1957-12-02

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to offer wholehearted congratulations to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on winning the Grey cup? I was there rooting for the other side, but Hamilton won; there is no doubt about that. As for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, we are still very proud of them. In football, as in elections, there is always the next one. Watch out for it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING_______

Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved:: 
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped, and I know the hope is shared by many on this side of the house, that the Prime Minister would be informing us about the additional legislation that is to be brought before parliament during this session before we had to deal with the motion extending the time for the consideration of that business. If it would be convenient for the Prime Minister to give us that information, we would be obliged to him.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Leader of the Opposition asked what additional items of legislation, over and above those already on the order paper, the government hoped would be introduced and considered at this session. The additional items which we have in mind are as follows: An amendment changing the basis for contributions in 96698-109J
respect of unemployment assistance; a bill to authorize a loan to the government of New Brunswick for the Beechwood development and also in that connection, provided an agreement is arrived at between the government of Saskatchewan and the dominion government, the necessary legislation respecting the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project.
At the very earliest opportunity I intend to move a motion respecting the rule on closure. There will be a bill dealing with the power program in the Atlantic provinces and also, following negotiation and I hope before the session concludes, the necessary bill to provide adjustment grants to the Atlantic provinces. There are one or two taxation measures which will receive attention and an amendment to the Indian Act to prevent the possibility of Indians who are resident on reservations and were so resident prior to a certain date having their names removed from the band rolls. In the same connection, provided there is time, there will be an amendment to the citizenship act to remove the discrimination that now exists as between natural born and naturalized citizens in connection with the loss of citizenship.
Then there is a very important bill which we realize cannot be considered in full at this time. Indeed, I doubt whether we will have time for any consideration, but the matter has been given very considerable attention. I refer to the new estate tax act. That bill will contain many sections and I feel, with a view to giving members of the house and interested persons across the country an opportunity to give the fullest study to the various sections, that we should go no further than to give the bill first reading. This would enable consideration to be given between the present session and an ensuing session, and as a result of any representations made during the interval further changes might be made in connection with the suggested amendments or changes to the existing law.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is there any consideration or legislation intended to increase the pensions of retired civil servants?


Mr. Sinclair:: No answer?


John George Diefenbaker: I have already stated on a previous occasion that the matter is receiving most careful consideration. There are many details that require to be ironed out

Business of the House
and anomalies that will be created which have made necessary the most careful study of the matter, and as soon as we are in a position to present the legislation covering that matter, parliament of course will have the matter brought before it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you; we are expecting it.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): I should like to ask a question concerning one item in the list the Prime Minister just gave us. He referred to certain measures having to do with taxation. Would those measures be in lieu of a budget or would they be measures that would grow out of a budget? Would he be more specific about what he had in mind when he made that reference?


John George Diefenbaker: In looking over the
records of parliament throughout the years, I find there have been several occasions, and in particular when second sessions have taken place in the same year, when no budget has been introduced. This was the case in the second session of 1873; in the second session of 1919; in the second session of 1930, which was the first session under the new government. Then it will be recalled also that in December, 1947, there was no budget but there were extensive fiscal changes. Mr. Abbott made the announcement and named special tariff increases, and in implementing them he simply made a motion on going into committee of ways and means.
In so far as changes in the income taxes are concerned, those changes could be made by notice; and in my opinion the few changes that will be made, having regard to the shortage of time available and the fact that this is the second session this year and in the main to the fact that consideration is to be given to the estimates prepared and advanced by the former government, we feel that a formal budget is not necessary at this time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party, as we have stated from the beginning of the session, are anxious to co-operate to have the house deal with the business that requires to be dealt with at this time, and we will make no objection to this extension of the hours and even the days of sittings. However, we express the hope that good use will be made of the additional time.
We wish to mention particularly, as I mentioned on Friday, the anxiety of the Canadian public to have brought down at the earliest possible moment the legislation dealing with the fixation of floor prices for agricultural products. We hope that legislation will be brought in at an early date so

it may get the consideration which a matter of that importance deserves under the conditions which exist at the present time.
This subject of taxation is another matter about which there is uncertainty in the public mind which I think is rather detrimental to the economy. Rumours that have circulated in the press have created a situation which has been regarded by some as justification for ceasing production of such things as motor cars which are not being purchased at this time. In view of the possibility of there being a change in the excise tax on motor cars that would make a substantial difference in the price a purchaser would pay, we can all realize that he would be inclined to wait and see whether or not there is going to be that kind of reduction. I would suggest that the government give earnest consideration to removing that uncertainty as early as possible.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said there would be one or two acts making changes in taxation. I think everyone remembers what was said during the election campaign, and everyone remembers that in the speech from the throne there was a statement that there would be submitted to us for approval changes in certain taxing statutes. There have also been frequent assertions that the promises made during the election campaign would be implemented. I think hon. gentlemen opposite should feel rather complimented that the public should expect that those promises are going to be implemented and should be acting in a manner which shows that they are waiting to see just how far these changes are going to make it more attractive to indulge in certain purchases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous amount of work that is yet to be completed in this session of parliament, we are not going to oppose the suggestion that the hours of sitting be extended. We are here to do a job, and we are prepared to sit whatever hours are necessary.
There is one comment about the hours of sitting that I wish to make before I make the comments which I originally rose to give to the house. That comment is this. A rather unusual situation has developed in the proposing of morning sittings, in that this motion proposes morning sittings for Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays but not for Mondays and Tuesdays. The reason for that situation is quite clear. This motion has come much earlier than usually happens in a session, and Mondays and Tuesdays are still available either for private

members' resolutions on Mondays or for supply motions on both Mondays and Tuesdays. There is therefore no advantage to the government in asking us to sit Monday and Tuesday mornings so long as we are dealing with matters which are taken up mainly by private members of the house.
I would suggest to the house leader that if this session continues-as it may well do, in view of the tremendous amount of business yet to be done-to the point where the government wishes to ask us to sit Monday and Tuesday mornings as well, when that time comes consideration might be given to leaving Wednesday mornings clear. I think the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) will agree that across the years it has been the practice to leave Wednesday mornings clear for caucuses and other meetings which have to be held. I do not make this request at the moment because we still have Monday and Tuesday mornings clear for these purposes, but I do make that request if the other situation to which I have referred should arise.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other comment I wish to make is that it seems to me the government should realize that this session is not just, as government spokesmen are so often wont to say, a session for the purpose of cleaning up items left over from the session that met here from January to April for this year. That is an excuse used by the government quite frequently for putting the pressure on us to speed up so far as the consideration of the estimates are concerned.
I think it should be pointed out that the main estimates which are before this house were presented to this session of parliament by the present government. The present government may say that it was the former government which prepared them, but it is the present government which laid them before parliament and it is the present government which is spending the money. Therefore as long as the present government has to take the responsibility for this money this present parliament has the right to discuss those estimates which the government has told us, time and time again, we must rush through and get out of the way so we can get on with legislation.
I find there is also a popular notion abroad -and I might say quite frankly that some of the new members have expressed this notion to me when we chat out in the halls and in the cafeteria-that we are duplicating, so far as estimates are concerned, discussions we had in the last session of parliament. I have checked the records very carefully, and I find that in the January to April session we spent about four days on the estimates of the Post Office Department. We completed those estimates and they are not now before us.
Business of the House
Other than that, the only time we spent on main estimates between January and April of this year consisted of ten minutes on February 22, which we spent on the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and one hour on March 7 which we spent on the main estimates of that same department. We spent no other time in the whole of last session on the main estimates which were introduced in the last session and which have been reintroduced in this session.
Some hon. members may have it in their minds that we spent time in the committee of supply on agriculture and one or two other departments. That is true, but that was in relation to supplementary estimates for the year before last. I have checked this very carefully and other members can do the same, but I put it again in this very simple statement: that apart from the post office estimates which were completed and are out of the way, the only time in the whole of last session spent on the main estimates which are now before this parliament was one hour and ten minutes spent on the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Let no one say that we are duplicating discussion; let no one say that these estimates should be rushed through. Indeed the Prime Minister is the last person who can say that, because on April 11 of last year, in the last week of the old session, he complained, and I shared his complaint, that no opportunity had been given for a critical examination of the estimates.
The Progressive Conservatives, in opposition as they were then, demanded from the former government an assurance when interim supply bills were put through that we would still have our full rights to discuss the main estimates as fully and as completely as we wished.
The government may say that no one is curtailing our rights but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that every time a minister says we should put the estimates through so we can get along with the legislation, every time there is an appeal for co-operation, an attempt is being made to put these things through without that critical examination which the Prime Minister suggested was so important when he spoke from the other side of the house last April.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to point out by way of opposition to this demand to rush things through that the way things are now going we are likely to go through two sessions of parliament, the one that started in January and ended in April and this one which started in October and will end heaven

Business of the House
knows when, without having had debates on the motion to go into supply on the number of days which the rules entitle us to have in one session.
This is another point concerning which there are some popular misapprehensions. Only today one hon. member told me that we had spent plenty of time on supply motions last session. No, we did not. The Conservatives complained about that, too. We had only one full dress two-day debate on a supply motion in the last session. An amendment was moved to that motion by the then leader of the opposition with regard to the national development policy of the Conservative party. We had that one two-day debate, at the end of which six departments were put into supply.
There were complaints by Conservatives last session that more of these debates were not permitted. As a result of those complaints, during what was the last week of the last session the former government arranged for a one-day supply debate at the end of which no departments were put into supply. It was simply a day's debate as a vehicle to make it possible for the then leader of the opposition to move his amendment having to do with parity prices. Even if you count that day, which was rather perfunctory, we had only three days in the last session for debates on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.
As far as this session is concerned, the matter has been subject to some negotiations through the usual channels. I indicated on Friday at six o'clock that I was a little disturbed over the way certain things which I thought had been agreed to had been upset. We were, for example, to have had a supply motion tomorrow. I am not going to debate that just now, for despite the fact that agreements seem to have been forgotten, we are still prepared to negotiate. But I doubt whether, in fact, at the end of this session we shall come out with more than seven or eight days of debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. If it is seven, plus three of last session, that will only be ten days in two parliamentary sessions. The rule book provides for at least six debates in each session, each of two days, which makes a total of 24 days for two sessions, or twelve days for one session.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our rights are being curtailed. I say to the government across the way that we have no objection to the suggestion that we work longer hours and try to get along with the business before parliament. But I remind the government

that one of the reasons they are where they are is that the people of Canada became apprehensive about the way in which the Liberal government was pushing parliament around and denying parliament as a whole and private members in particular some of their basic rights. What is being done is not at all like what was done during the pipeline debate, but it is not a long step from pushing parliament around in little ways to doing it in bigger ways.
I admit that the government has done a number of things this session which show respect for parliament. I suggest-I plead-[DOT] that there should not be this attempt to tell parliament that it must not spend time discussing the estimates. Second, an attempt to curtail the right to debate motions that Mr. Speaker leave the chair is an attempt to curtail the rights of private members themselves. These things are part of the rights of parliament, and we are just as entitled to them under a Conservative administration as we felt we were under a Liberal administration.
I point out also, Mr. Speaker, that a number of committees will now be sitting. The external affairs committee has already had one meeting; it is to meet on Tuesday, and has arranged a number of meetings through the next few weeks. The house leader announced on Friday evening at six o'clock that a number of measures would be referred to standing committees of the house. Everyone who has been here before knows how difficult it becomes to do the business of the house and the business of committees when they are meeting concurrently. Let us not have added to that any difficulties so far as arranging the business of the house is concerned.
I say to the house leader, despite the difficulties we have had recently over agreements that have been made, that we are still prepared to negotiate so far as the business of the house is concerned, provided that we can come to agreements and stick to those agreements. But if agreements are to be set aside we shall have no option but to fall back on the rules of the house with regard to supply debates being for two days, with regard to the number of departments that can be put in, and so on.
One other word, Mr. Speaker. A couple of years ago, or was it more, we had a committee on procedure. Everyone knows what went on in that committee. Everyone knows that one of the desires of Mr. Harris, who on that committee, was to cut the number of days for estimates down to 20 per session. The Conservatives would not agree to it; we would not agree to it either.

I ask the Conservatives to remember that. They should not try now to cut two sessions of parliament down to fewer than 20 days for considering estimates that amount to a total of over $5 billion.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that was one other word. There is still another. I am deeply concerned about what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago as to his belief that taxation changes can be made without going through the requirements of our rules so far as the presentation of a budget is concerned. I noted that he had to go back a long way in history to find some examples. Some of them were quite ancient. One was in 1930, when Mr. Bennett came to power. I think some of the things that Mr. Bennett did should be forgotten.
The other example was that of 1947 when Mr. Abbott imposed taxation by radio. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Prime Minister quoting that as an example. Those of us who were here will remember the vehemence with which the Conservatives of that day criticized the course taken by Mr. Abbott in proposing tax changes by radio. The present Prime Minister, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) were strong in their denunciation of that practice, and so were we.
As a matter of fact it was in connection with that matter, when it was debated later on, that we were able on one occasion in committee of ways and means to defeat the government by a vote on the opposition side that was larger than the vote on the then government side. To complete the story, that result was set aside by an appeal from the ruling made by Mr. Golding, who was then chairman of the committee of ways and means. I recall this, Mr. Speaker, just to remind the Conservatives what they thought when they were in opposition about budgetary changes being made by means of an announcement, and then being put through the house in a way different from what is called for by the rules.
May I tell the Prime Minister that there has been a change in the rules since then. We now have standing order No. 58 which is in different terms from the standing order having to do with the budget prior to 1955. It seems to me that under a proper reading of standing order No. 58, if any budget presentation is being made on proposals for changes in taxation measures, the requirements of standing order 58 will have to obtain. The motion will have to be debatable, and if that is the case it is debatable for a period not exceeding eight days.
Business of the House
Now, I submit that it is possible for us to negotiate the matter of the number of days, provided there is respect for the rules; but if the government is going to say that the rule does not apply, then of course, any basis for negotiation is out the window.
We are concerned about this situation. We think what the country needs today and is entitled to have is not just bills providing for expenditures, bills providing for taxation changes, but a financial statement, an accounting as to where we stand in our national finances. We contend that the government is doing all the things that the present ministers condemned when they were on this side of the house, if it tries to make taxation changes without obeying the rules and having a budget debate, and without making a budget presentation through the Minister of Finance, and hence without letting the house know where the country stands so far as its finances are concerned.
These are procedural matters, Mr. Speaker; these are technical matters. When you talk about private members' days, when you talk about supply motions, when you talk about ways and means, the man on the street doesn't understand them the way the man on the street understood what was happening in the pipe-line debate. And yet, despite all that, I suggest that it is in these things that are wrapped up in the maintenance of the rules and the traditions of parliament that our liberty and democracy are at stake. I hope this government now in power, which so recently was talking about the rules, the traditions and the supremacy of parliament, will not forget those speeches either by pushing parliament around in terms of its business or by denying parliament its right to a budget presentation and its right to debate that presentation if taxation changes are to be proposed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset, I say we are not opposed to the suggestion that we be asked to sit extra hours to get the business of the house completed in some reasonable time. But let us face the fact that we have before us this session, as I said, estimates amounting to $5 billion. We think they should be given the critical examination that the Prime Minister called for on April 11 this year. Also we have before us a long list of important legislative items, including what amounts to a budget. Parliament should not be rushed. Parliament should be given its opportunity to deal with these matters in the proper parliamentary way.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if with not everything the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said,

Business of the House
with certainly the great bulk of it, I find myself in complete agreement. He has summed up the situation very well indeed. I do hope the government will take into careful consideration what he has said.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments used by the hon. member, except to say this. I think it would have been better if the government had planned to bring in a budget this session. I still think it would be proper and in the interests of the country to bring in a budget. I am firmly convinced that in many parts of our country business remains unsettled very largely because it does not know what the government's financial proposal is to be, and it will remain unsettled until such time as a budget has been brought in and business is given assurance. For these reasons, amongst others, I do hope the government will yet find it possible to bring in a budget and let the members of parliament get their teeth into it.
I am quite sure I can say on behalf of my colleagues here that we are prepared to do everything we possibly can to help the government get the business of this session completed. We are prepared to sit longer hours to get the job done, if that is necessary. We have not wasted too much time. I am quite sure on other occasions there has been a shocking waste of time. I think-and I speak about this parliament, not just the government-this parliament thus far has done a remarkably large amount of work, has got through more work than any parliament I have seen in a good many years.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Because there is a responsible opposition.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, when we say we are prepared to go along with the government's proposal to sit longer hours, we do not want them to lose sight of the fact that by this time there ought to be some target date toward which we are aiming for the completion of the work of the session. No target date has yet been set or even suggested. I noticed a statement which shocked me in today's Montreal Gazette under the heading, "Current Session Will Run Into '58." It is a Canadian Press dispatch and reads in part as follows:
. . . informants said today that interparty consultations have come up with this schedule:
1.	An adjournment on Saturday, December 21, until Friday, December 27.
2.	A very brief New Year break, with the M.P.'s just taking off January 1 and going back to work the next day.
3.	Finishing up the sitting before the Liberals start the convention to choose a successor to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
I want it definitely known, Mr. Speaker, that there was no interparty consultation to

that extent with our group, and if a suggestion of that kind had been placed before us we would not have agreed to it by any means. Apparently the government now expects to complete the 26 pieces of legislation that are either on the order paper or were mentioned by the Prime Minister today plus the estimates of the 16 departments that have not been touched, and in addition we are entitled to three supply motions and two private members' days between now and Christmas. It is just utterly fantastic to think we can do justice to that amount of work in the limited time between now and Christmas. If it is fantastic to think we can get through that amount of work between now and Christmas, surely we ought to set some target date beyond Christmas in the new year toward which we can work.
I think the fault of the motion that has been moved by the Minister of Public Works is that it does not mention any target date or suggest to the house when the government would like to get through. Because I feel the motion is lacking in that regard I move that it be amended by adding the following:
provided that the house shall prorogue or adjourn on or before December 21, and shall not reconvene before January 6, 1958.
That motion is seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I move it for this reason. I think members are entitled to a decent Christmas holiday, and we are not sitting in this parliament for the convenience of eastern members only. If we are going to have a decent Christmas holiday and not skip over the business, I think it should be understood that we will work here as hard as we can until December 21, will take a Christmas holiday from then until January 6, come back at that time and take up the work where we left off and do justice to every piece of legislation that is brought before us, and give members ample opportunity to debate as long as they wish the motions to go into supply and private members' resolutions.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I put the amendment. I am in doubt whether it is in order. I should like to have the house consider that point. It is moved by Mr. Low that the motion be amended by adding the following proviso:
provided that the house shall prorogue or adjourn on or before December 21, and shall not reconvene before January 6, 1958.
The motion before the house is one to control the hours of sitting, and whether it is possible by an amendment to enlarge that motion to deal with the time of prorogation or adjournment seems to me very

doubtful. I would think if the amendment attempted to limit this new regime for hours of sitting to the period up to December 21, for example, it would be in order; but to say "provided that the house shall prorogue or adjourn on or before December 21 and shall not reconvene before January 6, 1958" strikes me as attempting to settle by way of an amendment something that has a larger import than that. I wonder whether any hon. member would like to address himself to that subject before I rule on the amendment.
Perhaps the hon. member who moved the amendment would like to restrict it, making the amendment applicable only to the period between now and December 21, in which event I would accept it.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I would be very glad to have the amendment read in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that would be in order as an amendment. The motion now reads "December 4, 1957 and thereafter until the end of this session" and the amendment would be to substitute "until December 21, 1957" for "until the end of this session."


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here in this parliament under very different circumstances than has been the case in any other parliament since confederation. The objective of the government under these conditions has been to get the business of the country done in the most efficient way possible under all the circumstances. We have tried to co-operate with the members of the three parties who happen to be in opposition and to date, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has so truly said, great progress has been made. Many measures have been passed. In an ordinary session that would not have been the case; we would not have made the progress which has been made to date.
We must remember that in the background there is the fact that we are finishing up the business for the year 1957. Surely my hon. friends are not suggesting that we should be going further and doing some of the business for 1958. Yet that is the direction in which some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Peace River would lead. I am sure everyone in the house is aiming primarily at getting the business done, and under all the conditions I suggest there cannot be very much objection taken to having the house sit these extra hours.
No one is asking that there be any cutting down of the actual discussion. I know just as well as anyone else who has been here for any period of years that the more you suggest
Business of the House
to members that they cut down discussion the longer they are going to take. That, of course, is true of some more than of others.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the hon. gentleman speak for himself.


Howard Charles Green: Anyone who wishes to talk during these extended hours is, of course, free to do so. I have no doubt advantage will be taken of that opportunity. We may not save any time at all by adding these extra hours if a sufficient number of members look upon this change as an opportunity to do more talking. But we are trying to do the business of the country, and to get it finished by the end of the year. This suggestion that members cannot sit at all during the Christmas holidays, that they have to go home and stay for two or three weeks, does not do justice to the spirit in which the members of the House of Commons are here. We were elected not to run home for long holidays but to do the business of the country.


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the minister permit a question? I am in agreement with the extended sittings, but I understood the minister to say we had to finish the estimates this year. Is it not a fact that the financial year ends March 31, not December 31?


Howard Charles Green: I said we are trying to finish the business of 1957 in 1957. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar knows very well that that business for 1957 includes the estimates. Surely he is not arguing that we should continue a discussion of the estimates until March 31, 1958?


Major James William Coldwell: We could.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask the minister a question. Is the minister implying that this house should go along with him and not question what the government is asking if that requires another month or six weeks in 1958 to finish up the business of this session?


Howard Charles Green: I am not asking the house to go along with me, but I do suggest that the members of the house should try to get the business for 1957 finished in 1957, or as soon thereafter as possible.
The Leader of the Opposition asked us about two items of legislation. One was the proposal to provide guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities. He expressed the hope that this measure would be brought up for debate at an early date. As the right hon. gentleman knows, I announced on Friday that that measure would be on the list for tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: on the list.

Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: The other resolutions should not take very long. If my hon. friends want to take three or four hours on each one, that is another matter.


James Sinclair: Closure.


Howard Charles Green: That is the plan of the government, to bring this resolution on for consideration tomorrow.
Then the right hon. gentleman also asked about any legislation which would change the excise tax on automobiles. Any change of this nature in a taxation measure will be announced just as quickly as possible. We realize the importance of having such an announcement made, and I can assure the right hon. gentleman that it will be made just as quickly as we can possibly do so.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a statement which was very encouraging to me. He said the government was trying to push parliament around. I do not suppose there ever was a government of Canada that was in such danger of being pushed around itself as the present one is. If we have at least created the impression that we are able to push him and his colleagues around, let alone push around the other opposition parties, then we have not been doing too badly. However, I can assure him that the last thing we have in mind is to push anybody around. We are just as much interested in the rights of parliament as we ever were, just as much interested as my hon. friend and his colleagues. We intend to show every respect for parliament and all the wonderful things for which it stands.
I do not believe, really, Mr. Speaker, that we can be accused of trying to sabotage parliament by anything we have done to date. We intend to carry on in the same way during the remaining days of this parliament. We will try to respect the wishes of all three opposition parties, and try to work out a plan for doing the business of the house which will meet the convenience of all of the members, including the new members of the house. In the meantime I do ask for support for our original motion. We do not believe it is the responsibility of the Social Credit party, or any other of the opposition parties, to decide just when parliament is to be prorogued or just when it is to be adjourned. Those decisions are the responsibility of the government.


Solon Earl Low: No, the responsibility of parliament.


Howard Charles Green: There is one very good way to settle that. If the members of the house are not prepared to accept our recommendation


as to when the house should be adjourned or when it should be prorogued, all they have to do is defeat us.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Another threat.


Howard Charles Green: This, too, is part of our parliamentary procedure, and we shall be very happy to abide by the result.


Solon Earl Low: Before the vote is taken I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works two questions relative to what he has said. The first is this. Does the Canadian Press despatch carried by the Gazette on its front page represent the plans of the government, when it says very definitely that well-informed people have said that is what the government intends to do? That is the first question.


Howard Charles Green: When the government, Mr. Speaker, makes an announcement, it does not make it to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Gauthier: What about T.V.?


Howard Charles Green: I would not be surprised if the statement in the press came from my hon. friend's own party or from a member of the C.C.F.


Solon Earl Low: We deny that.


Howard Charles Green: It certainly did not come from me. The hon. member for Peace River stated that his party knew nothing about any such discussion. I may be wrong, but I think I intimated to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) on Friday, as I did to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I think to the Leader of the Opposition or to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), that we might give consideration to adjourning on Saturday, December 21, until the Friday after Christmas, and then sitting right on through, possibly with a holiday on New Year's day. I think I told my old friend the hon. member for New Westminster that on Friday. How the Canadian Press picked it up I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Innocents abroad.


Howard Charles Green: It was merely a friendly
conversation. Certainly the information did not come from me.


Solon Earl Low: The second question I wanted to ask the minister is this, Mr. Speaker. Will he, representing the government, consult with the representatives of other parties in the house with a view to settling this question of the terminal date of this session, the date of adjournment perhaps, and the target date for prorogation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the representatives of the three opposition parties very thoroughly and very frequently since the beginning of the session, and I certainly shall continue to do so. It is still the hope of the government that the business will be through before Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word with regard to the reference to what has been said in the press, involving my name as well as that of the hon. member for New Westminster.
The leader of the house is correct in his statement that he informed me on Thursday or Friday or both that a timetable something like that indicated in the press was in the government's mind. Where the press is wrong-and I am in the dark as much as he is as to where the press got it-is in the suggestion that there was any agreement to the proposal. As the minister knows, I did not agree.


Howard Charles Green: No. I did not attempt to get any agreement from anybody. It was simply a discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: one-way discussion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the hon. member is mistaken. My colleague the hon. member for Laurier was not here on Friday. I had some conversation with the hon. gentleman, but I have no recollection of his having mentioned adjourning on December 21 and coming back on December 27, then to take a one-day adjournment at New Years. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman was perhaps intending to communicate that information to my colleague the hon. member for Laurier, but he was not here and it was not communicated to me.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the position of my name having been brought into this discussion in so far as a decision is concerned as to on what dates we had determined or decided the house might adjourn and be recalled. I must say that while there was some discussion with respect to the possibility, the only intimation I had was that we would probably be recalled the day after Christmas.
I can appreciate the position of the house leader with respect to this matter, because he has certainly consulted with me frequently, has tried to bring me up to date in every way possible, and has discussed this party's viewpoint as presented by me so we could possibly come to some agreement. But
Business of the House
up to this time I must admit I had not definitely had the date of recalling the house drawn to my attention, nor was it suggested that December 21 would be the date when we would recess. It had rather been intimated that we would sit up to Christmas and be recalled the day after Christmas. The house leader might have been under the impression that he had discussed the matter with me, but I do not recall those particular dates being mentioned.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: As has
already been said on behalf of this group, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no objection to increased hours of sitting of the house. We realize that there is before parliament a great deal of business that must be dealt with. However, I am not at all satisfied that the government is giving to the various measures the kind of priority that should be given. With great deference to the Minister of Public Works, I suggest that to say that the resolution which would establish support prices for agricultural products is actually in fact listed for tomorrow, when it is listed in seventh place, is not to say something that has any great merit or any great basis in realism.
If the government were anxious that this legislation, which has been demanded by the official opposition and which this group has requested be brought forward at an early date, and which I am certain would have the support of members of the Social Credit group-when in response to this unanimous request by the three opposition parties the government say "We listed it for Tuesday but we listed it for seventh place," I would suggest that is putting a gun to the heads of members who are interested in the other legislation. I refer to the other six items that have been listed.
I therefore make this request, namely that the government list this legislation first for tomorrow, and we will see how we can expedite it. Some of my colleagues have suggested to me that if the government would be prepared to do that we might be prepared to sit tomorrow morning to deal with this legislation affecting agricultural producers.
What may be happening, Mr. Speaker, is this. The government, by delaying the passing of this legislation-and this is the best you can say for it-is in fact taking away a good deal of money that might otherwise accrue to the producers who are marketing products that might be affected by the resolution. Of course if that is not the case then there is not too much in the resolution. But it seems to me a shame, since the government has been in office since June 21, that

Business of the House
there should be so much delay in bringing forward what we all understand to be an emergency measure.
No one can say that parliament-and in this I include all members of parliament-did not pass with great expedition the various pieces of legislation which the government itself listed as emergency legislation. This therefore is the first thing, I suggest, that the government should be giving consideration to.
I am not sufficient of an authority to know the technicalities with regard to bringing in a budget in a given session or not bringing in a budget, but it seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that because the government is playing coy as to its policy with regard to the excise tax on automobiles, we should have this further large number of persons added to the unemployment rolls in this country. Why does not the government make a statement now as to its position with regard to this suggested change in the excise tax on automobiles? I think it is a mistake that the government should leave this thing suspended for so long, thereby daily adding to the unemployment rolls in this country.
We all hope, of course, that there will be a cut in the excise tax. We hope the government will bring in a budget immediately. But I think this is the kind of problem that should be dealt with so this unemployment, if it is unnecessary as far as the automobile industry is concerned, is not continued. I can understand the position of prospective automobile purchasers in this country. They do not want to risk any chance of paying more than would be the ordinary price if they purchase an automobile now in advance of any prospective reduction. It would seem to me that this is just an ordinary thing that should be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I was just going to remind the hon. member that we are dealing with hours of sitting, and that we should not get into discussion of business to come before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would think I was making a comment on the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. As far as expediting the business of the house is concerned, I think we are in favour of it. A good deal of legislation has been announced that we shall have to deal with during the current session. As the Prime Minister stated that legislation that we would have to deal with this session it seemed to me there was one major omission, and that was legislation which would provide for payments under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act on behalf of mental
[Mr. Argue.!
and tuberculosis patients. The second obvious thing was an announcement which would make possible the coming into effect of the hospital insurance provisions at an early date.
I should like to say to the government that it is not compelled at every opportunity to say that if we want to vote for an adjournment, vote for the motion or vote against it, we face the possibility of an election.
There seems to be quite a desire on the part of the government to get defeated on any kind of a motion it can at the earliest possible date. It seems to me the government would be in a much better position if it would take the constructive suggestions advanced by the members of the various opposition parties as to what should be given priority in the way of very necessary legislation.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to keep to the motion which is before the house, but I would like to make one or two points in connection with what the leader of the government stated a moment ago.
It is true that certain discussions took place between us in connection with a general plan to deal with the business of the house from that time, which was at least a month ago, until the Christmas recess. The plan which was submitted appeared to me to be in order in so far as its general terms were concerned, but I do want to make it quite clear that at no time was there any agreement as between us in connection with any plan such as that announced in this morning's Gazette. I want to dissociate myself from any understanding or any agreement in so far as that is concerned.
As the leader of our party has said, I was not here on Thursday or Friday-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said there was no agreement with anybody, but that it was simply a matter of discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, that was not even discussed. I think my hon. friend indicated that this group had been told something about the plan. I want to make it quite clear that I, for one, was not consulted about this.
There are, however, one or two other points with which I would like to deal in speaking to this motion and to the amendment. The leader of the house has said that we are gathered here in unprecedented circumstances. Well, I do not think the circumstances are so unprecedented. After all, there have been two sessions within a 12-month period before, and the responsibility of the government is to bring in the estimates,

the legislation and any other business. It therefore does not seem to me that there is anything unprecedented about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Our leader a moment ago asked the Prime Minister for the intended legislation, other than that on the order paper before us now, for the remainder of the session, and I am just wondering if it is the intention of the government to get through all of this business before the end of this year. After all, there are on this list some measures which it seems to me have no urgency, and certainly others-for instance, that dealing with closure-which could be of such a contentious nature as to take a great deal of the time of the house.
That being the case, I wonder how it is going to be possible that all this legislation now on the order paper, and that now announced by the Prime Minister, could get through in that time. We have from now until the Christmas recess, and so I ask this question with all deference. Is it really the intention of the government to get through with the business of the house, or is it inviting a vote of non-confidence so as to provide a reason to go before the country?
Those are the considerations which come to my mind at this time; and while we will facilitate the business of the house, as my leader has said, there is one thing I hope we will not be asked to do, and that is to put some of these measures through with such haste that it will be impossible to consider them seriously in the manner in which they should be considered, at least on second reading. Those are the observations I have to make on this motion.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: As the leader of this group has mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to adopt the hours of sitting mentioned in this motion, but I think the leader of the house should be prepared to at least be reasonable. He must admit that the proposal as it now stands is fantastic. He is saying the times we shall sit in this house until the end of the session, and if there was any possibility of making the end of the session before Christmas I would agree with the reasonableness of this motion. But the leader of the house knows very well that there is no possibility of completing the business of the house before us at the present time by December 21. Seventeen days left, 26 pieces of legislation, 15 departments, three supply motions and two private members' days. For anybody to suggest that all this could be completed before Christmas, as I say, is fantastic.


An hon. Member:: Irresponsible.
Business of the House Mr. Quelch: If, on the other hand, we are going to come back after Christmas-and undoubtebly we will have to do so in order to complete this legislation-is it necessary that we should sit this kind of hours for an unlimited time in order to complete this legislation, especially when the closure motion is among the measures? Mind you, closure is still in force, and the house leader may figure that his party will be able to use closure, get it through, and then do away with it.


An hon. Member:: That's a hot one.


Victor Quelch: But	so long as we are going
to debate this legislation on a reasonable basis I do suggest that the leader of the	
house should be	prepared to accept the
amendment of the	member for Peace River
that this should only apply until December	
21 and then, if we	have to come back after
Christmas, we will adopt more reasonable	
hours.	
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Low) which was negatived on the following	
division:	YEAS
	Messrs:
Blackmore	Patterson
Brown (Essex West)	Quelch
Christian	Sinclair
Hahn	Smith (Battle River-
Hansell	Camrose)
Harrison	Stefura
Holowach	Stick
Irwin	Stuart (Charlotte)
Johnston (Bow River)	Thompson (Edmonton-
Low	Strathcona)
McLeod	Yuill-21.
Olson	NAYS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Cathers
Aitken, Miss	Chabot
Anderson	Charlton
Argue	Chevrier
Arsenault	Chown
Barbes	Coates
Barnett	Coldwell
Baskin	Comtois
Batten	Crestohl
Beech	Crouse
Begin	Dechene
Bell (Carleton)	Diefenbaker
Bell (Saint John-	Dumas
Albert)	Fairfield
Best	Fraser
Blanchette	Fulton
Brooks	Gardiner
Browne (St. John's	Gauthier
West)	(Lake St. John)
Bryce	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Bryson	Gour
Campbell	Green
(Lambton-Kent)	Habel
Campbell	Hales
(The Battlefords)	Halpenny
Caron	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Castleden	de Grace)

Business	of the House
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Milligan
Hamilton (York West)	Mitchell
Harkness	Montgomery
Hees	Morris
Herridge	Morton
Hodgson	Muir (Lisgar)
Houck	Nixon
Howe	Noble
Huffman	Nowlan
Johnson (Kindersley)	O'Hurley
Jones	Pearkes
Jorgenson	Pearson
Jung	Phillips
Kirk	Pickersgill
Knowles (Winnipeg	Poulin
North Centre)	Rea
Kucherepa	Robinson
Lambert	Rowe
Landry	St. Laurent (Quebec
Lavigne	East)
Leduc (Gatineau)	Schulz
Legare	Simpson
Lewry	Smith (Calgary South)
MacDonald (Antigonish-	Smith (Hastings-
Guysborough)	Frontenac)
MacEachen	Stanton
MacLean	Starr
MacRae	Stinson
McBain	Thomas (Middlesex
McCleave	West)
McCullough	Villeneuve (Glengarry-
McGregor	Prescott)
Mclvor	Villeneuve (Roberval)
McMillan	Walker
McPhillips	White
Maloney	Winch
Mandziuk	Winkler
Marler	Wratten
Martin (Essex East) Martini	Zaplitny-121.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion I should like to have a word. I did not speak on the main motion; it was my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who dealt with it. I want to say this to the government. Because of the condition that exists in this house at the present time the government would be well advised to do what was done when a government since I have been here had a very narrow majority. I am referring to the period between 1945 and 1949, when, from time to time in the discussions of the business of the house, the leaders and the whips of the opposition parties were called into consultation. They might come to some agreement without a long discussion of this description. Since the beginning of this session there has been no consultation. The leader of the house from time to time has seen members of the opposition groups and has said what the government intends to do. That, in reality, is not the kind of consultation that there should be under these circumstances. We are willing to sit all the hours that are necessary to do the business of this house.
There is a tremendous list of legislation now. I am amazed at the number of items


that were added this afternoon. Some of them are of the utmost importance. I want to say to the government that some attempts should be made to organize the discussion of this legislation. We should try to get the legislation through. The estimates should also be dealt with by this house; but I want to say to the government again that the estimates we are now discussing are not the estimates up to December 31, 1957. These are estimates up to March 31 of next year and consequently we should be able to have ample time to discuss them. I do not think it is the function-that is perhaps why we did not vote with the Social Credit group-of either the opposition or the government simply to say that this is what we are going to do and have done with it. There should be consultation. I think we should try to get consultation-


Solon Earl Low: I tried to get consultation.


Major James William Coldwell: The leader of the Social Credit group was laying something down to the house. I think it would be far better if the government took the attitude of consultation. Let us organize the discussion of this legislation, if we can. Some of the legislation should go through immediately. Farm legislation has been mentioned several times this afternoon and then, of course, the financial position of the country should be known.
These are matters of the utmost concern to this parliament and they should take priority over everything else. The people of this country have a right to know-particularly if there is any intention on the part of the government to call an election in the near future-the financial position of this country and what the legislation that we have adopted this session means to the finances of this country. We have added these commitments which we support. I think the people of the country have the right to know above all things what the financial condition of this country is and we should not leave here until we know. That means, of course, that a budget should be brought down before this session winds up.
I want to make a plea to the government so that we may not have the kind of discussion we have had this afternoon, and so we may have consultation to try to get something agreed upon by the parties in regard to legislation and proceed with the estimates and give them a thorough going over, which they deserve. Incidentally, we owe that to those who sent us here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans, out of the consolidated revenue fund, to the government of New Brunswick, not exceeding $30 million, in respect of expenditures for the development of hydroelectric power at Beechwood on the Saint John river.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 26 I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Your Honour will note that the mover of such a motion must, pursuant to subsection 3 of standing order 26, hand to Your Honour a written statement setting out the matter which he proposes to discuss as a matter of urgent public importance. That I have done and I now await your ruling as to my right to raise this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the matter of urgent public importance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I followed strictly the rules set out in standing order 26. I have no objection to stating what Your Honour now has, namely that there is a matter of urgent public importance in our country arising out of the closing of automobile plants resulting in the lay-off of thousands of automobile workers for an indefinite period.


An hon. Member:: Is that all you have got to say?


Mr. Speaker:: The urgent matter of public importance which is the subject of this motion, as I understand it, relates to the closing or shutting down in whole or in part of automobile plants in Canada and the threatened closing of automobile plants.
While I think the house will agree that this is a matter of public importance and public interest, X wonder whether any hon. members would care, before I make the decision which it is my duty to make, to address themselves to the question of the responsibility of the government in the matter and the question of urgency of debate
Labour Conditions
which, after all, is the important question I have to decide. It is not that the matter itself is of urgent public importance, as most matters before the house are, but whether it is a matter of urgency of debate, assuming that it is of urgent public importance. Perhaps the proposer would say a word.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the floor for a minute, I think we at least ought to know the wording of the motion so that we can speak to it. We have always had that courtesy shown before.


Mr. Speaker:: In reading the motion I am not accepting it as being in compliance with the rules. The motion that will be made is "that the house do now adjourn". It is expressed in the document which has been handed to me in this way:
In accordance with this standing order-
That is standing order No. 26.
-I herewith submit a statement of the matter to be discussed. The matter of urgent public importance which I propose to raise has to do with the fact that two large automobile companies in Canada, employing thousands of workers, have closed their doors for an indefinite period and another large company, in fact, the largest, proposes to shut its doors tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. Winch:: Is there not an additional paragraph to the effect that the confusion was created by the announcement respecting the excise tax on automobiles?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to address you now, Mr. Speaker. I would call your attention to subsection 3 of standing order 26 which is explicit in this matter. Every move I have taken is in accordance with the rules, as Your Honour well knows. Subsection 3 is in these words:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
The grounds for this motion are another matter and they have been properly stated under the rules but I submit in the wrong context by the hon. member for Vancouver East. There is this large-scale lay-off which was announced by three automobile companies on Saturday last, as contained in the Saturday edition of the Globe and Mail, as the result of hesitation in the tax policy of the administration, clarification of which policy has been sought by representatives of the automobile industry, the factory workers and members of this house over a period beginning almost at the opening of this session of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want the
hon. member to proceed as though the motion

Labour Conditions
had been accepted. What I am concerned about is the matter of urgency of debate at this time.


Howard Charles Green: On that point of order, may I point out that earlier this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition dealt with this matter when he asked for an early announcement of policy with regard to the excise tax on automobiles. I attempted to answer that request made by the right hon. gentleman. Now we have the hon. member for Essex East coming along with the very same matter and trying to make it the excuse for moving to adjourn the house. I submit that is in no way covered by the provisions of standing order 26. This is not a question of raising an urgent matter of public importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you were out of work you would know.


Howard Charles Green: The question has already been properly raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


James Sinclair: I should like to speak to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it is really not a point of order. It is in response to my request for some assistance in determining whether the proposed motion is in order, and I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who rose first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should like to address myself to the question that is of greatest concern to Your Honour, namely whether there is urgency of debate with respect to this matter. Before I do so, perhaps I might point out to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that his motion, in the form in which he presented it to the house, was to say the least incomplete. He quotes subsection 3 of standing order 26. I wonder whether he read subsection 2, which comes before subsection 3. It says:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member for Essex East forgot to state the matter. The fact that he sent notice to Your Honour in advance does not mean that he has complied with the requirement of the last four words of subsection 2 of standing order 26.
I would also draw the attention of the hon. member for Essex East to page 323 of Beauchesne's third edition. At the bottom of that page there is an instruction as to how to draft a motion of this kind. True, in Beauchesne's third edition, the reference is to standing order 31 but that was the number before the last revision of the rules and

standing order 26 in today's rules is the same as standing order 31 was under the old rules.


James Sinclair: What page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page 323 of Beauchesne, third edition. The instruction reads:
The member, from his place in the house, says: "Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31-"
Now standing order 26.
"-for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely" (here describe the question to be debated). He then hands a written statement of the matter to be discussed to the Speaker who, having read it to the house, puts the question: "Has the hon. member leave to proceed?"
Now, if the hon. member for Essex East did not know where to find that in the rule book, he could have looked up last Friday's Hansard and copied the form of the motion put by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I realize that the hon. member for Essex East, who has been in parliament for a long time, has not had any experience with this type of motion. He should have consulted some of us on this side who have had lots of experience in opposition. However, I gather Your Honour does not want to make an issue out of the incomplete form of the motion, for you can easily write in the words the hon. member for Essex East had in mind.
This leaves us with the more important and serious question of the urgency of debate. I support very strongly and wholeheartedly the proposition that there is urgency of debate. May I point out that in doing so I am asking the house to take up more time on this private members' Monday which otherwise would have been devoted to a motion standing in my name, so the impartiality of the position I am taking is obvious. It has been ruled many times, Mr. Speaker, that urgency of debate rather than just the urgency of the situation is the criterion. There is no argument about the urgency of the situation. Indeed, Your Honour has admitted that. The fact is employees are being laid off and there are other things happening that are upsetting the country in regard to this situation.
What about urgency of debate? The fact is that during the whole of this session we have been trying to get a statement from the government regarding its plans with respect to a budget. Up until today, we have not been able to get any kind of statement at all. All of the answers from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) have been, to put it politely, evasive. Even today the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)

still leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to taxation changes, and that uncertainty is on two counts.
On the one hand, we do not know when they are coming, and I submit that is a matter that should be debated today because if there has been confusion in the automobile industry in the last few days there will be more confusion after the statement made today, with no follow-up as to when these measures are to be introduced. There is uncertainty as to whether the taxation measures to be introduced by the government will include changes in the excise tax so far as automobiles are concerned. There is also uncertainty as to the government's intention regarding the way this matter is to be introduced. Is there to be a budget debate or not? Are there to be resolutions that will be passed by parliament or just resolutions, notice of which will be given to parliament? All of this is in such a state of confusion, both so far as parliament is concerned and so far as the automobile industry and its employees are concerned, that it seems to me there is one thing that is required today-I will even say it is more important than debating my motion-and that is a debate in this house to find out where we stand in relation to the introduction of any measures affecting the exise tax on automobiles.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite the comments I made regarding the incompleteness of the form of the motion presented by the hon. member for Essex East, I hope you will consider my contention that there is not only urgency so far as the situation is concerned, with men losing their jobs, but there is urgency of debate. This matter should be discussed and cleared up in the House of Commons today.


John George Diefenbaker: I feel that one has to trace the origin and course of the question arising here in order to discuss it properly. The position of affairs is simply this. Someone wrote a press article based on conjecture, in no way supported by anything said in this house, and on the basis of that article allegedly certain things have taken place. As a matter of fact, those things had taken place earlier and have continued because they were in existence on June 10, namely a great deal of unemployment in the automobile factories.
What will happen here if this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question before the house now is not the merits of this matter. The question before Your Honour is whether or not this question is one that properly comes within standing order 26. What the right hon. gentleman is now doing
Labour Conditions
is arguing the merits of the case and he can do that after Your Honour has given me permission to place before the house this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: In order that there may be no doubt about the position, I am under the duty of making a decision and have asked members to speak. I am interested in hearing the Prime Minister speak to the question of why this matter should be debated now, the question of urgency of debate. I would appreciate it if members would address themselves to that point.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is the last person who should raise a point of order after the lesson he just received from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Lionel Chevrier: That is pretty cheap, coming from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: You know how to be cheap.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend should not carry his frustration into this house. What would happen, supposing there was a debate? Supposing there had been a budget to be introduced next week, and a week in advance of the budget some newspaper in this country published a certain statement.


James Sinclair: There is not going to be a budget. You said so yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: Would that force a discussion and be a matter of urgency of debate, Mr. Speaker? This is obviously simply a subterfuge in order to secure advance information as to what is going to be done by this government on a matter, responsibility for which rests with this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman has said that this was a subterfuge.


John George Diefenbaker: I said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a reflection on my motive for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I brought this matter to the attention of the house because in my constituency thousands of men are out of work, that is the reason, and the right hon. gentleman should withdraw that observation at once or he will be reflecting on the unemployed people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: I said that the adoption of this motion was a subterfuge, and I stand on that. This type of application was never intended to cover a situation such as the

Labour Conditions
one in which it is endeavoured to be used by my hon. friend, and that being so it is indeed a subterfuge.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: should like to speak to the point of order, concerning the urgency of debate. If I might go back for a moment, even beyond subsection 2 of standing order 26, and go back to subsection 1 of that standing order, I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion that subsection 1 says:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance must he asked after starred questions on Wednesdays-
And so on. The hon. gentleman has not yet favoured the house with a statement of exactly what he does want to have discussed or what situation he has in mind, whether it is a projected closure, a past closure of plants or just what is the situation. No one is denying for a moment that it is a serious matter. Of course, it is a serious matter. However, the course of the matter and the solution of that problem are not going to be advanced by such a vague and loose statement as the hon. gentleman has made today, because on the basis of the statement he has so far made as to what the matter is he wants to discuss no one can come to grips with the problem.
Apart from that, there is another reason, and I think a much more important reason, why the motion is clearly out of order and why it falls entirely within the type of procedure which the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) has categorized as a subterfuge. The hon. gentleman who moved the motion and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who supported it have both made it perfectly clear-and indeed, of course, the facts speak for themselves and make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt-that their purpose is to raise a discussion involving the question of the government's policy with regard to taxation, both of them

as well as all hon. members-knowing perfectly well that it is entirely out of order to raise at this stage the question and demand from the government a declaration of its tax policy.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has indicated clearly today that in the course of a few days taxation measures will be laid before the house. It is but a pure subterfuge for them to say, "You have not told us whether or not there will be a budget." Such taxation proposals as there will be will be incorporated in legislation to be laid before the house and you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members know perfectly well that discussion of this kind simply cannot be carried on because the whole question involved is

surely government taxation policy. Indeed I would suggest that if there had been any responsibility attaching to any member of this house or anywhere in this house for the situation that has developed in the automobile industry in respect of uncertainty as to taxation intentions, the responsibility lies over there on the other side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member not to debate the issue. Perhaps the only way to avoid such debate arising is to give a decision on this matter. However, I see the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) and I should like to hear what he has to say about the matter of urgency.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself for a moment or so to the seriousness of the situation and the seriousness of the motion which has been presented by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it would shorten the matter and assist the hon. member in assisting me if I say that what I am concerned about is the question as to whether we should interrupt proceedings in order to debate this matter now or, in other words, the urgency of debate. I know there is an urgent unemployment problem. That is the matter to which I should like him to address himself. Then I will hear the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair).


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is to that matter that I was going to address my remarks which would be somewhat in order and not participate in the political wrangling which is going on between the Prime Minister and some of the members of the opposition. It seems to me that this is a matter of great public concern and certainly not only to an individual constituency.
The hon. member for Essex East pointed out how serious this matter was in his constituency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out that he did not think it was fair that this matter should be brought up because there happened to be an article in a newspaper. It just so happened that this morning-whether it is coincidence or not I do not know-I received an urgent telegram from the department of labour and industries in the province of Alberta pointing out the urgency of this matter, pointing out also that the unemployment situation in that province has doubled since a year ago and that they are very much concerned. This question of seriousness and of concern is not one that affects any local constituency only. It is a situation prevalent all over Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the
hon. member that what it is the purpose to discuss on the adjournment of the house is not the unemployment situation in Canada. It is stated in these terms:
-has to do with the fact that two large automobile companies in Canada, employing thousands of workers, have closed their doors for an indefinite period and another large company, in fact, the largest, proposes to shut its doors tomorrow or the next day.
That is the alleged matter of public importance. The assistance I need is on the question of whether we should interrupt the proceedings to discuss that matter today. If the hon. member has nothing further to say, I will hear the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Charles Edward Johnston: I quite realize that the wording of the motion refers only to the lay-offs in the automobile industry. But certainly that becomes a matter of great concern to all those who are employed as dealers clear across the country and to all those who are employed in the manufacture of those things that go to make up the automobile. It therefore cannot be confined just to the one area. What I wish to say is that we are in entire support of the motion by the hon. member for Essex East with regard to the seriousness of the situation and believe that is should be adopted now.


James Sinclair: I
wish to speak only on the matter of urgency. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), when he spoke, gave as his reason that this motion should not be adopted the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) was informed that in the list of legislation to come forward there were going to be tax measures and that they would be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. I should like to point out that just six weeks ago today I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when those tax measures were going to be brought forward and received exactly the same answer. If it means that these tax measures are going to be delayed for another six weeks, that means that for another six weeks the automobile plants and the automobile salesmen in this country are going to be unemployed because of evasion and delay by this government in bringing in a budget.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the point of order. First of all, however, I should like to say that no one speaks lightly of the question of unemployment. But in connection with this matter of debate, I should like to leave this thought with you. Should you make a ruling that
Labour Conditions
this matter should be debated today, are we not leaving ourselves in the position in the future that if at any time any group of people wish to receive information from the government or to place the government in a defensive position, all they have to do is to inspire an article in the press and then we will have government by newspaper. Of course, once this type of article is printed we are left in a position where a group of citizens can use a big stick and ensure that this type of thing is brought before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this to the 'hon.
member. In what I have been handed today I see nothing that relates to taxation at all. The urgent matter as stated has to do with unemployment or lay-offs in the automobile industry. If the hon. member who is moving this motion intends to deal with taxation, that raises quite a different situation in my mind; and I am dealing with it as it stands before me now.


John Borden Hamilton: Surely what is attempted here is simply to do indirectly something that cannot be done directly. On that basis I say that this matter should not be debated in this house today.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: In rising on the question as to the urgency of debate, may I say this. The only purpose of having debate is in order to get some action from the government in connection with the unemployment situation as it now exists in Canada. That is the only purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: In Canada.


Donald Ferguson Brown: The unemployment situation as it now exists in Canada.


James Sinclair: In Canada, from coast to coast.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough to deal with the matter.


Mr. Fraser:: May I just say a word?


Mr. Speaker:: First I must hear out the hon. member for Essex West.


Donald Ferguson Brown: The reason I suggest we want action is this. There has been set up a committee of municipalities in the Windsor area which have requested the co-operation of the government. I propose to show that they are not getting co-operation. All we want is a little bit of action on behalf of the government, for which action we are quite willing to give our utmost co-operation in the Windsor area. You cannot slough off the question of thousands of people being unemployed. It affects not only those

Labour Conditions
people who are so unemployed but all allied and secondary industries. Therefore, all we want the debate for is in order to get a little bit of action out of the government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right,-and I think it does-at this time every year the automobile plants across the country generally lay off men for a few days or a week or so in order to have a readjustment as between one kind of model and another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have every sympathy with the men who are laid off but I know that has happened every year.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what hon. members have said but I must say that it does not really assist me very much in dealing with this matter. What we have before us is a fairly definite matter of public importance and what we have been discussing is something quite different. Now if the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is moving the adjournment of the house to discuss the matter of the excise tax on automobiles, I would certainly rule it out of order because I could not understand how matters which are essentially matters for the budget could be projected into a debate of the house by an expedient of this kind. However, that is not a matter which I have before me and I must deal with what I have before me. The matter to be discussed has been put in the following terms:
The matter of urgent public importance which I propose to raise has to do with the fact that two large automobile companies in Canada, employing thousands of workers, have closed their doors for an indefinite period and another large company, m fact the largest, proposes to shut its doors tomorrow or the next day.
Now this has to do with unemployment in three large automobile companies in Canada, which is of course a matter of public importance and interest. I suppose that, taking it at its face value, what it is desired to debate is what can be done about that unemployment situation? Now by looking at the order paper I can find nothing which will give the hon. members an opportunity to discuss this matter in the near future and it seems to me that this is a matter which does come within the rules to the extent that I must ask this house whether the hon. member has the leave of the house to proceed.
I put the question now, formally, to see whether there is any objection. The" question before the house is this: Has the hon. member for Essex East the leave of the house to move the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter of urgent public importance?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
And more than 20 members having risen:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house generally vsjill appreciate the care which Your Honour takes in a matter of this sort in trying to arrive at what he believes to be the correct procedural situation. I certainly join with other members of this house in recognizing the great patience and understanding which Your Honour shows, not only in this particular but also in other matters which have come before us during the course of the present session.
I would like to say firstly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whose judgment on procedural questions if not substantive questions I have great respect, that he will possibly now understand-after the observations of His Honour-why I was careful as to the form of my motion. Notwithstanding the fact that I recognize my hon. friend's superiority of knowledge inr these matters and though I might accept his advice on some occasions, I am sure he will recognize that in this particular instance he was not as wise as would seem to have been indicated by some of his earlier remarks. I say this in the light of the ruling of the Speaker with regard to this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: try to be helpful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now the matter before us, Mr. Speaker, concerns the fact that at the present time in certain centres of Canada plants have been closed and, as a result, thousands of men are out of work. However, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has pointed out, this situation is not confined to merely those centres where automobiles are manufactured in this country. The very interdependence of our economy suggests, of course, that the situation is much more widespread in this particular instance, than a mere recital of the number of men who may be out of work in the city of Windsor, in the city of Oshawa or any other centres, such as Hamilton, where automobiles are manufactured.
One has to take into account that the situation affects the dealers in automobiles all over this country and in every community; one has to consider the effect on a score of subsidiary plants, not only in my own community but in other communities of Canada which are entirely dependent upon the manufacture of automobiles.
This, therefore, is by no means a local question or one of local consideration; this is

a national matter and I do not argue for one moment that if the situation was confined to my own city that would preclude any hon. member from raising this particular matter but, to give emphasis to the nature of the problem about which we complain, I join with the hon. member for Bow River in indicating the nationwide character of the problem.
Now I want to be fair in a matter of this importance and I would not suggest that this is the first time unemployment has occurred within recent months or within a recent period in the automobile industry; that would be neither a fair argument nor would it be a responsible one, and I do not think I am inclined to make irresponsible arguments in support of a case in this house. However, I do have a duty, as a member of parliament representing an automobile centre, to raise a situation which, rightly or wrongly, does have certain attributes for which the government is responsible in this particular instance.
Now I wish to refer to a matter which I regret having to raise since the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), undoubtedly for good reasons, is not in his seat but I have to weigh the convenience of the hon. minister and the interests of my constituents, so I think he will not criticize me, in this instance at any rate, if I prefer the welfare of my constituents to his convenience. On Thursday last I asked the Minister of Finance if on the next day he was going to see representatives of the automobile industry. I indicated in my question that there was some concern about his refusal or his inability to see the representatives of that industry on the next day. The minister replied that he had already seen them several weeks before. He also indicated that he had seen the dealers and that he was aware of the nature of the problems confronting the automobile industry. He would give no commitment however as to whether or not he would see them. It was that statement, together with reported items of one kind and another, which have circulated since the beginning of this session which have caused, as I suggested in my question to the Minister of Finance, a stagnation in the sales of automobiles, an uncertainty in the minds of the consuming public and, perhaps not unnaturally, some hesitation on the part of the manufacturers.
Now the press of this country on Saturday last indicated the official attitude of the automobile manufacturers themselves, but I do know that groups from my own city have been endeavouring and propose to continue to endeavour to seek an interview with
Labour Conditions
responsible members of the government in connection with this matter, to see if clarification of some kind will not ensue on the part of the government which would at least remove any uncertainty in so far as the relationship of the government to this particular problem is concerned.
Now we have in the Globe and Mail of Saturday a statement from General Motors of Canada Limited and Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited to the effect that production will be suspended next week, meaning this week. I refer to the edition of Saturday, November 30, pending the clarification,- and because of your ruling, sir, I do not intend to go any further-of government policy.
Now there is only one field in this matter involving government policy which has any practical bearing on this matter, and we were told during the course of the election by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), speaking in my own city of Windsor with regard to the automobile situation, which at that time had its period of unemployment-there were then some 7,000 men out of work, and I do not hesitate to state that fact-"Elect me; I will see that parliament is called in September, and I will correct that situation."


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to quote that remark from me. And we have come to exactly the point I raised. The question asked last Thursday had to do with the excise tax, and the hon. gentleman is now back to the subject which you said a while ago could not be discussed, and which you would not permit to be discussed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not mentioned the excise tax once.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say further that the hon. member for Essex East has said this is the only point at issue in this debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the difficulty which some hon. members foresaw and suggested would relate to this motion, and it is one which hon. members will have to bear in mind when they ask the question of what may be done about unemployment in the automobile industry.
May I refer to subsection (f) of section 6 of standing order No. 26, which reads:
The discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the standing orders of the house, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice.
It may not be easy to draw the line, but I think hon. members should keep away from proposals which can only be raised by substantive motion, and certainly that is the

Labour Conditions
category in which excise tax amendments tall. No excise tax change can be made without a substantive motion. While I do not say one cannot refer to what may be the cause of unemployment, I do ask hon. members to keep the debate as narrowly on track as possible, appreciating that we are interrupting the ordinary routine of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour will agree at once that I have been scrupulous in my presentation with regard to the matter I have raised.


An hon. Member:: Except by inference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may not like this, but we recall that when we were sitting over there, procedures such as this were used on a number of occasions, and the Prime Minister was always foremost in those projects.
The fact is, as I have stated, that we were confronted with this situation. Lay-offs were forecast on Friday by the heads of the three companies, the largest employers in the automobile industry. The Ford Motor Company of Canada had in the previous week laid off 2,400 workers, giving as the reason the matter which Your Honour has suggested we cannot deal with directly but which Your Honour said we have the right, as mature men and women in this house, to take note of, particularly if it is possible to have stories going out in the paper, as appear tonight, that the government proposes tomorrow to take action on the very matter about which we are complaining now.
The story has gone out that E.H. Walker, chairman of General Motors of Canada, said the Oshawa plant would be shut down Monday and Tuesday and that all overtime work would be eliminated immediately. Chrysler Corporation of Canada said production will be suspended next week pending clarification of a rumoured reduction in the excise tax. More than 16,000 workers will be affected by the lay-offs at these three companies. Chrysler in a statement said the production cuts were scheduled when-and then they go on to state something which is objectionable as far as this particular debate is concerned, but which hon. members will have in their minds.
The effect of this report, the published account states, has been to bring a complete halt to the shipment of cars from Canadian manufacturers to the dealers. And then the General Motors president said a decision concerning further shutdowns will be made as soon as more is known about the government's specific policy.
That being the situation, having in mind the Prime Minister's assurance that if he
[Mr. Speaker.!
were elected parliament would be called in September and he would resolve this problem, and that by a deliberate policy either involving reduction or elimination he would provide the kind of stimulus needed-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Again the hon. member for Essex East is back on his one point which deals with excise tax. I submit he is out of order in proceeding along that line.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I cannot go along with the hon. minister that far. I have indicated my view that proposals with respect to tax cannot be made in a debate of this kind, but I do not think I can prevent an hon. member discussing what he may think to be a cause of unemployment if he wishes to relate that to tax.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not a mystery, as hon. gentlemen opposite know perfectly well what is concerned. I should have thought that the Prime Minister would point out that there are difficulties-and as a former member of the government I understand that there are difficulties-but to take a position as he has done today that no hon. member has a right or a duty in face of this situation to raise a matter of this sort is, I submit, not in accordance with what I have always understood to be the attitude of the right hon. gentleman toward an hon. member's obligations.
The Prime Minister knows that this situation of unemployment in the automobile industry can be cured tomorrow if this government would simply make an announcement one way or another as to the course it proposes to follow with regard to a matter which is agitating not only the automobile industry but thousands of workers all over the country who are indirectly-


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: What matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member asks: "what matter"? The matter of the elimination or reduction of excise tax on automobiles.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You asked the
question.


William McLean Hamilton: On
a point of order, is that not the subject you suggested as not being proper to be discussed at this time? The hon. member has actually mentioned it himself.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 certainly did not intend to rule that no one should mention the matter of excise tax. All I intended to say in drawing this subsection to the attention of the house was that proposals respecting excise tax could not be made in this kind of debate. But as to the effect of the present excise tax or of a change in the excise tax as has been suggested; I do not see how that could be excluded from a debate on this issue, if you are going to accept the proposition that it has some bearing on the automobile industry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask Your Honour to consider this: it is not possible, in my submission, for Your Honour to pursue the narrow line which, I believe in all fairness, you are trying to pursue. As I understand it, you ruled that although an hon. member may mention excise tax and its bearing on the situation, he may not make specific proposals with regard to the excise tax.
May I point out, however, that the only way in which excise tax can be discussed in general is by raising the most direct inference that the government should act now with regard to this tax. That is what the hon. member for Essex East has been seeking so assiduously to avoid; he has been trying hard to avoid falling into that hole, while always suggesting what the government's proposals should be.
My point is this, Mr. Speaker: That discussion is entirely out of order because the government would be committing the most deliberate breach of the constitutional rules if it gave any indication of its intentions with regard to excise tax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rest of us have to be gagged.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have heard my hon. friend in the government of which he was a member many, many times give us what I thought was a correct answer although we did not always like it-


Mr. Stick:: Now you are changing your tune.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said it was incorrect; namely that the government's intentions with regard to the budget and with regard to taxation measures will be announced to the house when the government's decision has been made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend is not in the government any longer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What my hon. friends are
asking the government to do is to say what are its intentions with regard to excise tax.
Labour Conditions
My hon. friend would, of course,-and quite properly so-be the very first to raise the loudest outcries of outrage if we did indicate at this stage what were our intentions with regard to the excise tax. The Prime Minister has gone as far as the leader of the government can go in saying that it is intended to introduce taxation measures as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that while it may be very pleasant for hon. members opposite to indulge in this skating exercise, the fact of the matter is they are out of order and they know they are out of order. What has taken place so far, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you with respect, proves to us all that the whole debate is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the point of order which has been raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I am not absolutely sure what his point of order is unless he is contending that Your Honour made a wrong ruling when you permitted this debate to take place. I hope that is not the burden of what the Minister of Justice just said. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what you have a right to deny in this debate is the right of the government to announce in advance any changes that it proposes to present to parliament, changes which may be made tomorrow, according to tonight's papers, or maybe later on. But as for the right of members of the house who are not members of the government to urge, as a means of eliminating unemployment or for other reasons, that there be tax changes, I suggest that that right has been exercised in the past.
I have vivid recollections of some motions of my own having to do with the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes, the deductibility of trade union dues for income tax purposes and other matters which were proposed in motions of that kind on this side of the house, and which were supported by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and others. The Liberals, who were then over on that side of the house, did not object to our having the debate, did not object to our making the request. What they did object to-


James Sinclair: We said you could debate them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
member for Coast-Capilano was one of those who used to say: "You can debate this, boys, but we cannot tell you the answer because this is a secret until the budget is announced".

Labour Conditions
I submit that is the position. It may seem unfair that the members of the cabinet have certain facts which they cannot give to the house until they are ready to do so, but I submit it is perfectly in order for members of the House of Commons to urge as a means of eliminating unemployment, or for any reason, that there be tax changes. We might suggest something that would elicit from the government what their intentions are and I hope we can. But if they stand on their rights and insist it is their right to refuse to answer, there is nothing we can do about it. But I submit that hon. members opposite, the Minister of Public Works, the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and the Minister of Justice, should just think back in the recesses of their memories to a few short months ago and recall how often on this side of the house they tried to get information as to the government's intentions regarding tax changes.


Mr. Hamilion (Noire Dame de Grace):: Not
in this way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Conservatives when they were in opposition perhaps did not do it by means of using standing order 26, but I can think of other means that were more effective. The Conservatives voted several times for my motion to allow all medical expenses to be deductible for income tax purposes. That was a request to the then Liberal government and on one occasion the house voted for it.


James Sinclair: Only for consideration of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: accept the word of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that consideration was asked for by this side of the house, and on one occasion the house voted for it and we still did not get it. As to what the government's intentions are it looks to me as though we have an indication of it in the newspapers tonight. It has gone all over Canada that there is to be an announcement tomorrow, and that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is departing somewhat from the point which he raised, which was as to the extent that a discussion of excise taxes would be permissible. As I understand the argument of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), it is that unemployment in the industry is in some way related to uncertainty about taxation and it seems to me that is a perfectly proper course to pursue on this motion. I see nothing in the course that has been followed thus far to compel the government to do anything that would be a breach of its responsibilities with respect to taxation. After all, it is the responsibility of the government to decide on and to introduce the appropriate resolution when
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
it wishes to make changes in taxation and it is not compelled by anything that has taken place here to abdicate its responsibilities. Perhaps I have got myself into a rather untenable position in trying to say that you can discuss excise taxes in their relationship to unemployment in the automobile industry and not discuss the rate of taxation. I shall probably have to abandon that position. I do ask hon. members to keep themselves as far as they can on the subject of unemployment in the automobile industry.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the house generally is disposed to assist Your Honour in the discharge of your heavy obligations. The point that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it seems to me is a valid one. It is one that I did not press because I recognized the position in which Your Honour was, but now that it has been pressed and a clarification has taken place the situation, of course, is that much easier. But my own observations were made in answer to a question by the Postmaster General. He was the one who asked me to state how this particular problem could be corrected, and he himself raised a point of order because I replied to the question which he himself had asked me.
Now, the situation clearly is this. No one has the right to tell the government what its taxation policy should be. We have the right to argue, or to urge, that we believe a particular course should be followed but it is up to the Minister of Finance to declare the government's financial policy. Surely, it is the right of any member of parliament, speaking for a group of constituents who he believes need government attention and assistance, to lay before the government and before parliament what he conceives at the particular moment will be the most effective remedy. There can be no doubt about that.
I referred at the beginning to the promises made by this government during the course of the last election; and that the uncertainty, the stagnation, in the automobile industry dates from the promises made by the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, who led the people of Canada and the industry to believe that once he got into office there would be changes made immediately in the excise tax and that those changes would remove the lack of sales and consequential unemployment.
If that is the situation since the ninth day of May when the right hon. gentleman made this promise in the city of Windsor, there have been a whole series of intervening observations and actions by the government in one form or another that have only added to this uncertainty. The Minister of Finance

during the course of the summer, when the Prime Minister was at the prime ministers' conference, clearly indicated in a Canadian Press dispatch that there would be reductions of taxes as well as certain other modifications in existing legislation. That statement caused everyone in Canada to believe that at the earliest opportunity there was going to be a reduction or elimination of the excise tax which in its origin, Mr. Speaker, is a war tax, a tax imposed by previous administrations as a war measure.


Mr. Nowlan:: So is the sales tax.


James Sinclair: You are going to remove that too, you say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is another matter. In 1952 the excise tax on automobiles was 25 per cent. That tax was reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, and in 1955 the tax was reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. It is significant that when confronted with the very kind of situation that now confronts the government of the day my leader, the former prime minister, in speaking of this tax pointed out that it had been reduced on two occasions and with reference to the period from January 1 until May 9, the day that the present Prime Minister made his promise with regard to the excise tax, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) went on to point out that in the first quarter of the present year sales of new cars in Canada were up by 18 per cent and that on that account he did not feel that the retention of the 10 per cent excise tax was a discouragement to employment at that time. But these are the significant words which my leader added. He said:
To those who inquire whether there is a possibility of a further adjustment of the excise tax, I can only answer that should it become evident that sales were being adversely affected and that the benefit of a further adjustment would be passed on to the buying public, this new aspect of the situation would naturally have to be carefully considered.
But that situation is not the situation that now confronts us. Sales are down. When the Leader of the Opposition made that statement last June in the city of Windsor he had the background of an 18 per cent increase in sales for the first quarter of this year over the previous year. Now sales have gone down to a perilous point. According to the announcement the Chrysler and Ford plants will be completely shut down tomorrow or the next day and General Motors is now shut down, let alone the many allied plants of all kinds associated in one way or another with the automobile industry, parts plants and so on. They obviously will be affected.
Labour Conditions
Whether or not it is just that the automobile manufacturers should have taken this action, I do not comment. I simply say that whether or not it is just the fact before the house is that men are out of work because their employers believe that the uncertainty of government policy is responsible for this situation. All that we ask the government to do today is to give an indication at once of its intentions. It can do that. The government does not need to wait until it brings in its budget. In view of the emergent situation, the Prime Minister can rise right now and say that as of this day the tax shall be reduced to a certain percentage or it shall be completely eliminated. That course has been followed before in an emergent situation.


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just do not recall but I do know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: All right. My hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Murdo William Martin: Let me ask my
hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking you to answer that question. When was that done?


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend is perfectly justified in asking that question and after the dinner recess I will give him the answer. Let me ask my hon. friend this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Does the Prime Minister know of any constitutional reason why he cannot do that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: I have asked a question. Does my right hon. friend know of any constitutional reason why he cannot, in order to correct this situation, rise in his place now and make a statement? I am not saying he should be pressed if his government has not considered the matter but if it has I ask him why he should not rise in his place and say that the government is going to or it is not. Remove this uncertainty. That is all we are asking.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise. That suggestion would make the biggest caricature of responsible government in this country, and my hon. friend knows that. I repeat what I said earlier, that all of this is simply subterfuge on his part.

Labour Conditions


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to let my hon. friend get away with the remark that this is subterfuge.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what it is.


Murdo William Martin: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw those words. There is nothing in my whole public life-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw! Withdraw!


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that would warrant any hon. gentleman saying that I resort to subterfuge. I am interested in the welfare of my constituents and I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member has taken offence at the word "subterfuge". While it is certainly not a word that one plays with, it is not to my mind one that should not be used to describe a course of conduct in the house and I must say I cannot ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the statement he has made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that every time excise tax changes are made they are made on the introduction of a notice of motion by the finance minister and become effective at that moment or at midnight that night-


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -subject to later approval by parliament? Is there anything out of keeping in that practice, which has been followed across the years, with the concept of responsible government?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is, of course, right. That has happened repeatedly. However, there is one good case I do not have directly in mind at the moment but I will show it to the Prime Minister after dinner because I was reviewing it with others before the sitting commenced at 2.30. Incidentally, I will not pursue my objection. His Honour has said that the word "subterfuge" is not unparliamentary. I bow to Your Honour's ruling in this particular, but I should have thought that the Prime Minister, the leader of the house, would be the last man in the world to use that kind of remark towards any other hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sinclair: He is a master of it himself.


Murdo William Martin: Subject to the reservation I made, namely if the government has considered the matter, the right hon. gentleman could rise today and make a statement. If that is not the case I appreciate that he should not be asked to do so but if that is the situation there is nothing to preclude him, if he thought it desirable, from rising in his place, or possibly one of his ministers, and saying that effective as of this date, so that no advantage can be taken from the announcement, the situation will be such and such, that there will be nothing done or that something will be done.
It stands to reason that in the face of the situation that confronts us since the promise made by the Prime Minister on the 10th of May the public were perfectly justified in the expectations that they had that there would be elimination or reduction of this tax as a means of stimulating sales, as a means of maintaining employment at a level higher than it was a few days ago.
Now, I suspect that if the hon. gentleman replies he will say that the member for Essex East has given his case away already because the hon. member referred to the fact that when I made this promise there were 7,000 men out of work in Windsor. There were
7,000	men out of work as I have indicated, but my hon. friend will not be on strong ground unless he looks back over the record of employment in the automobile industry in the past decade and he will find that employment in the automobile industry was at its highest level during the time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) was Prime Minister of this country.


An hon. Member:: Because no cars were produced during the war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: During the war and long after the war. When I came into this house, and the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) can bear me out in this as can other hon. members, in 1935 over 60 per cent of the people in the community were on relief and had been on relief for a period of over three years. The amount of employment in our city and in the neighbouring communities was proportionate. This situation has never been the rule since.


Mr. Starr:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member explain what happened to the automobile industry in Windsor on November 22, 1956, when there were approximately 7,000 people unemployed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: During the whole period there have been men out of work. Since my hon. friend comes from Oshawa he knows better than any other member sitting on that side the nature of the automobile industry. During the past decade there have

been periods of two or three months when there have been these loads of unemployed.
What we are pointing out today is that not only is there unemployment but the plants have been closed down. What is the reason for that? Allegedly the reason is the unwillingness of this government, in spite of the fact that we have been sitting here since October 14, to declare its policy. All we ask is that-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "Nonsense". Apparently that is the level of the contribution made by that hon. gentleman. We are discussing a very important matter. I ask the government to state its policy unequivocally so that we can ascertain the extent to which this particular policy of taxation is responsible for this situation.
Before I resume my seat I want to inform the government that it will not only be enough, as a means of stimulating sales in the present situation or as a means of stimulating employment, for the government to take a positive step either by way of reduction or elimination of the tax, but if the government is going to stimulate buying power, if it is going to stimulate sales, if it is going to maintain employment, then if a tax reduction does occur the government must see that reduction is passed on to the consuming public. I realize that there are difficulties in that. It will not satisfy this situation if the price of cars should go up, taking advantage of this particular situation.
Now, that did happen on one occasion when a reduction was made. When the reduction was made from 25 per cent to 15 per cent that reduction was not passed on to the consumer and the advantage that could have flowed from that reduction by way of stimulating sales was not provided.


George Clyde Nowlan: Was it passed on to the dealer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think there were some difficulties at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: What about the reduction from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, was that passed on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has raised a very important point. The other day I asked the Minister of Finance if there were elimination of or a reduction in the tax, would he satisfy the dealer as to his liability when the tax changes were announced. The Minister of Finance did give a statement which should have satisfied the dealers, but unfortunately the statement was clouded with a whole series of parentheses and reservations that made it difficult to follow. I think it would be desirable, even now, 96698-110i
L/abour Conditions
for the government to make an unequivocal statement, as the minister of finance did last May when the policy of the government with regard to the tax in so far as the dealers were concerned was announced. If those things are done, and if the government states its position as quickly as possible one way or the other, I am sure it will help to mitigate the severity of this situation.
We have used strong words today on both sides, largely because we all recognize what unemployment means in our society. We are faced with a situation in the country which in this particular debate I am precluded from mentioning, but this is part of the whole unemployment problem. It is one that must be faced and it is one which, in this particular instance, can be faced by a government which, on the eve of the election, was courageous and positive. We are simply asking for the development of a similar attitude that is positive and a character that is courageous, so that we can deal with a situation which has arisen long after the election.


Major James William Coldwell: rise to support the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I feel that the debate this afternoon was fully justified. I think that in the automobile industry, with growing unemployment, there was a great deal of misgiving as to what the future would be. I want to say to the government that this situation has arisen, like other situations might arise, first of all because of the failure to call parliament early enough. There may have been good reasons why the government did not call parliament early enough, but certainly one of the reasons for the present situation is that parliament was not called sufficiently early to deal with these problems. The second reason is this. I would remind my hon. friends of the Liberal party that when we moved an amendment in reply to the address we regretted that inflation and unemployment were not mentioned in the speech from the throne. My Liberal friends did not support us in that contention in supporting the amendment which we moved.
However, this situation has arisen because of another reason. The other reason is we have had no budget. If we had had a budget then a matter of this description would have been properly dealt with and properly decided. This doubt that has arisen in the public mind and in the mind of the industry which is resulting in such disastrous unemployment in Windsor, in Oshawa, in Hamilton would not have arisen. The results are being felt in St. Catharines, Welland, Brantford and other cities in this province because they are largely dependent on the

Labour Conditions
automobile industry in the manufacturing of parts, tires and other equipment for the automobile industry. Brantford, for example, has taken a trimming over the years because of the fall of agricultural prices. Now, of course, those citizens will feel the pinch again because of unemployment and lay-offs in the automobile industry. When I was in Brantford two or three weeks ago I was told by the mayor that not so many years ago there were 15,000 men employed in the agricultural implement industry in that city. When I was there three weeks ago there were
7,000	employed in that same industry, and some of them had been transferred from the agricultural industry to manufacturing parts for automobiles.
One can see, therefore, that this matter is not the concern only of Essex East. This does not concern only Windsor; it does not concern only Oshawa or Hamilton, it concerns a very large number of other places in this country today. In view of the dangerous level to which unemployment has already risen in Canada, the fact that this confusion has arisen over whether or not the excise tax is going to be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent or is to be wiped out is an aggravation of that unemployment situation.
So I am rising this afternoon to support the contention of the hon. member for Essex East. But there again, in view of the financial situation and in view of the position of other industries in this country, I think the question of whether taxes are to be lowered or raised, whether through income tax reductions more purchasing power is given whereby people may buy more things to help alleviate the unemployment situation and whether this tax is going to be reduced or eliminated, should be included in a review of the financial situation in this country by means of a budget. I do not think it is satisfactory for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to rise in his place perhaps tomorrow or next week and make some announcement.
I want to say to the government that I do not know how the rumour got abroad that a reduction was going to be made in the excise tax. Whether or not there was a leak, I do not know. But because that story appeared in a paper that is regarded as being very close to the present administration, namely the Toronto Telegram, great credence was given to it. There may be other factors in this situation also, of which some of us may not be unaware. When the story appeared in the press it may have alerted the automobile industry. The management and the owners of the automobile industry might have considered that at last they had been handed

a very good lever by means of which to get rid of this tax and to put the government thoroughly on the spot in relation to it. I do not think we can discount that possibility. But whether or not that was the intention of the management, it is not the management that will suffer. It is the workers in the industry who are going to suffer.
As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in the high profits of General Motors, Ford or Chrysler or in the payment of big bonuses to the management of those automobile organizations. I am interested in the condition of the men and women who work in that industry. They are out of work today and are threatened with more unemployment unless something is done. I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his radio address on November 8 deprecated our talking about unemployment, said that warning of the dangers of unemployment was a dangerous course to follow and one which, he suggested, could lead to a depression.
We are not suggesting that the unemployment in this one industry is leading to a recession or depression but we are concerned with the general condition across the country. The more unemployment we have in the automobile industry, the larger are the figures which are already startling. The statistics that we have indicate the seriousness of the problem, to which unemployment in the automobile industry is adding. Unplaced applicants in October of this year, 1957, according to the latest figures, numbered 280,000 compared with 160,000 a year ago, a figure higher than the figure in October, 1954 when we were entering the bad winter of 1954-55. Of course it was not an opposition member who predicted that if unemployment continued to develop as it has been developing by the spring of next year we might have 750,000 people seeking work across this country. It was said by an official of the government. At a time when we are all worried over the condition of the working people in the various industries in this country this situation develops and I say that the government should clear it up and do so as rapidly as possible.
I blame the government for not bringing down a budget this autumn and allowing the people of Canada to know precisely what the financial condition of this country is, what the new taxation proposals were, whether they intend to reduce certain taxes, including income taxes, raise the exemption or what-have-you, in order that more purchasing power might be put in the hands of the people to help to buy the goods that industry

is producing. Because those goods cannot be sold unemployment is developing in those industries. As far as the automobile industry is concerned, probably sales were dropping. I think the automobile industry in this country-and we are not discussing that industry except in so far as it affects unemployment-has gone crazy in the production of comparatively high priced cars.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point is this. I am open to correction if I am wrong. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked and obtained leave of the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, to make that motion. As far as I am aware, no motion has yet been made. He was to make a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing an important matter. No motion has yet been made.


An hon. Member:: Yes; there was.


James Sinclair: He moved the adjournment of the house.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I would suggest to the hon. member for Essex East that he should make his motion. As long as there is no motion before the house, we have nothing to discuss.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I gave way to the hon. gentleman but may I say that there is a motion before the house. The motion is that the house adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I speak to the point of order for a moment?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I recall the matter quite clearly, when the hon. member for Essex East raised the matter he sent to Your Honour a statement of the matter he wished to discuss but he made no motion in writing-


James Sinclair: Yes; he did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and he handed him no motion. I will ask Your Honour whether you have before you a motion to adjourn signed by the hon. member for Essex East and seconded by another hon. member. I understood Your Honour to say that you had no motion but merely a statement of the matter proposed to be discussed. I point out that the hon. member made no motion while he was on his feet. I point out that the hon. member, having concluded his speech, is debarred from rising. I suggest that there is no question before the house and that the house must proceed to the matter which was interrupted when the hon. member raised it about 3.30 o'clock.
Labour Conditions


James Sinclair: Closure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I should like to hear
the point of order discussed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry to interrupt the very interesting speech made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) but he will understand that it is only owing to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).


Major James William Coldwell: I gave way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice said-and perhaps this is a new form of closure-that I would not have the right to speak.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I said the hon. member
would not have the right to make a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: May I hear the hon. member on the point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. I could not resist taking up the challenge.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is misinterpreting my remarks as usual. He is so confused about procedure that he cannot understand anything rightly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice who is now a great lawyer and the most lucid member in the house can say these things. I acknowledge the superior quality of his intellect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, standing order 26 is quite clear. The first section thereof reads as follows:
26. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance must be asked after starred questions on Wednesdays and on other days after the ordinary daily routine of business, standing order 15 (2), has been concluded.
We have done that today. Then here is a pertinent thing which the Minister of Justice obviously has not done and that is to read the relevant standing order which is as follows:
(2) The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place,.-
I think the Minister of Justice will admit that I did that, at least.
-asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,-

Labour Conditions
And 1 think the Minister of Justice, who now nods his head, acknowledges that I did that.
-and states the matter.
I have stated the matter. It did not have to be stated in the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You forgot to move the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not. The only motion is "I move the adjournment of the house". That is the only motion before His Honour. Then you state why you move it, state the matter. Then subsection 3 is clear:
(3) He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker,-
That I did. I handed the Speaker a written statement which is not in the form of a motion. Standing order 26, I submit, is so clear that not even the Minister of Justice would be tripped by its reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that subsection 5 of rule 26 reads as follows:
(5) Except with the requisite leave or support, the motion cannot be made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What my hon. friend did first was quite proper. He asked leave to move a motion to adjourn the house. The house gave him leave but my hon. friend neglected to make this motion, which shows how much seriousness he attached to the subject matter that he sought to bring before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, because my hon. friend made this very clear from the words of his motion which Your Honour read out and which were not the usual words which would have been: "I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance". No, my hon. friend knew better; he departed from the time-honoured custom and therefore there is no motion. What 1 am pointing out is that thereby he did not realize that he was not making a motion; he could have corrected his error had he, during the course of his speech or at the conclusion of his speech, sent to Your Honour a motion, signed by himself and seconded by another member, that the house be adjourned.


Lionel Chevrier: He had already done that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But unless Your Honour corrects me, I think the situation is that you have no motion before you signed by the hon. member for Essex East and seconded by another hon. member without which there can be no motion. During the course of his speech he said he was going to beg leave to
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
move the adjournment of the house but he did not do so. I submit there is, therefore, no motion before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to speak again on his point of order?


James Sinclair: I barely started and the hon. the Minister of Justice interrupted me-


William Howell Arthur Thomas: If I may, Mr. Speaker,-I was interrupted in the first place. I appreciate the support of the Minister of Justice, but I would like to say that I was very careful from the time when the member for Essex East began to speak until he had finished to watch the proceedings most closely all the way through and that is why I raised the question and brought it to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice. There has been no motion moved in this house so far as I am aware. The hon. member for Essex East has been granted the leave of this house to make his motion but, up to the present time, he has not made it. Perhaps there is still an opportunity for him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: And then after the motion is put there can be a vote taken upon it at a later time.


Mr. Speaker:: Technically I think the basis for the point of order is correct for, as I recall the sequence of events which the Clerk confirms to me, the hon. member did receive the leave of the house by 20 members rising in their places, as is required, although no formal motion was made after that. Therefore, technically the point of order is properly taken but it is, of course, taken somewhat after the event and I have not been advised as to what would be the consequences of accepting the point of order at this time. I think a point of order is properly taken at the time when it arises and when it is possible to deal with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you hear argument, Mr. Speaker, on this point?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, yes. I am in difficulties on this and I would like to hear what would be the consequences of accepting the point of order at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think you will recall I still have the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think, Your Honour, it was necessary to let some few moments go by after the hon. member for Essex East had completed his speech, because until he had sat down and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar had taken the floor no one could be certain that the hon. gentleman was through and that he did not intend to, or would refrain from, moving a motion. After

he allowed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to proceed with his speech for some few minutes it became perfectly obvious that the hon. member for Essex East did not in fact intend to move the motion and it then became appropriate for the hon. member who raised the point of order so to do. I submit, therefore, that the point of order was raised at the first moment at which it could be raised; that is to say, at the first moment when it was certain that the hon. member for Essex East did not in fact intend to present the motion.
Now as to the consequences of accepting the point of order, I suggest it is simply that there is no question before the house and therefore the subject matter sought to be raised by the hon. member for Essex East is no longer before the house and that the house revert to the position on the order paper at which it stood when the hon. member sought leave to make his motion, which motion he refrained from making.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, while it may be true that the hon. member for Essex East did not move the motion he did give notice that the motion was to be moved. Mr. Speaker, would you accept the motion from me? I move that the house adjourn so that we may discuss this urgent matter of public importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have heard enough about this point in order to be able to deal with it effectively, and I hope to the satisfaction of the house. Actually the point was well taken but the house proceeded-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly.


Mr. Speaker:: -on the basis that a motion was before it and it tacitly gave unanimous consent to any irregularity which proceeded. If the point had been raised immediately it could have been dealt with and resolved. A member is free to rise and make a point of order at the time but I do not see how, after an hour and a half of debate on a motion supposedly before the house, we can then revert to the earlier position. It would lead to complete confusion in debates.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: May I say
something more on this point-


Mr. Speaker:: No, I have ruled and that is the end of it, unless the house chooses to challenge my ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: I suggest the matter could be put in order by my moving the motion, but if you do not wish me to do so-
Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: No, I think that would be piling irregularity upon irregularity. I think the members should proceed with the debate.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was proceeding to say when I was interrupted by the point of order, Mr. Speaker-which point of order was properly taken, I might say, and I have no objection to being interrupted on that account because I think in the future those hon. members who want to discuss matters of urgent public importance will see that they fulfil the requirements of the rule book.
I have been a member of this house for 22 years and this is the first time this point has been raised in the manner in which it was raised this afternoon. I do not recall any occasion quite like it. However, the debate has proceeded. I was saying that in view of the growing unemployment situation, the fact that lay-off announcements have been made by the automobile companies indicates how necessary it is for the government to take immediate action to resolve this situation. Mr. Walker, the president of General Motors of Canada, said the Oshawa plant will be shut down Monday and Tuesday, that is today and tomorrow and all overtime work will be eliminated immediately. This will mean that some 16,400 men in Oshawa alone will be affected, apart altogether from the McKinnon industries at St. Catharines and the other industries making parts for General Motors plant at Oshawa and which as I have said spread right out into the country.
Chrysler did the same thing and said:
-the production cuts were scheduled when "widely-circulated but unsubstantiated news reports stated that a reduction in the excise tax is imminent. The effect of this report has been to bring a complete halt to the shipment of cars from Canadian manufacturers to the dealers."
Dealers on another occasion were caught when a sudden reduction was made in the excise tax and no adequate compensation was provided for the losses they sustained thereafter. I remember, in travelling around my own constituency shortly after the session in which that was done, that I found automobile dealers who were in very difficult circumstances because of the manner in which the reduction in the tax had to be absorbed by the dealers and which the company did not absorb.
To continue my quotation the president of General Motors said:
A decision concerning further shutdowns will be made as soon as more is known about the government's specific plan regarding excise tax costs.
Ford said it will continue with its early cutback program and plans no further reductions because of the decision of the other two companies.

Labour Conditions
And since that time Mr. Clifford Pilkey, president of Local 222, United Automobile Workers said that:
Protests have been sent to Finance Minister Fleming and Labour Minister Starr.
It is really peculiar that a company which has been hiring so many extra men recently should close down because of newspaper reports or other information that the excise tax is to be reduced.
Mr. Pilkey said: ''General Motors have reacted like the stock market would to General Eisenhower's illness."
That is true, as I said earlier. I think that probably the management of some of these companies are very anxious indeed to use this as a lever to get rid of a tax for whose elimination they have been asking for some considerable time. As I say, while I have no sympathy with the people who have been receiving large bonuses-with the executives of these corporations-I have every sympathy for the men and women who are perhaps being used as pawns in an endeavour to get rid of a tax. I hope the government will make an announcement. There is only one thing for the government to do now; it has been put squarely on the spot, and it must announce either that the tax has been reduced to 5 per cent or that it has been eliminated altogether.


James Sinclair: Abolished. That is what the Prime Minister said.


Major James William Coldwell: They tell me that the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the tax. I did not hear it. I know that the members of the official opposition keep very close tabs on what the Prime Minister says, and so do we, but I did not hear of that statement.


James Sinclair: On May 29 in Oshawa.


Major James William Coldwell: In Oshawa?


John George Diefenbaker: That is not correct. At no time directly or indirectly, did I say that. What I said was-and I repeated it throughout the campaign-that this tax had an effect and that consideration should be given to its reduction in any event.


James Sinclair: That is not the way the
Ottawa Citizen reported you on May 30.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not responsible for that.


James Sinclair: You certainly did not correct it and say it was untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, well.


James Sinclair: You said it would be
abolished.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into an argument about something on which I am uncertain, so I will leave the former minister of fisheries and the present Prime Minister to argue the matter out. I
[Mr. Coldwell.l
am not going to get between two fires. We in the C.C.F. party occasionally do that, and usually it is not to our benefit.


Mr. Pearkes:: What book is that?


James Sinclair: A book of newspaper cuttings. You will be hearing plenty about it.


Major James William Coldwell: My point is that because of the unemployment situation which has arisen, and because of the reports which have appeared in the papers, the government should make some immediate announcement and say either that it is going to do nothing with regard to this tax or that it is going to eliminate it altogether. If the government is going to reduce it by 5 per cent, as the newspaper reports indicate, it should make a speedy announcement. I ask this not on behalf of the shareholders or the management of the industry but on behalf of the working men and women whose jobs in that industry are adversely affected, and on behalf of many men and women in other parts of Canada whose livelihood and employment would be affected if this question is not settled immediately. Of course, this question is not limited to those directly concerned with the industry itself, it stems back to the steel industry, because rolled steel is used largely in the automobile industry, and some of our steel plants are looking for outlets for their rolled steel and so on.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. The hon. member for Essex East was well advised to bring this matter up today, and I am hopeful that we shall get an announcement from the government. I would remind the Prime Minister that on one occasion a former minister of finance made an announcement not in this house but over the radio, and that announcement was approved later on by this House of Commons by the other place and, thereby, by the parliament of Canada. So I appeal for an immediate announcement as to what the government intends to do, either to continue the tax, which I hope it will not do, reduce it to 5 per cent or, better still, eliminate it altogether.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) is not here and I am prepared to say a few words in connection with

this debate. We have heard today, and we are well aware of the fact, that the problem of unemployment is of nationwide concern. The cities of Windsor and Hamilton have been mentioned, in which places there are a large number of people who work in the automobile industry and who are now out of employment. I understand that approximately 16,000 people are affected. This is a very serious situation. It is not only the workers in this industry who are affected but other people as well who rely directly and indirectly upon the industry for a livelihood.
I personally have received a telegram from various members of the Penticton motor dealers association, which telegram urges me to do everything possible to arrange protection for dealers who have new automobiles in stock and en route in the event a reduction in tax is decided upon. It suggests that there should be a plan whereby dealers could be assured of a rebate on all new cars on hand unsold and unused at the time of the change.
As I said before, this matter is of very serious concern to the nation, and it would seem that the government should at this time declare its intention one way or the other whether the present excise tax is to stay as it is or to be reduced. In addition, I would say further that ever since the house opened on October 14 last questions have been asked by members of the opposition parties as to when the government proposes to bring down a budget and so far there is no indication one way or the other in that respect. I feel that we as members of parliament should know what the nature of the income and expenses is expected to be. Accordingly, I urge the government to give every consideration to the problem that is now facing the people of this country.


George Clyde Nowlan: The matter raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did not cover the whole panoply of unemployment but was specifically directed toward unemployment in certain industries.	He referred more or less
euphemistically to certain things which might be done to correct that situation. Since the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian), who has just taken his seat, also made direct reference to the matter of excise tax on automobiles I thought that for a moment or two I should perhaps deal with that situation within the scope of this debate because I know that the hon. gentleman opposite who moved this motion is not one of the Snow White and Seven Dwarfs, living in a state of fantasy, but is dealing specifically 96698-111
Labour Conditions
with this problem although trying to keep within the rules by avoiding any direct reference to it.
What is there, Mr. Speaker, that distinguishes this situation from other situations in other years? This parliament met on the 14th day of October. We are now in the second day of December and we have been here for a matter of one month and two weeks. We are told that owing to some delay in making some announcement this country is facing a very serious situation. It is a story, Mr. Speaker, which is not entirely original at this time; it is one which many of us have heard before. What distinguishes it? Can we tell this, from other years? Well, we are told that there was one newspaper story. In other years during which many of us have been here there have been scores of newspaper stories speculating on what might be done by the Minister of Finance on a certain unknown date, in a certain indefinite time in the future, and I do not know that the country went entirely to wrack and ruin because of this large number of newspaper stories speculating on what Speaker, how much importance we can attach to that story, or how much should be attached to the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) as to what use could be made of that story to hold a club over the head of this government at this time? But if any people in this country-certainly not in this house; I would not think of that-think they can use a newspaper story to wield a club over the head of the government, then they are certainly sadly mistaken.
What else are we told? We are told that there is unemployment in the country at the present time, serious unemployment, and that it is a most tragic thing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has not yet made his announcement with respect to whatever the matter may be to which the hon. member for Essex East made reference this afternoon. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment of one man is a tragedy to that family and the unemployment of 100, 1,000 or 10,000 is a tragedy to all those directly concerned and to many others. It is not for me to deal with unemployment figures. My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), can deal with those most effectively. But I suggest in all seriousness that to state that the degree of unemployment at this time is such as to compel the government to take action which has never been taken before and make premature disclosures of budget matters is absolutely not being realistic.
When the people who used to be on the other side of the house, some of whom are

Labour Conditions
now on this side, used to talk about unemployment the right hon. gentleman who was seated to the right of where the former prime minister sits tonight used to get up and bark and say, "Have you lost your faith in Canada? I have got faith in Canada." He would deal with the matter in that way. I think he deserved credit for that. Have the car manufacturers of this country lost faith in Canada? Have the car dealers lost faith in Canada? Have hon. gentlemen opposite lost faith in Canada? Surely not. Certainly their record in the past would not suggest that because just before I came downstairs tonight I happened to look up the dates on which budgets were brought down by the preceding administration, particularly for the year 1955 when we did have a very substantial degree of unemployment as the winter went on, in fact, the highest degree in our history.
At that time the then minister of finance reduced the excise tax on automobiles by one-third, bringing it down from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. No disclosure was made. No statement was made. There were no cries to heaven in the newspapers about the threat of a disaster or the complete collapse of a ministry. In 1955 parliament met on the 7th day of January and the buget was brought down on the 5th day of April. January, February and March went by, three months of the greatest unemployment this country had ever known. On the 5th of April the budget was brought down and included in it was a reduction of the excise tax on automobiles by one-third.
Yet it is being suggested here that this government in some way is contributing to unemployment, is creating something of a disaster, by refusing to deal with the matter realistically, by refusing to deal with it prematurely and at the whim and behest of a newspaper story such as that. The matter of tax reduction is, of course, one which is in the hands of the Minister of Finance. He makes the disclosures. He makes his recommendations to the cabinet and then in turn to the House of Commons. In 1957 the house opened on January 8 and the budget was brought down on March 14. In 1956 parliament opened on January 10 and the budget was brought down on March 20, and in 1955, as I said, which was the worst year of all for unemployment, over three months elapsed before the budget was brought down.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that old adage about those who came to scoff remained to pray certainly applies to those who are now in the opposition. When they were in the government they scoffed at the pleas

of the then opposition to take some action with respect to those things about which they are now praying. What the government proposes to do with respect to taxation will, of course, be announced by the Minister of Finance at the proper time and in that way we will be following the practice which has been laid down ever since confederation.
I think some special reference should be made to legislation which was passed last year by this parliament. We hear rumours and reports-some people were in my office today -of almost a sit-down strike between the dealers and the manufacturers and that a very serious crisis is developing between them. It is not for us to deal with matters of trade between the people engaged in that tremendous business. I am sure they are competent and able and can solve their own differences.
But when anyone suggests it is the fault of the government that cars are not being shipped out I want to draw the attention of the house to a bill of the preceding government which was passed by parliament this year permitting manufacturers to ship automobiles on consignment to the dealers with the dealers not having to pay excise tax on them until they take title to them after they have made a sale. We were told at that time by the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of finance, and he is still a member of the house, that that was the answer to this problem, that in that way they were going to cure this difficulty. Either they misled the house, misunderstood the legislation or else we are being misled by these hon. gentlemen tonight when they raise this question because that is what we were told last session when this legislation was brought down. It is perfectly possible under that act today to ship cars to any dealer in the country on consignment. The dealer does not take title to them in law until he has arranged his financing, in other words, until he has made his sale, and therefore, according to the words of the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of finance in March of 1957, this problem could be solved very easily.
I do not blame the dealers, Mr. Speaker. The situation goes deeper than that. The fault for this problem, as my hon. friend knows who raised it this afternoon, actually lies with the former government, the government of which he was a distinguished member. That is where the responsibility lies. He told us this afternoon-I do not say boastingly-that his government had reduced the excise tax on automobiles from 25 per cent to 15 per cent and then had reduced it from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. That is perfectly true. But what did they do? They stuck the dealers with the excise tax every time.

We on this side of the house, supported by hon. gentlemen in both corners of the house, urged, pleaded and begged hon. gentlemen opposite when in government to do something about it. They just laughed it off. They said it could not be done and nothing was done. The dealers have made up their minds that they will not be stuck again. It may be that they have forgotten about the consignment act to which I referred a few moments ago but they have been burned twice by our predecessors and they do not realize there is a different government in power which will not stick them again if, as and when reductions are brought in.
In that regard I am in a position to say this. What may be done about reduction of taxation I do not know. It is a matter for the Minister of Finance to make his recommendations to his colleagues in the cabinet and, if approved there, to make his recommendations to parliament and then parliament can approve of them if it sees fit. What his recommendations may be, what they will be, I do not know. But once the recommendations are made it happens to be my responsibility to direct and head up the administration of the Department of National Revenue with its experienced and able officers. I may say, remembering when we sat in opposition and urged the case of the dealers, that I made up my mind that if my colleague the Minister of Finance did reduce the excise tax on automobiles I was not going to be in the position that my predecessor was when he sat here of having to say, "I refuse to do anything for the car dealers."
I was told first that nothing could be done. I asked that the decision be reviewed or considered. I am now satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and I know, after consultation wtih my officers, with the car manufacturers, with the car dealers, the presidents of the associations, the responsible men all across this country, that if-I emphasize again-a tax reduction is made in the excise tax on automobiles, the reduction on that tax will be passed on to the dealers who have cars in their possession at that time. They will not be stuck for them as they have been in the past by preceding governments. So, let us clear this up. Let us get down to facts and realities. Notwithstanding any consignment act or anything else, in the light of the statement I have just made there is no reason why manufacturers cannot start rolling their cars out to dealers tomorrow and have their dealers take possession.
There is nothing further I can say on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I have made the position clear so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned. Although one cannot get too serious about this, I could not 96698-lllj
Labour Conditions
help but recall this afternoon the years during which my hon. friend sat with a dour look on his face parrying all the questions we asked about reductions in taxes and now he is worried about the fact that from October 14 to December 2 there has been no announcement made on tax reductions. I really felt sorry for him because I could just imagine the long worrying months and years he spent in trying to implore his colleagues to do something about health insurance, and that took him about seven years.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Coming as I do from the constituency of Essex West, which comprises chiefly the city of Windsor, that is a great part of the city of Windsor and the township of Sandwich West, I am very vitally concerned with this matter. Unlike the speaker who has just sat down, and who feels he cannot get too serious about this matter, I think it is of very vital concern and one which goes to the very roots of the economic life of the whole of Canada. The automobile industry is not only applicable to those persons who are engaged in the handling and manufacture of automobiles, it goes to all parts of Canada, for most provinces in Canada contribute in some degree towards the manufacturing of automobiles, whether in Windsor, Oakville or Oshawa.
In addition to that, the secondary industries, the feeder plants in various municipalities in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and western Canada, are all affected by this matter. It is, therefore, of vital importance. It is something about which we should be most serious. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) has posed a question as to whether we have lost faith in Canada. Certainly we have not lost faith in Canada. If we had lost faith in Canada, we would not be here. I hear a few weak voices, but I do not know what they are saying.
However, I shall answer the question as to whether we have lost faith in Canada. We, in the city of Windsor, have absolute confidence, not only in Canada but in ourselves, to play our part in the economic life of this country. All we are looking for is an opportunity to work and an opportunity to help develop this country. We are no alarmists. We are not pessimists, but we do expect co-operation. We expect co-operation from the government. Although the government may not have confidence in itself, we are willing to give them every opportunity of being of assistance, not only to themselves but to the country as a whole.
For that reason the communities in the Windsor area have formed what is known as the metropolitan committee. It is composed

Labour Conditions
of the mayor and reeves of Windsor, Riverside, Tecumseh, Lasalle, Sandwich East township, Sandwich West township, Sandwich South township, St. Clair Beach and Ojibway. Those are the municipalities comprising the Windsor area. They have formed a committee and have looked into the situation. They find there are approximately 12 per cent of the working force at present unemployed. The matter is most acute, and it is most acute to those persons who are primarily and immediately responsible to the public. These people are not in a position at the present time to pay out the large sums that are necessary for carrying these people. They are not able to set up their budgets for the coming year, and therefore find themselves in great difficulty.
Now, to that end, they are most anxious to co-operate with the government. They are most anxious to get the views of the government, so that they may, if at all possible, be of assistance. They are most anxious to do what is possible to help themselves, and to that end they addressed a letter to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on November 22, asking that they have an opportunity of interviewing him and discussing the matter with him and with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). So far there has been no answer to that letter. On November 28, I telephoned to the Prime Minister's office. I talked with his secretary and asked him to look up the letter and let me have a word as quickly as possible when we might be able to see the Prime Minister and the other ministers of the government. So far I have not had a reply by telephone from the Prime Minister's office or the other ministers' offices.
I will say that I did have a personal conversation with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was most courteous in trying to arrange this. I, not being satisfied, addressed a letter, because this is a matter of vital urgency to those parts of Canada which I represent, to the Prime Minister asking that he arrange an interview with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Public Works so that this matter could be placed before them by the elected representatives from that area. So far I have not had a reply to that letter, neither have I had a reply from the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Public Works. I assume that in due course they will get around to it, and when they do we will be very happy to get their views. If there is anything that we can do to be of assistance we will be most happy to do it.

This matter has created a great deal of concern in the area which I represent, chiefly I think because of the most extravagant promises that were made prior to the last election and which we understand the government is now trying to fulfil.
We wish them well. We hope they can manage all these things. But in the meantime there are things to be done in our part of the country, things which were started by the previous government and which we think should be carried out.
For instance, there is the addition to the new post office which would provide employment in that area. If it had been proceeded with expeditiously, as had been planned by the previous government, all the buildings would now have been demolished and we would be on our way to construction to relieve a large amount of winter unemployment. There are at present in the Windsor area over 9,000 unemployed. It is therefore a very serious matter, one which affects the whole life of the community and the whole life of that part of the province.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to try to get some co-operation out of the government. If there is any possible way in which we may be able to be of assistance in helping ourselves, we should like to know about it. But in the meantime, I would appreciate some action by the Prime Minister and his other ministers with regard to seeing a delegation which has been provided by the metropolitan committee in the Windsor area.


Harold Edward Winch: Last March or April, Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in a seat just behind the one I now occupy and the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) I think was about three seats away from me. I can recall the present minister last February, March and April sitting over here, and the way he thought and the way he spoke. I have now listened to him in the last few minutes speak on the motion that is now before you. It had not been my intention to speak but the Minister of National Revenue, under whose department it does not come, raised the question of excise tax, and was not challenged by any member in the house nor by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I therefore assume that that phase of the matter is now before the house. I raise a most interesting situation when we consider that in the last few minutes the man who raised it and who objected to the objections from this side of the house is now the present Minister of National Revenue, under whom it does not come, and who was critical in the past five years that I have known him of anything happening that could upset taxation or employment in Canada and

who rose in his righteous wrath against the Liberal government and asked about it.
Mr. Speaker, under the actual term of the motion there is a serious situation of unemployment developing because the men in General Motors, Ford and Chrysler-and I imagine they are paid a great deal of money for their brains-have decided, starting this morning, to stop all overtime and to close their plants part of the week. The Minister of National Revenue who has no responsibility in the matter whatsoever-he has only to collect the money-thinks that those who support this motion are wrong and says that they have no responsibility as a government because 16,000 men are now out of work as a result of what he maintains is a rumour in a newspaper. If my friend the Minister of National Revenue were back on this side of the house where he was five months ago he would be raising hell in the House of Commons about this present situation.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Not around here.


Harold Edward Winch: But because of that strange metamorphosis which has occurred-16,000 laid off directly and how many indirectly I do not know, because of something in a newspaper-he has gone into a cocoon not only physically but mentally and has atrophied. I mean that, Mr. Speaker. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of National Revenue that he do not cause a blank in his mind since June 10. I am going to suggest that he remember the principles which I thought he had and which perhaps he thought he had prior to June 10 when he sat on this side of the house. Although he spoke as Minister of National Revenue on a subject that concerns wholly and solely directly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) but perhaps indirectly the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I am going to say that-I suggest even if it were a newspaper supposition, a newspaper guess, it must have been of such importance that the biggest financial and industrial brains of Canada-the heads of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford-have closed their plants.
I am a socialist, Mr. Speaker, I am therefore practical. I admire brains. The brains of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are not closing their plants and are not laying off 16,000 men directly and perhaps-I will make a guess and I think I cannot be proved wrong 100,000 indirectly on a newspaper rumour. They do not earn their money in that way.
And so we find ourselves in this position: there is something in the mind of this government with respect to the excise tax on cars and there has been a leak from the Department of Finance. If not, let that be stated
Labour Conditions
very definitely in this House of Commons and let us find out why the heads of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler have closed their plants. If this is ever proven, then I am convinced that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-because I think he loves integrity as well as I do-will demand the resignation of certain members on his cabinet benches.
If however it is not correct, we are then in the position of trying to understand why some of the greatest financial brains in Canada have taken the action they have in laying off over 16,000 men. These men must go back to work. Now it is correct, and it must be correct, that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance cannot now say what is going to happen if they bring in a budget so far as changes in taxes and excise duties or tax laws are concerned but surely if the Minister of National Revenue is correct in his statement made on the floor of this House of Commons just half an hour ago, that that action has been taken on irresponsible newspaper reports, then there must be some statement which the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance can make to put those men back to work.
If they are not considering taxation changes, then one word from the Prime Minister right now and those men go back to work inside of 48 hours. One word from the Prime Minister now that no decision has been reached on the consideration of the entire taxation and excise duties structure but that there will be an announcement with respect to this matter when the budget is brought in-whenever it is brought in-will put these 16,000 men back to work tomorrow.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, through you, the Prime Minister-no I am going to change that-through you, the Minister of National Revenue who does not know a damn thing about it but through him to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of order at all because the Minister of National Revenue knows that although he is the collector of revenue, the taxation from which he collects revenue comes only through the Minister of Finance. Perhaps, therefore, some of the newcomers will consider changing that "order", keep their mouth closed and their ears open, and then they might know more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: O.K., I am sorry; if you want an apology you will get it. I say to the Minister of National Revenue who spoke and to

Labour Conditions
the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister, that if the Minister of National Revenue was correct-and I listened to every word he said-that these men who draw between $50,000 and $100,000 a year from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, have laid off 16,000 men because of what the Minister of National Revenue described as wrong information given by somebody in the press, then could not the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance authoritatively give information to the press from the floor of this house which will put those men back to work and will assure Chrysler, General Motors and Ford that they can go ahead with the production of motor cars? I say this because the Prime Minister must know and he does know-you know I like him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like it.


Harold Edward Winch: -except for his politics-he must know what he and his government have in mind on this matter; he must know these plants should not be closed and thousands of men put out of work on a mere newspaper rumour which, if not correct, he-with his humanitarian instincts, his love for our Canadian people, his heart bleeding for everybody -must take action as the Prime Minister to correct. I repeat he must correct the situation if the press was wrong.
I have only known the Prime Minister over the past five years, and that was behind the curtain on this side of the house, but I am certain that if he wants to-I think perhaps he does if he can find a way to get a couple of his colleagues out of trouble-he can make a statement without-and this I want to emphasize-divulging any taxation changes. Obviously that could not be done because people would make or lose millions if they knew what changes were to be before they were scheduled. However, in view of the present circumstances I am convinced, knowing the ability and knowing the agility of the Prime Minister, that he can-I am glad he is looking at me-not only can but should do what he can now to clarify the situation without disclosing taxation changes. How honest can I get, sir? Without disclosing taxation changes he can give the necessary confidence to the buyers of cars, that if there are changes going they will be made also in respect to cancelled time; you can give an assurance to those who buy cars now in these and similar circumstances that if and when changes are made it is okay for Chrysler, Ford and General Motors to open up their shops tomorrow morning and put their men back to work.

You can do it, Mr. Prime Minister, if you have the will, and I am certain that if you have the will you will not have much trouble in finding a way.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word with regard to this question, and the reason I rise to take part in this debate is that we in western Canada are affected just as acutely by any unemployment situation anywhere in Canada as those in the central provinces.
It does seem very odd that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) should have said today-at least this is my impression of what he said-that the large manufacturers of automobiles in this country should take advantage of a newspaper statement and deliberately close down their plants in order to embarrass the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not make that statement. It was made from the other side of the house first. I asked, when I spoke, if that was correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would agree with the hon. minister in that case, because I just do not understand how any reliable business organization in this country would do that, and I am sure that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors would not deliberately close down their plants and cause so much undue suffering.
I believe they must have had a very good reason, and I am inclined to think this reason was well founded in that the rumours they have received through the press have some very substantial foundations. I cannot understand any business organization in this country deliberately throwing 16,000 people out of work in Windsor, besides the very many hundreds of people across the country whose affairs are connected with the car manufacturing industry. That would be to undertake a grave responsibility. Not only do I feel concerned about the loss of revenue to the car industries themselves but I am greatly concerned for those people who are now unemployed as a result of these decisions. As I say, it does seem to me that there is a basis for these so-called rumours and therefore, if I were a betting man, which of course I am not, I should think it would be a safe bet that before long the government will come out and announce an excise tax reduction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably tomorrow.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, according to the press it is to be tomorrow. Now it would seem to me that because of the

serious situation which has arisen, no matter whose fault it is, the people who are unemployed are finding themselves in a bad spot and I think it would be to the credit of the government if the responsible ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), would make it clear that there is going to be a tax reduction and that when this tax reduction is made not only would the dealers themselves not lose money but the consumers would not lose as a result of the new tax situation.
It is a well known fact that the car manufacturers are not in the habit of producing cars unless they get orders. Dealers in different parts of Canada and in our own city in our own province do not send in orders to any great extent unless they receive orders from customers. Those orders are then sent to the factory and the cars are put into production. So it can hardly be laid to the blame of the dealers or the factories that production has slowed down, or that they have not gone ahead to produce a lot of cars regardless of the demand. No business man would do this, and the government should be the last to suggest that a manufacturer or a dealer should cause a lot of cars to be produced when nobody has ordered cars. I think it reasonable, too, to suppose that no one is going to order a car in the present uncertain conditions, because a sum of $100, $200 or $300 is involved depending on the price of the car ordered. So it seems to me that from every point of view the blame for the present situation lies entirely upon the government.
How the information got out of the cabinet meeting, I cannot say. Maybe there was no leak; maybe there is going to be no reduction. Or, maybe there was a leak and the tax is going to be reduced. But the fact remains that there are thousands of people out of work because this statement has been made, and I think the government must share the responsibility because they have failed to do what they should have done, namely to bring down a budget and show what these tax proposals are. I do not understand why the government does not do this. Every other government has done it with the exception of the government which came in in 1930 when the late Mr. R. B. Bennett was prime minister. Surely the present government has learned from this lesson that it is proper to bring down a budget.
I sent out a while ago for the Ottawa Citizen and in it I see on the front page the words: "Auto tax decision on Tuesday." Possibly the press is wrong, and there is going to be no such decision, or no decision for some time yet. If that is true the conditions
L/abowr Conditions
of unemployment which now face us are going to continue for some time to come; not only will the 16,000 people continue to be unemployed, together with all the other hundreds in the country who depend on the car industry, but we are going to have still more unemployment. The announcement goes on to say:
An announcement is expected from the government this week, possibly tomorrow, on its intention in regard to the excise tax on motor cars.
Finance Minister Fleming will be back from Florida tonight and in the house Tuesday.
I would suggest this would be a good place for him to be right now. Then the article goes on to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Florida would be a good place for him to stay.


Charles Edward Johnston: A good place to stay and an enjoyable climate, certainly, although it might not be as hot as it is here. The article goes on to say:
Lay-offs in the car industry, based on uncertainty regarding the government's intention with regard to the excise tax, are a powerful argument for an announcement of tax reductions even ahead of the presentation of the resolution to the commons authorizing it.
I think that statement is very well put. No matter who is to blame-whether the leak went out from the government intentionally or unintentionally; and I think a lot of these things leak out intentionally for political reasons, but not being a politician in the so-called sense of that term I would not know what it means, but certainly a lot of these things happen accidently on purpose with the result, in this case, that thousands of people are being made to suffer-prompt action should be taken now.
As the newspaper clipping indicates, the government has a responsibility to make that statement now. For the life of me I cannot see why it should hurt them one way or the other. In fact, I think they have everything to gain and nothing to lose and they will save a lot of suffering in this country because it is a very serious thing, particularly for those who are unemployed. As one speaker said a while ago, it may not affect the large industries so much, but it will affect most directly the local dealers in the different centres throughout Canada and it will have the most dire effect on those who are unemployed if their families have to suffer as a result of this policy of the government.
In view of all of these things and the continual rise in unemployment, I suggest to the government that something should be done. I pointed out this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that I had a telegram from Alberta. I have the telegram with me now. It indicates that

Labour Conditions
in the last year, up to November 28, as compared with a year ago, unemployment in our province has doubled. It is probably true that the unemployment figure is not rising as fast as it did in 1954 or 1955 but I think it is true to say that there has never been such a rapid increase in unemployment as there has been in the last few months. That is the alarming thing about it. This thing has come on us so suddenly that it is going to cause terriffic hardship on those who are affected. I would suggest to the government that now is the time to remedy the situation and save those people any more distress.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I rise principally to comment on some of the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). I want to start by assuring him that I do not think he is "atrophied in a cocoon". I have known him as an eminent lawyer and as a very competent member of parliament. It is not his intelligence I am going to question but the use he has made of the facts he has at his disposal.
First of all, I wish to congratulate my two colleagues, the hon. members for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and Essex West (Mr. Brown) on taking this parliamentary action in drawing to the attention of parliament and of the country the very serious unemployment occurring in the great motor industry which is centred in their city. It is true that it affects more than the city of Windsor; it affects the other automobile centres of Oshawa, Oakville and Hamilton, but it affects far more than that. It affects every supplier of parts to these great industries right across the country. Every car dealer today has found that his car sales are drying up and he has found it therefore necessary to lay off car salesmen. In my own riding, 3,000 miles from Oshawa and 2,500 miles, I suppose, from Windsor, the car dealers have told me that they are laying off salesmen because nobody is going to buy a car until this situation is cleared up.
I think all of us appreciate the fact that the automobile industry in North America has this problem of recurrent unemployment because of its practice of tuning up annually for new models, and they have to lay off men during that period when new dies are being prepared. The European car manufacturers do not suffer from that problem because they do not change their models as frequently or as completely, and the European car factories have been able to offer more continuous employment than the Canadian or United States manufacturer. It is because of this condition, I think, that the automobile workers union in North America, in both the United States and Canada, have fought so

hard for a guaranteed annual wage in the hope that such action would induce the employers to try to spin the employment out over the whole year instead of working overtime for part of the year and no employment at all for other parts of the year. It is precisely because this great industry has this problem of seasonal unemployment that it is so disastrous when unemployment for other causes is forced on them as well.
The present unemployment without question is due to newspaper stories which have flatly asserted during the past week that there is going to be a tax cut of five per cent in the excise tax. We find these stories across the country and without variation. As my friend, the Minister of National Revenue, pointed out, there is always speculation in this field before the government brings down a budget. The newspapers fly kites which suggest that some taxes are going to go up or come down or no change is going to take place. The members of the opposition fly kites and probe around to see whether they can get some indication from the government what changes are going to be made. The government, of course, is bound by the British tradition and British parliamentary secrecy in budget announcements. And that is why in recent years newspaper speculation has covered the field. Some papers have said that taxes are going to come down; other papers have said that taxes are going to go up, and still other papers say that taxes are going to stay as they are. That is the difference in this situation, because all the papers across the country say that this tax is going to be cut five per cent and it is going to be done in this week. I do not say that there has been a leak anywhere. I think a thing like that would be hard to prove; but certainly there has been some indication given when these reputable gentlemen of the press come to a unanimous decision.
I want to point out to the Minister of National Revenue, however, that this situation today is very different from the situation in any of the 17 years that I have been in parliament or in the 12 years that he has been in parliament. This situation has been caused by the cumulative effect of three separate actions taken by the party which is now the government in this house. And these steps in succession have rightly or wrongly created in the public mind the impression that this excise tax on cars is either going to be reduced or abolished. It is because of that feeling which the public has that car sales have dried up. Naturally, no consumer, with the present high price of cars, is going to pay an unnecessarily high price when he thinks that in a week from

now the price is going to $100 to $200 lower because of tax cuts. And that drying up of sales, of course, backs up on the dealers, which in turn backs up on the car manufacturers.
Let me trace these three steps in order. The first step was the extravagant election promises made by Conservative speakers across the country, and especially by the right honourable gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. He spoke twice on this matter. I have a very fine booklet here which contains the election promises he made to the Canadian people during the last election. He spoke on May 9 in the great automobile city of Windsor. Naturally, on that occasion, according to the press again, he spoke on the automobile taxes. In the press clippings I have of those Windsor speeches he said that this tax was to be reduced. However, he then moved along to Oshawa, another great car centre, and spoke again some three weeks later, on May 29.


George Clyde Nowlan: What is the beautiful coloured volume the hon. member has in his hands?


James Sinclair: It it red in colour for the Liberal party. This is only volume I entitled "Diefenbakers Election Promises". There is a smaller volume which we hope to publish some day which will contain the few of those promises which have been effectuated, to use the Prime Minister's words. We have quotations here, first of all, from the Windsor Star. Pardon me, the first quotation is from the Ottawa Citizen, May 30, which reads:
John Diefenbaker last night promised that a Conservative government would abolish the excise tax on automobiles and eliminate "in the whole or in the main" all discriminatory excise levies.
The Toronto Telegram, a good Tory sheet, of May 30 had this to say:
He told the automotive town audience his party would lift luxury taxes from cars because they are "an essential part of public and private transportation. There is no more justification for a luxury tax an automobiles than there would have been for one on the horse and buggy 50 years ago."
Then, in the Ottawa Journal, another good Tory sheet, we find the following:
In Oshawa, a city of car production, Mr. Diefenbaker said that if he becomes Prime Minister-
And he is.
-a special fall session of parliament would be called to reduce taxes,-
After seven weeks we have not seen much of that yet but we are still here in session. -including the 10 per cent excise tax on cars which would be removed in whole or in part.
When I reminded the right hon. gentleman of that this afternoon he said that he had been misquoted. I take his word for that.
Labour Conditions


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not say "misquoted". I said there was no statement that it would be removed wholly. I have never said that.


James Sinclair: I have just read these three accounts of his speeches from very reputable journals. It is from these statements that the people of Canada generally got their information about what the right hon. gentleman was promising, and if these statements in these national journals were inaccurate one would have thought that the Prime Minister or that very great press staff that accompanied him across the country during the last election would have immediately sent corrections to the editors of the Ottawa Journal, the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Telegram.
But because no such corrections were made the public, rightly or wrongly, does think that the Prime Minister promised to abolish or at least reduce these excise taxes. I am not going to go into the much larger file I have of the promises of other Conservative condidates. I got one this morning from a correspondent in Huron who pointed out that the whip of the Tory party, the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff), pledged as well in a public advertisement that the 10 per cent sales tax would be removed, but I do not think the public would place as much importance on his promises as on the statement of the right hon. gentleman. That is the first step. I say these promises have created in the public's mind the feeling today that this excise tax is going to be either abolished or reduced.
The second step which brought about the present unemployment was the budget announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to Harold Morrison of the Canadian Press on June 25. The Canadian Press is, of course, a co-operative national news gathering service of all the newspapers in this country. The announcement was put on their wires and the next day newspapers from coast to coast carried the first public announcement of the new Minister of Finance promising a fall budget with substantial tax cuts.
The Canadian Press is not the only news gathering group in the country. There is the British United Press as well and there is keen competition between these two services. The British United Press found that it had been scooped when this Canadian Press story appeared in the newspapers of Canada. So one of the representatives of British United Press then had to track down the Minister of Finance, and finally that evening he got him at his hotel. He read the Canadian Press story to him paragraph by paragraph and

Labour Conditions
asked whether each of these statements was true and that night he was told that they were true. So the British United Press as well then sent the story across the country that there was going to be a fall budget with tax cuts. Again the Canadian people, rightly or wrongly, were led to believe that at this session of parliament there would be tax cuts in this luxury tax field which, according to the right hon. gentleman, belonged in the horse and buggy age. That is the second step.
Then there was a third step taken here in this parliament which was the final step in building up this unanimous feeling in the country and in the press that this tax cut is coming and coming this week. Since the opening of parliament members of all three opposition parties, the official opposition, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit, have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance, when is this budget to come down? Even more so than any handouts people of Canada get through social security legislation they are interested in tax cuts because most of them feel they can spend that money better themselves than any government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sinclair: I am now repeating a comment which used to be made at great length by the present Minister of Finance. This again is the question usually asked at the beginning of a session of the minister of finance. I can look across the floor and see half a dozen members who in the past have asked Mr. Ilsley or Mr. Abbott or Mr. Harris, on what date are you going to bring down the budget? Well, early in the session the finance minister would have to say that he did not really know because the work was in progress but as we got along to the end of February and the early part of March he would begin to give some indication. Finally, he would stand up in the house and say, "I am going to present the budget next Thursday night."
But here again the situation is different this session. After our questioning about when the budget was going to be produced and receiving nothing but evasion in reply, evasive denials that these Canadian Press and British United Press interviews ever took place, the opposition members began to doubt if there was going to be a budget. So then we changed our question and asked, not when but is there going to be a budget at all? We got the same long-winded evasive answers, red herrings dragged across our tracks and little sermons on political ethics as well.
Then we asked the Prime Minister directly. After all, he is the head of the government. On November 15 I led off and, together with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for

Acadia (Mr. Quelch), inquired from the Prime Minister whether there was going to be a budget. He referred us to the Minister of Finance. Then, of course, we raised the question of the Minister of Finance having told the nation in this press interview that there was going to be a budget, and on page 1,176 of Hansard of November 15 the Prime Minister answered in this way:
As far as the alleged representation made by the Minister of Finance is concerned-
That is the statement on the budget on June 25.
-my recollection in that regard is that the Minister of Finance has already stated in this house that the statement in question had not been made by him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
You will remember that we said much more than "oh, oh". Hon. members who said "oh, oh" will remember that the Minister of Finance was sitting in the next seat to the Prime Minister and he sat there and squirmed and almost got to his feet to explain that he had not said the interview never took place, but nevertheless the matter was allowed to rest at that point.
After seven weeks of tincertainty, today at long last, when the Minister of Finance is absent on other duties, we did learn that there was not going to be a budget. The Prime Minister did tell the house that there was not going to be a budget. The right hon. gentleman and I have been friends since we came to parliament so I know he will not mind if X read back to him a little piece of poetry he read to the house in 1946 during a budget debate when he was criticizing the action or lack of action by our mutual friend, Douglas Abbott, then minister of finance. In view of these three steps, in view of the delay in bringing down a budget or telling us whether or not there was going to be a budget, I think his choice of poetry is particularly appropriate today. Let me read it.
They promise, prepare, propose, postpone.
And end by letting things alone.
No budget! I say, therefore, that the present unusual unemployment in the automobile industry caused by the dry-up of retail sales exists because of these three successive steps; first of all the election promises to reduce or abolish the excise tax on cars which excited public interest and was followed by the statement of the Prime Minister, when he was twitted after the election about these many, many election promises, that these promises-I think I am quoting him correctly-were solemn obligations which will be effectuated. That word "effectuated" drew

my attention so I looked it up in the dictionary and I find that it means what I thought it meant.
So the public had that first of all in their minds. Then they were further excited or further heartened, I suppose, by the further statement of the Minister of Finance to the Canadian Press and to the British United Press four days after having assumed the portfolio that there was going to be a fall budget and there were going to be substantial tax cuts. That certainly confirmed the opinion that the public had formed because of the election promises of the Conservative party.
Then the third step was the evasion in the house of the simple question, first of all, when is there going to be a budget, and then, finally, is there going to be a budget at all, which was finally answered today. It is because of these three steps that we do not have any variation in the press summation of the situation. No papers in Canada tonight are saying that the tax may remain the same or that there may be a 2 per cent, 5 per cent, 8 per cent or 10 per cent reduction. They all say, as the headlines tonight show, that it is going to be a 5 per cent reduction and it is going to come this week.
Well, here in the house today we have learned two things. We have learned from the righteous indignation of the Prime Minister this afternoon that the tax is not going to be abolished so the public can rest assured the tax is not going to be abolished. The Minister of National Revenue when he was speaking either said too little or too much because anyone in this house who listened to him will also be convinced, as the gentlemen of the press were convinced, that the cut is going to be 5 per cent. It is for that reason we find plants closed throughout the country and salesmen laid off.
My hon. friend spoke about the value of the concession made on consignment. It was, of course, not original with his government. It was made by the minister of finance of the previous government. But if he will study his files of correspondence a little more thoroughly he will find that the automotive industry did not think very much of that concession, for two reasons.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, but you did.


James Sinclair: If the minister could only have seen the vigour with which he commended this proposal to the house-


George Clyde Nowlan: I was trying to recapture that atmosphere of yours last year.


James Sinclair: Let me tell you why the automobile industry does not think very much of this proposal. First of all, the dealers in
habour Conditions
my own riding tell me that automobile manufacturers do not send them many cars on consignment. The manufacturers expect the dealers to pay for the cars. The only way the dealers can avoid receiving the cars is not to take them out of the box cars in the railway yards in Vancouver, and of course that adds to the demurrage. There are some dealers with sufficient influence, apparently, to get cars on consignment but a great many of the dealers do not get cars on consignment. The sale is completed when the car arrives at the show rooms, and they are then beyond tax recovery.
We are not worrying so much about the dealers, it is the possible customer who is thinking of buying that car, we will say in West Vancouver, in my riding. If he buys that car today and the taxes are cut tomorrow he does not get any reduction because the dealer who sold him that car has taken that car and paid the sales tax before he could sell it to the customer. It is these people about whom we are really concerned because it is the drying up of sales to these people that has caused the whole unhappy chain of circumstances leading to the closing of these plants. It is for this reason I say that action should be taken immediately. Whatever elements of secrecy there were about this proposal, they have certainly been washed out by this series of events and by the statements made by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of National Revenue in this house today.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said, this is an action which can be taken instantly by the Minister of Finance, or in his absence by the Prime Minister, by merely putting a notice of motion on the order paper of intention to amend the Excise Tax Act.
We have a little difference in procedure here as compared with the British house. In the British House of Commons when tax changes are notified to the house they have a special statute, a one-year act, which makes these things effective between the date of the announcement and the date of the passage of the necessary act by parliament. Here, by custom, the announcement of the minister in the house, or even on one occasion on the radio, has been sufficient to make these tax changes effective. Naturally, if they are tax cuts no person in the country is going to complain. If they were tax increases, I am informed that a man could hire a lawyer and resist paying these increases until the actual bills have passed in parliament.
These bills, of course, would include a retroactive clause dating back to the

Labour Conditions
announcement of the minister, and once those bills were passed the complaining citizen would be liable for the taxes and interest penalties. It is for that reason I say that all that is needed tomorrow is for the Prime Minister to give notice of his intention of these tax changes, which apparently he has decided and the situation, so far as unemployment caused by the drying up of sales is concerned, will be immediately cured.
If this action took place tomorrow I am sure the plants would start operating the day after and car sales would roll on at the normal rate from that day forward. If the Prime Minister and his government do not choose to take this action, every day of delay means that these many thousands of workers and car salesmen are going to be unemployed and their loss of income will be directly due to the procrastination, stalling and phony promises which have been made in this respect.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I am
sure that the members of this house are probably aware of the fact we do not produce any automobiles in British Columbia. Nevertheless, I think the fact that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), who has just taken his seat, and other members from that province are prepared to show some interest in the discussion we are having is an indication that the situation in the parts of Canada in which they do produce automobiles is one which we feel should be of common concern to all Canadians.
I do not profess to know very much about the intricacies of the production methods followed by automobile companies of Canada, although I do understand that the type of seasonal layoffs to which the hon. member for Coast-Capilano referred some minutes ago are characteristic of that industry and have led, as he described, to periods of seasonal unemployment. However, this particular situation is one that is of more than usual concern to the workers involved. We have heard a good deal of discussion throughout the day of the particular situation that revolves around this question of the possible reduction in excise tax on automobiles. In the lucid style for which he is generally appreciated in this house, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has given us rather a concise summary of the situation and what has led up to it. Undoubtedly what he says is true that if the announcement which could and should be made is made that will of itself have a considerable effect in reviving production in the automobile industry.
Nevertheless, I think it perhaps is important when we are considering this situation to recognize that if it is this tax situation

which has complicated the layoffs in the automobile industry, when we are thinking of unemployment in the automobile sectors of our economy we must be conscious of the fact that if production is to resume on a scale which would mean full employment there are other related problems which must be considered. As I said at the outset, we do not produce any automobiles in British Columbia. In recent years, however, we have been buying quite a lot of automobiles. I know that the workers in the Comox-Alberni district have been buying quite a few automobiles. I only have to look around me when I am at home to realize that has been the case. I think, therefore, while we are considering this situation in Windsor and the other automobile areas, and while we are discussing this particular tax situation, we should not overlook the general background situation which is closely related to the resumption of full employment in the automobile industry.
I noticed that the Vancouver press, along with the press in other parts of the country, has been carrying stories about the automobile situation, statements by management of the automobile firms that because of the decline in the demand for automobiles they were going to have to cut back their production. However, I think we realize that it is not alone in the automobile industry that such announcements have been taking place. Certainly many of the people on Vancouver island who not many months ago might have been contemplating the purchase of a new automobile this year or next year have not any such ideas in the back of their heads at the present moment and it is not all because of the fact that there is speculation or uncertainty as to the question of an excise tax reduction. A great deal of it is because of the fact that the people who have been working in the production of commodities that we produce in British Columbia are in the same boat as are the automobile workers.
I do not intend to attempt to outline in a barrage of statistics the situation in respect of some of the potential customers for automobiles in British Columbia but figures are coming out which suggest, for example, that there is something in the neighbourhood of a 40 per cent reduction in the over-all production at the present time of our great sawmill industry in British Columbia which means, one could argue, that there are 40 per cent fewer people in the province of British Columbia in that particular industry who are at present potential customers for automobiles. The same thing applies to some of the other related industries. A recent dispatch from one of the British Columbia papers carries an announcement by the management of

Crown Zellerbach Corporation which states that the company's announcement is that they now face the poorest plywood market conditions since the war, proposed to drop 110 employees from their plywood plant on the lower Fraser river; the anticipated production cut is 25 per cent for at least the remainder of the year and possibly longer. That is an announcement coming from the company's side of the picture. On the other hand, I have in my hand a little bulletin that is published by one of the locals of the international woodworkers of America which represents the employees who are engaged in this industry. This bulletin of the Vancouver local of that union has a page here of items of news around the local. Under the heading of "Canadian White Pine" they say:
Lay-offs have caused the majority of problems at the Canadian White Pine. There has been a series of lay-offs at this operation and as a result the whole situation is in a very fluid state.
Dozens of grievances have been filed with the plant committee but most of the grievances have to be changed as a result of further lay-offs.
I imagine that situation is similar to some of the situations about grievances that may have been in process in some of the automobile plants in recent weeks. Then another plant within the jurisdiction of that local, namely Vancouver Plywoods, has this to say:
Main topics of conversation these days has been: 1. The shut-down and general unemployment situation in this industry and others.
Then they go on and describe grievances that arise out of cutbacks which are creating seniority problems in the maintenance and construction sections of the plant. All of these things are, I feel, perhaps closely related to the situation in Windsor and things which should be considered along with the particular matter that sparked this debate when we think of the plight faced by the workers in the automobile industry of Canada at this present time.
The situation in Windsor, I suggest, is very much akin to the situation which has arisen in places like Port Alberni, Courtenay and other centres in my constituency. While we may not have any particular problem in respect of the removal of the excise tax at this time, nevertheless the indications are that as to a fall-off in the demand for some of the products which are produced in British Columbia we have a situation which is similar and one which must be taken into account by the government when it is considering what should be done with regard to creating full employment once again in the automobile industry in the province of Ontario.
I wonder if perhaps this story which is carried on the front page of the last issue of
Labour Conditions
the Vancouver Sun-that is Saturday, November 30-which has reached us here is not indicative of the situation and of the attitude of mind which is developing in some of the areas where these problems of unemployment are arising. Apparently one of the new members of the Conservative party in the House of Commons has been having a little baptism of fire in dealing with this question of unemployment in the city of Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are not dealing with unemployment in general but with unemployment in the automobile industry in particular. He has been roaming a bit over the whole field. If he could come back to the subject under discussion, I would greatly appreciate it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thought I was attempting to indicate that the potential purchasing power of the people of British Columbia was an important factor in the maintenance of employment in the automobile industry in Ontario. While I may have perhaps been giving too much of the background of the situation that is causing a decrease in the potential market for automobiles in British Columbia, nevertheless I felt that it might perhaps be important for me to do it on this occasion. I think it is important that the government of Canada should recognize that these problems which arise in one particular area of the country are, in large part, the result of situations that may be in existence
2,000	or 3,000 miles away and that if they are going to take effective action beyond whatever they may be contemplating doing about this excise tax, certainly it is important that the necessary steps be taken to revive full production in our great forest products industry of British Columbia if the full potential market for cars in Canada is going to be restored to the level which it has reached at previous periods in our economic life.
I was going to suggest that the reaction of unemployed people in Windsor and in Vancouver is inclined to be rather similar. I do not know what the unemployed people down in Windsor are thinking and feeling but apparently the unemployed people of Vancouver expressed themselves rather vigorously when one of the members of parliament from that city apparently showed more interest in the Grey Cup when he raised the subject than he did in the situation which they were up against as unemployed citizens of this country. I certainly agree that the arguments which have been advanced by spokesmen in this group and by spokesmen from the official opposition, and in particular, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the lucid argument which

Labour Conditions
was presented by the hon. member for Coast -Capilano, are matters which require immediate action and some immediate statement from the government.
I did feel I wanted to spend a little time in bringing to the attention of this house the broad background of this problem and what to me should be even more basic considerations in the minds of the government in approaching the problem raised today by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) than the consideration of an amendment to a particular tax.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity which I certainly did not expect when I came to the house this afternoon. Nevertheless it has been an interesting day and I am sure the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) can feel very satisfied before taking off on his campaign to feel that he has today removed from the headlines the member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).


John Borden Hamilton: I am inclined to feel that perhaps my hon. friend is more concerned about just what he may be able to say to his constituents than he is about the actual situation in dealing with unemployment in the automobile industry. As a matter of fact I can only think that what is wanted here is some proof that the member for Algoma East can come before this House of Commons and prove that he, in fact, runs the government and not the party to your right.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Why Algoma East?


John Borden Hamilton: Well, the correction has been made-it should be Essex East.


An hon. Member:: Not York West anyhow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like your whole party, you are just confused.


John Borden Hamilton: Well I see they have awakened once more to your left, sir; they usually do. No one wants to take the unemployment situation in this industry lightly, least of all those of us who sit to your right because, of course, I think as we go along it is incumbent upon us to devise ways and means to ensure that the economy at all times works with full vigour. On the other hand I am greatly concerned that the attitude being displayed is one of despair and of fear. This was particularly brought to my attention by an editorial in a little local newspaper in my own constituency-


George James McIlraith: Did you write the editorial?


John Borden Hamilton: No I did not
write it but, believe me, my hon. friends opposite should have no complaint because they had the best propaganda machine outside the totalitarian countries.


Mr. Pearson:: You flatter us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Tely?


John Borden Hamilton: But we are
doing a little better now although we still have a long way to go to catch up with the performance of those people to your left over the last 22 years.


George James McIlraith: You have a long way to go, all right.


John Borden Hamilton: This editorial is called "Funk Won't Get Us Anywhere!" I was intrigued with the title so I looked up the word "funk" in the dictionary and I found it meant fear or panic. Now the editorial in the Etobicoke Press of Thursday, November 28 among other things says this- and if you feel sir that I should not read this particular article perhaps I can follow the system used in our courts of justice and simply say I would like to adopt these words as my own.
We are not a confirmed optimist-not by any means. But we are seriously concerned about this vicious circle of fear that is prevalent in the thinking of a lot of people today, is reflected in some sections of the dailies, and is having a deleterious effect on the nation as a whole, it seems to us.
Facts are facts and must be faced.
And again:
Over the weekend the fact that Ford lays off 2,400 workers gets the headlines, not the fact that most of them will benefit under the guaranteed annual wage plan (to the tune of half their salary- and that isn't peanuts).


An hon. Member:: Well that is not as much.


John Borden Hamilton: It continues:
You'd think we were in the midst of a depression. We aren't! No one stresses that the government has released $180 million to boost building and has recently stated that it will order the release of further funds for the same purpose if necessary.
No one stresses that Scarborough in September issued $11 million worth of building permits compared with $5,500,000 worth a year ago. No one stresses that in a small municipality like Trafalgar township recently permits were issued for building 77 houses.
No one talks about the new industrial plants that continue to come into Etobicoke and these are only isolated cases!
But the effect of this continued stressing of the bad and no underlining of the good news is this- that the dress manufacturer reads that story in the dailies about middle-class families going without so he immediately plans a smaller output and lays off half his workers. The workers, living close to the collar, can't make their payments on the frig and the car and the washer. These articles are reclaimed by the hundreds and thrown on the

market at half price and the manufacturers of those articles immediately cut down their output staffs and more cars, frigs, washers go for next to nothing.
And all this because of fear-the stressing of the bad only, as we have said.
Give the national economy time-for heaven's sake, for your own sake!
The effect of the $180 million is being felt.
Subdividers are dividing, builders are building houses and factories. And those factories and houses need furniture and hardware and will be occupied by people who will go to the furniture stores and the drug stores and the gas and oil and electric companies for heat and light, and the employees of those companies will in turn be able to keep up their payments on their furniture and cars and whatnot, and people will remain employed and other people will be taken off unemployment and will be able to resume their payments on their articles purchased on time, thus keeping other people in work.
We may be accused of talking without our book, but we think there is a fair modicum of reasoning in what we have pointed out.
Fear creates fear and-well, nothing was ever righted or accomplished through funk!
It seems to me tonight that the chief problem we have to recognize here is that this particular problem in the automobile industry did not arise from a particular question with respect to tax. It arose over a period of time; it arose because, very simply, the opposition to your left while in office did not provide the drive or the dynamic policies required to keep the whole economy on the move. As a matter of fact, if there has been any .problem over the last few years, it has been a problem of laissez faire as far as the opposition to your left is concerned. This country now requires government-


An hon. Member:: It sure does.


John Borden Hamilton: Just a minute -and industry to go hand in hand whereas over 22 years the party to your left was prepared to stand aside and applaud while industry did the work. We have, I think, tonight reached the stage where we must determine who is going to run this country. Is is to be parliament; is it to be the newspapers or is it to be the large corporations?


Mr. Ellis:: You are getting close to the truth now.


John Borden Hamilton: I did not catch that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are getting close to the truth now.


John Borden Hamilton: I can only say, if I can come back to what I said earlier today, that if we are going to have a situation arise where, because of reports in the newspaper, it is necessary for the government to disclose immediately all or any of its plans in connection with its fiscal policy, then of course we have abdicated our position of
Labour Conditions
government. If at the same time, because of such reports, corporations are going to be placed in a position where they can say that production shall cease until such time as a definite answer is obtained, then of course we have abdicated in the same way to them.
It seems to me that more than ever it is required that we obey the ordinary rules dealing with disclosure of information of this kind. I cannot help but recall the many times when this arose in the past and we were told very clearly that no information of this type would be given until such time as the government brought down its budget or brought in its budgetary resolutions. I do not think at this time it is a question as to what promises will be kept or not kept. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) places a great deal of importance on that beautiful red volume which undoubtedly will get a lot of reading, but I should like to say to him tonight that I feel confident that if he is going to prepare another volume in which to include the promises which have been kept then he will, I am sure, have just as large a volume or maybe a larger one.
As I said, this is not a question of keeping promises. The promises which this party gave in its campaign are being kept to a larger extent than ever before, and I am sure that this will continue down to any promises made to people in this or any other industry, but the issue at stake tonight is whether we should abdicate our powers either to the press or to the industry concerned, neither of which I am prepared to do. And I think we can go one step further and say that we have no intention of abdicating our power to the party on your left, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a few words on this matter. It is a very important one since it affects not only the automobile industry but various other related industries. I believe that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was well advised to raise this question so that the people of this country may be made aware of what course the government should be taking after the promises it made in this regard.
A moment ago I was listening to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton). He reminded me of a familiar French song which says: "Everything has burned down, the stable and the horses too, but everything is just fine, Madame la marquise!" Frankly, the situation being what it is, we wonder what the government can be thinking about at this time.

Labour Conditions
It has just been said that this situation has nothing to do with the promises made by the Conservatives. But had the member for York West taken the trouble to analyse the speech made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) he would have understood without any difficulty that this situation has not been brought about, essentially, by the fact that the press has reported statements made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the elections, nor those of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who, during the Prime Minister's stay in England, has continued, day after day, to make repeated statements calculated to convince those who heard them that Canada was to become prosperous overnight because the Conservative party was again in power. What is happening now is the outcome of the unrest caused in this country by the Conservative party in making promises it is in no position to implement, and which it has no intention of carrying out. And yet, today, we are told that is the fault of the Liberal party which has just been turned out of office.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1930 we realized that the promises of the Conservative party and of the then prime minister had caused the depression we underwent at that time.
Besides what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said, the Prime Minister's statements about diverting to the United Kingdom 15 per cent of Canada's trade with the United States have caused uneasiness in the area of Windsor and surrounding cities where the automobile industry is the main employer of the people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, time has come for the Conservative party to remember its promises and to put an end to all those rumours which are left circulating without ever being confirmed. As already said by some members, if the Conservative party really intends to put an end to the present situation in the automobile industry, all it would have to do would be to say whether or not it proposes to change the situation existing at this time as regard taxes. The automobile industry, and the related industries, would then resume their activities and the workers would go back to their jobs.
We should not forget that, when there is unrest in one part of the country, it is felt in the rest of the country. It is like the human body; if one arm is aching, the rest of the body feels it. Since we are at the stage where we are suffering from extraordinary uneasiness and unrest, the Conservative party now directing the destinies of this country should pull itself together and take steps to remedy the situation. That is what we have been requesting all day and
that is also what we intend to continue urging upon the government. Let the Conservative party keep the promises it has made to the Canadian people.
(Text) :



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the order of business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the business for tomorrow, will be, as I announced on Friday, first, item No. 118 on today's order paper, which is a resolution preceding a bill to provide for a branch line of the Canadian National Railway Company. I understand that copies of the bill have been handed to the leaders of the three other parties, and if the house is agreeable we would ask for second reading and then refer the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
The second order will be No. 121 on today's order paper, which is a resolution preceding a bill to provide for a loan to the Hamilton harbour commissioners. This bill, also, has been distributed to the leaders of the other parties, and we are hoping it will be given second reading tomorrow and be referred to the same committee.
Next we will take order No. Ill, which is second reading of a bill to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. The intention is to refer that bill, too, to the same standing committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Very complicated.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the hon. member for Laurier will be able to understand it better than I have been able to do.
The next item will be No. 112 on today's order paper, second reading of an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. It is proposed to refer this bill to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Then, item 119, which is the resolution preceding a bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act; item No. 122, a resolution preceding a bill to amend the National Housing Act; item 116, a resolution preceding a bill to provide guaranteed prices for agricultural commodities, and finally a resolution which appears today on the day's order paper under government notices of motions, preceding a bill to authorize a loan to the government of New Brunswick.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the house is very optimistic. I had been going to ask him what he intends to do on Friday, but I presume the list he has given us will keep us going until Friday. I noticed on Friday

evening that the hon. gentleman gave the whole of the business for every day except Friday and Saturday. Could he give us any indication of what the business will be on those two days?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot say definitely, Mr. Speaker, but probably estimates.
Business of the House Mr. Sinclair: In that case there will be no tax proposals this week?


Howard Charles Green: Could be.


James Sinclair: You have not listed them.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1756	HOUSE OF
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	How much was paid out of the Agricultural Prices Support Act revolving fund for each of the years from 1946 to 1956 inclusive?
2.	How much was paid out of the Agricultural Prices Support Act revolving fund from January 1, 1957 to October 31, 1957?
3.	What products were supported in each of the years mentioned in 1 and 2, and what was the loss incurred for each of these products for each of these years?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1 and 2. On the basis of fiscal year as shown by the public accounts, the amount of the revolving fund used under the Agricultural Prices Support Act was to the nearest dollar as follows:
for year ending
March 31, 1947	$	109,395March 31,	1948	
1,061,353March 31,	1949	
3,473,295March 31,	1950	
39,515,860March 31,	1951	
36,902,816March 31,	1952	
8,356,718
for year ending
March 31,	1953	
164,419,331March 31,	1954	
93,849,104March 31,	1955	
66,223,281March 31,	1956	
70,869,635March 31,	1957	
74,685,883
Preliminary for April 1 to
October 31, 1957	 39,422,569
The following net amounts in dollars were outstanding as a balance at March 31 in the following years before deducting losses provided by recoup through estimates in
parliament:
1947		$	109,395
1948	  1,061,353
1949		 3,473,295
1950		 21,113,781
1951	  1,743,515
1952	  6,589,661
1953		 101,601,886
1954	  60,086,085
1955	  34,725,232
1956	  38,792,629
1957	  25,733,743
As at October 31, 1957	 31,876,627
3. No accurate accrued account of losses to October 31, 1957, is available since programs are still in operation, but as at March 31, 1957, the annual report of the board indicates the following net cost with respect to products supported according to production year:
Product	Year		
1. Potatoes			$ 170,748.48	
	1948	1,646,739.34	
	1950	215,687.79	
	1955	4,830.77	$ 2,041,006.38
2. Apples			3,119,274.22	
	1948	1,487,882.32	
	1949	1,499,569.40	
	1954	601,436.30	
	1955	181,738.21	6,889,902.45
3. Dried white beans				194,419.88 177,066.42
4. Extracted honey				
5. Dry skimmed milk			10,820.35	
	1953	666,583.67	677,404.42
6. Cheddar cheese			157,693.98	
	1951	nil	
	1952	-2,345.16	
	1953	nil	
155,348.82

Questions
	Product	Year		
7.	Creamery Butter			 1949 1950	1,868,150.72 -456,115.03	
		1951	149,098.86	
		1952	52,149.91	
		1953	1,506,940.63	
		1954	5,474,815.68	
		1955	4,158,547.46	
1956	435,947.79	13,189,536.028.	Shell eggs	
1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955	nil 1,866.24 63,542.45 nil 601,197.47 61,516.83	728,122.999.	Hogs	
1951 1952	nil 36,673,894.07	1953	nil	36,673,894.0710.	
1952-53	33,358,015.86Total	$ 94,084,716.91


TELEPHONE SYSTEMS, BEAUCE COUNTY   FEDERAL GRANTS
Mr. Poulin: 1.	Have any grants been made by the federal government for the construction or improvement of local telephone systems in the county of Beauce since 1945?
2.	If so, for each of the years 1945 to 1957 what was (a) the amount of such grant; (b) the name of the system?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b)-1950, $3,000 to St. Come de Beauce rural telephone; 1951, $5,000 to Beauceville rural telephone company; 1953, $1,200 to St. Come de Beauce rural telephone; 1954, $3,000 to St. Come de Beauce rural telephone, and $1,500 to St. Philibert rural telephone company; 1956, $5,000 to Ste. Clothilde de Beauce telephone company.


T. V. BROADCAST LICENCES
Mr. Hansell: 1.	How many T.V. broadcast licences have been applied for during the last two years?
2.	How many have been:	(a) granted; (b)
refused; (c) pending?
3.	Hew many T.V. broadcasting licences are now in operation and how many of these are operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and how many by independent stations?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	30.
2.	(a) 18; (b) 6; (c) 6.
3.	46; 10 operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and 36 by privately operated stations.



WINDSOR


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any body to establish a harbour commission within the city of Windsor, Ontario?
2.	If so, has any action been taken towards the establishment of such a harbour commission?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2. Yes, and the appointment of the two members named by the governor in council was recently announced.



THREE RIVERS HARBOUR

Mr. Rochefort: 1.	Is the shoreline of the St. Lawrence and St. Maurice rivers at the city of Cap-de-la-Madeleine part of the territory of the harbour of Trois-Rivieres?
2.	Whenever projects for improving and extending the wharfage facilities at Cap-de-la-Madeleine are to be discussed will the city council and other public bodies be officially represented?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes, as defined in the schedule to the National Harbours Board Act.
2.	On periodic visits, national harbours board is available to receive representations from shipping interests and public bodies on harbour matters.



TRADE MISSION TO U.K.

Mr. McWilliam: What are the names, business addresses and classifications of representatives chosen to form the Canadian trade delegation now in Great Britain?
1758	HOUSE OF COMMONS	
Questions		
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and		Commerce):
Name	Business Address	Buying Classification
(a) Leader of the Mission-		
Churchill, The Honourable Gordon, Minister of Trade and Commerce.		
(b) Deputy Leader of the Mission		
Duncan, James Stuart,	Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario; Chairman of the Dollar-Sterling Trade Advisory Council.	Unclassified(c) Members Abkin, Robert James	Vice president, Development and Engineering, Abitibi Power and Paper Company Ltd., Toronto, Ont.	Heavy machinery, including electrical and machine tools.Bailey, Alexander Graham..	Vice pres, and general manager, Bailey Selburn Oil and Gas Ltd., Calgary, Alta.	Petroleum, gas and chemicals.Baribeau, Lt. Col. Herve...	President, Baribeau & Son, Levis, P.Q.	Engineering, including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Bonus, John J	General manager, Canadian Assn, of British Manufacturers and Agencies, Toronto, Ont.	Unclassified.Bonnycastle, Lawrence Christopher.	Vice pres, and managing director, Canadian Corporate Management Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Brockington, Leonard Walter.	President, Odeon Theatres (Canada) Limited.	Unclassified.Bromley, Edwin Armstrong.	Vice president, purchasing and stores dept., Canadian National Railways, Montreal, P.Q.	Transportation equipment including ships, railways, aircraft.Clark, J. Arthur	President and general manager, Maritime Asphalt Products Ltd., Summerside, P.E.I.	Construction equipment including road building, metal mining and coal mining.Cresswell, Herbert Arthur	Vice president and assistant general manager, Canada Steamship Lines Limited, Toronto, Ont.	Transportation equipment including ships, railways, aircraft.Crombie, Hugh Arthur	Vice president and treasurer, Dominion Engineering Works Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.Drummond, Robert	Executive vice president, Angus Robertson Limited, Montreal and Toronto.	Construction equipment including road building, metal mining and coal mining.East, Melville A	President and general manager, John East Iron Works Limited, Saskatoon, Sask.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, fiour milling and consulting.Foulis, Allan D	President, Foulis Engineering Sales Ltd., and Foulis and Bennett Electric Limited, Halifax, N.S.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.Fraser, Kenneth Francis...	Vice president, production, British Columbia Packers Limited, Vancouver, B.C.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Gaherty, Geoffrey Abbott.	President, Montreal Engineering Company Ltd., president, Calgary Power Limited, president, Ottaw'a Valley Power Company.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Ganong, R. Whidden	President, and general manager, Ganong Bros., St. Stephen, N.B.	Consumer goods.DECEMBER 2, 1957	1759(c) Members-Continued	QuestionsName	Business Address	Buying ClassificationGattie, Brian Berkeley	General manager, Western Forest Industries Limited, Vancouver, B.C.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Gibbings, C. W	Vice president, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Regina.	Unclassified.Heartz, Richard E	President, The Shawinigan Engineering Company Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Hill, Clarence Bruce	President, E.T.F. Tools Limited, St. Catharines, and Canadian Warren Pink Ltd., St. Catharines.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.Hunter, G. W	Assistant deputy minister, Dept, of Defence Production, Ottawa.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Hutchison, W. L	Vice president, Moffats Limited, Weston, Ontario.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.Jasper, Lloyd	Immediate past president, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Toronto, executive member, Canadian Federation of Agriculture.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Jenkins, Janies Ross	Vice president, The T. Eaton Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.	Consumer goods.Johnston, John George	President, Johnston, Everson and Charlesworth, Toronto, Ont.	Unclassified.Leitch, John D	President, Toronto Elevators Ltd.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Lush, Harold V	President, Canadian Manufacturers* Assn., president and general manager, Supreme Aluminum Industries Limited, Toronto, Ont.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.Mannix, Frederick Charles...	President and general manager, Mannix Limited, Calgary, Alta.	Construction equipment including road building, metal mining and coal mining.Marsland, Stanley	President, Marsland Engineering Co. Ltd., Kitchener, and Marsland Precision Equipment Ltd., Kitchener.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.McLachlan, Walter R	President, Orenda Engines Ltd., Malton, Ontario.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.McRae, Ian F	Vice president and general manager, civilian atomic power department, Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.	Heavy machinery including electrical and machine tools.Millar, Hugh P	Manager, purchases and stores, Canadian Pacific Railway Co., Montreal, P.Q.	Transportation equipment including ships, railways, aircraft.Moore, Trevor Frank	Vice president, Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto, Ont.	Petroleum, gas and chemicals.Noblet, Felix	Treasurer, the International Nickel Company of Canada Ltd., Toronto.	Construction equipment including road building, metal mining and coal mining.Ouimet, J. Rene	President and general manager, J. Rene Ouimet Limited and Cordon Bleu Limited, Montreal.	Consumer goods.Patterson, James	Chairman, Interprovincial Farm Union Council; president, Manitoba Farmers' Union, Winnipeg, Man.	Engineering including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.1760	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
(c)	Members-Concluded
Name	Business Address Buying Classification
Perlin, William		Managing director, I. F. Perlin & Com- Consumer goods, pany, St. John's, Nfld.
Piche, Andre				Vice president and general manager, Rey- Engineering including lumbering, nolds Aluminum Co. of Canada, Cap- fishing, textile manufacture, flour de-la-Madeleine, P.Q. milling and consulting.
Rutley, Frederick George..	President, The Foundation Company of Construction equipment including Canada Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. road building, metal mining and coal mining.
Schollie, George P		Vice president, Canadian Labour Con- Unclassified, gress, Montreal, P.Q.
Sissons, Henry Jonathan-	Assistant general manager, Hydro- Heavy machinery, including elec-Eleetric Power Commission of Ontario. trical and machine tools.
Smith, Wallace Wyniard		Vice president, National Sea Products Engineering, including lumbering, Limited, Lunenburg, N.S. fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.
Stephens, Donald M		Chairman and general manager, the Heavy machinery including elec-Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board; presi- trical and machine tools, dent and general manager, Winnipeg Electric Co., Winnipeg.
Stocker, Erik B		Executive vice president, R. & H. Consumer goods. Products Limited, vice president, H. Perkins & Sons (Canada) Limited, vice president, Civic Company (Canada) Ltd., vice president, A. Oppenheimer & Company (Canada) Ltd., Montreal.
Style, Humphrey, B		President, John Inglis Co. Ltd., and Heavy machinery including elec-Englisli Electric Co. of Canada Ltd., trical and machine tools. Toronto, Ont.
Turner, John Harold Francis.	Assistant general manager, Bank of Unclassified. Montreal, Montreal, Que.
Urwin, George		President, Interprovincial Co-operative Consumer goods. Ltd., Saskatoon.
Wain, Eric J		General purchasing agent, Canadian In- Petroleum, gas and chemicals, dustries Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Wansbrough, Victor Counsel Vice president and managing diretor, Construction equipment including
Canadian Metal Mining Association, road building, metal mining and
White, J. B		Toronto, Ont. coal mining. Vice president and general manager, Heavy machinery including elec-Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd., trical and machine tools. Montreal, P.Q.
Woods, David M		President, Gordon Mackay and Company Consumer goods. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.

Questions
Name	Business Address
(d)	Civil Servants
Brown, H.L,
Marshall, D.A.B
Parlour, Roger Robbins
Commercial counsellor, office of the high commissioner for Canada, Canada House, Trafalgar Square, London, S.W.l, England.
Commercial counsellor (agricultural) office of the high commissioner for Canada, Canada House, Trafalgar Square, London S.W.l, England.
Secretary, Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom, and Canadian Government trade commissioner, Dept, of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
Anderson, Raymond Cecil .. Assistant secretary, Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom, and
assistant trade commissioner, Dept, of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
Stursberg, Peter
Press officer.
(e)	Press representatives	 With the mission, but not officially members of it.
Morrison, Harold	 Canadian Press, Ottawa.
MacLeod, Norman	 British United Press.
(f)	Other
McCarter, Charles
Private secretary to Mr. J. S. Duncan.



PITWOOD EXPORTERS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did any officials of the federal government contact exporters of the Atlantic provinces in connection with 1958 shipments of pitwood?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the pitwood exporters who were contacted?
3.	What was the nature of these contacts and the subsequent results?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	It is not the general practice of the Department of Trade and Commerce to make public the names and addresses of firms known to be negotiating for business.
3.	The purpose of these contacts was to exchange information on current conditions affecting the business in prospect. Some contracts have already been placed with certain producers by the national coal board of the U. K. In addition a small contract has been obtained from Turkey. These contracts were negotiated privately and details are not known to the department.



LIVESTOCK


Mr. Hansell: 1.	Does the government pay compensation for cattle discovered to have t.b.? If so, what amount is paid per head?
2.	How does the government determine what cattle have t.b.?
3.	Are any veterinarians employed by the dominion government for the purpose of inspecting cattle to determine whether or not cattle have t.b.? If so, how many are thus employed and where?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes, when such cattle react to a tuberculin test under the terms of the restricted area and accredited herd plans. The Animal Contagious Diseases Act provides that compensation shall not exceed $100 each for purebred animals and $40 each for grade animals. In addition the owner receives the commercial market value for his animals at the time of slaughter in an inspected abattoir.
2.	By the application of the intradermal tuberculin test.
3.	Two hundred and fourteen full time salaried veterinary officers are engaged by this department in field disease control and part of their duties is the tuberculin testing of cattle. In addition to the full time salaried officers, there are 170 practising veterinarians employed on a part time basis.
The distribution of staff by provinces is as follows:
Newfoundland	Part-time	Full-time 1Prince Edward Island	2	1Nova Scotia	1	8New Brunswick ....	1	4Quebec 	25	41Ontario 	56	83Manitoba 	16	16Saskatchewan 	27	20Alberta 	41	28British Columbia .. .	1	12
Tuesday, December 3, 1957