of wages for doing the same work for the same government in different parts of the country. It is outdated and must go.
Over the years a number of different formulae have been applied to fix the wage rate for a trade in a particular area. Whatever is done to end this insidious system, interim pay increases should be granted meanwhile to those who are overdue for such treatment, such as the prevailing rate employees at H.M.C.S. Dockyard in Halifax. The application of prevailing rates has worked to their disadvantage. Tradesmen employed by the government in H.M.C.S. Dockyard at Halifax receive a much lower hourly rate when the formulae is applied than men working in the same trade in Vancouver, and of course as a consequence their yearly wage is considerably lower, despite the fact that residents of the Halifax area are expected to pay the same level of taxes. There is nothing but inequity in such a system and it is the very opposite of assistance for an area of slow growth.
I have been informed that the situation is being examined at present, but we want Halifax tradesmen employed by the government to receive a nationally established rate of pay, and it is not just the question of changing the formula. Anything less than a national rate of pay, the same as that provided by the railways and the military, is insufficient and inadequate.
I do not expect to receive any final answer tonight. My purpose in raising this matter is to ask that the fullest consideration be given to it. If the condition still exists when collective bargaining is brought into force for government employees-something I hope will occur in the near future-I trust this situation will be rectified at that time, because I am confident that the representations of these employees will cause that system to be done away with at an early date. We have been told that the prevailing rate employees, as well as civil servants, are to receive collective bargaining, and therefore I hope the final solution in this regard is not too distant.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I urge the government in its wisdom to see fit in the meantime to recognize how much of a contradiction this system, of prevailing rate employees receiving different wages in different parts of the country, is to its other policies. It is a situation that must end, and I hope it will end soon.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: The question has been put by the hon. member in such a way as to imply by the words he uses that the policy regarding prevailing rates which has been in effect for many years involves some kind of discrimination and unfair treatment against the employee groups who are paid under these arrangements. I think the hon. member could get a good deal of argument on this point, not least from many of the prevailing rate employees themselves.
The policy decision to pay certain classes of employees on the basis of so-called prevailing or local rates has been enshrined in federal legislation for the non-governmental segments of the economy coming under federal jurisdiction ever since 1935, when the first federal fair wages legislation was passed. It would be rather inconsistent for the federal parliament to impose on private industry within its jurisdiction the requirement that it pay wages in accordance with prevailing or local rates; and then to turn around and refuse to follow that policy itself.
The federal Department of Labour is the agency of government responsible for administering the prevailing rates provisions of the fair wages legislation, and for ascertaining in each local area the going rates for different kinds of employment which are binding on employers coming within the federal government's jurisdiction, including employees engaged on federal government contracts. The federal government naturally considers that in those same areas it is bound, by policy if not by law, to pay its employees in the same trades and crafts on the same basis and at the same rates as its laws impose on private industry. To depart from such a policy by paying lower rates than those prevailing in the local area would be unthinkable, and I am sure the hon. member is not advocating that. At the same time, to pay higher rates than those prevailing in the local community would have serious repercussions on the position of private industry in the same area and on its ability, especially in certain parts of Canada, to compete with the larger, more powerful enterprises which are largely located in central Canada.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I have said enough, I hope, to indicate the reasons tor the policy which successive governments have followed for years, and which, as far as I am aware, the leaders of the respective staff associations understand and accept as fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I am not suggesting when I say this

that they necessarily agree in all cases that the rates themselves are fair-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. minister, his time having expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, Canada
Ottawa, October 7, 1964.
Mr. D. G. Chance, Secretary,
International Joint Commission,
75 Albert street,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Chance,
In order to determine whether measures within the great lakes basin can be taken in the public interest to regulate further the levels of the great lakes or any of them and their connecting waters so as to reduce the extremes of stage which have been experienced, and for the beneficial effects in these waters described hereunder the governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to refer the matter to the international joint commission for investigation and report pursuant to article IX of the boundary water treaty of 1909.
It is desired that the commission study the various factors which affect the fluctuations of these water levels and determine whether in its judgment action would be practicable and in the public interest from the points of view of both governments for the purposes of bringing about a more beneficial range of stage for, and improvement in:
(a)	domestic water supply and sanitation,
(b)	navigation,
(c)	water for power and industry,
(d)	flood control,
(e)	agriculture,
(f)	fish and wildlife,
(g)	recreation, and
(h)	other beneficial public purposes.
In the event that the commission should find that changes in existing works or that other measures would be practicable and in the public interest in light of the foregoing purposes, it should indicate how the various interests on either side of the boundary would be benefited or adversely affected thereby. The commission should estimate the cost of such changes in existing works or of such other measures and the cost of any remedial works that might be found to be necessary and make an appraisal of the value to the
two countries, jointly and separately, of such measures. For the purpose of assisting the-commission in its investigations and otherwise in the performance of its duties under this reference the two governments will upon request make available to the commission the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of their governmental agencies and such information and technical data as may have been acquired or as may be acquired by them during the course of the investigation.
The two governments have agreed that when the commission's report is received they will consider whether any examination of further measures which might alleviate the problem should be carried out, including extending the scope of the present reference.
The commission is requested to submit its report to the two governments as soon as may be practicable.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Martin.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, Canada
Ottawa, October 7, 1964.
Mr. D. G. Chance, Secretary,
International Joint Commission,
75 Albert street,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Chance,
I have the honour to inform you that the governments of the United States and Canada have been informed that the waters of lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river are being polluted by sewage and industrial waste discharged into these waters. Having in mind the provision of article IV of the boundary waters treaty signed January 11, 1909, that boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side, the two governments have agreed upon a joint reference of the matter to the international joint commission, pursuant to the provisions of article IX of said treaty. The commission is requested to inquire into and to
[Stage Direction]
report to the two governments upon the following questions:
(1) Are the waters of lake Erie, lake Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence river being polluted on either side of the boundary to an extent which is causing or is likely to cause injury to health or property on the other side of the boundary?
(2>
If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, to what extent, by what causes, and in what localities is such pollution taking place?
(3) If the commission should find that pollution of the character just referred to is taking place, what remedial measures would, in its judgment, be most practicable from the economic, sanitary and other points of view and what would be the probable cost thereof?
In the conduct of its investigation and otherwise in the performance of its duties under
this reference, the commission may utilize the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of the technical agencies of Canada and the United States and will so far as possible make use of information and technical data heretofore acquired or which may become available during the course of the investigation.
The two governments are also agreed on the desirability of extending this reference to other boundary waters of the great lakes basin at an appropriate time. The commission is requested to advise the governments when, in its opinion, such action is desirable.
The commission should submit its report and recommendations to the two governments as soon as practicable.
Yours sincerely, Paul Martin.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 9, 1964