Mr. Pickersgill:

But not for provoked interruptions.

Mr. Green:

Oh, don't you pop up.

Mr. Pickersgill:

I do not take up as much time as the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Green:

Your interruptions are not very impressive, and I would advise you to keep out of this debate.

Mr. Pickersgill:

If the hon. gentleman has anything to say about immigration, I will reply to him.

Mr. Green:

So farms iron ore is concerned, the minister is evidently interested only in selling this abroad.

Mr. Lesage:

You had better talk to Mr. Duplessis about that. Ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) about it.

Mr. Green:

I am getting a lot of help here, but unfortunately it is not much good. I should like to read to the minister an extract from a speech made by Dr. Hume with regard to the processing of iron ore in Canada. This speech was made on March 9, 1953. He said:

No one needs to minimize the difficulties of research directed towards the processing of this ore to the pig iron stage at or close to the point of origin.

He was referring to the Quebec-Labrador ore.

But perhaps a really concentrated effort on the part of Canadian metallurgists and scientists would seem important at the present not only to investigate much more fully possible methods of treatment but if present methods are totally unsuited to conditions as we have them, to devise new methods, an accomplishment surely not beyond Canadian inventive capacities.

Then he said:

It is suggested as not beyond the possibilities of our research scientists to find ways and means in

Natural Resources-Development Canada to utilize electric power and iron ore occurring together in the same area to at least effect a partial processing which would be of immense benefit to this country. The Ontario research foundation has been doing excellent work on the study of iron and our mines branch at Ottawa has a number of scientists well versed in the technology of treatment of all kinds of ores. Thus well directed efforts might accomplish much toward reducing our iron ore to the metal before shipment outside Canada . . .

It is not my intention to advocate extreme views in this regard but even a partial solution would bring great additional wealth to this country and show that we are capable of handling our heritage for the welfare of our nation with not only great credit to ourselves but perhaps by discovering new processes we might bestow great benefits on mankind as well.

And then he said:

There is no reason, however, to hesitate to tackle the problem because it is hard and with hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore in sight with mining on a large scale assured for many years a success promises rich rewards nationally.

Then just this year Mr. P. E. Cavanagh, director of metallurgy of the Ontario research foundation, had this to say:

... it appears certain that most of this iron ore will be exported to the United States and Europe.

In this situation it is proper for us to consider means of converting some or all of this Canadian ore into semi-finished or finished products here in Canada. Several proposals for establishing new steel industries in Canada to use large tonnages of this iron ore have already been advanced.

So much for iron ore, Mr. Speaker. Then another example is in the production of heavy water. Canada's whole atomic program is based on the use of heavy water. We are giving a reactor to India and we hope to sell reactors to other nations based on heavy water. For some years there was a plant manufacturing heavy water at Trail. It is true it was owned by the United States but Canadians learned how to manufacture heavy water there. A few months ago that plant was closed and now Canada gets all her heavy water from Savannah, Georgia, the only heavy water plant on this continent. Talk about concentration of nickel and the dangers of concentration-there is the only heavy water plant and this Canadian government has apparently made no attempt whatever to have heavy water produced in this country. We are going to require a great deal of it in the future with new reactors and with the development that takes place, but no move has been made to produce our own heavy water. I might go on to deal with other products, other resources, but my time is running out. I think those will suffice as an illustration of what we have in mind.

Then, the amendment mentions the correction of the present serious unfavourable trade balance. If we process our own resources to a greater degree, that of course would go

5836 HOUSE OF

Natural Resources-Development some way towards meeting this problem of an adverse balance. I suggest also that we should stop this bowing to Washington at all times. This course has been followed by this government ever since the end of the second war. They hurriedly adopted United States arms for our defence forces to just as great a degree as they possibly could. This attitude has been carried on ever since.

The other day the minister announced the changes that had been made in the GATT agreement. He pointed out that the United States had made concessions to Canada, and that they had benefited and that we had benefited. The Montreal Gazette punched a hole in that argument very neatly when they said that concessions on an equal basis would be all right if our trade were anything like on an equal basis, but it is not. Before the government starts cheering too loudly about getting equal concessions from the United States under GATT, I suggest that they should take into consideration some way of bringing trade between the two countries more nearly into balance.

At the same time as there has been this bowing and scraping to Washington, we have had an indifference towards commonwealth preferences. Of course, these preferences were fought tooth and nail by the Liberals in 1932. That party, now in power as the government, had no use for them. The former minister of national defence expressed the attitude of the government very clearly when he was questioned in the house about preferences on October 12, 1949, and the late Tommy Church asked him this question at page 705 of Hansard:

May I say to the hon. gentleman that the proposal also hangs preferential trade on the sour apple tree, like John Brown's body.

Mr. Claxton:

That is a good place for it too.

Our own Prime Minister, speaking here on June 22, was asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert whether he would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. This is the Prime Minister's answer, as recorded at page 5284 of Hansard:

That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.

The Prime Minister obviously is not very much interested in the preferences, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is even less interested than the Prime Minister. Canada should be buying more in the commonwealth and less in the United States, but there is very little indication of a policy of that kind being adopted.

Finally, the amendment proposes that wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of Canadian resources should be fostered. Even the members of the government admit that this situation should be remedied, but what do they propose to do about it? So far, we have heard no proposal which would meet that situation. Tax exemptions? No, not a word about that. Tax reductions? Oh, no, they are holding off the reduction in taxation in order to help them win an election next year, although there are surpluses now in the moneys coming into the treasury.

Perhaps this is the most important point of all, because here is a case where a vision could be held out before the Canadian people, a vision of Canada for Canadians. The president of the University of British Columbia summed up the picture very neatly when he spoke in Rochester, New York, about a month ago. President Norman A. M. MacKenzie is not a politician, is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is one of the outstanding Canadians today. Here is what he told an audience at the University of Rochester:

He said Canada is delighted to have United States capital in the country.

But "some of us like being Canadians and want to remain Canadians, and we are not unaware of the influences and pressures infiltration and intervention of this kind bring with them and imply".

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):

Order. I am afraid I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired. I have allowed some time for the interruptions which occurred.

Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches which have been made in the course of this debate. The amendment urges this government to take such steps as will ensure the greater processing of our raw materials in Canada. A great deal has been said in the course of this debate regarding the trade deficit which Canada suffers from at the present time in her trading relations. I think it is only common sense to recognize that any country which is experiencing the industrial development and expansion which Canada is experiencing today requires a great deal of specialized equipment, tooling equipment and other items to expand her industrial potential. I think a striking example of this is the pipe which is being imported into Canada at the present time for the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line which eventually will add a great deal to the industrial development and indeed to production in this country of ours.

In discussing the trade deficit a great deal has been made of the statement that Canada

is suffering an increasing trade deficit as a result of her trading relations. Very little has been said in the course of this debate about the increase in exports which this country is experiencing throughout the world.

In the mail this morning I received the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for Monday, July 9, and the first paragraph makes interesting reading as far as this debate is concerned. The section is headed: Domestic Exports in May Reached Record Value and Volume

The article states:

Canada's domestic exports reached an all-time high record total for a month of $428,501,000 in May, topping last year's May total of $367,100,000 by 16-7 per cent and bettering the previous monthly peak of $411,700,000 in June, 1953 by slightly more than 4 per cent, dominion bureau of statistics reports in its monthly summary. In the first five months of this year exports to all countries advanced 11-6 per cent to $1,846,300,000 from $1,654,200,000 a year earlier. The volume of exports, also a record, rose 12-5 per cent in May and 7-9 per cent in the 5-month period, while prices averaged 3-8 per cent higher in May and 3-4 per cent in the cumulative period.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these export figures indicate an expansion in our industrial economy which is going forward apace.

On the second page of this bulletin are some rather interesting figures in so far as the group values of exports are concerned. These figures are given in millions, with comparisons for the same period last year. Agricultural and vegetable products, $358 million as compared with $297 million last year; animals and animal products, $102 million as compared with $101 million last year; fibres, textiles and products, $8 million as compared with $7 million last year; wood, wood products and paper, $612 million as compared with $597 million last year; iron and products, $154 million as compared with $128 million last year; nonferrous metals and products, $356 million as compared with $326 million last year; non-metallic minerals and products, $110 million as compared with $71 million last year; chemicals and allied products, $98 million as compared with $92 million last year; miscellaneous products, $44 million as compared with $32 million last year. Across the whole range there has been a substantial increase in our exports in the 5-month period this year as compared with last year.

Then, if we look at the main commodities themselves which are entering into our export trade, I think we can get some idea as to what percentage of those commodities form the raw materials to which the Leader of the Opposition has made reference. At the top of the list we have newsprint paper, a fully processed commodity. We find that in the 67509-371

Natural Resources-Development 5-month period of this year exports of this item have increased from $267 million to $290 million. Wheat, which is incapable of processing, and is generally shipped in its natural state, has increased from $134 million to $191 million. Planks and boards dropped slightly from $151 million to $131 million. Wood pulp, which is capable of further processing, increased from $118 million to $125 million. Nickel increased from $89 million to $93 million. Copper and products increased from $59 million to $85 million. Aluminum and products dropped from $88 million to $80 million. Fish and fishery products rose from $45 million to $46 million. Farm machinery and implements are at the same figure, $42 million.

In this whole range of products which are set out on this sheet, actually the only products which are capable of further processing are wood pulp, nickel in some instances, copper in some instances, zinc in some instances and iron ore. These are our main export commodities, and a very small portion of them is made up of commodities that are capable of further processing in Canada. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comparisons between 1939 and 1954.

It is true that in this 15-year period our exports of raw materials increased by 288 per cent but alongside this export of raw materials we find that in this period the index on durable manufactures rose from 107-9 per cent to 297-9 per cent or an increase of 277 per cent, which is less than the increase in our export of raw materials. The index on non-durable manufactures rose from 108-2 to 222-4 or an increase of 206 per cent. I think these figures indicate that where it has been economically feasible secondary industries have been established in Canada at a pace which compares favourably with the increase in our exports of raw material.

If we look at the exports we find that exports of partially and fully manufactured goods have risen in that period from $511 million to $1,846 million or an increase of 361 per cent which is far in excess of the percentage increase of our export of raw materials. Our total export of raw materials in 1954 amounted to $1,082 million. It is interesting to note that of this total figure 75 per cent comprises agricultural and other products which are generally exported in their natural and unprocessed state. The remaining 25 per cent or roughly $304 million were mineral and forest products which are quite capable of further processing.

In the same period in 1954 we imported $473 million worth of raw materials of the

Natural Resources-Development same category and this figure indicates, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other speakers have stated, that we are a net importer of raw materials to the tune of roughly $170 million in the year 1954 and not net exporters.

The official opposition in this house has advocated that a policy be adopted by this government of encouraging the maximum processing of raw materials within this country. In the course of the speeches which we have heard I do not think that any definite statement has been made by the Conservative opposition as to how they would achieve this end or just what actually would be done by them, should they form the government, to increase the industrial production in this country. However, I recall that the manufacturers' association of Canada were not quite as wary as the Conservative party concerning what means they would suggest be employed to achieve this end. They stated point-blank that they felt the tariff structure in this country was not such as to encourage the expansion of secondary industries. I believe the figures I have quoted indicate there has been a progressive expansion of industry in Canada and that industries have located themselves in this country where they have found it profitable to do so.

I do not think that in this country there is a lack of businessmen with sufficient foresight that where an industry can be established within the country which can compete with other industries in the home and the world market any opportunity would be overlooked by those businessmen to establish such an industry within Canada.

If the only answer lies in the suggestion of the manufacturers' association, then the work which has been done over the past 25 years in encouraging international trade would be lost. In addition to that we would create in and for Canada a state of economic isolation. We would try to reach absolute self-sufficiency at the cost of isolating ourselves from the trading markets of the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to follow that policy we would be going against the record of history. A reading of history indicates to me that in 1930 this method was tried. We tried to isolate ourselves from the other markets of the world and endeavoured to create tariff walls to prevent other people from bringing their goods into this country in competition with our own industrial development. The government of that time no doubt sincerely felt this was the answer, but before its reign was over it found this was

[Mr. Weselak.J

not the answer, and in 1932 the British preferential tariff was brought in in an effort to open the markets of the world to our primary production.

In 1935 the Liberal government came into power and in 1937 a statement of policy was adopted by Mackenzie King in which he stated that this party would bend every effort toward breaking the shackles which prevent free international world trade. I think this government has done that because in the period during which it has been in power protective tariffs in Canada have been reduced by close to 40 per cent and during that period our trade relations with other countries have increased tremendously and our exports have also increased proportionately. By adherence to GATT and bilateral agreements with such countries as Japan and the U.S.S.R. we have opened new markets particularly for our farm products and we expect these markets will be of great benefit to us in the future.

If we were to follow the suggestion of the opposition to its logical conclusion, it would appear to me we would have no alternative but to create an atmosphere wherein we would establish in this country uneconomic secondary industries which would not be capable of competing in the world markets without a certain amount of subsidization or protection. I suggest that the creation of this atmosphere would have an adverse effect upon the economy of this country. If we were to use protection as a means of achieving this end we would soon find we would lose our markets throughout the world.

As has been aptly said, trade is a two-way street. We must buy a certain amount from other countries in order to receive an open port into their markets, and I think this experience is illustrated by the bilateral agreements which have recently been concluded with Russia and which two years ago were concluded with Japan. On the other hand, if we were to try to subsidize these markets we would of necessity have to tax the people in order to meet the cost of such subsidization. If we were to sponsor or force uneconomic industries to establish themselves in this country we would possibly, as I have said, lose our world markets. We would be restricted to our own local markets and as a result we would naturally have to restrict our primary production because we would have no market for it.

This is a serious thing to us in western Canada. Our primary production through agriculture in western Canada is very great. We are dependent for approximately 70 per cent of our production in grain or foreign

markets, particularly in wheat. The expansion of the discovery of raw materials in western Canada has been encouraged by the markets which have been made available for these products and the effect of the development of raw resources in the western provinces is that there have been established service industries and other light industries which are required to service the raw material industry which has been developed as the result of the discovery of such materials, and they are continuing to develop and establish themselves in those particular provinces.

In my own constituency we have a very large pulp and paper mill which is dependent practically completely upon foreign markets. We have recently had brought about mineral developments in the Bird river and Cat lake areas where many metals are being discovered and which are presently being developed and mine shafts being sunk. If we were to adopt the policy of restricting our exports I am sure that these industries would definitely suffer. In my view, this proposition which has been put before the house should be scrutinized very closely. It has many implications which, if carried to their logical conclusion, would certainly have a serious and bad effect upon the economy of the country.

Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, this motion that is now before the house is to my mind an extremely important one. I believe it is much more important than many of the government members and members of the cabinet-what is left of them here-really assume it to be.

Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):

Look around yourself.

Mr. Rowe:

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this government feels that everything is well as long as they are there. With reckless abandon they disregard parliament, they disregard the opposition, they disregard the people and they say, "All is well so long as we are here". Yesterday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I believe, said that we must not be governed by emotionalism and ignorance, that we must view these matters with common sense or in a spirit of common sense and good will. He said he had listened to the greatest rot that he had ever listened to. Then he said, "Do not let us fool ourselves; there are plenty of natural resources; we are not going to be short. There are plenty of them in the world." He said that it does not make much sense to smelt every ton of iron ore and refine every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground.

I could not help thinking of my three or four-year-old grandson setting up a teddy 67509-371J

10, 1958

Natural Resources-Development bear and knocking it down in order to show how strong he was. I could not help thinking how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was setting up these straw men and knocking them down like a little boy with a teddy bear. We have the minister giving us a lecture about emotionalism and talking nonsense in the house; we have a responsible minister trying to say that to this house. It is bad enough when these Liberal henchmen go out in the country and misrepresent the facts in the country as to what this party stands for. But it is worse to stand here in the house and say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) implied at any time in his life that every ton of iron ore should be processed in Canada, that every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground should be refined. Mr. Speaker, there is not an hon. member within the sound of my voice nor a child in the Ottawa public schools who does not know better than that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have said in this motion is consistent with Conservative policy all down through the years. It was Conservative policy many years ago-yes, at the beginning of our history of industrial development-that gave birth to industrial development in this country. Even the most bitter free traders of the day, and even a few that may be left yet who still cling to that old dusty halo of free trade, practise the policy laid down by the Conservative party down through the years, namely to raise tariffs instead of lowering them, and other methods, in order to develop industry in Canada. We have no apology to make for that.

I believe, however, that we have common hopes in this house, independent of party, race, class or creed. As Canadians, I believe that we have common hopes in relation to our national security, the defence of our way of life and our survival itself. We have common hopes that we shall become a strong country, that we shall have more people and that we shall have a greater degree of economic independence rather than dependence. I believe those are the common hopes and aspirations of every man, woman and child in Canada who takes time enough to think. The trends, however, are different. No one can study the trends of our development without realizing this. Perhaps the government, in their smug complacency have not bothered to realize that it is nothing they have done, particularly so far as fiscal policies are concerned-for they have not any-* which resulted in the development that has taken place. It is the demand of foreign countries on our resources that are being depleted. It is the demand of $2 billion for expenditures for national defence and other

Natural Resources-Development more or less abnormal features that has kept our prosperity developing as it has lately to a great extent.

There are some things that Canada stands out in. There is no other people with such great resources, as we will all agree. No other country exports more raw resources per capita in world history than Canada has been doing in the last number of years. No other country per capita buys as many of the manufactured goods, the product of other countries' labour, and no other country exports more with less labour. In other words, there is no other country that exports so many dollars worth and that distributes and gives as little benefit to so few people as we do in Canada under our present policy. There is another particular in which Canada stands out. There is no other country in the world that places so many of its trade eggs in one basket. No other country is depending so much on another country. No other country in the free world depends on requirements of other nations so much as does Canada. No other country in the free world needs population more than does Canada and no other country in the free world is increasing its population more slowly.

Why are these things so, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have an all-time high national product? Surely that should exercise the dullest mind in this house and even in the country. Why do you boast so much about a great national product of $26 billion and promising to be $28 billion while you are employing on new jobs only half as many as you did in 1952. You say a billion dollars less. Why? Because it takes less men to export our products than it does to finish the product where there is 75 per cent to 80 per cent more finished goods in the last ten years. We need a policy. We need it for our national security. We need it for sound prosperity and economic stability.

In the last ten years, Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have gone to the United States to find employment in fabricating the raw resources that have gone over there from here. In other words, three have gone to the United States for every one that came to Canada or three times as many. Today, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, as many Canadians from your own native province and from your own great race have down through the years gone to the United States to find employment as you have almost in the whole province of Quebec. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that will give employment to more people than will the gradual development of our manufacturing industries. It is important. It will give the maximum benefits to the greatest number of people. It will help

to equalize these benefits among our people. It will help to level out the benefits that we have heard about in this house, where some districts had 30 per cent less benefits in this so-called prosperity in the last few years. It will help to decentralize our development. It will help develop home markets which after all are the best markets. Hon. members speak of what the government has done. Hon. members have talked about the Beechwood development, and they have talked about the Saskatchewan dam. For years they have brought that out at election time but they have never put it into effect yet and they will not do so until after the next election; and if they thought it would not be a tattered and torn issue they would probably save it for the next federal election as they saved reform of the Senate for the last thirty years in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have an all-time high, it is true, in our national production. But at the same time that is dependent to a great extent on other countries. We are more dependent on our export markets than is any other country. Let us consider the United States and the United Kingdom. As someone has said already today, what has made those countries great? What has made the United States to the south of us the most powerful industrial country in the world?

What made the United Kingdom the great power she has been down through the last century? It was the development of her manufacturing industries, even though she had to import a great deal of her raw resources. Here in Canada we have an abundance of raw resources; and yet we are buying more per capita than any other people in the world of finished manufactured goods and we are exporting more of the raw products. We are dependent on others to market our products. We are dependent on the whims of Washington. We are dependent on the policies of France. We are dependent on the policies of Germany. We are dependent for 17 per cent of our total national output on the whims of others who need our products or who may not need them, whilst the great United Kingdom, with all her problems, is only dependent on four per cent of her national output. We deal almost exclusively with one country; 73-3 per cent of all our purchases last year were from the United States of America, while only 8 [DOT] 5 per cent were from Britain.

We have had a lopsided trade policy down through the years. What has been the result? The government speaks about this party not believing in development. I believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to imply that it was apparent that we were

opposed to development. There is no party in this country that has a record of national development equal to that of the party I represent here this evening. Down through the years, the national development of our own resources for the benefit of our people has been a fixed policy of the Conservative party, in this country for 75 years. The party to your right, Mr. Speaker, has never been conspicuous for that. They were not conspicuous for that when it was created; they were not conspicuous for that after it was first practised. They opposed it all through the years. They even wanted commercial union with the United States in 1895; in 1911 they wanted reciprocity; in 1930 they wanted countervailing duties; they wanted to go to Washington and find out what Washington thought about fixing tariffs and they would fix them the same. They have no fiscal policy. They have no immigration policy. At the present time they boast about their achievements in the past few years, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has tried to imply that no other country has made such advancement as we have. No other country has been so dependent on other countries for the requirements of raw resources, which are being depleted. The United States to the south of us needs our raw resources and therefore is buying them from us, it is true; but, so far as the development of manufacturing industries and giving employment to our people are concerned, this government has failed dismally.

No other country in the world has had a greater opportunity to develop manufacturing industries, with the raw resources available here, in the last ten years, than this government has had. Yet we find that we have only a 25-6 per cent improvement in our manufacturing development in the past ten years, while France had a 50 per cent increase, the United Kingdom had a 42 per cent increase, the United States had a 35-5 per cent increase, and communist countries behind the iron curtain have had an increase of over 50 per cent. So on that score we have seen the lack of a policy by this government. We have seen a government tired, smugly complacent, self-satisfied and saying, "Everything is well; we will never run out of our resources." Yet our economists tell us that the visible supply of our chief resources in this country at the current rate of consumption will not last more than 30 years.

Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he says, "That will be enough for us", figures that his government will have pretty well passed by that time. That is not good enough. There is no industry in Canada that could justify its place in the life of this country except by extending

Natural Resources-Development equalizing conditions and extending benefits to the greatest possible number of people. There is no other way. If we are going to be true to ourselves and true to our children's children, we will develop that great heritage of resources in a way that will give the greatest amount of employment to the greatest number of people and equalize conditions through the different parts of this dominion, rather than exporting our resources in the raw form.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce and others have chided the leader of this party about his development policy. Members from the province of Ontario and others who wish to observe it know very well that we have in the province of Ontario many monuments to his policies of development when he was premier of that province. In the district I was very familiar with, I am satisfied there were at least $200 million and at least 30,000 people employed merely because of the development of the resources of northern Ontario set out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. George Drew, when he was premier of Ontario. These things are history. You will find that the history of this country's industrial development has been based more on the sound Conservative policies down through the years than any of the expediencies and shot-gun prescriptions that have been put forth by those who have ridden the gravy train in cold wars and hot wars on these matters and are selling our raw products and our heritage too to people who want them-and risking that they will not want them in the years that lie ahead. Will any hon. gentleman, even those in the back benches who say so little and think so much, they say, pause for a moment and think what will happen if we had anything in the way of a world depression, when these countries would not want some of the raw resources?-We are depending so much more than any-other country on such exports. What would' happen? What would happen if we were not spending $2 billion for defence? It would be most conspicuous then that this government would have no fiscal policy, as they have demonstrated down through the years.

The United States, it is true, has depleted its raw resources, but it depleted its resources as old England depleted hers to a great extent. It depleted them for the benefit of its workmen. The United States is rapidly depleting its resources of iron ore for the great industrial plants of the United States. They are sending their finished products over here at a tremendous rate. In the United Kingdom they do the same thing. The history of these countries and the history of any

Natural Resources-Development country that has had substantial and sound development has been through that development.

This government seems so self-satisfied, even in the face of an increasingly unfavourable trade balance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night, though our trade balance would frighten any other country and in fact would almost ruin many countries, that it was a good thing for this country. That is a strange type of thinking. It is a strange type of logic. It is like telling someone, "Sell a little more of what you have every year and keep buying more, but buy more than you sell and you cannot go broke. It will break another country, but it will not break this country as long as we have a government in power that does not listen to an opposition or is afraid to listen to the people and ignores parliament itself."

This year we are now developing in our trade tendencies the greatest unfavourable trade balance that this country has ever known. In March 1956 we bought $4J million per day more of finished products from the United States than we sold of any of our raw products and all other products combined: $132 million in one month. Yet, even that does not shake the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He says that is a good thing. If that is a good thing, we probably should anticipate a billion and a half, and if it is a good thing probably he and the Minister of Finance will get together and say, "We boasted to the country that we have lowered tariffs at the GATT conference; we will lower some more." If it is a good thing to buy $1J billion more of manufactured goods which our own people could make, it might be a good thing to buy $3| billion more. Then we could be truly the hewers of wood and drawers of water that some of the statements of the government indicate they want us to be. I do not think any of the frontbenchers have actually said that in the house but it has been said outside, and down through the years for the last quarter of a century, yes, for the last half century, many people in Canada have felt that the policies of the party now in power would eventually, if allowed, bring this country to a state of hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is a term that was used in the past but only lately has it been used by their admirers and supporters.

The government seems to think that all is well. They have no manpower policy. They have no fiscal policy, and when they have neither they do not need an immigration policy. They do not have one anyway. We know that immigration into this country is falling down. We will soon be losing more

IMr. Rowe.l

people than we are gaining. Why, Mr. Speaker, at this late date and in. this dangerous trend we hear these tired old ministers boasting about what they have done in the past, about their past reductions in tariffs at GATT conferences. We see them hiding behind the Gordon commission and dreaming and guessing about the population of Canada in 1980, at the same time not saying why because they are exporting more with less work year by year.

It will take the best ingenuity of industrial leaders and executives and labour leaders and the best ingenuity of a new government to safeguard the sound economic independence and development of this ountry. We cannot boast about our raw resources and the great wealth we are bringing into the country. The United Kingdom has been our best market, but on two occasions we have virtually lost it when the Liberal party was in power. Between 1921 and 1930 we virtually lost the whole British market. We lost it for agricultural products between 1921 and 1930 and we have lost it again to a great extent. Yet down through the years we have had favourable trade balances with that country. Even during the past 10 years we had a favourable trade balance with Britain of $3,413 million and yet in the very same period we bought $7,679 million more from the United States than we sold to that country.

Therefore it is not surprising to find that today the United States owns 91 per cent of our mining and smelting business. It is not surprising that they have a 75 per cent interest in our industrial concerns. It is not surprising that about 50 per cent of all our industrial and primary activities in Canada are controlled by United States investment because we have given it to them in trade balances. On the other hand, despite what the ward politicians out in the country may say, the Conservative party led by the Hon. George Drew has never at any time said that they were opposed to United States investment.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Rowe:

My hon. friends laugh. If you would listen more and laugh less you would learn more about what has been going on in this country down through the years because that was the established policy of this party before some of you laughing boys were born. Who was it who developed the industries of this country? What was it that developed them more than the imperial trade agreement, even in the days of the depression? Many of the biggest industries in Canada today were established here because

of the imperial preference agreement brought about by the Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1931.

Where was your party in those days? You were opposing the policies of the imperial preference. Only one among all your members supported that policy at that time and he was almost ostracized. At least there was one Liberal at that time who voted as he thought, independent of the crack of the whip. Those were difficult days. It is all very well to talk about those difficult days and blame them on a government. You might as well blame them on the United States where there were 12 million people unemployed. You might as well blame them on Britain where there was almost a revolution, or on France. Throughout the world 35 million people stood idle between 1930 and 1935. Yet during those years of depression more industries were brought into Canada under the imperial trade agreement preferences than at any time of normal business prosperity.

Mr. Pickersgill:

Oh, oh!

Mr. Rowe:

My hon. friend laughs. He was just going to school in those days and he has not learned much since.

Mr. Nowlan:

Are you sure he went to school?

Mr. Rowe:

My hon. friend laughs but he knows very well that the government in power at that time, for which he was such a good secretary along with half a dozen more secretaries who were more important than he was, lost every market we had in Britain by 1930. We were buying Danish bacon to feed our own people and your party went out of power. We did not bring about the depression. You left it on our doorstep.