Mr. Drew:

That action by the council of North Bay was simply expressing the concern that is felt by many Canadians about the extent to which inflation has destroyed the savings of the people of this country. Certainly this is a problem that affects many nations; certainly it is not a problem that is peculiar to Canada alone. But this government has ways in which it can tackle that

problem. This government has ways in which it can tackle the problem, without any artificial devices of any kind. It can tackle the problem, first of all, by stopping overtaxation and, secondly, by cutting non-defence expenditures, which it has not attempted to do in any serious way up to this time.

Now we come to the situation with which we are confronted in regard to trade. After all, there is not a member in the house who is not aware of the fact that Canada, in proportion to population, has resources unequalled by those of any other country in the world. Hon. members in the house, of all parties, are convinced of the great future that lies ahead of Canada. But there are members in the house who do believe that some of the figures of export trade at this time are misleading, and that some of the figures of export trade at this time contain very dangerous implications.

We have had reason to know over the years that the safest and steadiest market for Canadian products was in Great Britain. The reason for that was a straight matter of business. Do not let anyone suggest that this is merely sentiment. By all means let us not forget the value of sentiment; but at the same time let us recognize that this is a straight business proposition.

Great Britain, a world trader, needs the things we can produce. On the other hand the United States produces most of those things we produce, with the exception of certain specialized raw materials such as nickel and asbestos. Over the years the United Kingdom has been the market to which we have sold our wheat. Over the years that has been the market to which we have sold our cheese. Over the years that has been the market to which we have sold our agricultural products of all kinds. That is the country which has offered a steady market, one which has not suddenly imposed barriers, until very recently. It has not imposed barriers such as those we encountered some years ago which prevented making sales south of the boundary of many agricultural products upon which great herds in this country had been built up.

Let us see just what has been happening. In 1921 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $308,866,000 while to the United States they were $323,101,000, or very close to the same amount. Then, in 1926 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $459,223,000 and to the United States $457,877,000. In 1931, to the United Kingdom they amounted to $170,597,000 and to the United States $240,196,000. Then, in 1936 our exports to the United Kingdom were valued at $395,351,000 and to the-

United States $333,916,000. In 1941 the exports to the United Kingdom were $658,228,000 and to the United States $599,713,000. In 1946 the exports to the United Kingdom were valued at $597,506,000 and to the United States $887,940,000. That, it will be noted, was the first year in which the great spread came. In that year we find a spread of nearly $300 million.

Then, let us see what happened in 1950. In that year the exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $469 million and to the United States $2,020,987,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said: Yes, but last year, in 1951, exports to the United Kingdom increased from $469,910,000 to $631,460,000.

That is true; but the exports to the United States increased as well, and we are seeing this constant increase taking place. In 1950 exports to the United States were valued at $2,020,987,000, while last year they were $2,297,674,000.

One point that must be examined in regard to these exports is the extent to which they are made up of resources that are not in manufactured form. True, we can sell the rich resources of this country, just as any person with a hoard of gold can continue for some time to live at a very high level. We are selling not only resources in a great many cases at their lowest possible figure, but we are selling future employment in this country.

Already we have statements of experts in many lines that new discoveries are not catching up with the exhaustion of our resources. The time has come to examine these exports carefully, and to realize that many of them are not sound in their ultimate effect upon Canada. Rather, we should encourage the greater manufacture of the products from those resources right here in this country of ours.

But, above all, we are now confronted with the impact upon Canada of the barrier imposed by the United States because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We are confronted with its effect upon the export of livestock and animal products to the United Kingdom. Those products are of immense importance to the people of Canada. Yet, at a time when we are confronted with a loss of these markets in the United States, we find the government of the United Kingdom announcing that it has been compelled to cut further the imports of products we would wish to sell there.

We are also confronted with the fact that, as every hon. member who read the press of yesterday will know, the dairy industry in

The Address-Mr. Drew this country is seriously threatened by the effect of that barrier which has been placed against the export of animals and animal products to the United States. At this very time we are also in a position where, because of the difficulties they are encountering in the United Kingdom in purchasing requirements from us, we are unable to sell these same animals and animal products to them.

That brings us to the suggestion that was made the other day, a suggestion that has been made over and over again, that this government should take the steps that are necessary to convene a commonwealth trade conference in order to find some way in which to open up those stable markets, particularly now that we find the markets for these particular lines closed in the United States. Much though we might hope that it would be otherwise, it is most difficult to expect that there will quickly be a change in the situation. Unless steps are taken without delay to find other markets a very serious situation may be created in this country which will affect people other than farmers once the impact is felt right across the country.

I am supporting this motion, not merely because it puts forward a sound proposition as I see it in regard to the encouragement of production and the marketing of our products but because I read into the motion an opportunity to say to this government at this time that one of the ways to encourage production and provide markets is to have a conference of the commonwealth countries so that we may find some way of opening up the markets of the United Kingdom and other nations of the commonwealth. Yes, and if we do that, markets in other sterling areas as well.

A few days ago a question was asked in the house as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would initiate such steps. The minister said he would refer it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) as he had just been over to London. The Minister of Finance then dealt with the financial conference he had attended. He was then asked whether trade matters had been discussed at that conference. He did not say that trade matters as such had been discussed; in fact it will be recalled that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that that was the reason why the Minister of Finance was going to London, according to press reports the Minister of Finance stated in London that that was not the reason he was there, that he was there to discuss financial matters. Consistent with that he made it

The Address-Mr. Drew clear the other day that that was the reason he was in London. When he was pressed he simply said that to the extent-

Mr. Gardiner:

If I may be permitted, the Minister of Agriculture never at any time said anything different from what the minister said. 1 g|!

Mr. Drew:

This would not be the first

time that the Minister of Agriculture had expressed extremely optimistic expectations which were not justified by subsequent events.

Mr. Gardiner:

That was not one of those occasions.

Mr. Drew:

Whether the Minister of Agriculture was correctly or incorrectly reported, the Minister of Finance was in London to deal with financial problems. When he was asked the other day to explain that, he said that only to the extent that financial problems or a solution of financial problems would solve the trade problems could it be regarded as being a trade conference.

That kind of conference is not the kind of conference we need at this time, and without delay. This is an urgent matter. As has been pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, grain is piling up on the prairies. Unless the situation improves, feeders are not going to be shipped to the east. Unless the situation improves, markets for cattle are not going to be available. The whole method of conducting that type of agricultural activity is going to have to be changed unless some other markets are found, and without delay. The suggestion does not relate to that phase of agriculture alone; this whole subject is urgent and calls for immediate attention.

For more than one hundred years Canada has produced a considerable amount of the cheese Great Britain has required. For over one hundred years exports to Great Britain have been the very foundation of the cheese industry in this country. So far as information is yet available, no orders for cheese have been placed this year. At the same time we realize that the cheese industry here is threatened by heavy exports into Canada of cheese from the United States. These are things calling for immediate attention. These are things which do suggest that we should no longer accept the soothing kind of speeches made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). To hear them speak, there is no cloud on the horizon, or perhaps just a little cloud which any ordinary wind would blow away. Yet there are many people across Canada who see dark clouds indeed. As we gathered from reports

over the week end, experts in this one particular line see very dark clouds. They said so, and they have been saying so. That is one reason why we should get out of this atmosphere of unreality and insist that this house be given the facts and that there be taken action consistent with those facts to stimulate trade. That is the only thing that will create employment in this country. No single country in the world is so dependent on export trade as we are. A third of every dollar earned in Canada, a third of all work that is done, results from our export trade. If barriers, either through pressure in congress or for other reasons, are placed against our exports to the United States, then we will be in a very serious situation with the loss of markets in the sterling area.

Do not let anyone tell us that nothing can be done about this. Are we going to sit back and simply say: it is sterling and we have dollars and nothing can be done. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will question my statement when I say that he made an excellent speech in London and suggested that it should be possible for Canadians and the people of Great Britain to find some way to unlock the dollar-pound problem. That is the problem that needs to be solved. The trade that would come from the solution of that problem is something that we all should work for. Some way can undoubtedly be found of solving this problem if it is really tackled.

Surely this is the time to come out of the ministerial dreamland which has been created by some of these speeches we have heard, speeches which intentionally made facts obscure and were supported by the highest publicity experts who in many cases may have been the real authors of the speeches because there seemed to be a striking similarity in the expressions used.

Members of this house are willing to support this government in positive action to open up trade which is necessary to give employment. Let us remember that one-third of the employment in Canada depends upon export markets. We have seen evidence that we are losing our export markets and we know that there is unemployment as a result. In tackling unemployment, in expanding production which provides the one longterm cure for inflation, in trying to meet the problem of taxation, much depends upon high production. An effort should be made to find export markets.

Let us not look entirely to the United States. In the United States and Canada there are perhaps 170 million people, but let us remember that outside of the countries

behind the iron curtain there are 1,500 million. It is true that all those people do not have high individual incomes, but among them are people who do have high individual incomes in terms of their own currencies. Let us look to that 1,500 million which largely employ sterling as currency. If we can get into that market we can continue not only to export at the level that we should but to extend our exports both of agricultural products and of manufactured goods as well. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that instead of a house stagnant with frustration-and that has been apparent in the attendance during the speeches in this debate-we shall now really get down to the reality of this problem. I hope the members of this house will accept this amendment as a request to the government that, without further delay, in order to stimulate trade and to stimulate production in all lines, a commonwealth conference be called at the earliest possible date so that this dollar-pound problem may be solved, and that we may regain and expand those historic markets which over the years have been found to be the most stable and secure.

Mr. W. J. Major (Glengarry):

Mr. Speaker, may I first express my congratulations to my two good friends, the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They carried out the responsibility and acquitted themselves splendidly.

When home over the last week end, I had occasion to discuss with my constituents various problems relating to farm production. They are much concerned as to whether they should decrease their production considerably or whether they should continue to produce at the same level, in the hope that prices of farm products will soon adjust themselves to the cost required to produce these products.

The matter of obtaining farm labour is a serious and difficult one, and the wages that have to be paid for efficient labour are away out of line with the price received for the products produced. Last summer a number of our farmers, through the employment bureau, obtained the services of Italian immigrants for farm work, but these proved to be highly unsatisfactory. Not having any intention of fulfilling the contract that they had entered into, most of them left at midseason, thus leaving the farmer to carry on as best he could and with great difficulty, after having planned on this help to carry him through the season of extra work. It is to be hoped that this year the farmers will be more fortunate in the help that the employment bureau will be able to obtain for them through immigration.

The Address-Mr. Major

Another matter that my constituents have a hard time to understand is this. After each release made by the bureau of statistics on the cost of living much stress has been laid on the price of farm products, in an effort to show that they were greatly responsible for the increase. Farm prices not being stabilized, they fluctuate down and up according to supply. When farm prices were recouping themselves, it was noticeable that a great effort was made to show that they were considerably responsible for the rise in the cost-of-living index; but generally, little mention was made of them when the index was again higher, though the prices of farm products had dropped.

My constituents pointed out to me that the relative prices of farm products have less to do with the increase in the cost-of-living index than we are generally led to believe it has. They also stressed the fact that during the last several months the price received by the producer has been reduced some 30 per cent for hogs, 20 per cent for cattle, 33 per cent for poultry and 46 per cent for eggs, while the cost-of-living index was reduced but by a little more than one point.

It would appear that with regard to the increase in the cost of living, much stress has been laid on the wrong producer. I know that it is a discouraging situation and that it is impossible to produce when you obtain for the product that you produce less than the over-all cost of that product. That is why the farmer is now reluctant to continue on at the same level of production as that at which he produced during the last year. Should the farmer be forced to decide to curtail his production as a result of insufficient return for his product, not only shall we be faced with short supply within a short time but our consumer will be called upon to pay a much higher price than he would have to pay if prices of farm products were not allowed to decline disproportionately.

Another matter that has been brought to my attention is that of farm loans from the farm loan board for young prospective farmers, especially for young men who were brought up on the farm and who, through lack of a loan to establish themselves, are forced to leave our rural districts and to take up work in the cities to which they are often lured by a 40-hour week and all the mirage of leisure that goes with it.

I can recall my own case quite well. Had it not been for the agricultural development board of the day I possibly would never have been able to establish myself on the farm, to enjoy the space, the freedom, and the long hours and to take part in the production of food for the Canadian consumer.

The Address-Mr. Major

If we want to put a stop to the continual decline in the rural population and if we want to keep our boys on the farm, we shall have to consider increasing the amount of the loans made by the farm loan board to prospective young farmers. We should also consider the rate of interest that is now being required, if we want these boys to meet their commitments. The amount of a loan that would have been sufficient to establish one on a farm some years ago is now entirely inadequate when consideration is given to the price of the farm itself and to the tremendous increase in the cost of machinery and equipment required to operate a farm.

My constituents brought to my attention their concern over the production and sale of margarine. With the persistent clamour for butter substitutes, they feel that the entire dairy farm economy will suffer. They also brought me statements showing that they were not receiving the floor price of $26 for their hogs. They were anxious to know why a reduction of 25 cents was being made by the packing plants. I note in the announcement made on February 16, 1952, by the Acting Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Winters), that the program is designed to provide a price of not less than $26 per 100 pounds for grade A hogs at the public stockyards in Toronto and Montreal. I would think that there might be a distance of several hundred feet from the stockyards to the killing plant, and that the packers are making deductions to walk the hogs this distance. If the truckers were to charge the farmers proportionately for taking these hogs to market, I am afraid that they would require more than the price of the hog to cover transportation.

Throughout the dairy districts there is great concern with regard to the unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease from which we are suffering in the Regina district, coupled with the bans and restrictions that have been applied against our exports of beef and dairy cattle, as well as our dairy products. In my district dairying and dairy cattle are among the main productive assets along with hogs and poultry. A large number of dairy cattle were produced for export to the United States, and now these extra dairy cattle are shut out from the market they were intended for. They will either have to be shipped for beef or kept on the farms, requiring extra labour; and when the price of labour is compared with the possible returns that may be received for the by-product you can understand the hesitancy on the part of the farmer to keep these dairy cattle.

Last year we had a cheese contract with Great Britain which took care of the surplus milk through the cheese production we had

available for export. This year it looks as though Britain under her austerity program is not likely to enter into a contract for the purchase of our cheese. Unless these cattle are sent to market for beef, a purpose that they were not intended for, they will add to our export cheese production with no market in sight. Added to this our dealers have already imported New Zealand cheese, and it would appear that an additional quantity is on its way to the Canadian market.

It does not seem logical that we should sell our cheese to Great Britain taking payment in dollar currency in return and then turn around and import cheese from New Zealand, thus depriving Great Britain of the advantage of purchasing this New Zealand cheese herself and paying sterling currency for it. I also understand that we have a duty of 11 cents per pound on butter imported from New Zealand while we have a duty of only 1 cent per pound on cheese. To me this seems abnormal, and I would ask that either the tariff as regards cheese be equalized to that of butter, or that a ban be placed on cheese imports from New Zealand while this emergency exists.

Mr. Speaker:

I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

On division.

Motion (Mr. George) agreed to on division.

55704-37i

The Address-Division

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:

That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I should like to say that tomorrow and Thursday are private members' days. On Friday, according to rule 28, when the order for committee of supply is called the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. We have been endeavouring to arrange to have a time set aside for a debate on external affairs, and the suggestion has been made that on a government day I move that the house resolve itself into a committee of supply, and that in support of the motion the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) make a statement on external affairs, setting forth the policy of the government in that regard, and that we might have a debate on that subject before any other subject is broached on that motion.

If I had the unanimous consent of the house I would suggest that I be permitted to move now that for Friday of this week standing order 28 be suspended so that we can move the motion and have the debate with Your Honour in the chair.

If there is no objection to that being done, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could table his estimates tomorrow and have them referred to the committee of supply, and on

Business of the House

Friday we could at least start on this debate. If it were not concluded it could then be adjourned to Tuesday, which would be the next government day, and proceeded with on that day.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be unanimous consent, because this will provide the opportunity to proceed with the debate.

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house prepared to give unanimous consent to the motion moved by

the Prime Minister and seconded1 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)?