1958-01-21

[Stage Direction]
Bulganin's letter
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on December 16 the Minister of Public Works tabled the text of a letter dated December 13 which had been addressed to me by the chairman of the council of ministers of the Soviet union, Mr. Bulganin. I should now like to table the text of the Canadian reply, which was given to the Soviet ambassador on the evening of Saturday, January 18, for delivery to Mr. Bulganin.
As the house is aware, similar letters were addressed in early December to the heads of governments of other NATO countries. These other NATO countries are also in the process of replying. The United States reply was delivered on January 12, the French reply on January 14 and the United Kingdom reply on January 16.
The Canadian government, in the reply I intend to table, deals essentially with the first letter and acknowledges receipt of the second, although some of the same points appear in both letters. As I said in the house on January 13, it is our intention to give further consideration to Mr. Bulganin's second letter, the one dated January 8, and to consult in the NATO council with regard to the issues with which it deals.
What the NATO countries looked for in these letters was evidence that the Soviet union was sincere in its expressed desire to adopt measures leading to the improvement of the international situation and to the creation of the necessary confidence in relations between states. We found little that was new in the letters, although it was recognized that they were more moderate in tone than Soviet communications received in the past. Also they placed emphasis on the settlement of differences by negotiation, an objective which certainly finds support in this and other countries. It was with these considerations in mind that the NATO governments examined the letters and agreed on the general nature of the replies to be given.
96698-225J
In preparing the Canadian reply the government has tried to adopt as positive an attitude as possible. We wish to reduce tension and to help settle world problems, but the need still exists-and this must be emphasized-for a strong defence system. In a positive sense, the reply displays our continued willingness, within the terms of a disarmament agreement, to open all or part of Canada to aerial and ground inspection on the basis of reciprocity. This type of proposal should prove mutually attractive to Canada and the U.S.S.R. since they are neighbours across the Arctic. Mr. Bulganin is reminded of Canada's strong interest in disarmament, and it is suggested that since he advocates step by step progress in this field the first step should be for the countries concerned to resume their discussions and to make use of the United Nations machinery created for this purpose.
In the reply we say that we intend to join with our NATO allies in studying the comments made by Mr. Bulganin on a proposal put forward earlier by Poland for the creation of a zone in central Europe free of nuclear armaments.
The assertion is made in Mr. Bulganin's letter that a meeting of heads of capitalist and socialist countries on a high level could have great significance. As I mentioned in the house early last week, this observation is made more specific in the second letter, the one dated January 8, with the proposal that a high level meeting be held within the next two or three months. Our reply states that a meeting at a high level would receive the Canadian government's support if there were adequate assurance that beneficial results could be expected, and if the utmost care were given to its preparation.
While on the subject of a possible summit meeting I might refer to the reply I gave in the house on January 7 in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie, as to whether or not Canada would consider issuing an invitation for a summit meeting in Canada. As I said then, we attach great importance to reopening negotiations and would agree to examine any proposal which might result in the reaching of an agreement between the Soviet union and the western countries. In my reply to Mr. Bulganin I referred to the interest that had been displayed in this house in the possibility of a high level meeting, and I said that when the participants

Inquiries of the Ministry decide that they are ready to call such a meeting and should they decide to hold it in Canada, situated as we are between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R., such would be acceptable.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the tabling yesterday of sessional paper No. 227 entitled "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1957". In view of the fact that this report is identified as one that continues a regular series of statements on the economic outlook, can the Prime Minister say whether there have been subsequent issues of this report or of reports similar to it? If so, will copies of those subsequent issues also be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say how many subsequent reports there were or indeed if there were any, but whatever the situation may be I would point out that the answer I gave last evening with regard to propriety, having the interest of our economic situation before us, would cause us to take a second look and give reconsideration as to whether or not such reports should be tabled if such reports exist.


Mr. Pearson:: Hidden reports.


An hon. Member:: That is not what you said last night.


John George Diefenbaker: I point out this fact, that whatever the recommendations or suggestions made at this time may be, favourable or adverse, this would be no time to table such a report, believing it would not be in the public interest to anticipate what economic conditions might be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friends maintain at least a degree of silence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If any hon. member wishes to raise a point of order he should rise in his place and not speak from his seat and interrupt the speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I would say it would not be in the public interest to table any reports that are coterminous with the time of application of such reports.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the copy of this
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
report, which was prepared for the government

as is shown on the document-just before the presentation of Mr. Harris' last budget, has been tabled, will the government not now consider tabling a copy of the report that was prepared just before the present Minister of Finance made his budgetary proposals?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the answer to that question.


Mr. Sinclair:: You are hiding it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was about to comment that the last question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to me to be hypothetical, in that it deals with a report the existence of which has not yet been ascertained.


James Sinclair: Because it is hidden; that is why.


Mr. Tucker:: The Prime Minister is concealing the report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I would like to know whether or not it is true that this particular report which has been tabled was a secret report from a civil servant to his minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has not even read it yet, for it points out that it was a report from the bureau of economics of the Department of Trade and Commerce to the minister for distribution among the members of the cabinet.


James Sinclair: That is not what you said.


Mr. Pickersgill:: And it was marked "secret" on its face.


James Sinclair: You hide your reports, and you hide the white paper as well.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, yesterday at the request of the hon. member for Gloucester I gave a figure for the number of registrations at unemployment insurance offices across Canada. The figure was 796,000.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation of that figure. Despite the fact that I emphasized that this figure has never been accepted as an official unemployment figure, there is still a tendency to consider it in that light. In the

Globe and Mail of this morning, for example, the figure is referred to as "796,371 jobless."
I make this point, Mr. Speaker, because a number of members have asked me about the figure, and I want to point out that it was not the policy of the previous government to release it. In fact on numerous occasions members of the previous government made it very plain that the only official unemployment figure was the dominion bureau of statistics figure, which now stands at 386,000. It has a serious effect on public confidence, Mr. Speaker, when a figure which is in fact an operational figure relating to operations of the unemployment insurance commission is persistently referred to as the official unemployment figure.
This government is not responsible for the two sets of figures, nor is it responsible for the stand that the dominion bureau of statistics figure is the only unemployment figure. This was the stand taken by the previous government; and since they established the figures, they should know. I wish hon. members opposite would give the dominion bureau of statistics figure the same ready acceptance they did when they sat on this side. I shall continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I follow the hon. member's question of privilege in so far as it relates to the inaccuracy of the press, but I do not think it extends to a discussion of hon. members on the opposite side and their views.


James Sinclair: It is the only figure you have ever used in your debates.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister o* Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I promised the hon. member for Charlotte that I would make a statement today regarding coastguard service provided in Canada. Since this same question has been asked by a number of members and there seems to be considerable interest in it, perhaps I might be excused for making a full statement on this matter.
With perhaps two important exceptions, both of which are covered by other government agencies, the substantial fleet of vessels maintained by the Department of Transport as part of its marine service activities performs the same functions as those of the United States coastguard and, indeed, a great many additional functions. United States coastguard activities are devoted in large part to provision and maintenance of buoys, lights and other floating and fixed aids to navigation, and the supply of isolated stations
Inquiries of the Ministry such as lighthouses. They also provide some icebreaking and related navigational assistance.
The Department of Transport maintains a fleet of over 30 vessels, located on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in the St. Lawrence and great lakes areas, which also perform these functions, as well as concentrating on coastal icebreaking work and major convoy and navigational assistance in the Arctic areas during the summer season. We have built and are building a number of excellent new vessels to satisfy this requirement.
The department's vessels do not undertake police patrol activities, nor have we any desire to enter the policing field. This function is carried out very effectively by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who also have a number of special cutters operating on both coasts and in the great lakes for this purpose.
Usually references to a coastguard are connected with marine search and rescue, since this is a field in which the United States coastguard receives, from time to time, considerable publicity. In the United States the coastguard has been charged with a major role in the field of search and rescue generally, and performs tasks of search and rescue in coastal areas both for air and marine purposes. Its activities in this field are based largely upon the maintenance and operation of a very substantial fleet of specialized aircraft, supplemented as well, where the need arises, by its coastal vessels.
In Canada this function is performed by the Department of National Defence through the Royal Canadian Air Force, which has followed generally the same course as the United States coastguard in developing specialized aircraft and personnel to assist in the matter of search and rescue, in fact on an even broader basis than in the United States because the Royal Canadian Air Force, in its operations, covers not only coastal areas but inland territory as well.
Moreover, the R.C.A.F. search and rescue keeps in touch with various vessels operated by the various government departments, as well as private vessels, so that in co-ordination of marine activities they are in a position to carry out the same function as the United States coastguard.
To provide a fleet of special vessels solely for marine search and rescue work in Canadian waters would be a large and expensive undertaking-


James Sinclair: That is what you used to advocate, though.


George Harris Hees: -and it should be remembered that a very efficient organization is now maintained


James Sinclair: Sure, sure.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: -through co-ordination of the activities of the various vessels operated by the Royal Canadian Navy, the Department of Fisheries, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


James Sinclair: Eating your words.


George Harris Hees: -and my own department.


James Sinclair: Where is your coastguard?


George Harris Hees: To assist as much as possible in this regard, we have the problems of marine search and rescue very much in mind in developing our departmental ship program, and most of our new ships will be provided with helicopter platforms, since it is now well established that helicopters have a major role to play in marine search and rescue. As new ships become available it will undoubtedly be desirable to expand our helicopter operations in connection with our ships, provided that the necessary funds are voted for this purpose by parliament.
I might point out in this connection that my department now operates some four supply ships on the Pacific coast as well as three weather ships, five vessels in the great lakes area, about a dozen ships in the Ottawa and St. Lawrence river and gulf area and about nine in the Atlantic area. These are available to assist in marine search and rescue work in their respective areas, along with the ships operated by the Department of Fisheries and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Moreover, in connection with our program to replace older vessels we are now calling tenders for one specially designed vessel for the Atlantic coast and one for the Pacific coast, each to carry a helicopter, of a type which should, in addition to being useful agency supply ships, be of special value for marine search and rescue work.
Just as the United States coastguard maintains special ships for ocean weather stations as part of its program, so does the Department of Transport. The weather ship service was established by international agreement, and Canada's responsibility under this agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


George Harris Hees: -calls for the maintenance of one weather station in the Pacific ocean. This weather station is operated by three special vessels, two in active service and one held in reserve-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


George Harris Hees: -and these ships, too, are available for marine search and rescue work within the area where they are stationed, in the same way that United States coastguard weather station vessels are available.

The United States coastguard has also engaged in work in connection with the growing small boat field, where proper regulation and educational safety programs have become very important. Here again my department has recognized the growing need in this field in Canada, and has taken initial steps toward helping in this field by the appointment of a small boats officer within its marine services branch who is specializing in educational safety and regulatory programs for this purpose. This is a field of departmental activities which we expect to expand in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: We also pay a subsidy to the British Columbia tugboat owners' association which covers the salary of a special official they provide to co-ordinate their own activities in marine search and rescue work.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: I should like to assure the house that this matter will remain under continuing review-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -and if further changes or improvements are deemed necessary by the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -they will be brought forward.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to direct a supplementary question to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


James Sinclair: Now that the minister has given a ringing endorsation to the program he used to criticize so vigorously-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Sinclair: -will he tell the house what has happened to the independent coastguard like the Americans have which he used to advocate so strongly when he was on this side of the house? No mention of it.


George Harris Hees: I am very glad the hon. member asked that question and I am very glad to answer it. If the members of his government had been as co-operative as the members of this government are every day in the house, in giving information they were asked for about this important matter, I like other members of the then opposition would have known that this sort of thing went on.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the two former ministers of transport we accept his apology for not listening when they made statements identical to his.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Sinclair: You have added one man in
charge of small boats.


An hon. Member:: He is not new.


James Sinclair: You had better tell us about our merchant marine now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is appropriate to point out that a statement of that length, and a statement which one may describe as being of mixed fact and opinion, would be better made on the estimates than at this time. If it is made, it should be open to comment by spokesmen for each of the parties who may wish to comment upon it. If there are no further supplementary questions-


Mr. Fulton:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it not be appropriate to suggest that a question of the type that was asked, like many others, might also be asked on the estimates?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Justice is undoubtedly right, but he will have observed, as I have, that one disorder leads to another. However, I think we might proceed. Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asking a supplementary question?


James Sinclair: That is a Marler statement, right out of the records.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: The
Minister of Transport has been asked what steps the government has taken in this field since taking office, and I should like to rephrase my question by asking him now what steps the government has taken to deal with the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in this field left as a legacy by the former government?


James Sinclair: Nothing.


George Harris Hees: If after hearing this statement of what is being done in a very efficient and adequate way to provide coastguard service in this country by the various methods I have mentioned the hon. member still thinks the service is inadequate, then I am very surprised, because I feel it is very adequate indeed.


James Sinclair: Speak with the fishermen. HOUSING



N.H.A.-INTEREST RATES ON LOANS FOR DOWN PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I did not give him notice,
Inquiries of the Ministry so he may wish to take this question as notice. Has he been advised that many individuals applying for loans under the National Housing Act, as recently amended, who have not sufficient funds for the down payment and who have to borrow the amount of that down payment, have to pay a discount rate reaching as high as 30 per cent in some cases? If so, is it the government's intention to do something to correct this nefarious practice?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question having to do with housing, and I would be glad to look into the complaint made by the hon. member, although I would remind him again that his own district of New Westminster has benefited under the agency loan plan perhaps to a greater extent than any other part of the country.


Frederick George Hahn: I am not disputing what the minister has to say about New Westminster. I would ask him to read the question, and I think he will find it has nothing to do with my district.



REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE ORGANIZATION OF BUSINESSMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister sponsoring the setting up of a private organization for the purpose of diverting purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom? If so, would he be prepared to state what progress has been made to date in setting up such an organization?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member has no basis at all for his question. A similar question was asked yesterday, based upon press speculation. The government has been interested in expanding trade between the United Kingdom and Canada, and to that extent sponsored a trade mission which visited the United Kingdom during the months of November and December.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister denying that there is a move being made by him or his department to set up a private organization in Canada, apart altogether from trade missions, for the purpose of diverting trade from the United States to the United Kingdom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I deny it.

Inquiries of the Ministry.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to make any announcement regarding bilateral negotiations with the United States for north and south air transport routes?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. We have again notified the United States officials of our desire to have early discussions with them regarding the possibility of renegotiating the present bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States, and while we have not yet received any official reply we are hopeful that early discussions on this subject may be arranged within the next few weeks.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to answer a question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's. He asked if I had received a telegram from the chamber of commerce at Corner Brook representing that the 3.6 per cent increase in freight rates had been put into effect in that district. I indicated in my reply that such a telegram had not come to my attention, but I now find it was received in my office when I was out of the city last week and was immediately forwarded to the board of transport commissioners for action.
I am now advised that the board acknowledged the telegram direct to the chamber of commerce on January 16, advising them that all tariffs of the railway instituting the 3.6 per cent increase have been postponed to March 1 and that representations were being sent to the Canadian National Railways for correction of the situation as described by the chamber of commerce. On the same day the board so communicated with the railway company.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the 

decision of the transport board in respect of the application of the railways for increased demurrage charges was to be delayed until January 20, could the minister now inform the house of the decision in that regard?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member explain just exactly what decision he is asking me to explain?


Edward George McCullough: That in respect to the increase of demurrage charges at the lake-head for box cars containing wheat-the application of the railways for increased demurrage charges.


George Harris Hees: I am not familiar with the particular details, but I shall be very glad to take it up with the board of transport commissioners and give an answer as soon as I can.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in my absence from the house on Wednesday last the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi directed a question to the house leader respecting the inclusion of smelt nets under the fishermen's insurance plan.
The interdepartmental committee, comprising members of the Department of Fisheries, Department of Finance and the then department of resources and northern development, which studied the question of fishermen's insurance in 1953, recommended confining insurance to vessels and lobster traps.
Circumstances which would militate against the inclusion of other types of gear are as follows: (a) the short life of nets; (b) the difficulties of identification; (c) the fact that many nets are repaired from year to year and thus are made up of materials of varying ages; (d) the assumption that the loss of nets was considered less serious than the loss of a vessel, in that replacements would be more easily financed, and (e) the difficulty of differentiating between wear and tear and accidental damage.
Continued demands for insurance of nets have come repeatedly from the smelt fishing areas of New Brunswick and the cod trap areas of Newfoundland. In these two fisheries it is true that the net is a much more significant item of equipment than in most other fisheries, and serious losses are rather frequent.

Suggested Resignation of Government
Suggestions have been put forward from time to time concerning means which might overcome the problem, but I am sorry to report that no practical means has yet been suggested which would allow the inclusion of fishing nets under the insurance scheme. However, my department is giving the problem continued careful study.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any statement to make or further information to give the house on the pipe-line walk-out in northwestern Ontario?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member and also in answer to the numerous inquiries from the hon. member for Port Arthur and other members, I would like to make a brief statement on the strike on the trans-Canada pipe line in the lakehead area.
I believe the strike is now well on the way to settlement. The action taken by my department was as follows: We sent an industrial relations officer into the area and conducted a wage survey, as a result of which a new schedule was issued calling for increases from $1.20 per hour to $1.40.
This new schedule will be implemented immediately. From the latest information I have, the two unions involved in the jurisdictional aspect of this matter are now reaching a settlement.

The house resumed, from Monday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.



AMENDMENT CALLING FOR RESIGNATION OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: At ten
o'clock last night, Mr. Speaker, I had just begun to deal with some of the things the government had failed to do. You will recall, however, that I did give them credit for having taken a number of steps to create work as a means of alleviating unemployment in this country. I must also give them credit for at least making an effort to stimulate trade with Britain and perhaps other parts of the commonwealth, and I sincerely
hope their efforts and their zeal will result in greatly expanded trade between these countries and Canada.
At the same time I must say it has been hard for me to understand the attitude of the government with regard to the acceptance of sterling, particularly, and the currencies of other countries in return for Canadian goods. The Social Credit group in this house first began to advocate the acceptance of sterling as far back as 1945, at the time of the Bretton Woods debate. We have continued to advocate it since then as one means of trying to overcome the stagnation of trade caused by the Bretton Woods agreement. We pointed out at the time that the Bretton Woods agreement would unquestionably result in stagnation, and we have continued to take the same stand ever since.
We moved an amendment in 1952 calling for the acceptance of sterling and every member in this house, with the exception of the Social Crediters and six Conservative members, voted against our motion. Amongst those who supported our motion was the present Prime Minister. That was one of the reasons I felt I could not understand the continued refusal of the government to accept local currencies, particularly sterling, as a means of stimulating trade.
I mentioned last evening that the government failed to bring in a budget. I would suggest that was a most serious omission, because by bringing in a budget at this session it would have been possible for the government to provide for the financing of various projects designed to prevent the downward trend which had its beginnings during the time of the Liberal administration, and to prevent unemployment from developing into a first class depression.
I also suggested last night that one of the things that could have been done and probably should have been done was to budget for a deficit so that government investment could take the place of declining private investment, as was suggested, by inference, by the Leader of the Opposition, at least until normal conditions returned. By a deficit budget I simply mean planning to spend more than is taken from the people in the form of taxation and other revenues. I realize, of course, that the government persists in its adherence to orthodox financial practices and therefore, as long as it does, budgeting for a deficit would mean increasing the national debt.
A good look at the statistical review of the Bank of Canada, the most recent issue, will show that the interest on our national debt has been going up year by year until it now is approximately half a billion dollars a year.
3556	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government If we had in this country a Social Credit administration, budgeting for a deficit would mean asking the Bank of Canada to make available to the treasury the amount of the budget in excess of the expected revenues, which new money would be used by the government for public investment in exactly the same way as if that money had been taxed from the people or borrowed from the banks. The big difference between our proposal and the orthodox one would be that under the Social Credit proposal the amount of the deficit would not add to the interest-bearing debt of the country. The government has failed to come seriously to grips with the tight money policy so as to prevent the downward trend from seriously increasing unemployment and trade stagnation.
In agriculture the government gives every indication of knowing the problem but does not appear to know what the answer is. The price support legislation they brought in is little, if any, better than the price support legislation the Liberals put on the statute books back in 1944. Under the Conservative bill the grain producers of western Canada have been completely ignored and neglected, even though they form one of the most important sections of the agricultural industry. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the government has thus far shown an inclination to let emotional and political considerations influence them to do things that have deepened the stagnation in the oil and gas industry.
I point out these things because I think the Conservative party should realize that they have no good reason to be spoiling for a fight. They have a lot of things to do yet before they can be certain that if there is an election they will come back into office with even as many members as they have now. Mr. Speaker, I realize that they have not had time to do everything, but I must say they will have to settle down seriously to face these problems that harass the people, and quit merely tinkering with things.
What is our position with regard to the amendment and the subamendment? We believe this is not the time for foolish political manoeuvring. The world situation and our internal economic difficulties are too serious to be throwing the country into confusion just now. We do not believe that anybody in this house is justified in putting party above the welfare of the people as a whole. We should be seriously pooling our knowledge and our abilities in the wider interests of our country. We thought when the people spoke last June they had made it clear that they wanted their new government to have a reasonable chance to show what they could do. Seven months is not enough time for that purpose, especially When those seven months


includes the difficult months of winter when any soft spots in the economy show up with startling magnification.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have conducted ourselves all through this session as if we believed what I have just said. Now the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to resign and give over the reins of government to the Liberal party without an election. As I think about that I remember how indifferent the Liberals were on several occasions to high unemployment during wintertime. They claimed it was seasonal and regional and temporary.
Those terms-seasonal, regional and temporary

have been so burned into my conscience that I shall never forget them. When I bear in mind the fact that it was either policies instituted by that party or things they left undone which started this country into stagnation and carried it before last June 10 quite a way down that road; when I think of the tragic decline in farm cash income during the past six years; and when I add to these things the fact that the Liberal party got as far out of touch with the people of Canada as they did, I find it difficult to see for Canadians any advantage whatsoever in a change of government at this time from Conservative to Liberal.
I have not seen since June 10 any evidence of repentance on the part of the Liberal party, or any change of heart which would give me confidence that they realize how wrong were many of their policies. I think what they need is a sufficient time for quiet meditation in the political wilderness to bring their hearts and souls once more into tune with the desires and the will of the people of Canada before they seriously ask for the right once more to govern this country.
Under these circumstances I cannot with any conscience vote for their amendment. I have a strong feeling they will be relieved to hear that I will not disappoint them.
And now, Mr. Speaker, a word about the C.C.F. subamendment. There are some things in it that we could support. However, the final lines are couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that the means they would propose using to try to solve the unemployment and economic situation in our country would be socialist methods. We have no quarrel with their holding these views, but of course we cannot support them, and therefore we must vote against the subamendment. The rules prevent us from moving a second subamendment. If it were not so we would move one.
And now, Mr. Speaker, a final word to the government. I said they have been

spoiling for a fight. There has been altogether too much of this business of daring people to take a stand lest it serve to bring on an election. I think they ought to stop that sort of thing. I think they ought to get down to business and show the country that they have confidence in themselves. When they talk about asking for dissolution, or asking for a defeat in this house so they can go to the country in an election now when there is serious unemployment, when there is a serious business decline and uncertainty, when there is general stagnation, they are indicating to the people that they lack confidence in themselves, that they are afraid to stay on the ship and try to bring it safely into harbour.
If they are really and earnestly concerned about finding a solution to these problems they will not want an election now. They will realize that it is irresponsible to talk about an election under these circumstances. The thing for responsible government to do, whether in a minority or not, is to stay at the wheel and use all the ability and imagination they possess to find and give effect to honest and complete solutions to the problems the Canadian people face.
Just one final word. The two combatants in the big debate yesterday stood toe to toe and emasculated one another with truth; but in that debate they demonstrated that both their parties were iron men with feet of clay. All they proved was that what is needed is a new concept, a new approach to things economic and financial in our country. It is clear that neither of the historic parties has the answer to the business cycle, that is the alternate periods of boom and bust that so frequently follow one another across the pages of our economic history. Both of them should move over, when the time is right, and let someone who has the answer tackle the job.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the substantive part of my remarks I should like first of all to give to the house the attitude of the official opposition with reference to the amendment to the amendment moved by the C.C.F. party. Speaking on behalf of the official opposition and dealing with the amendment to the amendment, I should say first of all that it is a substitution and not an amendment. I should like also to say on its substance that much of it is a repetition of our own views, with the exception of the words which occur toward the end of the resolution which read:
-by adopting a fiscal policy which will enable the government to redirect investment and embark on a comprehensive program of public development.
Suggested Resignation of Government
It is this part of the amendment to the amendment that raises some doubt in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of hon. gentlemen in the house who do not belong to the socialist party, that it may well mean the socialization and control of banking and finance; and if it does mean that then it seems to be a denial of the principles of free enterprise for which we on this side of the house stand.
In addition to that, sir, the amendment to the amendment strikes out the operative and substantive parts contained in the last two paragraphs of the amendment moved by my leader. For those three reasons I therefore say that it will not be possible for us to vote for and support this amendment, but on the contrary we will vote against it.
I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. My first words in so doing are to commend and congratulate him not only for a fighting speech but for a constructive, effective and devastating speech so far as the policies of the present government are concerned. Just as I was proud to call the former leader of the opposition my leader, because as has been said on all sides of the house he was and is not only a gentleman of the highest order but also a great statesman, so also am I happy and proud to call the new Leader of the Opposition my leader; and I, together with those who sit with me on this side of the house, will be loyal to him in every respect.
I referred to the effective and constructive speech which he made, coming as he did from a convention assembled here in this city the like of which has never been seen at any time in the history of this country. Coming from that convention as he did fortified with a forward looking program he was able to deal with the weaknesses and inefficiency of the policies of the government. In contrast two and one half hours were taken by the Prime Minister to deal with the 50 minute speech which my leader made. And then, notwithstanding the two and one half hours taken by the Prime Minister yesterday to deal the remarks of my leader, it must be remembered that he had one week at 24 Sussex street or at his own office in which to prepare his speech.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: This is the
old Chevrier.


Thomas Miller Bell: Chivalrous Chevrier.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me say to the Prime
Minister, with all respect to him, that the speech he made yesterday was one of the

Suggested Resignation of Government weakest speeches he has ever delivered in this house. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he scarcely-dealt with the amendment. On the contrary he spent an hour dealing with the secret document about which I will have more to say anon, and he spent 40 minutes dealing with the speech made in San Francisco in July, 1957, by the Leader of the Opposition.
In his two and one half hour speech the Prime Minister proceeded to pour scorn and ridicule on the speech of my leader. He called it a courageless speech. He said the speech was devoid of courage because he was disappointed in that our amendment did not seek to defeat the government. He was disappointed because he had been waiting for a long time for an excuse to call an election. The government wants to be defeated. It has tried its best to be defeated. Why? Just to escape its responsibility in dealing with the urgent problems that confront us today.
The government is endeavouring to fool the public by means of a quick election before the public can catch up with what has happened. What the government in effect is saying through the speech the Prime Minister made is that we should have moved a straight want of confidence motion. The government is disappointed because we moved a responsible motion. While we are ready and prepared to take over the reins of office and deal with the problems which you on the other side of the house have messed up and plunged us into, let me say to you that it is your responsibility to call an election, not ours. You are the ones who are trying to force us into defeating you, so you can then say this was no time to call an election. If you on the other side of the house want an election all you have to do is march down to Government House and call such an election. It is quite simple.
The responsibility for calling an election is on the other side of the house and nowhere else. The Prime Minister said the speech of my leader displayed a lack of courage. This talk of courage is a blind. It is a blind because if the government had the required courage, Mr. Speaker, it would bring before this house now a comprehensive program to deal with the unemployment situation rather than have ministers rise in their places from time to time and deal piecemeal with the problem. If the government had the required courage it would bring down a budget instead of running away from it. If the government had the required courage it would not run away from the British proposals but on the contrary would study them and tell the public what is contained in them. If the government had the required courage it would not seek reasons for defeat in this house but would take that [Mr. Chevrler.l
responsibility itself. The Prime Minister in his long and exhaustive speech-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exhausting.


Lionel Chevrier: -was critical of our convention and of the resolutions passed thereat.


Mr. Chown:: So were the members of
the Manitoba young Liberal association.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me say to him and to
the gentleman who has just interrupted me that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I am reminded of another convention which took place in this very city, where the situation was entirely different from the one which we had. Instead of there being unity among the delegates,-


George Harris Hees: We produced a winner.


Lionel Chevrier: -and instead of bringing down resolutions, those of you who sit on the other side of the house were either afraid or ashamed of the resolutions because they were never given to the public. I will be glad to send a copy of the resolutions which we passed at our convention to my hon. friends on the other side of the house, in the expectation that they will borrow some because they have none of their own. They never wanted the public to see the resolutions which were passed at their convention. What the reason was I do not know, but I may surmise what some of the reasons were. Then, as I said earlier, one should be careful not to be too critical of another's convention because, as we well know, at the Conservative convention, which took place about a year ago, one-half of the delegates walked out on the other half.


Mr. Montgomery:: That shows the quality of your speeches.


Lionel Chevrier: One of the hon. gentlemen who sits on the other side of the house not only walked out but went so far as to denounce his own leader and then he waited at the gate until he was received in the fold. What was he given? He was given crumbs. That is exactly what he was given.


An hon. Member:: Don't you wish you had them?


Lionel Chevrier: Therefore, instead of all this sound and fury that we have been getting from the other side we should have perhaps something in the way of construction. But our friends on the other side criticize our convention which took place during a period of three days and which was conducive of a substantial number of sound principles.


An hon. Member:: And fury.

Suggested Resignation of Government


Lionel Chevrier: Whereas they, instead of giving to the country a program of their principles or a platform of their principles, have forced us to compile two books of their promises; one a red book dealing with promises in general and the other a blue book dealing with promises having to do with federal-provincial relations. There is the extent of the policies of my hon. friends on the other side of the house.


Mr. Kucherepa:: That is more than you have.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister, as I said earlier, spent very little time on the amendment but he spent a great deal of time on extraneous material. In my humble opinion he does not seem to understand the amendment. It faces every member, and especially those who are not supporters of the government or of the official opposition, to choose between keeping this government in office and undertaking to support a Liberal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a choice.


Lionel Chevrier: We are not asking the
government to resign because of conditions last March but we are asking it to resign because of conditions now.
The Prime Minister dealt with a document to which I should now like to pay some attention. He read at great length from this document.


Mr. Hodgson:: Oh, you found it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not find it. It took me two hours to get it, the very same document which was tabled by the Prime Minister. Two hours after it had been tabled I got it. And, Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by some of the things I find here.


Mr. Halpenny:: So are we.


Lionel Chevrier: In the first place, the foreword of this document says this:
This report continues the regular series of statements on the economic outlook prepared for the use of the federal ministers and civil servants concerned. The purpose of the reports is to appraise the influences operating in the economy as they are likely to affect the general level of economic activity in 1957. This report was finalized before the presentation of the federal budget.
It looks, therefore, as if this is but one of four such reports which are prepared in the presentation of a budget, and it seems to me an unprecedented action in this parliament for anyone, let alone the Prime Minister, to table not so much a confidential document as a secret document.


George Ernest Halpenny: One of your members asked for it.


Lionel Chevrier: The former prime minister would never have done a thing like that; but that is the difference, sir, between a statesman and a politician.
I have another remark to make with reference to this document, Mr. Speaker. The document I hold in my hand is marked "confidential", but something has been taken from it. I make this statement not because I was a member of the government, since I have not been a member of the government for the last three years. But look at this document. A page has been torn from it, and those who have torn the page off here left a fragment of it there and on the back of it is a blue portion indicating it has been tampered with. I am informed by my former colleagues that its covers were blue; and that part of the report which normally indicates, or so I am told by them, that it is a secret document. Therefore, I ask this question? Why was this tabled and marked "confidential"; whereas the rest of it is secret? Where is the rest of it? Where are the other pages which should be attached to this?


An hon. Member:: Where are the other
three documents?


Mr. Fraser:: Hidden by the Liberals.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Prime Minister table the other documents that were used in conjunction with the matter leading to the preparation of the budget? He has already told the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in very long terms, that after consideration of all the circumstances perhaps it would be in the public interest not to table it. Why, then, was it in the public interest to table this secret report and deal with it at length.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Because you asked for it.


An hon. Member:: Political.


Mr. Rowe:: If it was so confidential how did you lose it?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not lose it; it never came into my hands, but I would like to know-and perhaps the hon. gentleman can tell me-where are the pages which have been torn from this confidential document.


Mr. Benidickson:: He does not know; they would not let him in the cabinet.


William Earl Rowe: May I ask the hon. member this question. In view of it being so confidential and so secret in so far as the former government is concerned how did they lose it?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: They thought they could trust the incoming government.


Lionel Chevrier: The former government never lost it; it was unearthed by the Prime Minister. I am going to deal with this unearthing
3560	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government in a moment in the same manner as I have been dealing with this secret document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister read at great length from this document but there is one very important part that he voluntarily omitted to read. It is the first sentence in the document which reads as follows:
As 1957 began, production and employment continued at record high levels in both the United States and Canada.
The Prime Minister said he had only unearthed the so-called hidden report recently. How recently? Had he seen it on November 9 when he said on "The Nation's Business" that the unemployment situation was not generally serious? Was he trying to fool the people then or was he ignorant of these facts? Had the government seen the report when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said at a luncheon in Toronto on November 22, as found in the Telegram of that date:
This is no time to be yielding to panic. . . We are told that unemployment constitutes an emergency. I say to you that while we have some unemployment-


An hon. Member:: Some!


Lionel Chevrier: I continue;
-and the government will seriously grapple with it there is no emergency.


An hon. Member:: Some grappling!


Lionel Chevrier: A little later on he said:
Some people for reasons best known to them are gloating over unemployment and rubbing their hands with unholy glee with every increase in unemployment, however seasonal it may be.
Listen to this.
This is no time for gloom. It is a time for a realistic appraisal of the facts.
Could there have been a gloomier speech than that delivered by the Prime Minister yesterday?


An hon. Member:: Gloomy for you.


Lionel Chevrier: It is surprising that the Prime Minister would not have seen or not have known about the statement made by the Minister of Finance at that time. And when all this was done, had the government seen the secret report when the Minister of Finance stated in his alleged baby budget speech of December 6, to be found at page 2003 of Hansard, that he accepted Mr. Harris' forecast of revenues? Surely the Minister of Finance knows that revenues would fall if economic conditions deteriorated.
If the government had seen the report of last March in November why did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance try to
[Mr. Chevrier.1

conceal its contents from the public and give the optimistic statements which both of them did? Even if they had not seen it surely they had got more up-to-date estimates in the five months before the Prime Minister spoke on "The Nation's Business", and surely they had got them from the same economists as had prepared the document from which I read earlier.
On what then did the Prime Minister base his statement of November 9 that unemployment was not generally serious? If unemployment was not generally serious, as he stated, then based on these reports the position has changed and substantially deteriorated now. Did he just make up the statement or was he advised that such was the case? Was he not relying on the same economists who prepared the March forecast? The March forecast is now past history. Past history will not help the unemployed because, as the position is today, what people are interested in knowing is what is the government doing now, in January of 1958, to meet the position and the facts as we find them?
But even the Prime Minister's history is wrong because the March forecast was succeeded by a mid-year forecast published at the time the government took office. I should like to quote now from a document prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1957, Mid-year Beview." If the Prime Minister had only gone forward to June instead of going back to March he would have found that the forecast by the economists was more optimistic. I should like to quote from two paragraphs of this 1957 mid-year review where I find the following:
The June survey of capital expenditure intentions of Canadian business, institutions, governments and housebuilders, reveals that aggregate spending intentions have been revised moderately upward from those outlined at the beginning of the year.
Farther down the same page I find the following:
The somewhat better outlook for house building reflects the improvement in housing starts that has taken place in recent months and the expectation that further improvements will occur as the year progresses.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: They must have expected a change in government.


Lionel Chevrier: In other words, housing improvement started months before this government came into office. This was the assessment of the situation by the economists at mid-year as set out in this review when the government took office. Let us see what happened afterwards. I should like to refer to another publication by the Department of

Suggested Resignation of Government
Trade and Commerce entitled, "National Accounts, Income and Expenditure, Third Quarter 1957", published under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). I think the minister might well have shown this document to the Prime Minister instead of travelling all through the British Isles in quest of trade he could not find. On page 9 of this document, under the caption, "Gross domestic investment, excluding inventories", I find the following:
Investment In durable physical assets in the third quarter-
When this government was in office.
-is estimated to have been $6,892 million, that is, about one and one half per cent below the level of the second quarter. Both the construction components rose but outlays for machinery and equipment were considerably lower, as they had been in the second quarter. The up-turn in outlays for residential construction reflects the recovery in housing starts that began in the spring-
When the former government was in office.
-and is the first increase to occur since mid-1956.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And the last one.


Lionel Chevrier: Farther down page nine of the same document there is this passage:
In the first three quarters of 1957, investment in durable physical assets was at a rate of $6,942 million, that is to say, about seven per cent above the corresponding period of 1956. Non-residential construction and machinery and equipment investment was higher by 21 and 5 per cent respectively. It may be noted that the trend of investment outlays does not conform to the expectations expressed in the mid-year survey of investment intentions which indicated a rise of 12 per cent in aggregate, and of 27 and 13 per cent in nonresidential construction and machinery and equipment respectively.
In other words, since the government has been in office the expectations have not been realized. But I simply ask this question. Why was this document not read into the record-


George Harris Hees: He is running out of steam.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He has got plenty of steam, don't worry.


Lionel Chevrier: -a document which was prepared by my hon. friends on the other side and which was available to the Prime Minister? The government has been in office now for some seven years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lesage:: It seems like seven years to the people of Canada.


George Harris Hees: We have done so much, it seems so.


An hon. Member:: That is only the first seven.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does seem like seven years.


George Harris Hees: We have done so much.


Lionel Chevrier: As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has said, it does seem like seven lean years.
However, they have been in office for seven months. We were given the impression, during the campaign and since, that when they would take office the Tory government would get rid of all sorts of difficulties about which they had complained when on this side. We would see a wonderful new era, the like of which had never been seen in this country before. What we have been experiencing instead has been more like a cold shower than a wonderful new era.
We should like to know something, too, on this side of the house about Conservative policies; about their program which has been one which we are unable to discern, certainly from their convention and still less from what has been given to us in the house. I could refer, of course, to the trade proposal to divert $600 million of imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. But if this is a policy, it seems one far more difficult to implement than those who enunciated it in the beginning believed. Notwithstanding the trade mission to the United Kingdom, there is no evidence yet that the government can divert any trade. There is no evidence yet that even a fraction of the 15 per cent can be diverted.
This proposal has caused embarrassment to both the United Kingdom and Canada. The United Kingdom has countered with a free trade proposal about which the government will tell us nothing. Export trade, as my leader has said, is important to the economy of Canada. The diversion of trade rather than expansion is at the back of the seriousness of the unemployment situation. The Prime Minister in his speech dealt at great length with the excellent statement delivered by my leader last July in San Francisco. The Leader of the Opposition said what he and other Liberals including the Right Hon. C. D. Howe had said before in the United States, that the lack of a balance of trade should be corrected. The diagnosis of the problem is the same as the Tory diagnosis. After all, the facts are the same and the facts are there. But the solutions to the problem are exactly opposite. The Tory way is to restrict and divert imports from the United States and thereby reduce trade. The Liberal way is to get more exports into the United States thereby expanding trade.
Then there is, sir, the all important subject of federal-provincial relations. When I flashed the blue book a moment ago I could have read at considerable length from some
3562	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government of the statements made by the Prime Minister. In the middle of September the Prime Minister wrote the provincial premiers inviting them to come to Ottawa to deal with the questions arising out of federal-provincial relations. He had stated before that if he took office he would call a new federal-provincial conference in order to deal with fiscal matters.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: That was done.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it was not done. My hon. friend says, "That was done." It was not done by any stretch of the imagination. What was called was a preliminary conference and the subject of fiscal relations was never dealt with, as this house well knows. It will not be dealt with before the next election.
It was stated also that the necessary measures would be taken to have municipal governments represented at this conference. Municipal governments were not represented at the conference by either invitation from the Prime Minister or any other means. It was stated also that the government would adopt an attitude conducive to decentralization, and more particularly apply to the provinces a more advantageous fiscal arrangement. Instead of decentralizing, as had been promised, there has been more centralization because one of the measures brought down in this house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) is clearly one indicative of centralization.
Finally, in calculating the federal contribution to the hospitalization plan, the intention was to include the costs of mental illness and tuberculosis. This was not done. I could go on and deal at length with the promises made in so far as the conference was concerned. The letter of the Prime Minister in September, which was an invitation, the letter of the Prime Minister of October 31, which veered from the position as originally announced, and the speech of the Prime Minister at the conference, which was considerably at variance with what had been promised and with what was contained in the letters, then the press release and the letter written by the premier of Manitoba, all lead one to the conclusion that there were only three results from the conference.
These three conclusions were, first, that in the last few months the Conservative government had violated or refused to fulfil election promises that had been made in the field of federal-provincial relations. It is clear now that fiscal arrangements will not be revised, as I said a moment ago, before the next federal election. Next, the federal government invited the provincial premiers to come to Ottawa under false pretenses. The


federal government, which had promised to treat the provinces with deference and without arrogance, succeeded in doing what no other federal government up to this time had dared to do and that is, at the last moment, without advising the provinces beforehand, completely changing the agenda of the conference, afterwards imposing that agenda upon the conference notwithstanding the protests of several provincial premiers.
Finally, the conference concluded with no practical results in so far as a solution of that pressing problem in connection with federal-provincial relations is concerned, namely fiscal arrangements. From that point of view, as stated recently by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill), it was nothing more than another Mont Tremblant.
( Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to deal for a moment with a matter which is, I think, perhaps quite as significant as the one I referred to just now. The principles of this matter are to be found in a resolution passed at the last Liberal convention, i.e. "the resolution on Canadianism", which, to my mind, seems to be, under the circumstances, of the utmost importance.
I shall read out only the preamble, and then make some comments:
In today's dangerous world Canada's need is for a closer drawing together of all the elements in Canadian society into a strong and vital national consciousness that respects the various cultures upon which Canadian society is founded.
The Liberal party supports a broad, free and independent Canadianism; . . .
Is it not astounding, Mr. Chairman, that there are people in Canada today who express surprise whenever an attempt is made to do something which seems to show evidence of our national autonomy?
The English are rightfully proud to call themselves so. The French are second to none in their love of country, and they also have every reason to feel that way. The Americans readily become lyrical when we talk to them of their country. As for us, Canadians, would we not love our country as much, because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves? Why, therefore, do Canadians-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I regret to inform him his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises out of a statement made during the course of his remarks by the hon. member for Laurier. I thought it would be better

not to interrupt his speech at that point but rather that I should rise on this question of privilege at the end of his remarks.
Yesterday when the Prime Minister referred to a certain document, I drew Your Honour's attention to citation 277 of Beauchesne's third edition and suggested that the document should be tabled. The Prime Minister had no hesitation in saying, as recorded at page 3531 of Hansard for January 20:
If the house desires it I will be very happy to
do so.
Later the hon. member for Ottawa West repeated the point of order, and Your Honour interrupted with the following words:
I understood the Prime Minister to say that he was prepared to table a copy later. Is the Prime Minister prepared to table a copy at the * close of his remarks?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
I am certainly willing to table it.
In other words at that point yesterday there was no apparent argument or misunderstanding. However, the hon. member for Laurier has now made an assertion that from statements made to him by his colleagues who were in the former cabinet he understands the document as tabled-


Lionel Chevrier: And from the appearance of the document.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that the document as tabled has had something torn from it. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this point gave me some concern, and my concern is increased by the statement of the hon. member for Laurier. I have in my hand another copy of the same document which is marked "Copy Sessional Paper 227, January 20, 1958". Now I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker; I only say that it appears to me from the condition of the staples, one of which is missing completely, that this document may have been tampered with.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
may only be to the extent of the removal of the covers. I have no colleagues who were formerly in the cabinet who could tell me, and I want to make it clear that I am not laying a charge. I am asking a question. I suggest that if the document tabled is not the complete copy, even though only the covers have been removed, the understanding which satisfied Your Honour yesterday was such that the complete document should be tabled. I rely on Your Honour's experience at the bar, and I assume it is an understood condition that if a document is tabled, then it should be a whole document.
Suggested Resignation of Government
I am not in a position to allege that there is any wrong-doing on the part of the Prime Minister or anyone else, but now that the point has been raised by the hon. member for Laurier I think it should be cleared up. We should be told whether there are any pages missing and, if so, they should be tabled. We should be told whether the covers were torn off, and I believe the Prime Minister, who is a distinguished member of the bar, would want to table the entire document.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no deletion whatsoever. The document I tabled was the one which came into my possession in its entirety, but if there is any other portion or any other page-which I know does not exist-I will certainly be happy to table it.


Some hon. Members:: How do you know?


John George Diefenbaker: I tabled everything that was made available to me. If they hid some of the rest of it I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cheap.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if he finds there were any covers to the document, they will also be tabled?


James Sinclair: With the classification on that cover, too.


Mr. Speaker:: That disposes of the point. The hon. member who raised the question indicated that he was not prepared to make an assertion, but he raised it as a question and it has now been dealt with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is one point which has not been dealt with, and that is the assertion of the Prime Minister that some part of this document may have been withheld by members of the previous cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Sure; the cabinet members all had a copy of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that observation.


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing to withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: He never has anything to withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing to withdraw.


Walter Adam Tucker: Except your promises.


John George Diefenbaker: This document in its entirety came into my hands as the result of a very full search, and it has been tabled.
3564	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government If my hon. friends have any other parts they took with them when they left office, let them now produce such parts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that does not deal with the point. The Prime Minister suggested we had taken some parts of this document which are not now here-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Prime Minister's statement was quite clear. It was not a charge that you had done so. He indicated if there were any further pages that might be found he would be glad to table them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a most contemptible insinuation.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless some hon. members consider this matter is not now disposed of -and I do-I now recognize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I open my remarks this afternoon by extending, as a onetime student to my one-time lecturer in English constitutional history, my warm congratulations on his election last Thursday as leader of the liberal party and Leader of the Opposition. May I also say it is a pleasure indeed to follow in this debate a former classmate, and to see sitting near him, evidently awaiting impetuously for an opportunity to participate in this debate, another former classmate, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Times have changed in the space of 30-odd years and I can only attribute what has happened to my hon. friends to the fact that they have been keeping bad political company.
The hon. member for Laurier this afternoon did his best to repair the irreparable damage done yesterday. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East, when his turn comes, will make a gallant effort, but the breach made yesterday cannot be repaired. It is too wide to be repaired by the efforts of even these worthy orators. My hon. friend from Laurier sought this afternoon to saddle some steeds to his purpose, but I am afraid those steeds are tearing him and his party apart today. And, Mr. Speaker, all of Chev's horses and all of Paul's men won't put Mike together again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A sense of humour at last.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The shambles in which the opposition was left yesterday at the conclusion of the memorable and masterly speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) were certainly not of the creation of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I am sure that in whatever he may do to try to repair the breach we will give him credit


for gallantry today. I am quite sure also that he would not have planned the first two days in this way.
Mr. Speaker, the noise we have heard here yesterday and today indicates that hon. gentlemen opposite are smarting under chastisement, not merely the chastisement inflicted by the Prime Minister but also the chastisement of their own consciences when they compare what they have been trying to do this week with the bold heroics of last week.
Then, Mr. Speaker, they were as bold as brass. Why should not they? Then the supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite were told that there would be a restoration of normal opposition if a certain course was followed. Is this an example of normal opposition, the abnormal course of action proposed yesterday by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson)? Last Thursday night great emphasis was laid on the word "soon". I well remember that it was added at the end of a pause, and how it brought on the cheers. Evidently, we learn now that "soon" does not mean "soon"; it means "some other time". It is to be a case of opposition if necessary, but not necessarily opposition. If our friends opposite have entered what might be called a fighting ring, with the echoes of last Thursday night's cheers ringing in their ears, then it is evident that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) yesterday amounts to saying they will fight in only one-half of the ring and that there will be at least three neutral corners. They are all for democracy, Mr. Speaker, but not for elections. Away with the ballot box, is their cry. This is the party which once boasted about trusting the people. They will do anything, Mr. Speaker, rather than face the people now.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you try it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if we ever get them to the ballot boxes it will only be by dint of dragging them, kicking and screaming to the polls.
In the situation which was faced yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition it seems to me that the courses open to him were simple. The choice between them might not have been simple, but the courses open were simple. It was a case of choosing between a courageous course and what might be called, in the language of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), a course of discretion. Had the hon. member taken the course of courage he would have come out with an uncompromising challenge to the government and, win, lose or draw, people would have admired him, whether they were his supporters or not, because people like a fighter.
The other course, the course of discretion, would have involved the hon. gentleman in

taking, in effect, the attitude that while he might talk about bold and imaginative courses he was not in a position, if he were to be frank with the house, to take a bold and imaginative course, and had chosen rather to run away to fight another day. I wish to say in all seriousness to the Leader of the Opposition that I think he would have come out of this, his baptism of fire as leader of his party in this house, with a great deal more credit if he had followed either of those courses rather than the course he did follow. The one which would have gained for him the greatest measure of respect would have been the course of courage, in the light of the words which he and his supporters used at the convention last week.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) can boast about the convention. It is not a convention that we are witnessing now; it is the shambles of the Liberals in opposition in this house. "I was not told to win or lose", said Laurier after the defeat of 1911, "my orders are to fight". The orders of the Liberal party today are not what they were in Laurier's day.


Lionel Chevrier: Exactly the same.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, Mr. Speaker, if the orders are the same the orders are not being obeyed today.
The Leader of the Opposition chose to follow neither the course of courage nor the course of discretion. He made the worst of both worlds. He chose to contrive a pretence of leading an opposition. He was, he sought to convey to us, bold as brass, but he contrived his pretence in such a way that his amendment could not be supported by other parties. And so, instead of going down like a fighting man, the Leader of the Opposition has led his followers into ignominy following yesterday's sham. The heroics of last Thursday faded out on Monday. The atomic-powered new leadership fizzled. The bomb proved a dud. The new Liberalism that was boasted of last week exposed itself as the same musty old Liberalism disguised by a change in the style of ties. Discredited and defeated at the polls it remains.
If only the delegates at this convention last week could have been here yesterday to see the Liberal members of this house bedraggled, beaten, forlorn and looking thoroughly sick.
The hon. member for Laurier was at pains to assure us this afternoon that the Liberals did not like the speech the Prime Minister made yesterday. Mr. Speaker, we did not need to be told that. It was written right across every face opposite; they were an ill-looking official opposition.
Suggested Resignation of Government
What is the picture which the hon. gentleman sought to portray? It was something like this: on June 21 everything was all right in Canada up to 11 o'clock that morning; and ever since everything has been all wrong.


An hon. Member:: How true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And if there is not going to be a recession brought about by other means, they will not be happy until they have created a synthetic recession in Canada.
They have talked about trade, and said that trade is deteriorating. The fact is that our exports are up in 1957. The figures are available up to the end of the 11 months, and they show that for the first 11 months of 1957 our exports were higher than during the first 11 months of 1956. Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite either inform themselves or learn to give the people facts, not fiction?
Now, as to imports. Imports for the first 11 months are about the same as for the 11 months of last year. They are down slightly. But hon. members opposite will not have forgotten that the virtue of external trade, as measured by them, is not to be found in the figures of export trade. Times without number they have told us that the virtue of trade lies in import trade, and that a big import trade is an index of prosperity. Their concern, evidently, is not that our exports have been increasing but that our imports have declined slightly.
We are not worried as a government as a result of a reduction in the record trade deficit that this country was incurring under the trade policies of the former government, deficits mounting year by year to record proportions until last year they amounted to $850 million with the world and $1,250 million with the United States alone, which broke all records. And so we say that the time has come to apply policies of expansion of trade in other directions as well.
We have drawn attention to the fact that it has been, if not Liberal policy at least the outcome of Liberal policy to put Canada's trade eggs in one basket and so the extent to which Canada's trade balance has been directed in one channel by the policies of the former government has been the occasion of warning comment year after year by those of us who sat yonder in the seats of the opposition. The extent of that channelling and the increase year by year have run to these figures: 74 per cent of all Canada's imports have been coming from the United States; 60 per cent of all Canada's exports have been going to the United States, and two-thirds of the trade Canada does with the world has

Suggested Resignation of Government been done with the United States. Mr. Speaker, has this never given cause for concern to hon. gentlemen opposite?
It is interesting to note that it evidently gave concern to one of their colleagues who is no longer with them, the former minister of national revenue, Dr. J. J. McCann, who is quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail as having said on September 12, 1952, when the extent of the channelling and when the putting of the trade eggs in one basket had not gone nearly so far as it has since under the policy of the former government:
"Canada's economic position, at present strong, also has a weakness," revenue minister McCann told the National Tax Association at its 45th annual conference in the Royal York hotel yesterday.
"That weakness is that Canada depends so much on the United States," said Dr. McCann. "Canadians can never be freed from the fear of a slump in the United States, for which we would not in any way be responsible and which we could do little to control."
That was the picture in 1952. It suited the political conceptions of hon. gentlemen opposite to watch that trend go forward and make no attempt to prevent that channelling growing to that extent. They ignored the loss of trade with the United Kingdom and with the commonwealth and it remained for this government under the distinguished, courageous and vigorous leadership of the Prime Minister to set about repairing the wrongs and the harm that Liberal policy had done to Canada. The thing that hurts hon. gentlemen opposite is that we are on the way to succeeding in expanding trade with the United Kingdom without hurting trade with other countries one iota.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there to be no diversion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. gentlemen opposite
choose to deride this effort. When my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) led a distinguished Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom and accomplished in that mission the greatest success that has ever been accomplished by any trade mission that has ever gone from Canada's shores, did he receive any recognition or credit from hon. gentlemen opposite? They chose to ridicule instead. We know that they never were interested in commonwealth trade or in making the commonwealth more effective. It is better known today than it ever was before that at commonwealth prime ministers' conferences for many a year in the days of the former government Canada dragged its feet at those conferences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not put British proposals under the table.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What a refreshing fact it is, Mr. Speaker, that now Canada is taking an active part in the commonwealth and is

pulling her fair share of the load in an attempt to make that commonwealth effective for the good of all parts of the commonwealth. However, hon. gentlemen opposite are not content with our aim to expand commonwealth trade without hurting Canada's trade with any other country. Instead of being satisfied with that they have been indulging in the most crass form of misrepresentation for some time.
I want to say a word about oil. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make it appear-and I do not need to remind you of the things they have been saying in this house and at their convention-that the steps taken by the United States to restrict imports of Canadian oil were taken as retaliation against the trade policy of the present government. I have only three things to say about those assertions. The first is that they are false.


Some hon. Members:: Prove it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The second is that it is a base calumny upon the administration of the United States. The third is that in making statements of that kind they are, to their own knowledge, weakening the hands of the Canadian government in supporting Canada's interests in these present negotiations. The course of action adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite has been as irresponsible as anything in the history of the Liberal party.
In regard to this matter of expanding trade with the commonwealth, let me remind hon. members in the face of the misrepresentation by the Liberals on this score that there has been no forcing attempted by this government, that there has been no cutting off of United States imports except that we took steps to apply import controls to protect the Canadian agricultural producer of turkeys, fowl and skim milk in order to safeguard the price support system that had been set up in this country. Do hon. members opposite criticize us for the steps we took to protect the Canadian agriculturist against imports of turkeys, fowl and skim milk? If so, let them have the courage to declare that position.
In the midst of all their misrepresentation in regard to trade relations with the United Kingdom, let me remind hon. members opposite that this government has initiated something that they either said was impossible or did not even try to bring about, the holding of a commonwealth trade and economic conference which will be held in Canada this year and at which every proposal that any member of the commonwealth wishes to bring forward will be brought forward and discussed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And treated like the Thor-neycroft proposal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -at the proper time and place.
I have this concluding word to say on the subject of trade relationships with the United States. I do not need to go over the ground again that was covered by my leader in his devastating speech last night. I simply comment that the day after the Leader of the Opposition made his speech in San Francisco in July 1957 the Montreal Star made an interesting editorial comment on that speech which sounded like a very challenging speech delivered for United States ears. I do not think anyone will pretend that the Montreal Star has had a bias in favour of the Conservative party or the present government but in its editorial columns, July 17, 1957 issue, the Star said of Mr. Pearson's speech:
He would never have said that while he was in office, for he was cutting near to the bone.
And then, these are the concluding words of the editorial:
Mr. Pearson has done a good job for Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not forget the brave words that issued from Mr. Hellyer, the former associate minister of national defence at the Liberal convention last week when he called for a tougher policy toward the United States. Our policy, as was so clearly stated yesterday by the Prime Minister, is to stand up for Canada's interests under all circumstances. It is regrettable that when we came into office Canada was still suffering in its trade relations with the United States from the failure and neglect of the former government to put Canada's position fairly and squarely before the United States administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "We fixed 'em."


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the face of their feeble protests over the United States agricultural surplus disposal program and the other ways in which action had been taken at Washington that hurt Canada's trade we had to go in and put before the representatives of the United States government the true attitude of Canada on these subjects and believe me we had little to work on in the way of representations made on these subjects by the former government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hence oil restrictions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say this? On the subject of United States investment in Canada, which we have encouraged, which we have invited, we have had to overcome the handicap of misrepresentation of our position in this respect by the former government and its supporters. We found that their misrepresentation of our position in this respect had found its way down there, and we have had to devote our efforts to
Suggested. Resignation of Government undoing the miserable work that the misrepresentation of the Liberals had done to Canada's position in this respect.
If hon. members opposite want a very good exposition of the kind of position that we have been setting forth in this matter, I refer them to two speeches which were never made in Canada but are quite worth reading today. They are the speeches made by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, one in Chicago on October 15, 1956, and the other in Milwaukee on October 16, 1956, when he reminded the United States that Canada is not a state of the American union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the next subject on which there has been misrepresentation on the part of the Liberals, and that is the subject of unemployment. First of all I want to speak about employment. Do you realize, that employment in Canada reached an all-time peak in August, 1957? Do you realize that since this government came into office in June, that in June, 1957, there were more people employed in Canada than had ever been employed in any June in Canada's history? Do you realize that in the month of July, 1957, there were more people employed in Canada than had ever been employed in any July in all of Canada's history? Do you realize that in the month of August, 1957 there were more people employed in Canada than had every been employed in any month in Canada's history? Do you realize that in the month of September there were more people employed in Canada than had ever been employed in any September in Canada's history; the same thing in October; the same thing in November and the same thing in December. The latest figures on employment show that there were more people employed in Canada in December, 1957, than had ever been employed in Canada in any December in our history.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Not in December.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not in December.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Essex East cannot change the figures or the facts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will try to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us, having reminded
ourselves of the figures of employment, seek to measure the extent of unemployment. Unemployment is something, whenever it raises its head, that must give any patriotic and responsible Canadian concern. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that the unemployment that does exist and has existed has

Suggested. Resignation of Government commanded the deep concern of the government in our efforts, and continuing efforts, to grapple successfully with it.
But in the face of all the misrepresentation as to the extent of this problem, let us look at the facts. The unemployment in Canada today is not what hon. members opposite have been saying in this house and outside. It is not the figure given to the Liberal convention last Wednesday night and last Thursday night by the present Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It is not the figure of 796,000. That is the figure of registrations with the unemployment insurance commission and they well know that, and they know, as well, if they will face the facts, that the figures of registrations with the unemployment insurance commission have been swollen as a result of legislation passed by this parliament, the bringing of fishermen within the scope of unemployment insurance, the extension of more benefits to married women, the extension of the seasonal unemployment benefits in recent days under legislation introduced by the present government in the present parliament. All of these factors have had the effect of increasing the number of registrations, not to mention the fact that in 1957 the Canadian labour force increased by four per cent, the biggest increase in the Canadian labour force in all our history, as compared with an increase of only 1.9 per cent as an average for the five previous years.


Mr. Haidasz:: Why didn't you cut down
immigration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us examine the extent
of unemployment, and examine it as a percentage of the labour force. The total of unemployment, as we have it from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in his statement yesterday, is 386,000 at mid-December. That happens to be 6.5 per cent of the civilian labour force. Let me compare that with some of the figures of recent times so that we see this problem in perspective. Let us go back no farther than 1955. In January, 1955, what was the percentage of unemployment then? It was 6.8 per cent; in February, 1955, it was 7 per cent; in March, 1955, it was 7.4 per cent. Did hon. members opposite then say that there was a great and serious unemployment problem? No. They were hiding their heads in the sand and denying the existence of any unemployment problem at all. Those of us who were in the house at that time will not forget their tactics.
If you want to take it as a percentage of those registrations with the unemployment insurance commission then you have figures that are swollen and inaccurate in their size.

But if they will compare those with the figures for the same months that I have compared with the December, 1957 figures, they will see precisely the same results, that the percentage of unemployment today is less than it was three years ago. That is not enough. Hon. members of the official opposition, as I indicated earlier, are seeking by every means at their disposal to create the psychological ingredients of depression, and they are doing it for petty partisan advantage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the Prime
Minister's speech last night?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will not forget the way in which they have rubbed their hands in unholy glee over every increase in the figures of unemployed. It does not matter that these reveal the extent to which Canadians have been hurt as long as they of the opposition achieve some mean, partisan advantage. It cannot be denied where the responsibility must rest. The fact is, sir, that the Prime Minister has so devastated the sham, so penetrated the pretence of hon. members opposite and their party, that little needs to be added on this subject. The fact is that in the face of the storm warnings that were made evident to them in March, 1957, they ignored them, they neglected them, they concealed the facts. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I go farther than the Prime Minister did last night. The Prime Minister said last night that the former government had concealed the true state of affairs, the gathering portents of economic deterioration. But on March 14, 1957, the then minister of finance, speaking for the government, went a stage farther and he said:
I come now to consider the economic prospects for the coming fiscal year. On the present evidence I think we can expect a continuation of the current high level of economic activity throughout the coming year.
It was not enough that they concealed the advice that they were receiving from competent sources, Mr. Speaker; it was not enough that they tried to conceal from parliament and from the public the facts, that they had due warning that unless steps were taken, then Canada was in for some economic troubles; no, they went farther and from the mouth of the minister of finance we had this statement that all is well. Mr. Speaker, they have been not only improvident, not only neglectful, but they have misrepresented the facts to the Canadian people and for that they will certainly be called to account.
On this subject of responsibility, and the efforts of hon. members opposite to exculpate themselves from responsibility that is theirs, let me read to you what has been said by a gentleman who, in his editorials, can never

be accused of being Conservative. He is regarded as a Liberal. This is Bruce Hutchison writing an editorial on November 30.
It is difficult to understand why a statesman of Mr. Martin's brilliance should insult the public mind by blaming the Diefenbaker government for a slight deflation in an inflationary boom. This simply won't stick. For obviously if any change in the economic climate stems out of government policy at all, it stems out of the policies that have gone before.
They were the policies of hon. members opposite. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition himself was much more frank on this subject before he assumed his present office because you will remember that just a month ago when he was asked about his views on this subject he made some comment. This is what he said at Quebec, as reported in the Globe and Mail of December 28:
Lester B. Pearson and Paul Martin, contenders for the leadership of the Liberal party at its national convention at Ottawa next month, said here today the Conservative government cannot altogether be blamed for the current economic slow down and rise in unemployment.
And further:
For his part Mr. Pearson said: "I think it would be a big mistake if we blamed the government for the unemployment of the last months."
Those were true words, Mr. Speaker, but what will you say now of the language used by the hon. gentleman yesterday and at the Liberal convention last week in seeking to saddle responsibility on the present government for a situation that it inherited from its neglectful predecessors.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why don't you do something about it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to say this. We have taken and will continue to take measures to grapple with the problem of unemployment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What measures?


Lionel Chevrier: Where are they?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have sought to get to the heart of the problem by contributing to the prosperity of the farmers of the west through cash advances on farm-stored wheat, by getting rid of Canadian wheat through the efforts of my hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by economic development in the maritime provinces, by unemployment insurance benefit increases, by unemployment assistance provided in a way that the former government refused to do, by tremendous amounts of money made available to stimulate house construction and by government construction proceeding at other levels.
Let me make it abundantly clear to every member of the house-I made this clear
Suggested Resignation of Government in the financial statement I made in the house on December 6-that the instructions that have been given by the government are to the effect that while we are seeking to reduce expenditure where expenditure is needless we have said that there shall be no reduction in expenditure where it means jobs, and we are seeking to increase construction in useful public works down the line. While next year we would unquestionably like to have a balanced budget, let me make it abundantly clear that we are not going to put a balanced budget above our firm determination to provide, through the agency of public works, jobs for unemployed Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition undertook to deplore the fact that I had not brought in a budget. What he really means, Mr. Speaker, is that he is not satisfied with the budget that was brought in by the former minister of finance on March 14 last, for that is the budget under which we have been operating and if there is anything wrong in the budgeting the fault lies with that budget. We never promised to bring in a budget at the fall session.


Lionel Chevrier: You did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All that was said was that steps would be taken to fulfil the promises made. Those steps have been taken, those promises have been fulfilled, and we are going to go on with the same task, with the same quest, in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer and in the interests of the well-being of the Canadian economy.
Do you realize Mr. Speaker, that if the Liberals had been re-elected on June 10 there would not have been any financial statement last fall? The fact is that the house has more information today as a result of the complete financial statement made in the house on December 6 than it would have had if there had not been a change of government. The house would not have had any statement but for the change of government. And, Mr. Speaker, when they say that revenues are falling let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that revenues up to the sixth day of January in the present fiscal year, covering more than the first nine months, are $92 million ahead of what they were in the same period of the previous fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about December?


Donald Methuen Fleming: But, Mr. Speaker, any tool will serve the purpose of hon. gentlemen opposite as long as they succeed in destroying confidence, and in trying to destroy confidence in the government they will not hesitate and they are not hesitating to destroy, if necessary, confidence in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Smoke and fury.

Suggested Resignation of Government


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me make it abundantly clear that as a government we will take every needed step within the means at our disposal to meet the problem of unemployment. Let me say that hon. gentlemen opposite need not think that democracy in this country and in this house is going to exist half and half. It is going to be complete democracy, not democracy without the ballot box. If they will have the courage of their convictions, the courage to challenge the government, then let me make it clear that we have no fear of those who are the supreme judges in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Bring it on then.


Jean Lesage: Hold it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman says "bring it on". Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for hon. members to say that. Some of them have been saying it but they are just saying it in undertones. They are afraid to hear themselves say it. Let them come out of their holes and shout it from the housetops. Let them stand up in their places and say it. Let them challenge us, Mr. Speaker, because we stand in our places in this house prepared to meet any challenge.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to deal specifically with the subamendment we have presented to the house because I know there are many Liberal members who would like to vote for that subamendment. Many of them have told me so and in view of the statements of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) a short while ago I want to dissect the subamendment and show to my Liberal friends that they can safely support it without doing violence to their Liberal convictions.
It has been suggested that this is a doctrinaire socialist subamendment but I find in it no mention of a publicly owned banking system; no mention of the public ownership of public utilities, which many Liberals who came to their convention last week from my district were in favour of; no suggestion that the vast monopolistic corporations that now dominate our society should be taken out of private hands; none of the things which in our view are necessary if we are going to have a permanent and stable economy.
What we did present here was a suggestion for immediate action to deal with the economic crisis with which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt at such inordinate length yesterday. We are merely suggesting certain measures that could be taken. The first of them is the question of considering the proposals of the United Kingdom. Are the Liberals afraid to vote in favour

of that? I would call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on January 7 the present Leader of the Opposition who was not then leader of the opposition had this to say as recorded at page 2970 of Hansard when he was pinned down very firmly by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) as to what his attitude would be toward these trade proposals. He said this:
But, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to tell my hon. friends what I would have done in the matter. I would have announced at once that this is a far-reaching, imaginative and constructive proposal on the part of the United Kingdom government and one which seems to indicate the seriousness of their intention of getting closer economically to Canada, something which my hon. friends have often talked about, and I would have followed that up by saying that this proposal should be immediately and sympathetically considered in discussions between the two governments.
So it would appear, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing to prevent the Liberal party from supporting that part of our subamendment. It has been suggested to me that the part to which they take exception, the part they hesitate to support, is the final phrase in which we say:
-and also for consideration of immediate action to relieve unemployment and distress by adopting a fiscal policy which will enable the government to re-direct investment and embark on a comprehensive program of public development.
Are my hon. friends in the Liberal party opposed to a program of public development? If so, Mr. Speaker, how do they explain the monotonous regularity with which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) reiterated again and again his plea that this government should embark on a program of public investment in Newfoundland similar to the one in which they are engaged in the other maritime provinces? If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is in favour of public investment in his adopted province, is he not in favour of a similar program in other provinces? We should know that, because the other provinces will be very interested in knowing. If he is in favour, and if his colleagues in the Liberal party are in favour of a public investment program all across Canada, how do they propose to accomplish that without decisive changes in fiscal policy?
It is not long ago-in fact I believe it was yesterday-that the Leader of the Opposition was denouncing the government and deploring-quite rightly-the fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had not introduced a budget this session. He went on to say this as recorded at page 3518 of Hansard for January 20, 1958:
We do not know very much about the national budgetary picture. We do know that expenditures have not been reduced as promised, but

vastly increased. We do know that the course of national production has been levelled off and is probably declining, that revenues are declining, that there will almost certainly be a deficit in the present fiscal year and that there is a prospect of a huge deficit in 1958 to 1959.
If the Leader of the Opposition seriously considers that the Minister of Finance is sitting like Mother Hubbard in front of a cupboard that is bare at the moment, and at the same time he and his party are in favour of a program of public investment across Canada, how do they propose it shall be instituted except by changes in fiscal policy? That is all we have asked for in our subamendment. It would have been easy for us to have introduced into this house an amendment couched in such terms that the Liberal party could not possibly have accepted it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was their trick.


Colin Cameron: That was their trick. We could have followed an even cheaper trick, similar to theirs, by taking from their statements one or two phrases that have been uttered in this house or at that splendid convention or even incorporated a resolution adopted by the Liberals, and put the Liberal party on the hook. We decided that the situation that was debated at such extraordinary length yesterday by the leaders of these two parties is really of such a serious nature that no responsible group in this house should introduce an amendment unless it contained some positive, substantive proposal for dealing with the problem.
I would suggest that the Liberal party could quite easily support this amendment. I could promise them, in the future, they would have every opportunity they wished to vote against socialist amendments in this chamber. At the present time, all we are suggesting is that a certain course should be followed. It may, and I say only "may", deal effectively for the time being with this serious economic crisis. I put it to my Liberal friends that that would be a reasonable course for them to follow. I would suggest to them also that they had better be quick about following such a suggestion because even the Tory government embarked on a certain measure of re-direction of investment in this country when they announced the additional sums to be provided for housing, and when the other day the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) told us that if it becomes necessary the government will provide further funds. These facts, taken in conjunction with the gloomy statement of two weeks ago that the minister saw no prospect of funds for housing coming from traditional, orthodox sources, would indicate that this 96698-226
Suggested Resignation of Government government is determined to take at least one faltering step towards the re-direction of investment, with of course apprehensive glances over their shoulder at those shadowy but powerful figures that lurk behind both Liberal and Conservative parties. Nevertheless, the government is taking a few hesitant steps. Are the Liberals afraid to take similar steps?
I would suggest also, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment of ours offers the Liberal party a further opportunity perhaps to retrieve something from the disaster that overwhelmed them yesterday. Do not make any mistake about it, it was a disaster that overwhelmed them. Crowds came to this chamber yesterday expecting to see drama, perhaps even melodrama, and they were given farce.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: They were, given low farce.


Colin Cameron: Yes, low farce. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I thought when the Leader of the Opposition was preparing to introduce his amendment, judging from his rather giggling, simpering manner of producing it, that he was going to play a joke on the House of Commons. I thought this was a merry jest. Then I found he was serious and he actually moved it. As I say, it was farce-no, it was not only farce but it was tragedy, deep tragedy, the extent of which will not be known for some time. It is a tragedy that a once great party comes to this house and has the effrontery to suggest, after having been thrown out neck and crop through the front door, that they should be allowed to creep in through the back door. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I never thought to live to see the day when a responsible political party in Canada would suggest that we should adopt the political styles and customs of South American countries. This is Venezuelan politics, where governments change office without benefit of the opinion of the electorate. I should add also that even Adolf Hitler, when he first came to power, came via the ballot box. But not these gentlemen!
I have been told that the Leader of the Opposition can lay claim to some standing as an historian. I have been informed also he has at least one other colleague who can lay some claim to being historian. I am not a historian, but I do remember some of the past history of the Liberal party. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition has not studied the history of his own party or his memory could take him back as mine takes me back to 1926, when on June 25 the Liberal party was defeated in this chamber. On
3572	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government June 28 the then prime minister Mr. Mackenzie King tendered his resignation to the governor general, after having been denied the right of dissolution.
On the 28th, the same day, Mr. Arthur Meighen of the Conservative party took over the reins in this chamber. He lasted for four days and he was then defeated. The house was dissolved and an election campaign ensued in which the then leader of the Liberal party fought the election campaign almost entirely on the basis of the unconstitutional action by which he had been deprived of the right of dissolution. Now today we have these gentlemen seriously- at least we must assume they are serious- coming before this chamber and asking us to re-enact that drama only to have the roles cast differently and the outcome to be entirely different.
It would be quite amusing if it were not tragic because, as I said before, it was a tragic thing we saw yesterday. In fact I thought when I witnessed it of that Shakespearean tag, "Let us sit on the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings"-even newly-crowned kings. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there was never such a short period elapse between a coronation and an abdication.
I am in a Shakespearean mood today and I came across another quotation which is to be found in Act III of "King John". It says:
Thou ever strong upon the stronger side!
Thou fortune's champion, that dost never fight
But when her humorous ladyship is hy
To teach thee safety!
Yes, it was a rather tragic scene we witnessed yesterday. We saw something else that was not very pretty to behold; we saw a magnificent hatchet job done on the Liberal opposition in this house and, as one who on occasion can use a fairly sharp machete myself, I give the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) full marks for a magnificent hatchet job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
had better hold your applause.


Colin Cameron: And yet I wonder if that is the role which the Prime Minister of Canada should play. I wonder if he should have rushed with such relish into the abattoir. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wondered when I heard the Prime Minister speaking whether he really supports the bill placed on the order paper by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). When I saw him bring whole batteries of rhetoric, whole arsenals of guided missiles of vitriol and invective in order to shoot one forlorn sitting duck-a sitting duck, indeed,


already crippled with a self-inflicted wound- I wondered if the Prime Minister really believes in the humane slaughter of animals.
However, there is this to be said: those who employ cheap shoddy and dishonest arguments cannot complain if their antagonists are not too choice in their selection of weapons and not too scrupulous in their use of their methods. When I read the acceptance speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition I found him saying "What is the situation now; after seven months of a Conservative government in office, unemployment rising to the highest level since recorded figures were taken". When I heard him speaking of the serious condition of our external trade and relating that condition to the first paragraph in which he mentioned the period of seven months of the Conservatives' in office, I felt such tactics were not worthy of the leader of a great party in this country. I say this because he knows, or if he does not he should know, that the train of events which has created our present discontents was already set in motion before he and his colleagues left office.
I know quite well that later on he said that it would, of course, be unfair to blame the government for all these things, but he created the impression-and I am unable to believe he did not intend to create that impression-that there is an automatic link between a Conservative government being in office and a high level of unemployment-fantastic suggestion that because one set of incompetents was thrown out of office to make room for another set of incompetents, then certain economic events have taken place.
While I say I deplored, coming from the Prime Minister of Canada, a savage and brutal attack such as he made yesterday, on the other hand I was unable to have too much sympathy with its victim because when he speaks of trade in this house and suggests that because the Prime Minister made some rather free-wheeling and perhaps indiscreet suggestions about diversion of trade to the United Kingdom that created our difficulties with the United States, he was again stating something which he knows, or ought to know, is not presenting the facts as they are. I commend him to the remarks of Sir Saville Garner, the British high commissioner, as reported on the radio this morning when Sir Saville was speaking of trade with the United Kingdom. He spoke of the ties of sentiment which link us with the United Kingdom but he said that trade is not a matter of sentiment, trade is hardheaded business.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the businessmen of

the United States are just as hardheaded as those of the United Kingdom and that if they see it is to their advantage to buy our oil, our base metals or any other of our basic commodities, they will do so and they will do so no matter whether the Prime Minister himself were to preside at a burning in effigy of Mr. Dulles in front of the parliament buildings and, conversely, if they do not wish to buy from us they will not do so despite the most honeyed phrases in the best diplomatic tradition.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was not a very happy day for this parliament. I think both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister can be very thankful that their performances yesterday were not exposed to the pitiless gaze of the public as was the great Liberal convention last week.
What did we have yesterday? We had the Prime Minister blaming the Liberals and the Liberals blaming the government and I was reminded when I listened to it of a rather amusing incident which took place many years ago in the legislature of British Columbia. We had in our group at that time a very witty and intelligent member who one day after she had listened to the premier and the leader of the opposition in that parliament engage in the sort of nonsense that we got from these two gentlemen yesterday in this chamber, rose to speak and said, "You know that reminds me of two nasty little boys confronted with a broken window; one says, 'You done it', and the other one says, 'You done it', when they both know in the bottom of their nasty little hearts that they both done it."
The Prime Minister was so busy reminding us of something of which no informed person needed to be reminded, because we are all well aware that the economy was on the down grade before June 10-in fact we were warned so recently as February of last year by the governor of the Bank of Canada-the Prime Minister was so anxious to remind us of that fact, that he forgot one thing. He forgot to tell us what he intends to do about it. Perhaps that is not fair, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe we are going to have a vast program of picnic grounds which to me, incidentally, bears rather an ominous sound because I recall that in the hungry thirties that is what we did in British Columbia. We put the unemployed, or some of them, to work making picnic grounds.
But the Prime Minister did not get around to telling us what he proposes to do any more than the Liberal convention or the Leader of the Opposition got around to telling us. We heard quite a lot about the infanticide of political ideas at the convention and everybody cheered it as a remarkably clever 96698-226i
Suggested Resignation of Government phrase. The Liberal party is, of course, a modern, progressive party and it does not believe in infanticide. It believes in birth control, and it made quite sure that no new ideas came to birth at that convention which might have to be strangled later on. Any ideas that might have come out of the "grass" were scarcely encouraged; the "grass" to which the "brass" was going to get so close, and it did, as close as the lawnmower gets to the grass that it rolls flat. This rejuvenated Liberal party did not tell us what it was going to do, either.
But if bold policies are to come from the Liberal party I would suggest-and I almost hesitate to say this today-that they may have to come from no less a place than the head of the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker, an interchange between that hon. gentleman and myself which took place on November 27th, 1957 and which is recorded at page 1594 of Hansard. I had been referring to, and very rashly attempting to paraphrase, a report of a speech which the hon. gentleman had made some time earlier, and I said:
I refer to the hon. member for Algoma East. It was a speech made shortly after the arrival of sputnik No. 1 on the horizon. During it he made this remark-and he will correct me if I have it incorrectly-or said something to this effect, that it now appears obvious that our social and economic organizations did not fit us to keep pace with the Russians. He qualified that statement later by saying that of course, even though it did not fit us to keep pace with the Russians, it was much to be preferred to that of the Russians and was much superior. It struck me, however, as a rather hopeful sign that a gentleman of his eminence should be prepared now in public to state that perhaps the time has come for a serious overhaul of our economic and social organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will my hon. friend tell me when I am supposed to have made those strange
observations?


Colin Cameron: I must apologize for not being able to do so because I did not clip out the article. But I will get it for the hon. member. I will admit that I was very much surprised to read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So am I.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will recall those words "these strange observations". It took me some time to find this speech but finally I got it, and I do not think it is confidential. I may say it was a speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, before he was elevated to that dignity, at the University of Minnesota on November 3 and he entitled his speech "Where do we go from here?" I wonder if that was prophetic. The part to which I refer, and to which he took exception, and which he stigmatized as "strange observations", is to be found on page 5 of his manuscript, and in order not to be accused of misquoting him by reading out of
3574	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government context, I am going to read the whole of the paragraph preceding the one I paraphrased:
What do we oppose to this controlled and centralized society? Too often, merely the well-worn cliches of the superiority of freedom and democracy and our "way of life". I don't want to be misunderstood. These things are superior to anything that Soviet communism can produce or will produce. The imposed order and the directed activity of the Russians may seem to give them at times a selective advantage over our free and competitive society, but in the long run there is no salvation, no hope, in their system because it enslaves the free thought and free soul of man to the dictates of a few irresponsible despots.
I imagine there is no one in this chamber who would quarrel with any of those words. But the hon. gentleman went on to say this:
While that "long run", however, is taking place, there are some signs that our own social and economic and political institutions will not be equal to the challenges which face them; that these cliches which I have mentioned are too empty of content for too many.
They were not too empty of content for the 5,000 Liberals who came to the coliseum last week. It is quite true that I used the expression "obvious" instead of "some signs" and that I did make specific reference to the Russians, but I assume that the hon. gentleman included the Russians among the challenges which face us. And if these remarks are strange-I do not think so; I think they are quite hopeful-in fact this is the only hope I have left for the Liberal party-then perhaps the leader of that party will yet come forward with some constructive ideas, and will yet decide to lead his party in the spirit of that document.
I was astonished that the hon. member should have stigmatized those remarks or rather my rough paraphrase of them, as being strange observations. He can, maybe, find some way of avoiding doing anything about them, but I should like to ask him this: what does he think now? Does he still think that our social and political and economic institutions require some reorganization? Does he still have doubts as to whether they will fit us to meet the challenges before us, and, if he still has those doubts, how does he propose to change them and in what form? I think the people of Canada are entitled to know that today. It was not very important what the hon. member for Algoma East said in Minnesota, but it is very important today what the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is prepared to say in this chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He should have said it in his amendment yesterday.


Colin Cameron: I am not sure whether we should go back to that sad afternoon. It strikes me as a tragedy in the vein of Greek tragedy in which by an inexorable process


the fates overtake those who display the qualities of heart and mind that invite the fates.
Yesterday we were discussing elections, and I did some figuring and came to the conclusion that the next election I fight- and it seems this will not be too far away- will be the eleventh, counting by-elections and general elections. During this career I have faced more defeats than victories but out of this harsh and bitter school of experience I have been able to find a few small nuggets of wisdom for politicians- and I use the word "politicians" in this sense: a politician, to my mind, is a member of a profession which is the very core of our democratic process-and the chief nugget of wisdom I have found in the course of that very chequered career is that there is one defect which a politician cannot possibly have and hope to survive, and that is the defect of irresoluteness. And I could not help thinking yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition must have wished he had a Lady MacBeth beside him to whisper in his ear: "Infirm of purpose, give me the dagger".
Now what are those gentlemen going to do? What are those two naughty boys with their broken window going to do? I am going to suggest to both of them that the Canadian people will not be interested in whether the decline in our economy took place after June 11 or whether it had begun before that date. They want to know what is going to be done today. You are now being faced with a problem which you have been avoiding for 20 years. Now let us see you make it work.
You will not make it work by adopting the role of Pollyanna. As a matter of fact, I am surprised how Pollyanna hops back and forth across this chamber. Or, perhaps more correctly, Pollyanna always sits on the government side of the house but a different person takes her role. The Minister of Finance this afternoon was speaking the lines of his predecessor in the role of Pollyanna. One of his colleagues, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) was out in my part of the world not long ago where he made a speech which is reported in the Vancouver Sun of January 16, 1958, under the heading, "Living in Fool's Paradise". The article reads in part:
Lumbermen Rap Hees for Rosy Industry Forecast
Transport Minister Hees needs a new crystal ball, in the opinion of British Columbia forest industry leaders.
Mr. Hees, in an address to the Truck Loggers' Association Wednesday, forecast higher sales of Canadian lumber and wood pulp at home and abroad in 1958.

Suggested Resignation of Government
He said the lumber industry can expect a better year in 1958, and that in the case of wood pulp there appears to be more opportunities for increased sales.
He added that many of the obstacles faced by exporters have been, or are being, removed and no new major adverse developments have appeared.
It was the rosiest outlook painted for British Columbia's number one industry in many months and the reaction of industry officials was fast and irate.
"The minister appears to have been misinformed," said Ralph Shaw, president of MacMillan and Bloedel.
"The situation we face is so serious that we should be aware of it and act accordingly. Living in a fool's paradise of unfounded optimism could get us into serious trouble."
"We only wish Mr. Hees' forecasts were true but our economists warn us that 1958 will be a year of continuing adverse results for us," said Peter Sinclair, head of Crown Zellerbach Canada.
M. J. Foley, president of Powell River Company, said provided the pulp and paper industry remained competitive and could keep costs down, there might be some minor improvements this year, but he added:
"There is no such present indication."
These gentlemen who are now in office are as blithely optimistic as the gentlemen they put out of office last June. Neither of these parties has come up with any positive, concrete program for dealing with this severe economic crisis which, as I said yesterday, was dealt with at such intolerable length by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The Canadian people will not be satisfied with words in this chamber. The Canadian public wants to know what you people are going to do and if they do not like what you are doing then I trust they will be given an opportunity to choose between you when our Liberal friends seek, as I hope they will, to repair some of the damage they suffered yesterday by voting for the eminently moderate and carefully thought-out subamendment which we have placed before this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. member of this house regardless of with which party he is associated will readily understand how I feel when I say in my first words since the election of the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) to the leadership of the Liberal party that I join with all my colleagues in the Liberal party in pledging him my support, loyalty and faith in his capacity to make a great contribution to our party and to the public life of Canada.
I venture to suggest that it is no extravagant utterance for one associated as I have been with the hon. member for such a long period to say that his career both as a public servant, as a member of this house, as a former president of the United Nations and as one of the world's most distinguished
figures makes him the kind of man who surely, whatever may be our political conviction, would cause us all to recognize as a future Prime Minister of Canada. I am sure that what I have said thus far will find agreement in every quarter of this house; but I venture to express the view now, speaking as an obvious partisan, that he will become prime minister much sooner than most hon. members in this house think.
It must be obvious that the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition really did hit home because it provoked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to make the longest speech -1 have ever heard him make in the course of 12 or 14 years in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the best.


Paul Joseph James Martin: From the point of view of debate one of his best, but from the point of view of content one of his worst. The speech made by my leader was one that obviously disturbed the Prime Minister but it also disturbed my hon. friends sitting down to my immediate left in the far corner of the house, as well as the leader of the Social Credit party. By the way, I want to acknowledge at once to that party my deep appreciation for their foregoing their opportunity to speak at this moment in order to give me the opportunity of participating in this debate.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman suggests that we were foregoing our opportunity to speak at this time. I wish to point out that we are doing nothing of the sort. We receive only one opportunity to speak out of every six opportunities. It would be the normal opportunity for a Liberal to speak at this time and not a member of this party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not want to embarrass my hon. friend in any way. I understood from the whip that that was the situation. My hon. friend, I am sure, will understand that I did not say that with any malice whatsoever.
It is obvious that the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition is one that greatly disturbed the Prime Minister because that hon. gentleman not only attacked the views of the Leader of the Opposition but he also attacked his courage. Although he did not attack his integrity he came pretty close to the kind of body blow which, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat said, one would never have expected particularly on an occasion like yesterday to have been launched by the Queen's first minister in this country and in this house.


Mr. Small:: Your leader asked for it.
3576	HOUSE OF
Suggested, Resignation of Government


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Someone said, "He asked for it". The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is one which, having in mind all the circumstances, undoubtedly marks him as a man of the greatest capacity both in opposition and ultimately to establish the right for himself to sit immediately opposite in the seat now occupied by the Prime Minister.
I should have thought that the occasion yesterday was one on which the Prime Minister, recognizing the necessary importance that we must all attach to world affairs at this time and to the easing of the international tension, would have taken the cue from his Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) who when sworn into office said he hoped he could see develop in this country a bi-partisan foreign policy. I would have thought that yesterday the Prime Minister, recognizing the prominent qualities of the Leader of the Opposition as one of the great figures among those men and women who have worked for peace in our time-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, others have worked for peace, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, others have, but he is the only Canadian ever to have won the Nobel peace prize. I would have thought it appropriate if the Prime Minister had risen yesterday and said in effect, "As one of the Atlantic powers and as a member of the United Nations, Canada has difficult problems facing her in the world today. You have had great experience in these matters and just as you, when you were secretary of state for external affairs, collaborated on the traditionally generous scale with the former leader of the opposition I, as Prime Minister, particularly now that you have been elected to the leadership of the largest opposing group in this house, will seek to take advantage of collaborating with you in trying to make a common contribution toward the promotion of a satisfactory and constructive foreign policy in Canada".
I should have thought that is what he would do, but no, we did not have that kind of offer from the Prime Minister who generally I have found to be a rather understanding and generous man even though a very formidable opponent. I would have thought that yesterday, taking advantage of the greatness of this occasion, the kind of occasion in which he loves to participate, he would have said: I recognize that although we are opponents we have in foreign policy a minimum of differences. I recognize your experience and I would like from time to time to collaborate with you in our foreign policy. But no, what did the Prime Minister do? He at once, early in his speech, first by 

implication and then by direction, attacked the loyalty of the Leader of the Opposition-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, no.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: -toward the commonwealth. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) today, again by implication, did the same thing. I want to say to the Prime Minister that when he speaks in this house he speaks as no other member does because he has a position of the highest authority, and every word that he uses should be used with the greatest of care. To suggest, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that the Leader of the Opposition now holding this great office is a man not dedicated to the commonwealth, knowing that his words will go around the world was, I say, a most irresponsible act of statesmanship. That is not what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said. He regards the Leader of the Opposition as a man-it is true they do not share the same political convictions-who has made great contributions, not only to the United Nations and to NATO but to the commonwealth of nations. I hold in my hand a report of a speech in Le Soleil on April 4.
Le conferencier...
That is Mr. Smith, the president of the University of Toronto.
( Translation):
The lecturer stated that the role of Canada in the great British family of nations has been particularly noticeable and brilliant during the Middle East crisis last autumn.
(Text):
This is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the Prime Minister's government speaking. Compare the words which I just read with the words I now translate as coming from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Quebec on April 3:
The role of Canada in the great British family of nations has been particularly noticeable and brilliant during the Middle East crisis last autumn.
These are the kind of words which should flow from a man who holds the responsible post of foreign minister, but the Prime Minister has no less a responsibility in that particular than has his Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What did the prime minister of Great Britain say in Bermuda about the same Leader of the Opposition? He said a year ago before Christmas, at a meeting with President Eisenhower, in a broadcast made to this country and to the world, that no one had contributed more to the preservation of the unity of the commonwealth in the last two preceding months than had Canada's secretary of state for external affairs. Surely what my hon. friend has learned by this

Suggested Resignation of Government
time, if he had not learned it before, as a result of the prime ministers' conference in London, is that the British commonwealth, the great agency for peace that it is, is made up not only of Canada, not only of Australia, not only of New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom, but also of Ceylon, of India and of Pakistan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And Ghana and Malaya.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: And all of the
other constituents. My hon. friend knows that as a result of the work, the hard work, done by the former secretary of state for external affairs, and by my former chief, because of his participation in the second-last prime ministers' conference, they have done more to promote the cause of commonwealth unity than any contemporary statesman in this country.
We are here confronted with a particular motion. The Minister of Finance nods his head.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, shakes it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Well, shakes it. One of these days he is going to shake it off.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You keep on making untrue statements and I will shake it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We are here at this time to discuss two amendments directed against this government and one of them calls the government's attention to something which this government will not be allowed to escape from, namely its responsibility in the matter of unemployment in this country.
We have been told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that there are almost
800,000	individuals who have applied for unemployment insurance. We were told by him yesterday that as of mid-December there were 386,000 men out of work. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: He is here.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am glad he is. I am sure the minister will not deny what I am going to say. By the time he received the last report the number of jobless in this country was close to 500,000, and the number of individuals who are now applicants for unemployment insurance is away above the figure of 800,000.
The Minister of Finance spoke a moment ago, and in speaking of this situation he tried to minimize it. He said that the working force was greater now than at any time before in Canadian history. I said that was not true in the month of December. I want to point out what I meant when I interjected. In the month of December last there were 5,061,000 individuals in our working
force working 35 hours a week or more. Excuse me, that was December, 1956. As of December, 1957, there were 4,887,000 men in our working force working 35 hours or more a week. To point out that because the working force is greater today as an excuse for there being 700,000 to 800,000 men and women applicants for unemployment insurance and close to 500,000 men out of work is to give an explanation that does not in any way relieve the kind of suffering that attends any one man who is out of work, no matter who is responsible, which government, which party or which situation. The fact is that this government cannot escape the fact that we now have unemployment at the highest level at this time of the year as compared with any other period, higher than since 1933. These are the facts that cannot be overlooked.
As an indication of the seriousness of this matter, I find, for instance, that in September, 1956, unemployment insurance benefits paid out amounted to $7 million in round figures; in 1957 for the same month the figure was $13,786,000. In October of 1956, $8 million was paid out compared with $16 million in October of last year. In November of 1956, $9 million was paid out compared with $18 million, in November, 1957. In January of 1956 the figure was $33 million representing the amount paid out, and it is estimated that this month there will come out of the unemployment insurance fund $63 million. It is estimated that in February $69 million will be paid compared with $38 million in the same month of 1956. As for the month of March I have seen the estimate made that $72 million will be paid out compared with $44 million in March, 1956.


Michael Starr: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Could he tell me the source of his information, please?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are my estimates based on available reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right. Hon. gentlemen can say "oh, oh,", but I ask the Minister of Labour now, will he deny that these estimates are fairly accurate?


Michael Starr: I am not a prophet as the hon. member pretends to be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right. I suppose-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If they are accurate it will be something new.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the Minister of Finance was about to say that this kind of observation is the kind of observation that creates panic, that creates fear, the kind of observation that leads to a depression. That
3578	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government is what he said in his speech a while ago and I fully expected a moment ago that he was going to make such an interjection as a result of the statement I have just made. Just so he will not make it, let me remind him of the words of the present Prime Minister who spoke in the house on unemployment on February 15, 1954. At that time we had some slight seasonal unemployment, nothing like what we have now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Minto Churchill: What were your figures then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell you what the figures were. They were under
80,000	and today they are 500,000. Here is what the then member for Prince Albert had to say, as found at page 2103 of Hansard:
We are not trying to build up fears that will bring on a depression. What we are trying to do is have parliament make a contribution now, to the end that we shall be able as a nation to compete in the markets of the world and thereby assure employment to Canadians in Canada. That is the purpose of this amendment, and it was in that spirit we moved it.
I say to the Prime Minister it is in that spirit that those of us in the opposition groups are asking the Prime Minister to take action, the man who said in my city on May 10, when there were 8,000 men unemployed, "elect me and I will see that this kind of situation is corrected." I say to the same man who made these observations:	We
remind you of what you said when you were sitting on this side of the house and just as you charged us with responsibility then, we charge you now as the head of the government that you should do something about this problem.
But the Prime Minister has done something about this problem. He told the press he had done so. I have before me a press clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 24, 1957. Here is what the Prime Minister said on his way home after the NATO meeting, after his famous television broadcast in which he gave us such an intimate and detailed account of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit meeting. Here is what he said to the reporter in Winnipeg:
The government "has acted and will continue to act" to meet the current unemployment problem.
What were the figures then? What has the government done to meet the current unemployment problem?


An hon. Member:: Speeches.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister had another idea when he was on the opposition side. He said to the government of the day headed by the right hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent), "I will


tell you one way to cure this problem; call the provinces together, let us have a conference, let us discuss this problem." I say to the Prime Minister, and I am going to quote his words in a few minutes, that that sounds to me like a pretty good idea, particularly when we are confronted with the greatest unemployment level we have had since the last Tory government in 1935.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a result of your policies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that sounds like a good idea. Why does the Prime Minister not call the provinces together? If he calls them together he can have a double purpose in mind. He can do something, as he promised he would, about fiscal relations and he can also take advantage of their presence in Ottawa to discuss unemployment in accordance with his suggestion in 1955 that the provinces should be called together. What the Prime Minister said in that connection, when addressing himself to an amendment respecting unemployment, is found in Hansard of March 15, 1955, at page 2039. This is the present Prime Minister speaking, the then hon. member for Prince Albert. He was not leader of the opposition then. If he had been, possibly he would have chosen his words a little more carefully. However, here is what the Prime Minister said to the former prime minister who is now sitting next to the Leader of the Opposition:
The people are asking for a promise of action. Will the Prime Minister not assure the Canadian people that he believes action is necessary and that when this conference-
The conference about which I spoke.
-meets in three, four or five weeks, one of the first things to which this conference will give consideration is the problem of unemployment?
I say now, paraphrasing the language of the Prime Minister, will he not reconvene the dominion-provincial conference so that he and his colleagues and the governments of the various provinces can give consideration to the problem of unemployment which is greater now than it was then? The Prime Minister went on to say on that occasion:
Will he not state that he realizes that If we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future?
But we are not through with the Prime Minister. I should like to refer to what he said earlier in his speech and I commend these words to him today. I ask him to realize that he must be held to account for the things that he said during the election campaign. I do not say for one minute that the Prime Minister and his government are entirely responsible for the situation. I will deal with that later. But the difference

between the right hon. gentleman and those of us who sit on this side is that in the last and preceding elections we never undertook to resolve and cure these problems-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only to hide them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in the same authoritative way that characterized the utterances of the leader of the party which now constitutes the government of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You pretended they did not exist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is what the Prime Minister said in the same debate on March 15, 1955. I can understand how the Prime Minister, squirming now, will say that we ought to realize this is a very difficult problem, these people who were over here ought to know something about the difficulties of government. Listen to these words, and I ask the Prime Minister if they are not fair comment at this time.
Well, what have the unemployed to hope for from the debate that has taken place?
I ask the Prime Minister what have the unemployed in our country to hope for from the speech he delivered yesterday?
What has the government to offer?
I say now, what has the government to offer?
Then he goes on:
What salutary degree of hope and expectation may rise in the hearts of the unemployed of this country as they listened to the minister's lengthy speech-
He was referring to the speech by the Minister of Labour. If I may paraphrase it, what hope have the unemployed of this country got from listening to the lengthy speech of the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday? Mr. Speaker, this government has a responsibility, and no amount of opposition on the other side is going to relieve any hon. member from his share of responsibility in this matter. We say to the government, you are not entirely responsible for this situation. The quotations the Prime Minister made yesterday from this confidential document do not affect the situation whatever. Of course, there was a gathering storm at that time. My hon. friend will find in the report of the Bank of Canada and in the white paper of the previous minister of finance the same kind of generalizations as were found in this report which was categorized both as confidential and as secret.
In that connection, I should like to say this to the Prime Minister. I have not been able to find any rule which precludes any minister from giving to parliament the contents of a confidential document from one 96698-227
Suggested Resignation of Government public servant to a minister or to that minister's colleagues. But I do say this to the Prime Minister: rule or no rule, there is a tradition and that tradition has been respected in this parliament, is respected in the parliament at Westminster. I know only of one instance that I was able to find in Herbert Morrison's book last night where that was done.
Yesterday the Prime Minister destroyed the anonymity which must always attend the public servants of this country. Yesterday, by revealing confidential documents, the Prime Minister has placed the public servants of this country in a very difficult position. I say to the Prime Minister that he will regret the action that he took in revealing that document. He did not need to go to confidential sources. He did not need to embarrass public officials who are called upon to serve all governments, regardless of their political persuasion. He could have gone to the Bank of Canada report. He could have read the speech of the minister of finance when he presented the last budget. He could have read to us a lot of reports in which he would have found the very same statements.
My honourable friend wanted to convey, using the technique and manner of the courtroom, to the Canadian people that the government, headed by a man of the greatest integrity, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent), had deliberately concealed from the public of Canada a document to which they were entitled. I say to the Prime Minister that was one of his most unworthy moments yesterday.
How were they going to cure unemployment? The Prime Minister gave us a revealing answer to this problem. It was made with the same vigour, the same determination that characterized the speech he made in the Kennedy collegiate in Windsor when he was confronted with 8,000 unemployed people. Yesterday, when asked how he would cure this, what he had done about it, he said they had reduced the excise tax by 2i per cent. That is how my hon. friend cures unemployment. When the budget was introduced, the miniature budget or whatever the Minister of Finance wants to call it, there where then 10,000 men out of work in the city of Windsor, an automobile centre, who might have profited a great deal from a reduction in excise taxes.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not do it
when you were in power?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to that is easy. I have already given it. The prime minister of that day said that when sales of automobiles indicated that the excise tax was
3580	HOUSE OF
Suggested Resignation of Government responsible for the discouragement of sales, then the government would give consideration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -yes, and on June 10 we had a background of an 18 per cent increase for the first quarter. The difference between my hon. friend's point of view and mine is this, that he promised action but gave us a miserable 2J per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Were you not in office during the second quarter when sales were dropping very rapidly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: One could very well query why it was not 5 per cent. One could very well query minister after minister who sits in this house now as to why the tax reduction was 2J per cent; why it was not 5 per cent as reported in the Toronto Telegram and several other newspapers? One could ask each minister if he could explain why the tax was reduced by 2J per cent and not completely eliminated, as the prime minister stated in Windsor was a possibility.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that anyone could fairly say that this disquietude that exists in Canada is entirely the responsibility of this government. But I think we are entitled to say that any government whose prime minister attends the prime ministers' conference in London, having gone there for the purpose of promoting an economic and trade conference, who does not discuss at that conference a very important proposal he later made to the newsmen in Ottawa, a prime minister who recklessly makes a proposal such as the 15 per cent diversionary proposal, is a prime minister who, by that very mark, has contributed and is contributing to the state of economic disquietude that now prevails in our country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a regrettable fact, but it is nevertheless a fact notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said, that this problem of unemployment is North American, that unemployment is skyrocketing in Canada, more so than it is in the United States or any other North American country. One of the contributing factors as far as confidence is concerned, one of the contributing factors in so far as accentuating this problem is concerned, is the trade policy of this government, taking away trade from our best customer, disturbing one of our best channels of trade for the next quarter of a century and then refusing 

to give the kind of consideration which a friendly country should give to such a country as the United Kingdom when it puts forward a proposition by which the proposal of the Prime Minister himself could be made effective within the terms of the General Agreement on Trade.
The Prime Minister showed a complete disregard in his speech of yesterday with respect to his own proposal of a 15 per cent diversion and also with respect to the British proposal for freer trade. Not one single reference was made by him yesterday, or by him at any time during the course of the present session of parliament, to this matter. If the Prime Minister wants to do something to restore the confidence of this country, of the business agricultural communities, of the working groups, and indeed of all the population of our country, let him give evidence of his sincere conviction in respect to the trade policies which he himself has pursued. Let him give evidence that they are based upon careful and not reckless considerations.
The Prime Minister has belittled the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition


An hon. Member:: And why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -an amendment which provides for a system of national scholarships for the needy students in this country, an amendment that provides for assistance to those dependent groups in our country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What did you do about it? Why didn't you do something about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -who under a social welfare program introduced by the Mackenzie King government and a similar one introduced by the St. Laurent government could take their place with comparable systems in any country in the world.
Now we are being asked by the gentlemen at our left to support their amendment when they leave out one of the essential clauses which provides for that support of Liberal policies-


Stanley Howard Knowles: it is spelled with a capital "L" that makes all the difference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend who was once wrongly characterized as a Liberal in a hurry ought to carefully examine the implications of what he has just said. The only way of ever realizing the basic policies of the hon. gentlemen who sit under

Suggested Resignation of Government
the gangplank is by supporting the policies that were adopted at the last national Liberal convention.
The most important reason tor supporting this amendment is that it was proposed by the new leader of the Liberal party who represents-and I say this to the Prime Minister because of his responsibility for international problems-it was put forward by a man who now holds the important post of Leader of the Opposition and who remains in this country and in the free world as the single most solid potential voice for freedom and maintenance of peace at this time.


An hon. Member:: I have never heard anything so ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister and obviously the gentleman opposite do not relish the fact that we now have sitting immediately opposite the Prime Minister a man who has not only been recognized by Canadians for what he has done, but has been recognized by the various agencies among the nations as giving one of the most effective hopes for peace.


Some hon. Members:: Your time is up. Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I recognize-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, Paul.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with an interesting comparison tonight in the closing words of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in which he spoke of "the single solid potential voice". I ask you, sir, to compare that single solid potential voice with the weak, reedy and ramshackle amendment which is before the house. One thing, I think, should be made quite clear at this stage of the debate is that while the leader of a party-and I refer here of course to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) - must bear his share of the responsibility for an amendment which he moves-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fulion:: Responsibility is shared equally, as is the ruin and catastrophe obviously also to be borne equally, by the whole Liberal party. We remember, sir, that after the brave words of Thursday night, from which there has been beaten such a hurried retreat, we were told that the decision as to what should be done would be submitted to caucus and we have before us now the decision of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, a retreat both from courage and from commonsense.
Let us leave no doubt about it, this is a sad end of a once great party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The sad end of a speech!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. members have very little time in which to hear the hon. gentleman and they had better pay close attention to him.


James Ross Fulton: The party which now seeks to be transposed without going through the ordinary process of meeting the people, a party which seven months ago was rejected by the people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Ross Fulton: -those who were rejected by the people seven months ago are now afraid-


An hon. Member:: We have heard that before.


Jean Lesage: Who had the greatest number of votes?


Some hon. Members:: Go to the country.


James Ross Fulton: - afraid, Mr. Speaker, not only to face this house on a clear issue, but deeply afraid of facing the people.
Let us compare this amendment, this ramshackle contraption of compromise and confusion with the brave words of Thursday night; this amendment carefully designed to avoid a vote in this house upon which a test of strength might be joined. Let us compare it with the brave words uttered by the leader of the Liberal party when he said the grass should meet the brass. Now both the brass and the grass are further apart than ever, and the brass over there remains as solid as ever, and the grass is as remote as ever from their thinking. One would have thought that even if they were afraid to meet their own grass at their own convention they might have been ready to meet the people of Canada at the polls of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Call an election.


An hon. Member:: You won't be back.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask both sides of the house to maintain silence for the few minutes that remain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a pity that hon. gentlemen opposite are not half as brave as their loud shouting would indicate. It is a pity they did not recognize that yesterday morning when they met in caucus and agreed on this half-baked resolution designed to avoid a government defeat in the House of Commons. The issue has been made very clear to us by the words of one of their own senior statesmen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: -senior members.
3582	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Suggested Resignation of Government Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): We want Paul.


Some hon. Members:: We want Paul, we want Paul.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That term, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 4 (d) of Standing Order 56 to interrupt these proceedings and put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Shall I dispense with reading it?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.



TRADE-PROPOSED UNITED STATES TARIFF ON BASE METALS

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I raise this very important question
3584	HOUSE OF
XJ.S. Tariff on Base Metals this evening because I am convinced that neither the government nor the public of Canada are aware of the very serious threat to our economy resulting from the proposed tariff on base metals entering the United States. I know that other members are vitally concerned about this question, and I am sure they will be happy to have this opportunity of discussing it. I am rising also at this time because I believe that because of the manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) introduced his budgetary proposals no other opportunity will be provided for members to speak on specific economic questions affecting their constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will hon. members kindly settle down so that the hon. member who has the floor can be heard.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, because I am suffering from a cold and I do not want to speak any louder or longer than is absolutely necessary to place this question squarely before the government.
The Canadian public must be made aware of the circumstances surrounding the production, distribution and sale of this strategic war material. In fact, I believe that because some questions have been asked in the house and other publicity given to the matter the government is now beginning to receive telegrams and letters from the towns and cities which would be affected by the proposed tariff on lead and zinc. I am sure that once the public has been made aware of the facts, they will rally even more fully behind the government in their protests to the United States authorities. I was somewhat discouraged, however, with respect to the question I put on January 17 to the Minister of Finance which was answered the same day to the effect that no formal protest in writing had been made. However, on the following day, the Minister of Finance did qualify that answer, and as recorded on page 3455 of Hansard he said:
I find on checking the file that on July 19, 1957-
That I might say was over six months ago-
-a message was sent to Washington, with a formal note attached to it from the Canadian government; and that formal note was presented to the department of state of the United States respecting proposals-
I had hoped that some active protests would have been made by this time, and they would have been made in writing. I want to say at this point that I feel the government's announced policy of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom has in no way strengthened their case. I believe that this policy has done immeasurable harm and this has been evidenced, quite obviously,

U.S. Tariff on Base Metals Canadian producers of lead and zinc bear as the main supplier of the United States market, higher tariffs would seriously jeopardize the availability of these strategic materials. In the face of declining reserves in the United States it is most important for them to maintain a healthy base metal industry in Canada from which they may be supplied by land routes.
Imposition by the president of the maximum tariffs allowed under existing agreements would force a one-third cutback in Canadian production. Many otherwise profitable mines would be closed, flooded and lost beyond repair, and one-third of the employees in the industry would be seeking other employment at a time when some 500,000 are already on the unemployment rolls.
I should like to point out here that the floor under wages is less than one-third of the going wages in the mining industry. When I say "floor" I refer, of course, to unemployment insurance.
For the United States this is as much a time for wise decision based on a prudent view of the future as it is for Canada. That country faces rapidly depleting ore reserves, whereas in Canada the reserves are growing rapidly. The time is not far off when the United States will depend to an even greater extent on Canadian production. In war or peace the United States must come to Canada for its supply. Metal supplies, it must be pointed out, cannot be turned on and off like a tap, and in order that continued growth may be assured tariff walls must be broken down rather than constructed.
More vigour is required in our negotiations. If necessary let the government renounce its announced policy of diverting 15 per cent of its purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. Then perhaps they will be on a more equal footing around the trade conference table where members of the government should be, in my opinion, at this very moment.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) who has just spoken represents a large number of miners at the famous Sullivan mine at Kimberley, and I represent a large number of smelter workers in the city of Trail and miners who work in the various hard rock mines around my constituency.
The majority of these miners and others affected are employees of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is a miner by profession, and knows what he is talking about when he is dealing with mining questions. I happen to be the only peasant


farmer in the House of Commons, but I have a knowledge of what a serious matter this is to the mining industry in general and to its employees. It is a matter of great concern because the jobs of thousands are threatened if this action is taken by the United States government. The economic life of these people and of whole communities in which they live is at stake. I would say it is the most grave question facing the mining industry in British Columbia at the present time and, I am sure, other sections of the mining industry in Canada.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, I would add that the hon. member for Kootenay East is a member of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers and that I am an honorary member. We both have been in close touch for a good many years with the people in the industry and with the employees generally, so we know their feelings concerning this matter.
What has been done to date to try to bring this situation to the attention of the appropriate persons? I must say, first of all, that the national officers of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers accompanied by representatives of various locals from British Columbia met various members of the cabinet-of this government-in August, I think, and presented briefs to which a great deal of study had been given by the research department of the union and by the officials, in particular, closely associated with this problem in British Columbia.
There, I understand, they received a courteous and fair hearing and were told that the matter would receive the most serious consideration of the government. Then various local unions sent telegrams to members of parliament and to other organizations drawing the attention of the appropriate persons to the seriousness of this situation. Just to indicate the tenor of these telegrams I am going to place one on the record which I received from local 480 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers at Trail which reads as follows:
The membership of local 480 protest the Imposition of any increased tariffs on Canadian lead and zinc export to United States of America. We also oppose any metal quota system imposed on Canadian producers. Should the United States institute penalties on Canadian base metal imports then we urge that Canada take retaliatory actions by invoking export embargoes on nickel, asbestos and other products.
A1 King, President, local 480 Trail and District Smelterworkers Union.
To indicate the serious concern that exists with respect to this question I would point out that I received similar telegrams from the Trail branch of the Canadian Legion, the

mayor of the city of Trail and from the mayor of the city of Rossland. All these communities are very seriously concerned with the situation.
What has been done by the industry to date to bring this matter to the attention of the government and the appropriate authorities? As the hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned, the Canadian metal mining association made a submission to the United States tariff commission which was presented on behalf of the lead and zinc producing industry of Canada. The brief contains a thorough and exhaustive study of the situation and an analysis of the impact of this increase in tariff on the lead and zinc producing industry of Canada, the Canadian mining industry and its further reaction on allied business and employment.
The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company made submissions to the United States tariff commission in November 1957 when hearings were in effect on this question. The brief they presented goes very fully into the whole situation. I am not going to quote from it because the hon. member for Kootenay East dealt with certain aspects of the situation and I do not wish to repeat what he said. However, it does serve to indicate the concern felt by the industry, the employees and the communities that will be affected by any increase in the tariff on lead and zinc.
In addition to that, the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers and its various locals made representations to members of parliament, particularly those from mining constituencies, and they have sent letters and telegrams. They have done everything in their power to bring this to the attention of the government and members of parliament.
What have the members of this house done? Hon. members and particularly those who represent mining constituencies have taken every opportunity to raise this subject in the house as has been done tonight and also to ask the ministers questions on orders of the day and on estimates and at any other appropriate time.
What has the government done to date? In response to any questions on this subject raised throughout this session which have been addressed to members of the government requesting information we have received brief replies to the effect that the matter was receiving consideration or to the effect that no response had been received from the United States government to date, and so on. However, we were told quite recently that the Canadian government had sent a note to the United States in August and other than that note the rest of the
XJ.S. Tariff on Base Metals representations, we understand, have been oral representations made to the United States government when appropriate ministers or other persons were in Washington or meeting with United States authorities. We are decidedly under the impression, and I want to be fair, that the government has not really made the greatest effort possible in this connection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know that the hon. and genial minister will do the best he can but we are trying to give him an extra shove tonight because this is an important question to many Canadians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not shove too hard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before concluding I want to bring to the attention of the minister and the house the peculiar situation that exists in view of the possible increase in tariff on lead and zinc. I have not the exact figures with me this evening but I hope at some future date to have some well worked out figures to illustrate and clarify the unusual situation that exists at the present time.
During the last year while the prices of lead and zinc have been falling in Canada the prices of cars, for instance, which contain a considerable amount of lead and zinc, have been going up. While the price of copper has dropped from something just under 50 cents a pound at its peak in the last year to 23 cents a pound at this time we are informed that on certain manufactured copper goods in Canada there has been an increase in the retail price of 20 per cent. This is a most unusual situation. While the prices of the raw materials are dropping on lead, zinc and copper and wages have remained practically stationary throughout that period the price to the consumer of cars and of certain copper goods manufactured in Canada have been increasing, and in the case of copper manufactured goods the increase has been 20 per cent. I suggest that this situation warrants careful investigation. I think there should be an investigation into the spread between the cost to the producer and the consumer in industry and manufactured goods as well as in agriculture.
In addition to that Canadians are mulcted twice on some commodities. The United States imposes a tariff against Canadian lead, zinc and copper going into the United States and then when those goods are manufactured from our raw materials another tariff has to be paid on those goods returning to Canada and so in effect the Canadian pays two tariffs on goods manufactured in the United
3588	HOUSE OF
XJ.S. Tariff on Base Metals States from natural resources mined in Canada. I bring that to the attention of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak at length because I want to give other hon. members an opportunity to speak on this question and I know that the very bright hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) is just aching to get on his feet as he is very interested in this question. Before resuming my seat, however, I want to urge the strongest protest on the part of the Canadian government to the proper United States authorities at this and failing any fair response to that protest which I think is based on very sound and fair grounds in view of our trade agreements with the United States then I urge this government to take some retaliatory economic action with respect to nickel, asbestos and other commodities of which we have the major supply.
(Translation):


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the economic wealth of a nation is in direct ratio to its natural resources. These, as they become known and developed are, in a sense, the central source of motive power which serves to distribute life throughout the whole nation. As goes this source of power, so goes the nation.
While, under our constitution, the administration of the mining industry and certain other resources is a provincial responsibility, the central government still has an important part to play in this regard. It is up to it to foster the use of mining products and others and to ensure their distribution.
Though we might have plenty of oil and other mineral products, they will be of no use to us whatever if we cannot use them, or sell them to others. We should try to process our own raw materials in this country, in so far at least as we are in a position to absorb the finished product.
A greater and more exacting population, together with growing industrialization, will gradually achieve that result for us. In all fairness, however, we must admit that, if part of our primary products are exported as raw materials because they can be more economically processed abroad, the converse is also true. It is as raw material that we import bauxite from South America to process it into aluminum in Canada, thanks to our hydro-electric power. I am sure that all members have heard of Kitimat, in British Columbia, and of Arvida and Comeau Bay in Quebec, so I need not labour the point. Be that as it may, a realistic export policy is absolutely necessary both for our surplus raw materials and for our manufactured


products. That was the policy of the Liberal party and it will again be its policy when it is called upon to preside over the destinies of this country.
Divine Providence willed it that Canada and the United States complete each other geographically. Of our five natural geographical areas, four are closely linked with four identical areas in the neighbouring country. Our economic exchanges take place, therefore, in a north-south and south-north direction. To some extent, this condition may be modified but must never be ignored nor unduly interfered with. The efforts of any Canadian government which, through sentimentality, bravado, naivety or incompetence, ignores the requirements of that geographical situation will be useless, and doomed to failure. Some recent and unhappy events are a convincing proof of it. Since the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Liberal party has succeeded in harmoniously developing our economic relations with the United States while maintaining the integrity of our territory and our institutions. Once again, it will devote itself to that task when, very soon now, the Canadian people will bring it back to power.
Thanks to God, the natural resources of Canada are tremendous. Whether we like it or not, they represent a stake for which the free nations and the rest of the world are competing. If we know how to use them for the benefit of mankind by trying hard to fill the granaries and storehouses of the nations that are deprived of life's barest necessities, we shall not have to use them for stocking up their arsenals and furbishing their weapons. Communism and its despots will always be helpless when faced with the wealth and happiness that every human being has the right to hope for in this world. The hon. members sitting on this side of the house have already made up their mind in this respect. (Text):


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) with great interest.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister would like to permit the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian), who wishes to speak on the same subject-


James Sinclair: I wish to speak on the same subject, also.


Howard Charles Green: I am perfectly free to speak, since I will not be closing the debate.


James Sinclair: You must speak on the same grievance.


An hon. Member:: Have you a grievance?

V.S. Tariff on Base Metals


Howard Charles Green: As I said, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the members who have spoken on this subject. Coming as I do originally from the Kootenay country in British Columbia, which was opened up as a silver, lead, zinc mining district, in fact I date back a long time farther than either of the members for the Kootenays in that district because I happened to be born there. Always, of course, the residents of that part of British Columbia have been vitally interested in what has been done with silver, lead and zinc. I can assure the hon. members representing the Kootenay district that the present government is just as vitally concerned as they are about this question. They need not think for a minute that they have to convince us that Canada should take a stand with regard to this suggestion that there should be a lead-zinc tariff imposed by the United States.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) outlined very clearly what has been done, and what will be done, when he answered a question on this subject on Saturday last, to be found at page 3455 of Hansard. There he pointed out that a note had been sent to Washington within less than a month of the time that the new government took over, namely on July 19, and he promised that the note would be tabled and the answer thereto just as soon as the formality of clearing with Washington had been gone through. He also pointed out that there had been subsequent discussions on more than one occasion, and even as recently as in December.
We shall certainly take every possible step to persuade our United States friends that they should not impose this tariff. However, as hon. members in all parties of the house know, this is a decision which will be taken by the congress of the United States, and frequently that congress has ignored requests of the kind which have already been made by the present government and has gone merrily on to impose those restrictions which hamper Canadian industries. I know that every member of the house is thoroughly well aware of this fact.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the minister permit a question? Is it not true that under the procedures of the United States the president can veto any legislation in this regard, and I am hoping that representations will be made in person.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I believe it is true that the president could veto any such measure, and I would hope that he will take that step if congress should see fit to impose this duty. But it would be unfortunate if the Canadian people got the impression that all that had to be
done was for some members of the opposition parties in the house to convince the Canadian government that the imposition of the duties should not be permitted. We all know that no government, no matter what its complexion, can ensure that the United States congress would not take this action which will be detrimental to Canada's interests. I can assure the hon. members who have raised this question that we shall not be hesitant in making Canada's position clearly known.
I understand the hon. member for Ville-neuve went a little bit further. He suggested that such metals as lead and zinc should be manufactured right in Canada to a much greater extent and then said that the fact that a Conservative government had come into power was the reason we were having trouble with the United States now about lead and zinc. I should like to point out to him that this threat to our lead and zinc industry dates back a long time before the election. I have here a newspaper dispatch from Washington dated May 25, 1957 and headed, "United States Lead-Zinc Policy Hints at Tariff Boost". It goes on to set out the aim of those people in the United States who wish to have this tariff imposed and has this to say:
As one means of aiding the United States zinc and lead mining industries when the price of the metals drops below certain levels the program would provide for imposition of new import excise taxes in addition to existing tariffs.
It would be interesting to know whether the Liberal government sent any note to Washington or made any protests about this threatened action or just what steps they did take. You see, Mr. Speaker, now in 1958 the Liberals have to answer for what they were doing or not doing seven or eight months ago. They were sitting over here a year ago. They were sitting over here when this question first came up and they had just as much responsibility as we have now, and perhaps a little more, for seeing that this question was dealt with in such a manner as to preserve the rights of the Canadian people. When the hon. member suggests that this problem has arisen now because of a change of government-


Armand Dumas: On a question of privilege, if the minister will permit me, I think he misunderstood what I said. First of all, I did not mention lead and zinc in particular. I was talking about all our natural resources and more particularly about our mining resources. When I said that we should process those resources here in Canada I said that we should process as much as we could absorb and should do everything possible to export the surplus production of our mining resources. I did not blame the

U.S. Tariff on Base Metals government at all for whatever restrictions on exportation of our mining products have come into effect lately. I said it was very unfortunate that there were some restrictions on export. I also said that whatever is being done by the United States is very important. I think the minister misunderstood what I said.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad that was the stand taken by the hon. member. He mentions the wisdom of manufacturing these metals here in Canada to the greatest extent possible and exporting any surplus. As he knows, that has been the policy of the Conservative party since the time of Sir John A. Macdonald and it is one of the basic policies of the Conservative party in Canada today under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Armand Dumas: It is the policy of the Liberal party too.


Howard Charles Green: But it has not been the policy of his own party.


Armand Dumas: Definitely.


Howard Charles Green: They have been far more
interested in building up the exportation of raw materials from Canada and the importation of manufactured goods than they have been in having our natural products fabricated here at home.


Armand Dumas: Will the minister permit a question? Will the minister tell me what is the total yearly consumption and the total yearly production of zinc in Canada?


Howard Charles Green: I do not have those figures with me at the moment. But actually here is one of the great fundamental differences between the two parties. The Conservative party favours the fabrication of our own raw materials in Canada to the largest extent possible, thereby giving Canadians the first chance to use their own resources and giving Canadians the chance to get jobs in turning their raw materials into finished goods. But that has not been where the emphasis has been placed by the Liberal party down through the years and that is not where the emphasis was placed by the Liberal party in the debate yesterday and today and throughout this whole session. They just do not think along those lines.


James Sinclair: We never sent a junket to Britain at the taxpayers' expense to buy manufactured goods that should be made in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I have here a speech by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe to the women's Canadian club on December 3, 1956.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
that a confidential document?


Howard Charles Green: He set out the Liberal policy very clearly in these words:
-as you know, Canada finds it economical to produce large surpluses of raw materials and foodstuffs with which to pay for the large quantities of imported produce and manufactured goods.
In the same speech he also said:
-Canada is the largest import market in the world for manufactured goods-
Well, the Conservative party of Canada has no ambition to keep Canada the largest import market in the world for manufactured goods-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are reducing trade, reducing prosperity.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We are talking against tariffs, not for them.


Howard Charles Green: -especially when it means sending our raw materials to the United States to be fabricated by their workmen and then bought back by the Canadian people.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Do you want us to keep our lead and zinc market? Will the minister permit a question? Does the minister know that of the lead and zinc we produce only about 25 per cent is consumed in Canada and that if we do not export it the whole industry will be closed down? We are talking against tariffs, not for tariffs.


Howard Charles Green: I know that only too well but I am pointing out that the hon. member for Villeneuve is complaining that there should be more fabricating of Canadian metals in Canada. That has not been the policy of the Liberal party, and for the last few weeks I have been amused in listening to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) get up and complain about this position when all the time the policy of his party has been the policy-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of expanding trade.


Howard Charles Green: -which was enunciated by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe; in other words, to export raw materials and buy back finished goods.


James Sinclair: Would the minister permit a question? Would he explain to me if this junket, paid for by the taxpayers, to Britain was to buy manufactured goods or raw materials?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) need not try to draw any red herring across the trail. He is very

adept at doing things of that kind. Whenever we get them in a corner on this subject then they start shouting about something over there.


James Sinclair: Answer the question.


Howard Charles Green: I am doing the talking now. You keep still for the moment. We have just sat back and listened to this sort of-


James Sinclair: Answer the question.


Howard Charles Green: -claptrap long enough. May I point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that if he really believes in this policy of fabricating raw materials in Canada to the largest extent possible and then exporting the surplus he should be over here with us as a Conservative. He is in the wrong camp. Our friends across the way are never going to get very far in reaching the objective which he has in mind. They seem to think that-


Mr. Cannon:: Would the minister permit a question, and this is not claptrap? Does the insistence of the minister on the fact that we are importing too many manufactured goods mean that the Conservative party is now thinking seriously of returning to its old policy of high tariffs?


Howard Charles Green: There, Mr. Speaker, is another bright red herring dragged in with a great deal less skill than that shown by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


James Sinclair: You have avoided answering with even greater skill. You are an eel, not a red herring.


Howard Charles Green: These hon. members in the Liberal party, now that they are such big, bold, brave fellows, they want us-


James Sinclair: Answer the question.


Howard Charles Green: -as does the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), to talk up to the United States; to go down and talk to the president.


James Sinclair: The minister has two minutes to answer two questions.


Howard Charles Green: They want us to go down and tell President Eisenhower what he is to do. This is really all very funny. These boys have become so brave, now that they are over in opposition where they cannot do anything. When they were over here such action was the very last thing they would have done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, they should at least be consistent.
U.S. Tariff on Base Metals


James Sinclair: Perhaps the minister could now answer the two questions that were asked.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment, I cannot tell whether we are at the ante-vote debate or whether we are just winding up. I am not even sure who has the floor. Has the minister completed his remarks?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) want to speak on the same subject?


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had not intended saying anything on this subject, but I was wondering whether or not the government, in their protest as they call it, had given consideration to the fact that Canadians have bought goods from the United States to the tune of over $1 billion? Instead of sending protests in box car sized letters, possibly the United States might be prevailed upon to believe that it would seem only reasonable that if they want to sell this amount of goods they should take something back from us such as our lead and zinc.
I do not know what the government said in their protests. I would think, however, if we approached the United States government on a reasonable basis, because trade is a twoway street, we would get a lot farther than by making long speeches and sending big protests in box car size letters telling the United States what we are going to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 56, to put the question on the motion now before the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
87. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $6,719,732.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
201. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.

[Stage Direction]
722. Transportation-Movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $1,500,000.
Proceedings reported.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, we shall commence with item No. 6 on today's order paper, the second reading of a bill to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities. If that should be finished, then instead of going on with citizenship and immigration estimates, as I mentioned last Monday, we shall take the estimates of the Department of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the house leader would give some indication of the business for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am sorry-


Lionel Chevrier: We have now reached the point where, according to the house leader's own estimate, the session is drawing to a close. I saw some time ago where it was the intention to move at a later date that Monday and Tuesday mornings be taken away from the house and, that being the case, I think there should be some indication of what they intend to take up during the remainder of this week.


Howard Charles Green: If the agricultural bill should go through tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, then we would be taking, or I think we would be taking, estimates for the rest of the week. Citizenship and immigration would go on on Thursday and then it would be national revenue after that.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister give any indication of what estimates would be considered on Friday and Saturday?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friends say "Oh, oh", but it has been the practice earlier in the session to give the business for the whole week-


Some hon. Members:: It never was the
practice before.


Lionel Chevrier: -and in earlier sessions as well, but we have not had more than one or two days' notice.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Funny how practices came in during this last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You always got the
business one week in advance.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has been away digging the St. Lawrence seaway for the past several years and he has not known what has been going on. The fact is that the opposition parties this year have had as much notice as we ever had when we were in opposition and I will give them just as much information as I know myself.


William Moore Benidickson: We want more than that.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, the position in the Canadian House of Commons in this present year is somewhat unusual and one would have to be both a prophet and the son of a prophet to give the business of the house for one week ahead. I can assure him and the members of the other parties that I will let them know as much ahead as I know myself. In the meantime they have the information for the next three days, and probably sufficient information for the next four days, which I think is really not doing too badly.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, although the St. Lawrence seaway is the greatest international program ever undertaken between two neighbouring countries-


Mr. Harkness:: No speeches, please.


Lionel Chevrier: -I suggest that has nothing to do with the question. Whether I was here or not has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked and I would have thought the hon. gentleman would have co-operated to the extent of giving us the business for the rest of the week.


Howard Charles Green: I am sorry the hon. member for Laurier feels I am not co-operative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question of the house leader? In view of his desire to get on with the estimates has consideration been given to referring Bill No. 237 to the committee on agriculture after we have had second reading so that here in the house we can get on with the estimates?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A good idea.


Howard Charles Green: That, Mr. Speaker, sounds like a very tempting offer, but I think everybody, including the hon. member, knows that it is not and the government has no such intention.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.