1961-04-24

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, due to the very difficult climatic conditions recently experienced in many parts of the maritime provinces, it is now fairly obvious that lobster fishermen would have great difficulty in commencing their season's operations in districts 7-A and 7-B on the normal opening date of May 1. These districts cover, in the main, the northeastern coast of New Brunswick, the outer coast of Prince Edward Island, the strait of Canso, part of Northumberland strait and the west coast of Cape Breton.
Officials of my department have been watching the situation carefully. We have also received a large number of representations from the fishermen for consideration in these rather unique conditions. For these reasons I am proposing to postpone the opening date of the season in districts 7-A and 7-B from May 1 to May 10, and the closing date from June 30 to July 5. It is my hope that this action and the expected return to normal weather will enable the fishermen to prosecute a full fishery with no more difficulty than is usually experienced.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission concerning certain employees of the library of parliament, laid upon the table of the house Thursday, April 20, 1961, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That commencing on Monday, May 1, and on every sitting day thereafter until the end of this session, the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
Monday and Tuesday: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; 2:30 to 6:00 p.m.; and 7:30 to 10:30 p.m.; except that when a supply motion is being considered in accordance with standing order 56, the hours of sitting shall be as set out by standing orders 2 and 6, namely: 2.30 to 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 to 10:00 p.m.;
Wednesday:	11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; 2:30 to
6:00 p.m.;
Thursday: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00p.m.; 2:30to6:00 p.m.; and 7:30 to 10:30 p.m.;
Friday: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; 2:30 to 6:00 p.m.; and that the provisions of standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister allow me to ask a question before he moves this motion. The question is this. In view of the fact that today and tomorrow are supply motion days, and since this motion will probably take up a substantial part of the time of the house, which would cause some inconvenience and embarrassment to the opposition; and in view of the fact that it will not come into effect until a week from today, I wonder if the Prime Minister would not agree to hold it over until Wednesday of this week.


John George Diefenbaker: Ordinarily I would have no hesitation in doing that, but there are circumstances in connection with the legislation of which notice should be given to the house and these circumstances, I think, impel me to proceed today. I do not want at any time to be unfair to hon. members and, in particular, to members of the opposition, but as we have arrived at the present stage of our proceedings, a time when one ordinarily expects such a motion as this to be made, I would hope to proceed. I do not think it should take too long.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it the Prime Minister has some statement to make, because I understood from him earlier that he would make some announcement concerning legislation which was to be brought forward between now and the end of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: As I said a moment ago, at this approximate period of the session it is customary for a motion to be made extending the hours of sitting of the house. As I look back prior to the time we assumed office, such motions were made in several years on the 69th, the 71st, the 78th, the 84th and the 88th days.

Business oj the House
I believe it is in the interests of all hon. members to endeavour at all times to proceed expeditiously with the business of the house. The extension of hours which is being sought will, I feel, be beneficial. It will bring about an actual addition of approximately 18 extra days between now and the first day of July. I mention that particular date not because there is any special significance to it with reference to parliament and the continuation of the session, but simply to show that the extra hours will mean that considerable additional time will be made available to deal with the various matters of legislation which remain to be considered this session.
Of course, in giving to the house a general outline of the legislative program I know there will be a full realization of the fact that the list in question is not an all-inclusive one, and that it does not include matters which conceivably could arise during the balance of the session. There might be some who would feel that the added hours place an extraordinarily heavy responsibility on members of parliament. I again remind hon. members that the hours of sitting in this house are far less, in the very beginning of the session, than is the case in the mother of parliaments. So far, up until April 21, we had been in session for 88 days, and it is of interest to ascertain the division in the calendar of the various matters that have come before the house.
The speech from the throne, including the opening day, took three days. The debate on what is called the baby budget took six days; private members' Mondays, six days; private members' Thursdays, two days; three supply motions, six days; the debate on March 3 on a matter of urgent public importance, one day. That is a total of 24 days in respect of debates that are fixed by the rules and the special debate. Then in supply on the supplementary estimates, four days; interim supply, two days. The main estimates, which to date have comprised the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Agriculture and the Post Office Department, all of which have been completed, and the Departments of Labour and Northern Affairs and National Resources, incomplete, have taken 17 days, making a total for supply of 23 days, which incidentally, I believe, is somewhat longer than the total period taken in respect of supply in other parliaments.
When I mention the mother of parliaments I am not in any way suggesting that this house should follow the course followed there, but mention it simply by way of explanation that, in the experience of the years, the British parliament, which has been generally

a model of expedition, has found it unnecessary to go into detail item by item in the estimates. I think the general plan there is for members to pick out particular items. All of us know, and I have that knowledge from having been in the opposition, that when each item is called, it is surprising the impetus and encouragement the calling of the items has to bring to the attention of the house matters which otherwise might not have been referred to. They are matters of much interest but not always of the same relative importance. On legislation so far we have spent 41 days, and have completed 17 bills and two motions.
I undertook to give a general outline, and naturally the house would like to have some idea as to the legislation projected or anticipated and yet to be introduced. In addition to the items in routine proceedings there will be amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act; an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; amendments to the Criminal Code, including capital punishment; an amendment to the narcotics control legislation; an amendment to the Coal Production Assistance Act; amendment to the Financial Administration Act; ratification of the convention on the law of the sea, the Pine Point Railway Act and the Food and Drugs Act amendments.
In addition, legislation will probably be introduced with respect to amendments to the Loan Companies Act, the Industrial Development Bank Act, the assignment of crown debts legislation and the War Veterans' Allowance Act. There will, of course, be a budget debate and legislation will be based on the resolutions. Furthermore, considerable attention will have to be given to the transportation problem and legislation arising out of, if not directly founded on, certain portions of the report of the royal commission on transportation may be anticipated. In this connection there is one piece of legislation having to do with the act to make provision for the reduction of certain class and commodity rates on freight traffic or, as cited, the Freight Rates Reduction Act of 1959, which was extended in 1960. Application will be made to the house for approval of further extension of this act.
What I have said I think gives some indication of the considerable amount of legislation that yet remains for the attention of the house. As I said earlier, in the normal course of events there will, of course, be one or more matters which have not yet come before the cabinet but which no doubt will come before it between now and the conclusion of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped
that the Prime Minister would consent to allow this motion to stand until Wednesday, were it only because of the fact that, first, the discussion is likely to take some time and, as the Prime Minister and the house know, the rules of the house provide for six supply motions in so far as the opposition is concerned. There is no provision for any curtailment of that time to deal with other business of the house.
Then again there is the fact that this motion will not go into effect until next week. We on this side of the house had hoped that there would be no inconvenience to the government if this motion had been allowed to stand over until Wednesday of this week at least. However, the Prime Minister has decided against that course of action for the reasons which he gave and I am not going to pursue it any further, but I should like to deal with the motion itself. This is a motion which we have every year. It is a hardy perennial, but this session it seems to have bloomed much earlier than usual. If the motion is accepted it will mean two hours' additional sittings every morning and will add another hour to the evening sittings by providing that the house will sit from 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
I take it that the government has been driven to put this motion on the order paper now for two reasons; first, because of the fact that the session began in November of last year, earlier than usual; and second, because of the long list of legislation announced by the Prime Minister, which is indicative of the tremendous amount of work still to be done. This state of affairs certainly cannot be blamed on the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: My friends on the other side of the house smile. I will be able to indicate in a moment that the position is not as clear as some hon. members on the other side seem to think it is. It is well known that the organization of debate as well as the organization of the business of the house are in the hands of the government and not in the hands of the opposition. That is in accordance with our rules. We in the opposition have tried to co-operate with the government in the task of arranging for the orderly conduct of the business of the house. The fact is that most of the time has been taken up by government speakers. I said I would give some indication of this situation and I should now like to do so.
I have before me a list of the time taken by speakers for the different parties in a number of debates. This list was prepared
Business of the House
at my request by the whip's office and I have every reason to believe it is accurate. The list indicates that during the throne speech debate, which took place on Monday, November 21, there was one speaker on behalf of the government who took one hour and 15 minutes compared with 35 minutes for one speaker from the official opposition and the same length of time for one C.C.F. speaker.
In the budget debate, which took six days, there were 19 government speakers who took 9 hours and 21 minutes compared with 15 Liberal speakers who took 11 hours and 53 minutes and C.C.F. speakers who took 3 hours and 55 minutes. I put these times on the record so the house will see what the position actually is with respect to what has been said in the house. I have referred to the budget debate particularly because we had every reason to take the time we did on that occasion.
On the resolution dealing with loans to small businesses there were 12 Progressive Conservative speakers who took 1 hour and 58 minutes compared with one Liberal who took 2 minutes and three C.C.F. speakers who took 37 minutes. When Bill No. C-40 dealing with the same matter, loans to small businesses, came before the house government speakers took 1 hour and 6 minutes compared with 55 minutes for the official opposition and 28 minutes for the C.C.F.
In the case of the National Housing Act amendments the same situation is revealed. There were 24 speakers on the government side who took 4 hours and 15 minutes compared with 17 minutes used by speakers from the official opposition and 37 minutes by C.C.F. speakers.
I bring to the attention of the house the fact that on many occasions speakers from the government side have risen to compliment the minister concerned, to thank him for the resolution introduced and to tell him what a tremendous benefit it was going to be in the riding of the member speaking, and I ask the house whether repetition of that same sort of thing day in and day out could not be eliminated and a great deal of the time of the house saved thereby.
With respect to Bill No. C-45, having to do with the continuation of the operation of railways, which was dealt with on November 30 and December 1, there were two government speakers who took 1 hour and 43 minutes, four Liberals who took 2 hours and 7 minutes and 5 C.C.F. speakers who took 2 hours and 10 minutes. Then there was Bill No. C-49 with regard to technical training assistance, which was discussed on December 7 and 9 and on which 13 government speakers took up 3 hours and 1 minute, we

Business of the House
in the opposition took up 1 hour and 16 minutes and the C.C.F. took up 32 minutes. The same thing can be said of the productivity council resolution, where 43 minutes were taken up by all the government speakers as compared with 15 minutes for this side of the house and 10 minutes for the C.C.F. As to the productivity council bill, the same thing could be said. One hour and 27 minutes were taken up by the government side as compared with 1 hour and 39 minutes by this side and 13 minutes by the C.C.F.
I	could go on, because I have a complete list; however, that is indicative of the attitude and the statement I made a moment ago, namely that we on this side of the house are not those who are taking up the time in dealing with these matters.
The government evidently believe that the solution for this state of affairs is to provide more time for talk. That is a very inadequate objective unless the time so provided is profitably used by a clear cut division and organization of the work of the house. The fact that the members of the House of Commons have been talking since November 17 and that such little progress has been made is clear proof that something better is required in the way of planning the business of this house. But in this motion the government obviously believe that the best solution is to provide more time for more talk.
This particular motion, if accepted, will add
II	hours to the weekly sittings of the house except during the weeks when there are supply motions, when there are added 5 additional hours. Here, as I say, we are asked to extend the hours of the sitting of the house in order to deal with government business. However, when it comes to dealing with a supply motion, something which is the prerogative of the opposition, we are not allowed to sit longer so far as that is concerned. In any event, the object of this motion is to provide the equivalent of two full days of sitting per week. We understand that it is the wish of the government to have us out of here by the end of June.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I always like to know what is wanted. On days of supply motions does he want the same hours, namely from 11 o'clock in the morning? If he does, I am always willing to accommodate.


Lionel Chevrier: If the Prime Minister will allow me to complete my remarks I think he will find the answer to the question he has just asked. I was going on to say that I understood it to be the intention of the

government to conclude the sittings of this house by the end of June. This would give us a period of nine weeks within which to complete our work if we began morning sittings on Monday next. The equivalent of 15J days would be added to the work of the house within the next 9 weeks. The effect of this proposal is to reduce the length of the session by about three weeks. Without adding further hours at this stage, and on the assumption that the pace of work would remain the same regardless of hours of sitting, the session would probably expire on July 25 or thereabouts.
We find this proposal objectionable for two reasons. First, it provides for morning sittings at an unusually early period of the session; but what is more important, it comes at a time when the committees which normally meet in the morning are just getting down to work. In that respect here are the facts. There are 24 committees in existence or in contemplation. Of these, 14 have already started to work, 18 have been organized, and 11 have had sittings regularly. Over and above that, there are four special committees that have been appointed and three of these have had regular meetings. None the less there are five committees which have been organized but have not started to work, three of which in fact are extremely important.
Then the other objection we find is that there is no provision that the extra time provided will be used properly through better organization. I want to make a proposal to the government. Our proposal will make unnecessary morning sittings which at this stage prevent effective committee work, will provide for a different but more productive allocation of the time remaining, and will oblige the government to get busy in planning the remaining work of the session in the days that lie ahead.
Our proposal consists of three points. We propose first that we deal differently with the two remaining supply motions. The official opposition is willing to dispense with the debate on possibly both the remaining supnly motions. We would wish, however, to reserve our right to debate one of these motions for at least one day if circumstances call for such a debate. By making this proposal in connection with the supply motion we suggest that the government agree to call one such motion at the request of the opposition. That might not be necessary. If this first part of the proposal were put into effect, that would make available at once at least three days and possibly four days in which to deal with legislation and estimates.
The next point in the proposal is that the time spent on the budget debate-and I refer to the budget which the Minister of Finance

intends to bring down at a later date-be reduced from six days to four days. We think this proposal is justified because we have already spent six days in debating the supplementary budget, and because we feel that a four day budget debate, provided the evening sittings can be extended if members wish to speak, would ensure that all points of view would be heard. This proposal would make available an additional two days in which to deal with estimates and legislation.
We asked that the government make available the final and complete list of legislation which it intends to place before the house. The Prime Minister has now done this. We should like to study this list at once so that we could-if it is the wish of the government to co-operate with the various leaders of the house-develop a definite time schedule for each item of legislation and each department of the government. It seems to me that we could very easily, having regard for this list, set aside a certain number of hours or days for each item on the program which we could attempt to follow unless such an adherence in a particular case would not be in the public interest. For instance as I look at the list which I took down I find that there are a number of items which could be disposed of in no time. I could almost immediately give the assurance to the government that at least one of these measures, if I understand it correctly, should take little time at all.
On the other hand there are measures of extreme importance. Without mentioning them, I have one in mind wherein we might say, "We will set aside X number of days to deal with this legislation," and we will give the undertaking that beyond that we will not go; with this exception, that if it became clear to us during the course of the debate that more speakers were required, we would ask that the hours of sitting of that day be extended so we could dispose of that legislation in the allotted time.
If such a time schedule were arranged, I can see no objection to extending the evening sittings of the house beyond the present sitting hours, within the confines of any such schedule of days. I may add that we have no objection to sitting an additional hour in the evening, say from 7.30 until 10.30, as the motion indicates. This would be a gain of approximately five days which, when added to the two proposals we made previously, gives a total of 10 to 11 additional days. Add to that a better organization of the business of the house, as I indicated in my last point, and I think we will have gone a long way toward meeting the desire or wish of all hon. members, not only those of the government, for an orderly consideration of the business.
Business of the House
It seems to us that this additional time, combined with the suggestion for planning and organization which I have made, would allow us to complete our work within the period of time which I believe the government has in mind. I see no point, however, in adding more hours, providing for more talk, and more time, without better management and organization.
There is another objection which I bring to the attention of the government. It deserves to be considered. It is the fact that additional hours work a great hardship on the staff. I need not tell the Prime Minister this; I am sure he realizes it every bit as much as I. We know what happened during the extension of the hours last year, when two members of the Hansard staff were stricken rather seriously. This also affects the very active and dynamic group of young page boys who give us such devoted service. Because of the fact that the hours begin earlier it will not be possible for them to attend school, as they have in the past. Also, this is a very critical period of the year, namely examination time.
The Prime Minister spoke a moment ago about the mother of parliaments and what was being done in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I have before me the report dated February 19, 1959, from the select committee on procedure. An attempt was made to have morning sittings and the parliament of the United Kingdom decided against them. This can be found at pages 13 to 15. I will only read the pertinent sentence, and I quote from page 15 of the report from the select committee on procedure:
For this reason, and in view of the disadvantages which attach to morning sittings and in our view outweigh the possible advantages, we recommend no change in the present practice in regard to morning sittings.
It is true that in reply one can say there is a different arrangement in the United Kingdom. However, I am suggesting a different arrangement in the work and the planning of the business of this house.
I ask the government, therefore, in the light of what I have said and in the light of the proposal I have put forward, not to proceed with this motion today but to consider the proposals I have made in all seriousness and in all good faith in an attempt to assist the house and parliament to get on with the business. I am completely satisfied that a satisfactory arrangement could be worked out among the various house leaders which would do away with morning sittings, if not altogether, at least until the dying days of the session.

Business of the House


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister was the first to comment on the comparison of this house with the mother of parliaments, I wish he would also underline to the house that there are over 600 members in the British House of Commons, and over 500 of them live within three hours of Westminster. This makes quite a difference in their ability to attend when there are extended hours.
This particular motion affects each one of us as individuals and then there is the party sense of which we are all conscious. The house may remember that in the past three sessions, on the introduction of similar motions the C.C.F. party objected very stridently though notoriously to no avail, and the hours were lengthened.
This occasion brings us forward with a different, more co-operative attitude. This is not based on any view of the government as a villain trying to seduce us poor Nells over in the corner. There is almost complete unanimity that we should complete this session by the end of June if we possibly can. There is still much to do and there is still a certain sense of urgency both in the house and in the country that there are problems to be met. If we do not complete the session by the end of June or shortly thereafter, I think every one of us in the house must bear some burden of the blame, although the apportionment will always be a controversial matter. If the session drags and dowdies, is it primarily because of the lack of government leadership in the house, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Laurier, or is it primarily because of the obstreperous behaviour or prolixity of opposition speakers?
As an advocate of a "complex theory" of the House of Commons I would not want to give a firm answer to either of these questions. However, I would suggest that all the following facts or factors are involved. I think most of us assume that this is a national forum and that the nation is listening to us or watching us, although if we think about it I think we can all have very grave doubts as to whether this is really true.
The second point is that the majority of us, whatever our party or our individual status as politicians, recognize that time is wasted in this house in a number of ways; by overlong question periods, by repetitious speeches, by the sudden temper or whim of various ones among us, or by just misunderstandings over the course of business. Another point is that under regular hours, or extended hours, an extra burden to attend the house and committees is placed upon hon. members from distant places. This burden is increasingly noted whenever we get into extended hours.

Another point is that many hon. members of this house, despite the fact that we are all peers, or we are assumed to be peers one to the other, have much different attitudes towards attendance either in Ottawa or in the house. Many hon. members carry on businesses or law practices co-ordinate with their political duties. Many others find a greater role to play politically at home, in their constituencies, than they do in Ottawa, even during sessions. Some of us, by geographic incident, our age or lack of age, our trade or profession or lack of either, or the nature and attitude of our constituents, cannot be the political semi-pros that I have just referred to. Also, a goodly number of us find that for family and financial reasons, the longer the session lasts, the rougher and tougher is our economic predicament.
Overlying all these individual factors is the crucial one of uncertainty; uncertainty not only as to the length of the session and the dates of the session, but uncertainty even about the length of this particular parliament. There have been many suggestions for change or reform put forward by members of the house over the years, including proposals that we should split the sessions, fix the length of the sessions, confine the length of the debates, accept as a principle that being a member of parliament is a full-time vocation and arrange the parliamentary year in a regular pattern with regular duties as they have really reached the stage of doing in Britain. Another suggestion has been put forward that we should increase the role of the house committees and cut down on formal debates in the house, together with a much greater degree of inter-party negotiation, as suggested by the hon. member for Laurier, in order to speed proceedings and get them under way.
It seems to me that one can detect one major difference of opinion among members of this house-and this has nothing to do with party positions-and this difference seems to me to rest on the basis of whether they were elected for the first time before or after 1957. There is much more patience among the more veteran members regarding the length of sessions and the length of debates. Perhaps because of the influx of rather young members in 1957, and particularly in 1958, this newer group is much more ready to say "The devil take it. Let's get through the job; let's get out of here to our families and our constituencies."
Speaking as an individual and not as a party member it is apparent, I think, where I stand on this point of view. This dialectic between the patience of experience and the impatience of the newer members probably affects all parties in the house. In any event,

the sense of urgency we express at this time is that we should speed this session to a conclusion. We see little reason on the order paper, or from what the Prime Minister has said, to seriously consider why we should be here throughout July. The added hours will be a blight to every one of us and especially to all those who take their attendance and their duties here seriously, though I ask the whole house to remember that there are many members who do not take this attendance seriously.
We intend to co-operate especially for this reason-and we are selfish in this, because most of us do come from distant places- that we cannot be at home week ends even if we wish to; and in order to end more quickly the load-and we know this view is shared by many of our colleagues who come from the west or from distant places in the east-we wish to amend the motion which has been put forward. We take the view that the whole hog is as palatable as the greater part, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto:
Saturday, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.


An hon. Member:: What about Sunday?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member who has moved this motion retires, may I take it that his amendment is to be inserted after the provision for Friday? On that basis it no doubt will be acceptable.


Lionel Chevrier: I just want to say one word in connection with the amendment. For the reasons I gave earlier, so far as the opposition are concerned this amendment is not acceptable. We believe the proposal which we put forward in three points is far more attractive than this and should first be considered, if not accepted, by the government.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: find myself in a peculiar situation. That is not unusual. I have listened with a great deal of interest and respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I find myself in complete disagreement with them.
Perhaps I owe the house an apology, because for the past two weeks I have been out of touch with the House of Commons. Indeed, I returned only yesterday afternoon after being a parliamentary observer at the United Nations. It was not until this morning that I knew of the motion which has just been moved by the Prime Minister for the extension of hours, or of the amendment which has been put forward by my hon. friend from Port Arthur. Sir, I have even been warned to be careful what I say. I never thought I would be given that warning.
Business of the House
In the time I have been here in the House of Commons those hon. members who were here during the same time will remember what I have said on previous occasions on the subject of the extension of hours. Those who did not hear my remarks on this subject in previous sessions can find them in Hansard. This question of the extension of hours is of such importance that I cannot hold my seat and agree in silence to what is now before us. Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to introduce my comments in this way. As I said, I have just returned from four weeks at the United Nations. The last week was probably one of the most crucial weeks in the history of the United Nations, when matters of life and death were debated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -yet during those all important discussions sitting hours were allowed to extend until six o'clock in the morning. In the United Nations I feel problems cannot be resolved on matters of life and death, by brilliant people of all the nations, on such a basis.
So much for what took place last week. I feel the same way about proceedings in the House of Commons. I have said before, time after time over the past eight years, that we are the 265 directors of the business of Canada. We have been given the responsibility for imposing laws which must be obeyed by the 18 million people who live in this country. We make the law, or rescind the law; we impose taxation and spend the money. As a rule the major business comes at the latter part of the session, and I say we are betraying the 18 million and those who elected us if our work is carried on in such haste that, taking account of the work to be done outside of the house, the hours and duties are such that we cannot give proper consideration and proper attention to decisions which are going to affect every man, woman and child in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that what the hon. member for Port Arthur says about responsibilities to business, and wanting to get home to constituencies and families, is correct. I have a family and a constituency as well. I have not seen my wife, my children or my grandchildren since the second week of January. I could have gone home, as many other members could; but when we accept nomination, surely to heaven we accept the responsibilities of directors of the Canadian economy whether we sit in this house in government or in opposition, and regardless of what party name we have.
Between now and the end of the session we will be passing new laws, amending existing laws, and perhaps making changes

Business of the House
in many directions. We will be imposing taxation and spending billions of dollars, and I suggest most sincerely and conscientiously that whether the House of Commons takes six months or twelve months, it is our responsibility to proceed in such a manner, with conscience and understanding, that members of parliament do not become as tired as in 1954, when we went from a sessional indemnity to a yearly indemnity as a result or recognition of the importance of the business of the House of Commons, as well as recognition of the fact that we possibly would reach a time when, with the exception of interval recesses, this business would present a twelve month task for the members.
I feel very deeply about this, and that is why in all conscience, sincerity and integrity, and in the light of the acceptance of the responsibility imposed upon members of the House of Commons, I cannot support or vote either for the amendment moved by the member for Port Arthur or for the motion of the Prime Minister. We have a job to do; let us do it in a proper, respectful, decent and efficient manner.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, would the previous speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East, like to mention who warned him about speaking?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the amendment carried on division. The question now is on the main motion as amended.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understood that Your Honour was putting the amendment, and I do not think the amendment has been put.


Mr. Speaker:: I have put the amendment and declared that in my opinion the yeas had it.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There was then no call for a recorded vote.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly did not understand that to be the case when you put

the amendment. When I rose to speak on the amendment I indicated quite clearly that we could not accept it and, therefore, that was indicative that we would vote against it. When Your Honour put the amendment I certainly did not understand that it was being put. I think we have been put in a position which is unfair in accordance with the rules of the house.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, the amendment was clearly put. You called for the yeas and nays and you said that in your opinion the yeas had it, and that was the end of it. Only four members stood up and called for a recorded vote. That is not sufficient for a recorded vote.


An hon. Member:: There were five.
Another hon. Member: There were seven.
Another hon. Member: Mr. Speaker, neither is seven sufficient for a recorded vote.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the point of order which my hon. friend has raised. It seems to me that at a time like this, when the government is making a motion and taking the responsibility, notwithstanding a courtesy request of the opposition, to impose exceptional measures upon the house, we should not allow a misunderstanding or technicality such as has arisen at this time, and Your Honour should permit a division notwithstanding any misunderstanding that may have taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no authority to reverse any proceeding that has been taken except by unanimous consent of the house. The rules were followed in accordance with procedure, unless I was in error in deciding that there were not five members who rose. One or two appeared to rise but sat down again, so I did not call in the members. The hon. members at that time must have realized that the matter was decided. If, with unanimous consent, the house wishes to deal otherwise with the matter, of course, that is for the house to say.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Otherwise it is my duty to proceed with the motion as amended.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made observations in respect of circumstances to which the Prime Minister should address himself.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Laurier asked the Prime Minister if he would put this motion over until Wednesday

but the Prime Minister, to my great surprise, refused to accede to what is a traditional request.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason the Prime Minister did that is that he did not want any discussion in this house today in respect of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member for Essex East please take his seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am just about to remind the hon. member that he is not speaking to a point of order, and that I am now-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just addressing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat. If he wishes to speak to a point of order, I must say that I am not sure that a point of order can be raised with respect to a decision of the Chair on a vote. I have allowed some discussion, and if the hon. member for Essex East wishes to address himself to it before I proceed I shall hear him. However, as I have already indicated to him, I have no power to alter the circumstances to which objection is taken by means of a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour is quite right in that you have not that power, but I was seeking to address myself to the Prime Minister who, as leader of this house, could give the house direction which I am sure would be followed. No one wants any improper adjudication to take place here today on a matter of this sort, but in view of the request made by the spokesman for the opposition, the hon. member for Laurier, surely it is open to us to ask the Prime Minister to use the power, which is his, to acquire the unanimity with which, as Your Honour said we only could proceed. Five members rose on this question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour, whose judgment and impartiality we all accept, did say that he may have made an error. While this particular phase of the discussion was under way my colleague stood
Business of the House
up and five of the hon. members did so also, perhaps along with others. That being the case, surely the leader of the house, the Prime Minister of this country, who refused to put this motion off until Wednesday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot pursue that line of discussion. The question now is on the main motion as amended. If he wishes to speak on that he will be in order to do so.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to indicate, and I do so now, that I was surprised when the acting leader of the opposition asked the Prime Minister to put this motion over until Wednesday and the Prime Minister said, for some reason that is not yet clear-and he owes it to the house to explain what that reason is-that there was some important legislation he had in mind involving notice to hon. members which made it impossible for him to accede to the suggestion.
I say to the Prime Minister I cannot conceive of that being a legitimate reason. He owes it to the house to tell us why. I would doubt whether there is a record in the proceedings of this house of a request made by a leader of the opposition in such circumstances that was ever denied by a prime minister. In fairness the Prime Minister should have agreed to put this motion over until Wednesday. I can only offer as my interpretation of the reason that this was a device of the Prime Minister, on a day when we are going to have a supply motion, to preclude the opposition from discussing matters which in the Prime Minister's mind, particularly today, would be regarded as extremely embarrassing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is out of order in two particulars. In the first place, we are debating a motion relating to the hours of sitting rather than the reason this motion is being proceeded with today. In the second place, the hon. member is imputing motives to the Prime Minister in proceeding with the matter, which he is not entitled to do in accordance with the rules. It is not in accordance with parliamentary practice to impute improper motives. I am not necessarily making the assumption that the imputation is an improper one, but he was imputing a motive; he was dealing with a matter which is not strictly related to the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you say, sir, that I had imputed improper motives to the Prime Minister I can only say I respectfully disagree with you. In the absence of an explanation, I am entitled to suggest why the Prime Minister has refused to accept a

Business of the House
perfectly legitimate request, one which I suggest the records will show has been traditionally adopted in this house before. However, I am not going to pursue that matter. I do not think it is imputing motives at all; it is ascribing a reason, in the absence of an explanation, for the course the government has taken today.
Now, on the merits, since Your Honour drives me to that position, I would say simply that I doubt whether there is a record of any motion of this sort so far away from the expected termination of the session. We are at least some two months away, and this is on the assumption that we are going to conclude our sittings at the end of June; and I certainly do not see any hope of finishing our sittings by that time. For some reason or other, two months ahead, the government obviously has taken a course which at all times has been taken only a few weeks before the end of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says "Oh, no"; I say "Oh, yes". Let the Prime Minister show the house that that is not so. Certainly when the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, was directing the affairs of the country and of this house, when any hon. member, particularly the leader of the opposition, asked for fair consideration of the position of the opposition with respect to work in the house, that request was always acceded to; but one does not perhaps, of course, expect that kind of treatment from the present Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Laurier has pointed out that only a few of the committees of this house have even begun their work. For instance, the important work of the Department of External Affairs has not yet been referred to a committee. We should keep in mind the limited number of members of the opposition parties at the present time but, of course, who will not remain in that position too long because of coming events. Nevertheless there rests a responsibility on every member of the opposition to discharge his or her duty as thoroughly as it can be done. I say to the Prime Minister -and I paraphrase his own language when he was sitting on this side and made similar appeals which were generally acceded to- is it possible for a member of the opposition to sit in committees for two months while important business of this house is being discussed? It just is not possible.
We had an unforgettable day last session when, at a critical time in the history of the world, foreign affairs were being discussed in this house and the Prime Minister himself,

as he will remember, was engaged on important matters in his own office and was not able to attend during the whole speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). The Leader of the Opposition, whose experience in these matters is admitted, was discussing this matter at 1.30 in the afternoon when at least five committees were sitting. It was impossible for members of the Prime Minister's own party to attend to their obligations both in committee and in this house. There was a bare quorum of members sitting behind the Prime Minister listening to the important statement being made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At that time three important committees were sitting. There never was a greater evidence of disgraceful handling of public business than on that occasion. The particular course that is now being taken by the Prime Minister will compel a repetition of that kind of situation for a period of at least two and a half months.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest group in this house. He can put a motion and undoubtedly his followers will support what he proposes.


An hon. Member:: They sure will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Somebody says "Sure will". I know that will be the case, and it is because I know "Sure will" is the answer that I make this appeal to the Prime Minister in the hope that, as one who understands the difficulties of discharging our responsibilities, he will not put the members of the opposition in a position where they cannot properly discharge their primary duties, which are in this chamber. Their work in this house comes before the committees.
When this matter was discussed in the fall of 1957, and a motion was made by the chairman of one of the committees for simultaneous sittings very early in the session, the Prime Minister said that he recognized the position of members of the opposition; he had sat in the opposition, he knew of the difficulties, and he wanted to give the assurance that he would see to it that the business of the house was so arranged that no member would be denied the opportunity of properly discharging his responsibilities as a member of this house.
Last year he was reminded of this assurance. His answer then was, as the right hon. gentleman knows, "I do not determine the conduct and the business of parliamentary committees". That reply was not the reply he gave when this matter was first raised after the present government came into office. I say again that it is just not possible to discharge the public business properly by

having all these committees sitting simultaneously with the house in session, particularly now when we are going to extend the hours of sitting so as to preclude even that happening in a more modified form.
We have some important measures to come before us. We have the unemployment insurance amendments, which will likely be of a fundamental character. The sittings of that committee could well take over a month if we are going to discharge our functions properly. Are we then to argue that members who are interested in that particular measure shall spend all their time in the committee and not come into the house in order to discharge their functions here?
If we are in this position today, I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is perhaps because the government has not handled the business of the house this session as effectively as it might otherwise have done. I do not deny hon. members opposite the right to speak, but when they criticize opposition members for taking undue time in the deliberations of this house I would remind them of the number of speeches made on a measure introduced by the Minister of Agriculture that took almost five days of discussion, a bill which is not now before the house and may not even be passed this session because of the collaboration with the provinces that is being sought.
I say this to the Prime Minister. In this house he is not only a party leader. As Prime Minister he is the leader of the house, and by virtue of that office he is responsible, as no one else in the house is, for the conduct of the business of the house. He can rush things through if he wishes. He can make it difficult for members of the opposition to carry out their functions as critics. He can make it impossible for certain members to be in the house when they should be because they have to attend a committee, or can compel them to be in the house when perhaps in the national interest they should be at a particular time in a committee. He can force this result. If he does, he acts not as Prime Minister but as a party pblitician who takes first into consideration party interest and not national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to the Prime Minister that he does not want to be put in that position because I know, as every other member of the house does, that on reflection he will want to serve the nation first. I suggest that in this instance the way for the right hon. gentleman to 90205-6-248
Business of the House
serve the nation is for him not to forget that he is Prime Minister of this country and not merely the leader of a political party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the house this afternoon I did not have the slightest intention of saying anything on this motion. I might say that one reason I have been prompted to say something about it, though I did not have that intention, is that, the Prime Minister having introduced a motion which to say the least abridges the rights of members of the opposition, when the hon. member for Laurier and other members of the opposition have got up to speak we have had a series of catcalls from the supporters of the government which are unworthy of this house and particularly unworthy of them when a motion of this kind is being discussed. I hope that will cease now, sir.
As hon. members know, it is not many years since I first came into the house, but as hon. members also know I have observed the proceedings of the house for a good many years. In the light of that fact I cannot imagine any of the immediate predecessors of the present Prime Minister, including Mr. Bennett, refusing a request such as was made today by the hon. member for Laurier. I have had a good deal to do with such motion in days gone by, and I can say that the prime minister of the day always discussed with the opposition the time and the circumstances in which they would be brought forward, and as far as possible sought to reach an accommodation.
We should not forget that the purpose of this motion is to facilitate the business of the house and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not apt to facilitate the business of the house if in the minds of members of the opposition there is created a sense of injustice, a sense that there is no fair play, no fair dealing. That is the sense that the performance of the government today has given to me.


An hon. Member:: How about closure?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a suitable occasion I would be very happy to make some observations about that. However, I think we ought to be reminded of what the Prime Minister himself had to say only four years ago, following the dissolution of parliament and his recent experience as leader of the opposition. He was going about the country taking great exception to the way in which, in his opinion, the government of the day had treated the

Business of the House
opposition, and this is what he said as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 16, 1957:
Mr. Diefenbaker ... said cabinet domination of the parliament was the reason for the lack of action ... The first job to be done was to restore parliament and a Conservative government would-
Well, sir, if the Prime Minister's idea of restoring parliament is to impose this kind of regime by an overwhelming vote and to permit an amendment moved by a member of the opposition to be put without the government indicating its own position on that amendment, it seems to me that this is an extraordinary and arbitrary way to treat this house. Because the rules would not permit it, sir, I forbear saying anything about the unfortunate event of a few moments ago, other than that I cannot imagine Mr. St. Laurent ever allowing a thing like that to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might say that if the purpose of the government in putting forward this motion is to facilitate the proper discharge by us of the business of the house it does seem to me most extraordinary, after the most constructive and helpful suggestions made on behalf of the official opposition by the hon. member for Laurier notwithstanding the very evident lack of co-operation by the Prime Minister with respect to the hon. member's original request, that the Prime Minister did not, as any leader before the present one whom I have seen would have done, rise on a point of order at once and ask Your Honour to permit the adjournment of this debate so that my hon. friend's suggestions could be considered properly by the Prime Minister and his colleagues with a view to doing what all of us should want to do, discharge the business of the country in a seemly fashion but also in a reasonably expeditious way.
Since I am speaking I cannot forbear drawing attention to something else. Whatever may be said about the conduct of any member of the opposition in previous sessions of this parliament, there can certainly be no criticism of lack of complete co-operation with the government on the part of the opposition with respect to all business during the present session that we regarded as noncontentious. It will be remembered that before Christmas we facilitated every piece of government legislation, while at the same time we listened to gramophone record repetition of the most tiresome and endless sort, as the hon. member for Laurier pointed out, by supporters of the government contributing nothing whatever to the debate but delaying the business of the house.
If supporters of the government had acted in the way members of the opposition did,

there is no reason why we should not have concluded the baby budget debate before Christmas instead of the debate continuing after Christmas. As the hon. member for Laurier has shown, even on that measure and on every other measure, except one or two that were really contentious, that we thought were not in the public interest and that we ought to fight, there has been no delay and no time wasted on this side of the house. But for some reason or other, whether because the government is not ready with its business or whatever the reason may be, there seems to be a tendency this session by government supporters to take up the time of the house with repetition that is neither entertaining nor useful.


An hon. Member:: Like now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that even at this late date the Prime Minister would be well advised, in the interests of the very end he has in view, to accept the suggestion made on behalf of the opposition by my friend the hon. member for Laurier and to ask the leave of the house to have this debate adjourned so that the government can consider these suggestions and so that there may be a conference between the leaders with a view to getting the kind of co-operation and the kind of conduct of the public business that the people of Canada have a right to expect of us in this parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the government is concerned, its attitude has at all times been to secure the views of the opposition, on the conduct of the business of the house to the end that there be co-operation. As far as the hon. member for Essex East is concerned, I shall return to him in a moment; but at this time I simply want to say that what he is endeavouring to do is to hold the government responsible for the fact that the official opposition were uncertain as to what to do in respect of the amendment moved, did not stand up and you, Mr. Speaker, declared the amendment carried. Thereafter hon. members of the opposition began to realize the position in which they found themselves in failing to call for a vote. I want to make that point clear.


An hon. Member:: They were asleep.


John George Diefenbaker: I came before the house this afternoon for the purpose not of determining that the end of the session should be on July 1 but simply by reason of the fact

that I wanted to give hon. members the opportunity to expedite the business of the house.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the views expressed by the hon. member for Laurier. He is an experienced member of the house. I think he is able to teach a lesson to the hon. member for Essex East as to the proprieties. He presented his case in a most reasonable manner and must thereby have shocked the sensibilities of the hon. member for Essex East. He presented a viewpoint that met with a good deal of support on my part as I listened to him. There is a need for the reformation of the rules of the house. At the present time a committee is sitting, as did the committee last year, endeavouring to bring about changes which will expedite the business but which will not deny the fullest and most complete discussion of those questions that arise in respect of which there is bound to be controversy.
It is as though something unusual had happened. The hon. member for Essex East said that this is a most unusual circumstance, referring to the introduction of this motion at the present time. While I have already pointed it out, if I must do so I will repeat it and give the fullest information in that connection. I looked over the record and I found that in 1947, on the 78th day of the session, the sittings were extended. Then in 1949 the session was divided. In the first session prior to its conclusion morning sittings began on the 38th day and in the second session following the conclusion of the 42nd day. In the regular session of 1950 the house opened on February 16 and morning sittings began on the 69th day which fell on June 1. In 1951 the house opened on January 30 and morning sittings began on June 11 which was the 88th day. In the second session of 1951 morning sessions began on the 45th day. In the session of 1952 morning sessions began on the 71st day. In the 1952-53 session morning sittings began on the 84th day. Both the 195253 session and the 1953-54 session began in the fall of the year and in the 1953-54 session morning sittings began on May 31. Again in 1955 the situation was similar. All through the record in every year, with I think two exceptions, the house has commenced morning sittings on from the 71st day to the 88th day. Those were the halcyon days when hon. gentlemen opposite occupied the treasury seats. They said that was the proper course to follow and that it was necessary to have morning sittings.
My suggestion was not accepted. A further amendment has been accepted whereby sittings will also take place on Saturdays. I can understand the reason for that. Members who
90205-6-248J
Business of the House
live far from Ottawa spend their week ends here, unable to return to their homes. Anxious as they are-as the hon. member for Vancouver East explained-to see their wives and families, they are denied that opportunity. Longer and longer the sessions are being extended. The general feeling of the house was obvious. Otherwise the opposition would have called a vote against that amendment. They did not do so. Obviously, it was a general feeling that Saturday sittings would be appropriate having regard to the present circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it is contrary to the rules of this house to discuss a decision of the house. Since Your Honour has ruled that there was a decision of the house, I trust that the rules will be observed impartially as among all members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It is correct that it is not in order to reflect upon a decision of the house. I understood that the Prime Minister was referring to the methods or the activating force or what might be the actuating force.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A decision has already taken place.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not reflecting in any way. The opposition sat inert, except for three members-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this is a discussion of a decision that has already taken place, and of a decision already made. Since the rules are to be so strictly applied today, I suggest that they be applied impartially.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the rule is against the criticism of the decision itself. I did not understand the Prime Minister to be criticizing the correctness of the decision.


John George Diefenbaker: I emphasize this point. The opposition had many more hon. members than were necessary to rise and secure a division. They sat silent, excepting for three who stood. The hon. member for Essex East saw what was going on behind his back while he faced the opposition, a not unusual position for him to occupy or adopt. They sat and they waited, and they waited until the Speaker declared the amendment passed. Then they rose and raised strong objection.
As far as Saturday sittings are concerned, I think no harm will be done to the opposition and I would be the last to do anything that would prevent them talking. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because as I have gone across this country I have learned that the more they talk, the better for the government, if their

Business of the House
criticism is like some of their recent criticism in regard to measures beneficial to Canada which have been opposed simply for the sake of opposing them.
Let me go on from there. They pose today as lovers of parliament. I think Saturdays could well be set aside, if the house agrees, for dealing with the supply of various departments. There will be that fine spirit of co-operation of which hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken. On Saturdays various departments could be dealt with. I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays because I would want to be assured that as many hon. members as possible would be present, not only from the opposition but on the government side. In any event, I think we could get together when controversial matters are to be discussed.
I think a step forward has been made today in this regard. On Saturdays we could deal with supply in respect of which, by agreement among the leader of the government in the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West, they would have no difficulty in getting together and reaching the fullest agreement. These matters could be discussed on Saturday without in any way depreciating the opportunity of the opposition, including the hon. member for Essex East-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You know that is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: -to fully discuss matters as they arise.
I cannot let this opportunity pass. One hon. member opposite said he could not believe that my immediate predecessors would ever have allowed anything being done which would shock the parliamentary tradition. What has been done today has given the house every opportunity. The house took its stand on this amendment and it was passed on division. I again underline the fact that those who yell the loudest opposite were the most silent until they were sure that the amendment had in fact been passed. Then they rose.
They talk about those other days. I am not going to go back over those days. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate read an excerpt from a statement I had made regarding parliament. Mr. Speaker, do they forget the crimes they committed against parliament? Do they forget those days of 1955 and 1956? I am not going into particulars unless they ask for them. They muzzled parliament-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing like this government. This government is the greatest muzzier of all parliaments.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember what they did to the rights of parliament. Do they remember that black Friday when they trampled on the rights of parliament? One of the leaders in that regard was the vocal hon. gentleman from Essex East.
I quote an article with approbation. I have before me-I sent for it while the hon. gentleman was speaking-the University of Waterloo Review. I know the hon. gentleman has read it. The article is entitled "The Fifties: An Ottawa Retrospect" and it is written by Mr. Michael Barkway.


Peter Francis Martin: A friend of the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: He is not generally a friend of this government, as he does not approve of what we do.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: He is finding out.


John George Diefenbaker: However, he did have some views on those who sit opposite today, the three horsemen. Yes, they indeed belong to the Apocrypha. They trod on the rights of parliament and destroyed every principle for which parliament has stood through the years. And they rise today and say that because they failed to demand a vote on the amendment, which was accepted by them in silence, their rights were taken away.
We did not impose this amendment on the official opposition. The amendment was from the C.C.F., or the New Party, whichever the expression may be that applies at the moment. They sat silent. Never did the opposition place before the house an amendment that was generally acceptable until after it had been passed.
What does Mr. Barkway say? He is one observer who lived through this period in Ottawa, and he is speaking of the period between 1955 and June of 1957 as he refers to a book by James Eayrs:
But I am one observer who lived through the period in Ottawa and find the memory both poignant and painful. They were always foreboding: a Canadian Gotterdammerung, unrealized or misunderstood by its principal actors.
There is no question that the political gods were old and tired.
These are they who now speak of parliamentary greatness. Then Mr. Barkway continues:
By October, 1955, the cabinet was unhappy and rudderless.
The hon. gentleman speaks about the days of my predecessors. I am reading an article by a man who is not unfriendly to the opposition. Mr. Barkway goes on to say:
Its self-preoccupation largely detached it from public sentiment. It was giving first priority to the difficult task of hanging together. In June 1957, at the end of the period covered by Mr. APRIL 24, 1961
Eayrs' book, it accomplished the task in a manner which few of its ministers had thought conceivable; nine of them mounted a common gallows.
These are the words of a gentleman who, as I say, is not unfriendly to the opposition. Then he makes an observation regarding the hon. member for Essex East which I think is particularly appropriate today. This is why 1 sent out for this booklet. He describes the bungling, myopia and the self-preoccupation and smugness of the Liberals. He does not think much of us, either. Then he says;
Dr. Eayrs most properly devotes the longest chapter of his book to this subject. It is sandwiched between an account of the travails of the truce commissions in Indo-China and a spine-tingling tale of Mr. Paul Martin's efforts at the UN assembly of 1955 to secure the admission of new members (which loses nothing of excitement by drawing heavily on Mr. Martin's own version of it).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must read that article.


John George Diefenbaker: This is dealing with those days of alleged parliamentary greatness. Then the article goes on to say:
Examples of the confusion and mismanagement in this most vital area of foreign policy could fill a book.
Then he goes on to say-and I will deal with this in future days in the form of fair debate if the opportunity arises-
Astounding as this was, it was not the worst of it. The worst of it, which has never before been told is that the draft note-
This has to do with the Columbia.
-which Mr. Pearson and Mr. St. Laurent both approved did not mention the adequacy of the 1909 treaty; it actually said that it was not adequate to deal with the Columbia case.
Then follow the words:
There can seldom have been a more timorous or unnecessary surrender.
I have given just a brief outline. I know hon. members will be encouraged to read the rest about those who in their day and generation did their best to destroy parliament, intimidate the opposition, refuse to accept any suggestion if it did not come from those surrounding them. And they tell us today that we have done a hurt to parliament. I think we have gone further than any government has gone before in giving the house and the private members of parliament the right to determine one thing: how long do they want to sit? Is it fair that we should sit for but a few hours a day as has been the case in the past for a long period of time and then, in the end, deny the fullest discussion? By what we are doing we shall provide the opposition with the fullest opportunity to discuss the issues and to debate them. On Saturdays, if hon. gentlemen opposite desire, there is no reason whatever why we should
Business of the House
not by agreement be able to choose for discussion subjects that will not be controversial.
One word as to the observations of the hon. member for Laurier. The hon. gentleman is experienced. He has shown a sense of restraint and wide knowledge as he placed before the house his ideas. The hon. member for Port Arthur, taking a similar attitude, did the same and I feel that the suggestions made deserve to be studied. What we must try to do is to make parliament more effective and more efficient while at the same time denying to no member the fullest opportunity to discuss, to criticize and suggest alternatives, for unless there is that discussion there cannot be the attainment of any objective of legislation which is both beneficial and effective.
I will do everything I can on the basis of the recommendations made by those two hon. gentlemen. I place myself behind several of them most strongly and I hope the committee as it meets will be able to determine what changes should be recommended which will bring about the fullest discussion while maintaining at the same time a degree of responsibility in carrying out the trust which has been placed with us. In all the circumstances, of course, in so far as the motion is concerned, in view of the unanimity which has been expressed, with the exception of three who stand alone, I feel we should accept the amendment to the motion, and then in the light of experience we shall know how it will work out. If, later on, it is found that some changes might be made I shall be the first to join with hon. gentlemen opposite in suggesting such amendments as experience may dictate. What we are trying to do is not to rush the house to a conclusion. What we are endeavouring to achieve is an orderly, carefully conceived, fully documented opportunity for all to discuss these matters of great importance to the country.
Again, I emphasize that if our experience indicates that what has been done deserves further amendment there will be no delay in providing the house with an opportunity to make the necessary changes, all directed to one end, namely to make parliament stronger, more effective, and more deliberatively able to carry out the task that rests upon it and upon all hon. members of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? In view of what the right hon. gentleman has just stated concerning the proposal which I have just made, will he not consent to the adjournment of this debate, until, say, Wednesday, at which time it might be possible for the leader of the house and the spokesmen for the other parties to consider organizing the business of the house in a more orderly way?

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that the organization of the business of the house is a subject which has had the attention of hon. members throughout the years. It has been discussed on occasion after occasion.


Lionel Chevrier: Not on this basis.


John George Diefenbaker: Last year the committee made recommendations, as did an earlier committee in 1955. This debate is, of course, concluded, but if, as a result of co-operation between hon. members opposite and those of the third party, there are changes that should be made I will be the first to suggest that they be made.
Motion as amended agreed to on division.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make concerning educational assistance to French speaking African states.
The government's attention has been directed to the present needs and to the number and complexity of the difficulties which will confront the emergent nations of Africa in the field of education for some years to come. We have been impressed by their problems and as a result the government has approved in principle the establishment of a Canadian program of educational assistance for the newly independent French speaking African states.
The plan will be entirely separate from any scheme now in existence and should serve to balance Canada's educational assistance program in general. The existing commonwealth education program, while national in character, by its very nature limits the extent of participation of our excellent French speaking institutions and resources. We are confident that these will be used to good advantage in the application of the new plan.
It is proposed that the educational assistance plan for French speaking African states will provide grants of the order of $300,000 annually. Subject to the views of the various parties concerned with the development and execution of this scheme this amount could be applied toward scholarships, the provision of teachers and teacher training or to other types of educational assistance as may seem practicable and desirable.
The countries to which the scheme would be directed are vitally preoccupied with the serious task of improving their educational

facilities and with expanding educational opportunities for their peoples. They have repeatedly expressed their need for scholarships abroad for French speaking students and for French speaking teachers in their own countries. Because of our genuine interest in their welfare and progress and because we share a common language with these new states, Canada is in a unique position to render the type of assistance required. It is therefore the intention of the government to ask parliament to appropriate the funds necessary for this purpose once details have been worked out with the provincial educational authorities.
The new program will result in especially heavy demands on Canada's French speaking educational resources which, like all our educational facilities throughout the country, are already strained. Nevertheless I am confident from past experience and from the expressions of public interest already made regarding this type of venture that when an approach is made the provincial authorities and others concerned in the development and operation of the scheme will respond promptly and willingly. The government therefore intends to seek the co-operation and advice of the provincial educational authorities and the educational organizations and institutions at an early date for the successful implementation of what I am certain the house will agree is a purposeful and timely step.
It is also the government's hope to draw upon the advice and the experience of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organizations-better known as UNESCO-in setting up and in operating the new program. A conference sponsored by UNESCO will be held in Addis Ababa next month to examine the educational needs of the African states and to draw up plans to meet those needs in the coming years. It is the government's intention to accept an invitation to send a Canadian observer to these meetings and thus to acquire firsthand knowledge of the educational problems of the area. Information obtained at the conference would eventually be most useful in our own planning for the successful development and execution of the Canadian plan.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be very happy about the announcement which has just been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In so far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we have no hesitation in commending the government for this step, which has just been announced, in setting aside the sum of $300,000 as a fund for scholarships.

(Translation):
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that this matter has been discussed more than once in this house, not only by opposition members but by other members as well.
It seems that the decision taken by the government is not only commendable but that it will be welcomed by French universities in the province of Quebec, as well as in other provinces.
In addition, I am particularly glad that the government has decided to confer with provincial authorities regarding the program it intends to submit.
Once again I express our satisfaction to the government. When we reach this item in the departmental estimates, we will take that opportunity to discuss the matter.
I should like to assure the minister right now that we are entirely satisfied with his plan.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of this group I wish to say that we heartily endorse this plan announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in respect of Canada assisting in the educational development and advancement of the French speaking African states. We are quite confident that those teachers who go to these countries will do credit to Canada and will be of assistance to the people they aim to serve. I think this program will further indicate, first, our interest and concern in the welfare and development of the persons in these African states and, second, it will be a happy reflection on our national cultural heritage and its development into the international sphere.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 103-Mr. Herridge (for Mr. Argue):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any agency thereof, and any provincial government, organization or company, since February 22, 1960, pertaining to (a) the curtailment of (b) the allocation of, uranium contracts.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is accepted subject to reservations. In one instance the case is before the courts and it might be prejudicial to table the documents. In another, I observed some intimate details concerning the operation of the company which might be of interest to competitors and I think it inadvisable to table such information.
These are the type of reservations I have in mind, and the motion is accepted with that understanding.
Motions for Papers


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is reasonable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of the report arising out of the economic study or survey regarding the Haines cut-off highway.
Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Skeena was the subject of a question asked by him some two and a half months ago. I would refer him to Hansard for February 8, 1961 where, at page 1844, he will find that the minister indicated that the report referred to was a privileged document prepared for an interdepartmental committee and would therefore not be tabled in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the objection is the hon. member who moved the motion prepared to drop it?


Mr. Howard:: No, Mr. Speaker, I think you should put it.


Mr. Speaker:: On the motion of the hon.
member for Skeena for a copy of the report arising out of the economic study or survey regarding the Haines cut-off highway, those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it and I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion negatived on division.



POST OFFICE SITE, RESERVE MINES, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Herridge (for Mr. Argue):
For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any organization, company, or person since January 1, 1958, regarding the purchase of a site on Sydney road, Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of erecting a post office.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has made any

Inquiries of the Ministry decision in connection with the four recommendations made by the royal commission on transportation in its first report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, the government is giving the fullest consideration to this matter, and when I am in a position to do so I will make an announcement in the house. I did point out today that, in so far as the Freight Rates Reduction Act is concerned, one of the earlier steps taken will be the continuation of the provisions of that act for a further period.
In so far as the railways and their relationship to the union representatives are concerned, yesterday the Minister of Labour suggested a meeting among the presidents of the two railways and Mr. Hall and any other person chosen by him, with a view to their having preliminary talks as a prelude to full scale negotiations between the management of the railways and labour. Both parties agreed to this suggestion, and my information is that a meeting is taking place today.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. With reference to the Freight Rates Reduction Act, which the Prime Minister said earlier would be extended, is he able to tell the house for what length of time that statute will be extended? Will it be the usual 12 months period or for a nine months period, as in the case of the former extension?


John George Diefenbaker: Knowing the experience that the hon. gentleman had on the treasury benches, I would think he would agree with me that it would not be proper to indicate in advance, before the introduction of a resolution in that connection, the length of time of the extension.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is of urgent concern to a number of veterans in various localities in Canada.
Will the minister inform the house whether during the Easter recess he found the opportunity to study the comprehensive survey he mentioned on March 29 with respect to acreage requirements under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act? Is he now in a position to make an announcement that will lighten the hearts of many veterans

at present denied the opportunity to build under this section of the act owing to the acreage requirements?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate fully the urgency of this matter in so far as certain veterans in British Columbia are concerned. The difficulty that faces us is that what is being asked for is a change in the Veterans' Land Act, which has been in effect now for a good many years. The change would have to be applicable to every province in Canada from coast to coast. This is one aspect of the problem which makes it difficult for an immediate decision to be announced.
The second aspect is that considerable additional financial obligation will be incurred if the proposed change is made. However, what I would suggest to the hon. member is that if he will be patient for a little longer

this has been going on now for 16 years and I am just asking him to be patient for a few more weeks-perhaps we will be able to give him a favourable decision.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should
like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to advise the house as to the position of four Roman Catholic priests who are members of the foreign mission order in Montreal? Has the minister learned of the reasons for their arrest? What representations are being made by his department to the Cuban authorities?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, our
embassy in Havana has been doing its best for some days now to obtain the release of those priests. The last word I received was to the effect that they were still in custody. In addition, a fifth man, not a clergyman, was arrested. I believe he has been released.


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is yet in a position to advise the house as to when the delegation will be going to London to resume negotiations in connection with the uranium deal?


John George Diefenbaker: The date of the departure of the delegation has been under consideration, and I hope to be able to give that information very shortly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the acts of violence such as took place at Wynndel, British Columbia, on April 14 whereby over $2,000 damage was done to a grain elevator, and an attempt was made to blow up an Anglican church, will the minister advise what action his department will take to protect the lives of families in the Creston valley area?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. It gives me an opportunity to express very deep regret at this outrage and certainly to hope also that this will not mark the beginning of a series of outrages such as took place there in former years.
In so far as the question itself is concerned, I have to advise that under our system responsibility for the protection of life and property is that of the province. This has been the position maintained in this regard in connection with these incidents, subject, however, to the understanding that the federal government would at any time be prepared to consider sympathetically any reasonable request made by the province for special assistance required for the protection of life and property; but the initial responsibility is that of the province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROMOTE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this motion to go into supply gives the opposition another opportunity to raise matters about which it seeks to complain from time to time. Of course, I would have preferred to have this motion put earlier. However, there are events which take place in the house over which neither the opposition nor, for that matter, a private member has control. At the outset, before going into the subject which I desire to submit to the house 90205-6-249
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy on this occasion, I do want to say that from time to time we have repeatedly made the statement and the charge that the main features of the present Conservative administration seem to be confusion, indecision and lack of leadership. It could be easily shown that on more than one occasion that was the position of the government. Certainly, that can be said in the field of national defence. As the house knows, the government is acquiring very expensive equipment, but no decision has yet been taken in so far as the use of nuclear weapons is concerned.
The government is building two Bomarc missile bases in northern Ontario and northern Quebec which, in order to be effective must be equipped with nuclear weapons, but still the decision in so far as those weapons are concerned has not yet been taken. The same can be said in the field of monetary policy. The government refuses to accept any responsibility-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Evidently we are to have a repetition of what was attempted by the Leader of the Opposition on the last motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition began by talking about a number of subjects before indicating to the house what was to be the specific alleged grievance that was to be the subject matter of his amendment. Already the hon. member for Laurier is into a second subject and appears to be ready to repeat the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition on the last occasion.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when objection was taken at that time you made a ruling and you were quite definite in drawing attention to and, indeed, enforcing the well established rule of the house that on an occasion of this kind an opportunity is given to the opposition to raise a grievance and on such a motion we do not proceed to a second grievance until the first one is disposed of. Other hon. members are entitled to discuss the first grievance before a second one is raised. That is the well established rule and a rule that you enforced on that occasion.
The hon. member has begun by talking about defence questions and now, as a second subject, he apparently proposes to talk about monetary policy. I suggest that if he has chosen to discuss defence as a matter of grievance other hon. members are entitled to submit their views on that subject to the house before any hon. member goes on to raise a second grievance. If the hon. member for Laurier should choose to discuss the second subject he has mentioned, namely, monetary policy, it is quite obvious that has

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy already been the subject of an amendment on a previous occasion on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply and has been disposed of by decision of the house. Obviously it is not open to the hon. member to raise that subject again on a motion of this kind.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit it would be the proper course in seeking to make debates of this kind orderly if the hon. member, who evidently intends to introduce an amendment, were called upon to indicate the nature of that amendment to begin with before entering upon a general review of a number of subjects which is apparently what he is now seeking to do in breach of the rules.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it looked very much as if the Minister of Finance was going to take far more time than I in dealing with a point of order which I submit with deference is not well taken.


An hon. Member:: With a lot more sense though.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance has referred to several grievances that are being taken up by myself seriatim. That is not the case. I made one passing reference to national defence. Then I went on to another matter as, I submit with deference, I have a perfect right to do. When I come to the matter that I intend to discuss in detail I will indicate to the house what it is and then move an amendment. I say it is not contrary to the rules of the house to do what I have done up to this moment, namely, to make a passing reference to a policy or to a lack of policy on the part of the government. That is all I have done. I have dealt with one such matter and I propose to proceed to deal with another. I submit to you with deference, sir, that surely I have a right to do that in moving an amendment to a motion to go into committee of supply.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Laurier will agree with me that a supply motion offers an opportunity to debate a specific grievance and that, to avoid the problem of a debate without margins or limits, the practice on supply motions has been to indicate the general area of debate, either by indicating what the amendment is if an amendment is to be moved or by indicating what area the amendment will cover, before proceeding. Otherwise, a problem does arise, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Finance, and did arise on the last supply motion which caused some considerable difficulty because of the reference to a great many subjects which were actually not covered and could not have been covered under the amendment finally moved.

I raise no objection to the hon. member referring to a number of other items. The rule is against debating items which are not germane to the amendment that he proposes to move. I think it would be good practice, as has been established by our proceedings in the past, for the hon. member to indicate at the outset of his speech the area he proposes to cover, just as is done after the amendments are disposed of. A member rises, discusses a specific item of grievance, and is entitled to deal with only one item.


Mr. McGee:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to request direction from you. In dealing with a side issue in passing the hon. member has made a misstatement of fact, and I am wondering what position we are in from the point of view of correcting his misstatement.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to speak to the point of order and indicate that he disagrees with the interpretation of the hon. member for Laurier, he has the opportunity to do so now before the point of order is disposed of. If the hon. member wishes to make a point by way of objection, I should like to hear it.


Frank Charles McGee: It is not a question of interpretation. The hon. member made the statement, and I copied down his words, that the Bomarc missile requires a nuclear warhead in order to be operative. That is clearly not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I misunderstood the hon. member. I thought his intervention related to the point of order and not to the substance of what had been said.


Lionel Chevrier: To come back to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no fault to find with the statement you have just made in which you indicated there is nothing objectionable about a general discussion provided the member speaking does not go into detail. That is what Your Honour ruled in connection with the earlier debate to which the Minister of Finance referred, and that is exactly what I intended to do, namely, to make passing references in a general way and then go on to the subject with which I intend to deal. As found on page 3134 of Hansard for March 20, 1961, Your Honour said:
I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. While I expected a certain amount of general discussion as he was getting his argument focussed on the subject he intended to deal with, it seemed that after he had dealt with the convention of last week he skipped through unemployment in general terms and is now on monetary policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go on. Read the next sentence.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to putting the next sentence on record.
I believe that il the Leader of the Opposition has a specific amendment he should come to the point, so as to put some proper limit on this debate for those who have to follow. If he does not do so there is no limit for any other speaker.
The point is that I had not had the opportunity to deal with any matter because I was interrupted. I was saying that in the field of monetary policy the government refuses to accept any responsibility although-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. The hon. member in addition to defying your ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand it, I am hearing the hon. member on the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was obviously going on with his speech and, quite apart from defying your ruling with regard to stating a grievance and confining discussion to that grievance-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A ruling has not been made yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -he is proceeding to talk about monetary policy which has already been the subject of a determination by this house in the clearest terms at the present session.


Mr. Speaker:: I was looking at Beauchesne at the moment the hon. member for Laurier got beyond the point of order, if he did get that far. I wish to refer to the citation about debate on motions for supply. It is citation 234 in the fourth edition. I should like to read the first paragraph which is as follows:
234. The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada.
(1) Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" must be proposed, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as provided by standing orders 56 and 58. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
The debate in such a case is limited by the rules respecting past decisions, anticipation, sedition, reflections on the Senate-
And so on. The reference, of course, is to "redress of any grievance". I think the fact that the word "grievance" is in the singular 90205-6-249i
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy is significant. I refer the house to a decision of my predecessor in the chair which indicates that a specific matter should be discussed at this time. This decision will be found in Hansard of May 16, 1955, volume 4 at page 3790. I do not wish to take up more time because I think there is perhaps little difference between what I have been saying and what the hon. member for Laurier proposes to do. However, I do not agree that he can debate at large other matters than the one which he proposes to make the subject of his grievance and which he can debate only if it comes within the citation I have read. Therefore the proper course to follow in raising a grievance in going into supply is for the hon. member, when he starts, to state the grievance at least in terms sufficient to delimit the area of discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I have any fault to find with your decision, Mr. Speaker. If I understood it aright, I certainly can make a passing reference to some of the matters that have been determined by the house or have not been determined as the case may be and then come to the matter which I intend to raise.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt again, may I make this observation. What I was trying to say about passing reference was that, in the course of debating his grievance, he certainly would not be tied to the point where he could not refer in passing to other matters provided he did not enter into debate of those matters. I believe that was the substance of my remarks which he cited earlier.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I intend to discuss is one having to do with trade. I might as well tell the house that immediately. I say that here there has been the same kind of lack of leadership and the same kind of indecision-


An hon. Member:: And the same speech.


Lionel Chevrier: -that we have seen from time to time on other matters. Certainly that is the case in connection with the report of the royal commission on transportation. That report has been in the hands of the government now for several weeks; and although the matter is one of grave consequence, the government does not seem to be able to make up its mind although there is a strike deadline just ahead of us on May 15 or May 16.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. gentleman any more suggestions-


George James McIlraith: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -or scattergun objections?

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) asks if I have any more suggestions. I simply say this to the Prime Minister. The responsibility is his. He has in his hands an important document. It seems to me that the house should be entitled at this time if not earlier, to some indication of what the government intends to do. However, we are far from getting such indication. Only this afternoon did we obtain some indication of what the government intends to do in so far as the Freight Rates Reduction Act is concerned. Then again, since there is going to be an amendment to that act, as the Prime Minister has indicated, there must be a statute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood that the hon. member for Laurier does not propose to move an amendment in that field of transportation. It seems to me that, in addition to illustrating his point which I take it was lack of decision on the part of the government, he has gone on to debate the matter and that he should now return to his grievance.


Lionel Chevrier: I disagree with you respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I did not go on to debate the matter until after I was asked by the Prime Minister a question as to what suggestions I had to make. My reply was that the responsibility was his. From there I went on to say that here is a statute, the Freight Rates Reduction Act-


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I said was this: What is your next scattergun objection? In other words I was simply referring to the fact that the hon. gentleman is just playing ducks and drakes with the ruling which Your Honour made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I listened with more care perhaps to what the hon. member for Laurier was saying because I was not thinking of making any interjection. As I recall it, what the hon. member said was that he intends to discuss the matter of trade about which there has been indecision and so on and that this was characteristic of the government. In making his argument he was giving a certain number of analogies. The Chair has ruled over and over again that in argument analogies are certainly in order even if they relate to other matters.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the proposition stated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is unexceptionable. However, the hon. member for Laurier, far from limiting his remarks to an analogy, was making some positive debating assertions about the attitude

of the government, a procedure which to my mind is quite out of order in view of what he has indicated hitherto.


Lionel Chevrier: I of course, accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However, I contend that if I went beyond the rules, it was certainly under provocation.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the field of trade that perhaps there has been the greatest confusion on the part of the government. We all remember the famous trade diversion proposal made by the Prime Minister in July of 1957. It was intended to increase our trade with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom took the Prime Minister's proposal seriously and in September of 1957 it presented a counter proposal. It presented to the government a free trade proposal which was the only concrete and practical way of attaining the objective expressed by the Prime Minister in July. What was the reaction of the Canadian government to that proposal? In an earlier debate I had occasion to state what the reaction was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To misstate it.


Lionel Chevrier: However, in effect there is no doubt that the government refused even to consider the proposal of the British government; and in this house, in spite of our repeated demands, we were not successful in getting from the ministers any statement about this proposal. In other words, the proposal of the British government was simply ignored by those who sit opposite me at the moment. Instead of seriously considering the British offer, the government in the fall of 1957 decided to send a trade mission to the United Kingdom. But it was a buying mission, and the slogan then used by the government was "Buy British".
This was in the fall of 1957. However, in the 1958 budget the Minister of Finance decided to increase the tariff on British woollens. They constituted, as the house knows, one of the main export items of the United Kingdom to Canada. That was the answer which was made by the members of the government to those in the United Kingdom who had something constructive to offer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member say that, having regard to the report of the tariff board upon which we acted, and the condition of the woollen textile industry in Canada, this proposal to the house was not a proper proposal at the time, and he condemns it?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question is quite simple and I will be dealing with some aspects of the textile industry later on.
However, the point is that notwithstanding the offer which was made, even although there was a proposal from the British government, the government "upped" the tariff against British woollens. There can be no denial as far as this is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you say we
should not have done it?


Lionel Chevrier: Later during the session of 1958 the government decided to amend the Customs Act in order to re-establish the system of arbitrary valuations which had been established during the Bennett regime. This legislation gave to the cabinet and the Minister of National Revenue wide arbitrary powers to raise the tariff by order in council. This was not only incompatible with the spirit and the objectives of GATT, but also with our system of parliamentary democracy.
According to the government at that time, the new legislation had become absolutely necessary and essential to protect Canadian industry. However, as a result of strong protests from the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States we have been told that the legislation which was so essential in 1958 has been very seldom applied since.
I think in answer to a question in this house the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) was unable to say whether or not it had been used, or stated that if so, it had been used very infrequently.
Canadian industry, therefore, has not received the protection it had been led to expect from the government, but none the less ministers have retained the arbitrary powers they should not have in a parliamentary democracy. In 1959-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield the floor to my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not care whether or not the hon. member yields the floor; I am rising on a point of order.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has purported to attribute a statement to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). The hon. member has not quoted the statement from Hansard, and I say that the statement he has attributed to my colleague is not the statement my colleague made.
My colleague said it had not been necessary to use those powers-
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy


Some hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The minister has risen to express his disagreement with a statement made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). The practice of the house is that the minister would be allowed to rise and make the correction after the hon. member for Laurier had resumed his seat. I think this is the proper course to follow.
If the hon. member for Laurier yields the floor for the minister to make a correction, that is all very well; but if he does not yield the floor for such purpose, the practice is that such correction of a misstatement or misunderstanding should be made after the hon. member who has the floor has resumed his seat.


Lionel Chevrier: I have yielded the floor to my hon. friend on several occasions. I do not propose to do so again unless it is in accordance with the rules of the house.
I continue from where I was interrupted to say that in 1959 the government continued to follow a timid, protectionist policy which certainly did not help Canadian industry but was enough to give us a bad reputation in countries outside Canada.
The Minister of Finance continued to appear to be a strong supporter of GATT, in words of course, but how could Canada's words be taken seriously in international meetings when in fact in the fall of 1958 the Minister of National Revenue had violated the very spirit of GATT?
Meanwhile the government expressed its timid approval of the two new trading blocs emerging in Europe, although, as it now appears, it was strongly opposed to a unified European common market. This was a most inconsistent attitude to take.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The government failed to see that the emergence of two separate trading blocs in Europe was not only artificial but also undesirable. It was obvious from the beginning that the formation of the outer seven was mainly a bargaining move intended to bring about a European trade community which negotiations between individual nations had failed to achieve.
The government's confusion, however, became complete in 1960. It accepted, with at least some apparent enthusiasm, a full membership in O.E.C.D., which is supposed to foster European economic unity, but both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) threatened to take retaliatory action against the United Kingdom-

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: -if the British government accepted the terms required by the common market countries to bring about such economic unity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance says that is not true. I hold in my hand a press clipping from the Regina Leader-Post entitled:
Mr. Fleming's protectionist approach to Europe paying lip service to free trade.
This article is dated November 29, 1960.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the source?


Lionel Chevrier: I said, the Regina Leader-Post. The article continues as fallows:
A highly protectionist frame of mind and intent, based on fear, now stands revealed in two new documents presented by and given the blessing of Canada's Minister of Finance, Donald M. Fleming.
One of the documents, an address delivered by Mr. Fleming to the Canadian industrial editors' association last week at Ste. Adele, Quebec, outlined at length the official government reaction to the new European trading groups.
The article then goes on and states:
Mr. Fleming, of course, reiterates his violent opposition to Britain entering the European common market in any way. He finds it difficult to see how any accommodation which the United Kingdom might make with the "Six" nations "could fail to damage to some degree, and perhaps seriously, Canadian interests".
This article continues:
But by far the most significant words used by Mr. Fleming in both his Ste. Adele address and his Times article, filled in this important detail:
This paragraph is in quotations:
"If," he says, "the more damaging possibilities in fact materialized, if the impact on free entry and commonwealth preferences were far-reaching and if reverse preferences were created against us, there would be Canadians who would claim that the system of commonwealth preferences was at an end".
Earlier the article states:
Mr. Fleming describes such a possibility as a "threat". He sees, if it should come about, an end to the present preferential entry of Canadian goods onto the British market, hitherto so valuable to Canada. He fears especially the possibility of damage to the rate of entry of Canadian agricultural products into Britain.
Then there is this significant paragraph:
"Certainly under such circumstances, the pressures for Canada to embark on closer trade associations with other countries, particularly the United States, would understandably be greatly increased".
Then later on:
From an expressed position of advocating a trade diversion away from the United States, the finance minister within a short space of time has now

come to the position of considering the possibility of adopting a policy which would be quite the reverse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rot.


Lionel Chevrier: The article continues:
Should it come about, there would be few if any patterns of policy development which could compare with it in the history of Canada.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce made no secret about his position when he was in Paris. Here I quote from a clipping from the Ottawa Journal dated December 15, 1960 and datelined Paris:
Unless the European common market substantially reduces its announced tariff schedules affecting imports from Canada, at the GATT negotiations in progress in Geneva Canada will retaliate by increasing its barriers against imports from the six European countries. That warning has been given by trade minister Hees to the European ministers meeting here.
There can be no doubt about that statement, and if it is not accurate I presume the minister will deny it. But that has not been done in this house. Then a new round of negotiations was initiated in Geneva by GATT members, and if the Minister of Finance is sincere in saying he is a strong supporter of trade on a multilateral basis the Canadian delegates at Geneva must surely have presented concrete and bold proposals for freer trade in the world. While these negotiations were going on, however, the Minister of Finance in his supplementary budget took another important step on the road to greater protection with his amendment to the provisions respecting the class or kind of goods made in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I rise to a point of order? It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to make reference to matters which have engaged the attention of the house in previous sessions or to make reference to things which happened outside the house and which are not subject to a decision in the house, but he is now referring to a matter which engaged the attention of hon. members over the past two months, the debate of which was concluded on the third reading of the bill last week. The hon. member has now begun to discuss this matter again and I submit he is out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance is again wasting his breath entirely. I have not started to discuss this subject. I made reference to it, and I have completed my reference. The minister cannot remain in his seat for a moment. When anything is said which concerns his department or which affects him he must rise immediately and protest. I hope he will rise and protest on those occasions when he should do so in accordance with the rules of the house but not otherwise.

I was going on to say, after that statement, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a great showman. He has shown that on more than one occasion, and so has the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for that matter. But the showmanship of the Prime Minister is in the field of vision whereas, I must admit, the showmanship of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is more real. However, since the calling together of the trade commissioners in Ottawa to meet the businessmen the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been touring the country preaching a "Buy Canadian" campaign. In the fall of 1957 the slogan was "Buy British". Today it is "Buy Canadian", and the great export drive which was begun with such enthusiasm and apparent dynamism not long ago and which received so much publicity last fall seems now to have been entirely forgotten by those who sit on the other side of the house.
What will the next step be? I presume it will come when the Minister of Finance hands down his budget. Once again the Minister of Finance will probably talk about freer trade on a multilateral basis at the beginning of his speech when he refers to the international economic situation and then announce further protective action at the end of his speech just before reaching his final exhortation. At least, this is what the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) led his audience to expect when he spoke recently in St. Hyacinthe and promised that the textile industry would soon be adequately protected against foreign competition. Did the Minister of Finance read the speech of his colleague the Secretary of State? Did he compare it with the speeches made by the Prime Minister about greater protection for the textile industry against dumping, protection for that industry in the same manner as agricultural products, for instance, are protected against dumping.
I think the Minister of Finance should read what was said by his colleague. There is no doubt that this speech, together with other speeches made by the Prime Minister, adds up to a long list of inconsistencies and contradictions. The examples I have given are not exhaustive. I have not the time to put them all on record in Hansard, but they are none the less impressive. The government has talked one way and acted another. The government has given the indication that it intended to move in one direction while, as a matter of fact, acting in the other way; although its actions, when it did move, have proved of little assistance to those industries which were in need of assistance and which required protection.
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
Meanwhile our export trade has, fortunately, continued to expand. The government cannot take credit for this expansion, which is due not to its policies but to the dynamic economy and growth of western European industry. The increase of 9 per cent in the physical volume of our export trade since 1957 does not justify complacency on the part of the government, and there have been indications of such complacency from time to time. In the first place that expansion has not been fast enough to enable our economy to move ahead or even to retain its position. Moreover, this upward trend may well come to an end when the new trading arrangements in Europe are fully implemented at which time their restrictive features will begin to produce results.
The formation of O.E.C.D. was certainly a step in the right direction. One of the main functions of the new organization was-and I quote:
To achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries while maintaining financial stability.
However, O.E.C.D. will not be able to accomplish very much in that direction if an excessive stress is placed on economic aid functions which annoy many Europeans. Moreover, the new organization can be at best a useful forum for discussion leading to a better co-ordination of economic policies and, in particular, to new trading arrangements within the north Atlantic community. But in order to achieve this most important objective, member countries must decide what trade policy is best for them and try to reconcile their differences in order to pursue a common purpose.
If this is to be done, Canada, in particular, must abandon its present confused and ineffective trade policy. The government must get out of its present dilemma and realize that it is impossible to have at the same time two conflicting trade policies, one of free trade for our export industries and one of high protection for our secondary manufacturing industries.
This basic conflict can be solved only when we become aware of the very important fact that high protection is not the only way and, in the framework of our international obligations, is certainly not the best way of helping our secondary manufacturing industries.
If we were to rely only on a restrictive trade policy to assist this sector of our economy high tariffs and quotas would be necessary. This would mean, of course, that we would have to withdraw from GATT and that our export industries would be exposed to massive retaliation. Such a restrictive policy

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy would be a fatal blow for our export industries and it would not solve the basic difficulties of our secondary manufacturing industry.
The source of those difficulties comes from relatively high production costs resulting from a small domestic market and lack of specialization. High protection, it seems to us on this side of the house, can do very little to remove this basic weakness. At best it could offer only a temporary advantage and give to our domestic industry a larger share of a smaller market resulting from a decline of the export industries.
The only realistic long term solution to the difficulties experienced by our secondary manufacturing industry lies in the direction of free trade. Our domestic industries would then have an easy access to large markets and would be able to specialize. It could produce fewer products in much greater quantities resulting in substantially lower costs of production.
The gradual establishment of free trade would, of course, create transitional problems for our domestic industry. It would have to change its production techniques, modify its equipment and intensify its sales efforts abroad. These transitional problems, however, can be solved if the government is prepared to initiate a special program of assistance to our domestic industries. This should not be difficult because, when one considers what happened in the formation of the common market countries, where the same problems were met, and with tremendous success, one can realize that it can be done. When it is considered that these six countries, two of which have lower tariffs than ours and two others of which have higher tariffs, were able by agreement among themselves to reduce their tariffs to a common denominator [DOT]-there is no doubt that difficulties were encountered in the process-and if it could be accomplished with the results, which we know over there, and give such dynamism and increase to the trade, there is no doubt that similar action could be followed here.
Such a program, as I have outlined in a general way, because I have already put it on Hansard in a more detailed manner in another debate, should be highly flexible and include loans, grants and tax incentives. It should also be carefully planned in consultation with industry in order to be well adapted to the concrete re-adjustments involved. Its large-scale implementation would not create any special financial problems because it would be accompanied by the gradual removal of a tariff burden which is estimated at more than $1 billion annually. We suggest on this side of the house, that this might well
CMr. Chevrier.]

be accomplished either through the reorganization of the Department of Trade and Commerce or by the creation of a new department of industry to implement the plan that has been referred to from time to time in the house.
The program of assistance which I just outlined would solve the basic problems of our secondary manufacturing industry much more effectively than high protection. It has the additional tremendous merit of being perfectly consistent with the best interests of our traditional export industries.
Each generation of Canadians has been tempted by the apparent simplicity of high protection but has found through bitter experience that a restrictive trade policy is not suited to Canadian conditions. Throughout our history, our export trade has been the main dynamic factor of our expansion and prosperity. When our export industries experienced difficulties, as in the second half of the nineteenth century, the whole Canadian economy failed to grow rapidly. When the level of our exports was increasing substantially, as it did most of the time during the present century, we enjoyed over-all rapid expansion.
Thus, sir, the major aim of our trade policy should be to promote exports through freer trade, while enabling our secondary manufacturing industry at the same time to adjust itself to this new environment through the implementation of a special program of assistance. We should, however, be realistic enough to realize that progress toward free trade on a world scale is becoming more and more difficult. The underdeveloped countries are not likely to support such a movement. The Sino-Soviet bloc are opposed to it, and the emergence of other regional trading arrangements have given a new direction to the free trade movement. On the other hand, a free trade arrangement between Canada and the United States alone would be undesirable for us not only for economic but also, and perhaps especially, for political reasons.
The gradual establishment of free trade between the emerging European common market, including the outer seven and the inner six, and North America, seems to be the only realistic objective that we should seek. The unification of the two European trading zones in a broad common market now appears inevitable. It is also highly desirable, and we would not oppose it, provided it is developed within the framework of a North Atlantic free trade area. Such an arrangement would not only make sense for Canada but it would also strengthen all the national economies of the western world and put them in a better position to help the underdeveloped countries, and to meet the

Soviet challenge. Moreover, the creation of this Atlantic trade community would consolidate the political unity of western democracies and give a new purpose to the alliance of the free world.
This great idea of an Atlantic trade community was put forward for the first time by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in December, 1957 in Oslo when he received the Nobel peace prize. He then said:
Now the European nations are launching themselves through the common market and its associated free trade area, on an adventure in the economic unification of peoples that a few years ago would have seemed completely visionary. Is it any more visionary to foresee a further extension of this co-operative economic pattern? Is it not time to begin to think in terms of an economic interdependence that would bridge the Atlantic?
Then again, on January 24, 1958, in a speech made in Vancouver, my leader repeated his suggestion in the following terms:
In short, it seems that the era of gradual tariff reductions through GATT have come to an end. We do not surely wish to replace it by a western Europe and a North America aiming at selfsufficiency. If not, then surely the best alternative, and the best way to meet the Soviet economic and political challenge is an Atlantic freer trade area to complement the European customs union and free trade zone. For Canada, is this not the best way to reduce our economic dependence on the United States while expanding our trade, maintaining our economic development and raising even higher our living standards? This is a challenging prospect and is surely worth serious and immediate consideration, negotiation and planning. Could there be a finer initiative for Canada?
This idea has now received the acclaim and support of most of the western leaders. There is no doubt of the position which Prime Minister Macmillan of the United Kingdom took during his visit to this continent. Not only in Washington, but also in the speech which he delivered to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and during the press conference which he gave here on April 12 the Prime Minister of Great Britain said that the free world must think in terms of creating the largest area of free trade possible and a North Atlantic free trade area should be created. Vice President Johnson, speaking in Paris at the beginning of April, developed the same theme. In an address in Toronto in December, 1960, Mr. Stevenson had this to say:
A working Atlantic community would do more than enhance the basic strength of the west. It would demonstrate to other areas-to Latin America, to Africa, to the Middle East and to India and Pakistan-methods by which political autonomy can be combined with supra-national co-operation.
The West German minister of economic affairs, Mr. Erhard, and of defence, Mr. Strauss, have expressed on several occasions their support for a North Atlantic free trade area.
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
Mr. Maurice Faure, former French minister of European institutions, said recently:
In my view the answer to European and to NATO problems is the same: at both levels we must outgrow the old-fashioned concept of a mere alliance between sovereign states and work out new patterns of organic unity. European unification and Atlantic co-operation should progress simultaneously. The ultimate goal should be a European federation within an Atlantic confederation.
Mr. Spaak and Van Zealand in Belgium, and the political leaders of the Scandinavian countries, have made statements along the same lines. Therefore, it can be seen that the idea put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in December of 1957 is now widely supported in the North Atlantic countries. The Leader of the Opposition is now suggesting an Atlantic economic conference, at the highest governmental level, for the purpose of laying the foundation for an Atlantic economic community. I submit the government should accept the suggestion and take the lead in calling such a conference.
Instead, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has rejected any idea of Canadian participation in the gradual establishment of an Atlantic free trade area. This he did at a meeting of the Progressive Conservative party in March. Before him, the Minister of Finance is reported as having said in Washington in January, 1960, that an Atlantic trade community would not be in the best interests of Canada as a world trader.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What document is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a press statement that I have not with me but I shall be glad to get it for the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member if he will give me the source of the statement that he says I made?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I have it here; I will send it over. Meanwhile, the minister is threatening to raise Canadian tariffs if the United Kingdom aligns itself with the common market countries in some sort of a free trade area.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the authority for that statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already put that statement on Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That misstatement.


Lionel Chevrier: Such an attitude is not only unrealistic but dangerous in today's world because it is in sharp contrast with new trade patterns, and it may lead us only to isolation or continental dependence. Dr. Hugo De

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy Grood, the head of the North American division at the European common market headquarters in Brussels, had this to say last December:
It seems to us that Canada overrates its own importance these days. We want to trade with you, but you must understand that if necessary we shall get along without you.
Then again, another high official in the European common market is reported to have added:
Much as we like Canada and Canadians, don't ever think that a market of 17 million people can threaten us into changing our basic plans.
The choice that Canada has today is not between GATT and the Atlantic trade community but between this broad association and isolation. Our country experienced sustained and rapid expansion during the present century within the North Atlantic commercial triangle. We, on this side of the house, merely propose to revive and consolidate this historical association. Canada suffered from economic stagnation in the latter part of the nineteenth century when we were isolated from world markets and the main channels of trade. If the government rejects our proposals, our country may well suffer again from isolation and stagnation, as it did in the nineteenth century.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the protectionist and inconsistent trade policies of the government and its failure to develop a long term foreign economic policy to enable Canada to participate fully in the challenging new opportunities in the field of international trade by implementing a vigorous program to promote the expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries and by encouraging the development of an Atlantic economic community."


Mr. Speaker:: Before I place the amendment before the house I shall be glad to know whether any hon. member wishes to raise any point with respect to the proposed amendment?


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the amendment and I can say immediately that our group intends to support it. We note that according to the statistics our exports have been rising in recent years. However, we contend they have not been rising fast enough to meet our national needs. We have to remember that in order to obtain a satisfactory level of exports they must be at a level adequate enough to pay for the goods and services we import. In addition to paying for the goods and services we import, they must also be enough to meet our payments on our foreign debt and it is to be noted that the level of such payments has been rising with tremendous rapidity of

late. We have to repay to those who invest in Canada not only the basic principal of the investment but also the interest and if equity is involved our economy is expected to return a profit on the investments that outsiders make in our country.
In addition to having to pay by means of exports for the goods and services we import and also our foreign debt, we must also regard our export needs in the light of employment needs in our own country. In the light of world needs, our group denies completely any necessity for unemployment in Canada. However, we realize at once that our exports have a lot to do with the level of employment and unemployment in Canada and we realize that we have to export an ever-growing proportion of our wealth if we are going to provide employment for all those in Canada who would like to work.
I note that according to the official statistics our over-all deficit in 1959 was $1,429 million. This is a matter of very serious concern. I agree at once that the objective of the amendment is a good one. However, we contend that in Canada we should be producing what we are able to produce economically, and the attainment of that objective will mean changes in our economic structure. We will have to make a selection of products. We will have to make up our minds what we are able to produce economically in Canada in relation to the rest of the world and we will have to concentrate on those products rather than attempting to protect the man with a greenhouse who is trying to produce bananas for Canadian consumers. I say at once that whole industries need not be sacrificed, that rather we should decide now that we must give up the production of certain products because they may be uneconomical and their continued production may be against the long term national interest.
At this time I should like to compliment the Canadian producers of industrial machinery. I believe they have realized that their continued prosperity depends on specialization and, having regard to the recession and all other factors, I believe they are doing relatively well because they have taken into account the fact that we can compete only by specializing and that we cannot compete very successfully on the basis of nationalism which is outdated in the economic world of today.
I should like to express my disappointment at the failure of Canadian industries generally to realize that they have to adjust in order to survive. If we want to have a proper approach we must realize that we are not an island by ourselves in the world today. We have to accept the world as it is and if our industries want to survive they will only

survive provided they are willing to adjust to economic realities and attune their operations accordingly.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member who had the floor at six o'clock would allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to give the references which I made to statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I did not have them with me when I spoke. The statement made by the Minister of Finance is reported in the Windsor Star of January 7, 1960. It is entitled: "Fleming declines U.S. Plan".


John George Diefenbaker: What is the paper?


Lionel Chevrier: The Windsor Star.


John George Diefenbaker: Of what date?


Lionel Chevrier: January 7, 1960. The reference I had in mind was the following:
-Mr. Fleming told reporters a new Atlantic trade community consisting of the European groups, the U.S. and Canada, would not he in the best interests of Canada as a world trader.
The other reference I made having to do with the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce before the Progressive Conservative association is from the Montreal Gazette dated March 18, 1961, and is entitled, "Red China, Free Trade, Jobless", and it is as follows:
Trade Minister Hees said Liberal party advocacy of an Atlantic free trade area meant nothing more than reciprocity between Canada and the United States. That would result in American industrial producers flooding the Canadian market with more cheaply-made goods, creating widespread unemployment in Canada by closing down Canadian industry.
As I said, this statement was made when the Conservative party's annual meeting took place.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit surprised that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) appeared as the leading spokesman on behalf of the Liberal party in the debate dealing with the subject of trade. We had always been led to believe that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mellraith) was the expert on behalf of the official opposition in this regard. I believe the fact that the hon. member for Laurier has now pre-empted the position that had been occupied by the hon. member for Ottawa West is revealed in the very wording of the
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy amendment in its reference to expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries. Had the hon. member for Ottawa West been responsible for this amendment, I believe he would have omitted this reference of particular concern to the expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries. The hon. member for Laurier has always been well known as a spokesman for the textile industry which, as we all know, is under a severe handicap, as it has been for a considerable number of years. I can only explain the new spokesman for the Liberal party in terms of trade upon reading the very wording of the amendment that is now offered.
I regard this particular portion of the amendment as nothing more or less than a sop to the hon. member for Laurier. However, our group recognizes the fact that our needs in the field of international trade cannot be successfully resolved until we have resolved the problem of unemployment in Canada within our own national borders. I agree at once that we are unable to resolve the complications of this problem until we build up adequate markets that will relieve us of the curse of unemployment. We appreciate at once that the immediate way of resolving the problem of unemployment is to enhance our obvious home market by giving our people adequate purchasing power. However, in addition to that, much can be done to enhance our markets abroad. I should like to quote, merely for the record, a submission made today to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet by the national unemployment lobby committee. On this particular matter it reads as follows, at page 9:
More should be done to promote trade. We should seek to expand our trade with all countries. Trade representatives should go to countries where our trade up to now has done poorly. A permanent trade commission should be established to visit all countries in turn. There should be a Canadian export bank to help exporters, with loans guaranteed by the government. Long term loans and technical assistance should be extended to so-called underdeveloped countries on a still larger scale; the loans should be at a nominal rate of interest, or interest free. Capital goods, which Canadian industry is quite able to make if allowed and helped to do so, should be an important part of our aid program.
Many eminent people, here and abroad, have suggested that Canada and other countries should use 1 per cent of their gross national product for foreign aid. This would mean $360 million for Canada. We doubt that the present total is even one third of that.
May I only interject that our present total is not even a fifth of that amount. The submission continues:
Mutual aid is certainly the right way to describe this assistance, since it helps the countries giving it as well as those receiving it.
That is the end of the submission of this national unemployment lobby committee

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy which I understand met with the government today. We ought to realize that our particular problems would disappear if we had a policy of full employment. We would not have to worry too much about specific industries that are in particular need of tariff protection from time to time. I believe we have to resolve our thinking to the point where we would agree to a policy of integration of our production with the production of other nations.
I have read wth a great deal of interest the suggestion of Dr. Hugh Keenleyside. Dr. Keenleyside advocates our entering into an agreement with the United States of America for a selective integration of production. To put it very bluntly, if the United States insist on making automatic washers for the whole North American continent, we might agree to that if they would allow us to make automatic dryers for the whole North American continent.
If the United States want to manufacture large cars for the whole North American continent, they might be persuaded to agree to our manufacturing small cars to satisfy the whole North American market.
As far as I have observed, Dr. Keenleyside in no way advocates complete integration of our production with the production of the United States of America. Rather, he advocates a selective imagination. I feel that we have to go far beyond what Dr. Keenleyside advocates, namely, we ought to work toward integration of our production with the production of all the nations with whom an agreement would be obtainable.
I regret very much the attitude of the government towards the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade, commonly known as GATT. I regret very much reading in our press that the Canadian government is attempting to threaten the negotiations that are under way at the present time with regard to the renewal of these agreements.
I understand Canada is in effect saying that if the inner six should dare to establish a common tariff barrier on imports into those countries, we might even refuse to continue to participate in the renewal of the Geneva agreements on tariff and trade. I referred to this at the time of the last budget speech when I said I felt it would do Canada little good-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the hon. member give the authority for that statement?


Erhart Regier: I hope the minister reads as many newspapers as I. I believe it is no secret that Canada is most adamant at the meetings of GATT which are currently taking place and is insisting that the inner six have no right to establish a common tariff

barrier on imports. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has even gone so far as to indicate that retaliation on the part of Canada would result if the inner six were to adopt a common tariff barrier on imports.
That is what I had in mind when, at the time of the last budget, I described the minister as the abominable snowman walking across Europe with a big club over his shoulder. I am afraid we are not going to get very far with this attitude. This is not co-operation; it is not in the interests of NATO and it is not in the interests of the Atlantic community. This attitude is not in the interests of the western world.
While the Minister of Finance attempts to make much of O.E.C.D., I am afraid that O.E.C.D. may end up as little more than wishful thinking. I should like to remind those responsible for our welfare in the international trading field that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe this may well apply to the organization known as O.E.C.D.
We want to have our cake and eat it too. We refuse to associate ourselves-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You want somebody else's cake.


Erhart Regier: Hon. members may laugh, but but we refuse to associate ourselves with any of the growing and successful trading blocs of the world. They are growing not only in number but also in success. We want to keep ourselves isolated; we want the best of a number of worlds in this field.
The rate of growth of the inner six exceeds the recent rate of growth of either the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. If I am able to gauge it accurately, the outer seven will very soon- and much too soon, as far as our interests are concerned-be allied with the inner six.
The Middle East has its trading bloc; over a long period of years the communists have had their trading bloc; and we now have Latin America to consider.
I should like to quote from a publication issued by our Department of External Affairs in regard to the Montevideo treaty. At page 858 of this publication it says:
The Montevideo treaty thus contains a specific declaration in its preamble to the effect that its members will persevere in their efforts to bring about the complete economic integration of the whole of Latin America.
The Latin American "Seven" have a population of some 144 million inhabitants which accounts for approximately 70 per cent of the total population of the 20 Latin American republics.
Later on, in reference to our nation, it says:
Canadian exports to the countries forming the LAFTA totalled just under $70 million in 1959.

approximately half our exports to Latin America and 1.4 per cent of our total exports.
1 submit that the problem is very serious indeed. We have a terrific deficit. According to our own dominion bureau of statistics' publication "Review of Foreign Trade" our exports total $5,140,000,000 and our imports total $5,508,000,000. For the year 1948, in terms of constant dollars, our exports were $4,192,000,000 and our imports $4,815,000,000.
I believe that the government of the day has been most inept and most negligent in the discharge of its responsibilities to the Canadian people and I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding thereto the following words:
"to prevent a drastic loss of overseas markets for agricultural and other primary products."


The Deputy Chairman:: Is there any comment on the validity of the subamendment? If there is no objection I will put the subamendment formally before the house.
The question is now on the subamendment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment which has just been moved and the motion moved by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) are both very welcome to the government because I do not know of any area less favourable for members of the opposition to attack than that which has been chosen by the opposition today.
The main motion, which expresses regret at what it calls the protectionist and inconsistent policies of the government, is, in itself, completely inconsistent. It purports to speak on the one hand of a free or freer trade area within the Atlantic economic community and in the same breath it expresses regret because, it says, the government has failed to promote the expansion of secondary manufacturing industries in Canada. These two courses are contradictory and represent opposite ends of the economic pole.
At no time has any government put forth a greater effort to extend trade than this government has done and we shall continue to put forward that effort. We are very anxious to expand trade throughout, not only the Atlantic community, but the whole world and we shall continue to press our efforts in the future to the same degree as we have in past years.
However, I wish to say that supporters of the government will vote against this amendment, since it constitutes a straight vote of no confidence in the government, and if it were carried the government would be out of office. We know that the people are too
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy well pleased with the service which this government is giving, for a chance to be taken of disappointing them at this time.
Canadian trade policy has been developed over many years by successive governments, as we all know, and today it represents the best judgment of the governments of the past and of the present government in the light of economic and political conditions which have existed over the past four years. The government is fully aware that new economic and trade developments are taking place throughout the world, and has been examining its course of action closely for months past. The fact that no precipitate action has been taken to date is a measure of the difficulty of the problem, and the importance of the policy decisions as they are ultimately resolved. I can assure the house, however, that I will recommend to my cabinet colleagues free or freer trade, or the joining by Canada of any economic trade grouping, whenever I am convinced that such a step is not only in the best interest of export groups, but of the Canadian economy as a whole.
Hon. members will know that for months past detailed negotiations have been going on in Geneva to ensure the most favourable terms of access for Canada's exports to the common market. Within the next few days the second phase of the tariff conference in Geneva will begin. The major trading nations of the GATT will be entering into negotiations for the mutual reduction of tariffs, the first such negotiations since 1956. Apart from Canada the leading trading countries participating are the United States, the common market, and the United Kingdom.
These negotiations represent part of the machinery by which we hope to maximize international trade.
Senior officials of my department have been in attendance at Geneva constantly since last August when these negotiations commenced, and will be continuing in these negotiations until they are completed later this year.
I am keeping in close touch with the progress of the negotiations, and I might tell the house the assistant deputy minister of my department is returning to Canada on Wednesday this week to report fully to myself and my officials on the current status of these important discussions.
This government has also seized the opportunity of establishing the closest working relationship with the European countries of both the Six and the Seven by joining the organization for economic cooperation and development, O.E.C.D. Canada was the first country to ratify the O.E.C.D. convention signed last December. The emergence of the
3946	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy two trading blocs in Europe was one of the major reasons for the creation of this forum for continuous consultation in the economic and trade policy field among the countries in Europe and North America.
Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, that the trade policy of this government is neither protectionist nor inconsistent. Our policy is simply this, to maximize trade in every commodity in every possible market and by this means to provide employment for as many Canadians as possible.
Let us look at the record but before doing so let me make sure that we are talking about the same things. References are constantly made, and have been made in this house today, about the Canadian deficit balance. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Regier) referred to a deficit in 1959 of $1,429 million inferring presumably that this was a trade imbalance. In actual fact, the trade imbalance for 1959 was $368 million, according to the dominion bureau of statistics' publication "Review of Foreign Trade" and in 1960 the trade imbalance had been reduced to $97 million representing the lowest unfavourable trade balance figure in the last six years.


Erhart Regier: I gave the d.b.s. figures.


George Harris Hees: To return to the record, in 1960 Canada's exports reached the record of $5,395 million, an all-time high, and an increase of 5 per cent over the previous year. In January, 1961 this figure was increased by 8.4 per cent over the previous record January of last year. The facts do not seem to bear out the concerns of the opposition.
The amendment proposed by the opposition would appear to leave the impression that Canada's trade with the countries of Europe is lagging. In fact Canada's trade with this area of the world is going ahead by leaps and bounds. Last year exports to the United Kingdom were up by 16 per cent and to the countries of the common market, taken as a whole, by nearly 40 per cent.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question.


George Harris Hees: All right.


Erhart Regier: I would like to ask him whether he doubts the dominion bureau of statistics' figures that I put on the record. I do not have them with me as I had to send them to Hansard.


George Harris Hees: I do not doubt the dominion bureau of statistics' figures but I think the hon. member is misinterpreting them.


George James McIlraith: The minister is using the wrong terminology.


George Harris Hees: I would remind the house that this government and my department are adopting every possible aggressive means to promote Canada's trade both at home and abroad. In December last we called home the trade commissioners from all posts abroad for a three-week conference with Canadian businessmen designed to stimulate the interest and knowledge of Canadian businessmen and to acquaint anew our trade commissioners with current business conditions and possibilities for Canadian export trade. The house will know that this conference was a great success and has excited the interest of Canadian businessmen as never before. In the two months since the trade com-misioners returned to their posts over 350 new selling agencies have been established for Canadian manufacturers abroad, and more than 2,000 new agencies are under active negotiation at this very moment. We are very hopeful that these new agencies will stimulate a great deal of additional trade during the months ahead and, as I have said, in the only month for which figures are available since the conference was held, our actual trade was up by a very satisfactory 8.4 per cent.
The recent export finance facility which was introduced by this government, in cooperation with the Canadian chartered banks has already provided a stimulus to export trade. Since the announcement of this new facility last December Canadian capital goods' manufacturers have exhibited keen interest, and have been placed in the position of being able to quote on over $200 million worth of extra business that would not have been possible previously, except for the provision of this joint export financing arrangement.
Naturally Canadian manufacturers must be competitive in tough world markets, but the financing facility now available is the equal of that of any other country both in terms and in cost, and is superior to most.
Our trade commissioners, and my department, will continue to do everything in our power to help our producers make export sales and expand our export markets so that as many Canadians as possible may have jobs replacing the products that are sold. However, salesmen can only accomplish so much. There is a big job to be done by producers in this country as well. I have pointed that out on numerous occasions, and will do so again now, because I think it is important to know where the responsibility lies in providing jobs for our people.
As I have said, our salesmen are working in every possible way they can to make sales, both at home and abroad. Our trade commissioners have indicated to them that they

will do everything in their power to make the contacts, give them the information they need, and act as interpreters, if necessary. In fact, our trade commissioners will do everything except actually sign an order, and that, of course, must be done by the firm itself.
We in this country, as in the United States, are up against very serious competition from countries which, until recently, were our markets. I refer to the countries of western Europe which, in many cases, were devastated by war, but have made a remarkable comeback since that time. They have done so by co-operation between management and labour, in order to get costs down, and improve design and quality. By these actions which they have taken, they have put competitive products on all the markets of the world, and are competing very seriously in the Canadian market, and as a result have had a serious effect on employment in this country.
As a first step in trying to bring about the same kind of co-operative effort here in Canada, that they have achieved in western Europe, to provide jobs for their people-they
have achieved full employment over there____
we have called together recently two very important conferences here in Ottawa. The first was a labour-management conference, consisting of the representatives of the top 15 labour unions in Canada, and the heads of the 15 top management organizations in Canada, such as the Canadian chamber of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian automobile chamber of commerce, the Canadian export association, and so on. This meeting was a very successful one, and a steering committee, with a joint chairmanship composed of the heads of the Canadian congress of labour and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, was brought into being, and is planning future meetings. We are very hopeful that this will have a real effect in bringing about in Canadian industry the same kind of co-operative spirit that has proved so useful in Europe.
Five days after that conference, and one day before its counterpart in the United States had its first meeting, we had the first meeting of the Canadian productivity council, made up of representatives as members will know, of labour, management, primary industries, the public, the government and agriculture. As in the case of the labour-management conference, this was also a very successful meeting indeed.
The purpose of these groups is, in various fields, to bring about the kind of co-operative effort which, in Europe, has paid off in such large measure, and to bring about the production in Canada of products that will sell
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy in Europe, and here, as well as around the world, so that Canadians can have jobs replacing the products that move off the retailer's shelf. If a product does not sell, then people cannot have jobs making replacements for it. The problem is as simple as that.
We have the big job of getting labour, management and the government to combine and work together in the way they have in Europe, in order to produce products that will sell, and, as a result, provide jobs for our people. If we do the kind of things they have done in Europe, and we are trying to persuade these groups that it is necessary to do so, we can have the same kind of full employment in Canada, just as soon as we decide to work for it in the way they worked for it over there, and we will achieve it in the way they have achieved it.
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting this afternoon to hear the member for Laurier make reference to the new attitude of the Liberal party toward the question of trade. I am interested to learn that they are now completely in favour of free trade. I was interested, as I am sure all hon. members of this house were, to read in the Toronto Daily Star of April 15 an article appearing under the heading "Pearson Asks Free Trade Era". That article began as follows:
"Canada should jump with both feet" into the project of creating an Atlantic free trade area embracing the United States, Britain, Canada and European nations, Hon. Lester B. Pearson, national Liberal leader, told a press conference yesterday-
I think it will be interesting for the house to take a look at what free trade with the United States will mean for the average Canadian, because that is exactly what the Liberal party, as specified by the Liberal leader, is calling for, and would be brought into effect if this country ever had the misfortune of having a Liberal government again in the future. I will outline what the result would be of free trade with the United States, for which that party on the other side of the house is calling.
The industries in the United States have, of course, a market ten times the size of the Canadian market. Their factories are, therefore, able to produce on a much larger scale than ours, with consequent savings and lower costs. If there were free trade between our two countries, as the Leader of the Opposition said his party would bring about if it were in power sometime in the future, the United States factories would simply increase their runs by 10 per cent and pour their goods into Canada at prices against which many Canadian producers could not compete. The result would undoubtedly be the closing down of a great many Canadian factories;

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy mass unemployment; and the resultant hardship for hundreds of thousands of our people, who are today holding down good jobs, and who would be put out of work. I say this is a very strange course of action to be favoured by a party which professes great concern for those who are unemployed.
This afternoon the hon. member for Laurier said that the Liberals are opposed to my urging Canadians to "Buy Canadian". Just what does "Buy Canadian" mean? If Canadian people buy Canadian goods they will provide jobs for Canadian people producing more of those products when they move off the retailer's shelves.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, at no time did I indicate to the house or to anyone else that I was opposed to the "Buy Canadian" campaign to which the minister refers. What I did say was that the government was inconsistent in 1957 in advocating a policy of "Buy British" and in 1960 or 1961 advocating a policy of "Buy Canadian".


George Harris Hees: There is no inconsistency whatsoever. If at a time of unemployment such as this any Canadian advocates to his fellow Canadians that they should buy the products manufactured by their fellow Canadians, then I would say he is advocating a good sensible policy aimed at the good of the Canadian people, aimed at putting Canadians to work producing products that would otherwise come in through loopholes in the backdoor that the Liberal party advocated for nine consecutive days in the debate on the class or kind legislation.
We are in favour of Canadians having jobs here in Canada. We are not in favour of, instead of Canadians having jobs in Canada, people having those jobs in Birmingham, Turin, Toledo and Detroit. We want as many Canadians a possible to have jobs here producing Canadian products for Canadians and overseas consumption so that we can have full employment. That is what our policy is and we are proud of it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question? How can he be so proud of that policy when there are over 700,000 people unemployed?


George Harris Hees: I have tried to outline to the hon. member and to other hon. members this evening one of the main reasons why a large number of Canadians are unemployed. It is the same reason that a large number of people are unemployed in the United States today. They are unemployed because a great many countries, particularly western European countries, for about 10 years after the war had to come to us to buy products which

they needed because they had literally no way to produce them. Their factories had been devastated. They had no production then. They needed the goods; they came to us and bought them at almost any price we wanted to ask. This was the situation. By hard work, by co-operation, by management, labour and government sitting down and working together they were able to produce goods which are very competitive, good in design and quality and very competitive in price, and they are taking sales away from Canadian and United States products all around the world. It is up to us and United States to realize it. We talked to their ministers while we were in Washington. They are up against exactly the same problem. That is why they set up a productivity council. They are just as worried as we are, and they are working just as hard as we are to try to overcome this great handicap.
We have to get down to the position where we can produce products which are just as desirable to the people throughout the world, as the people of western Europe have been able to do in 15 years. As soon as we do that, we shall have full employment and we shall not get full employment by negative speeches such as the ones which were delivered today and have been delivered all during this session by members of the opposition, tearing down, trying to create lack of confidence, trying to create a picture of doom and gloom, trying to give an idea to the people of Canada that it is a bad time to invest, that people should not build factories, they should not enlarge their inventories because things do not look so good, unemployment is bad, things are gloomy in the country. This is the contribution that members of the opposition are making, and it is not the kind of contribution that any Canadian who is proud to call himself a Canadian should be making at this time. We should be all getting together and putting our shoulders to the wheel, as the Europeans do and did. That is how they put themselves right at the top of the heap after being down in the ashes 15 years ago.
As I say, it upsets the Liberal party to hear us advocate "Buy Canadian", so that Canadians can have jobs producing more of those products, because they do not want jobs for Canadians. Why do they not want jobs for Canadians? Because the more Canadians are employed the happier they will be at the next election. If Canadians are unhappy they might vote for the Liberal party, as members of the opposition hope they may do, and therefore they are trying to create a picture of gloom, doom, chaos and despair in the minds of Canadian people so that they can

say, "Vote us in and we will set everything right". The Canadian people are not going to be fooled any more at this election than they were at the last election.


Lionel Chevrier: They certainly were fooled at the last election.


George Harris Hees: No, they were not fooled at the last election; they were very well pleased with what they got at the last election and they are going to be satisfied with what they get at the next one because they are going to get another Conservative government and they are going to get a lot of good legislation.
From what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious what hon. members of the Liberal opposition have been up to all during this session. They have been against anything that would create jobs; they are against anything that will give employment to Canadians. What they want are things that will give employment to people in other countries. They are all for people in other countries. They want them to pour cheap goods into Canada to put Canadians out of work and to have mass unemployment, so that they can go to the people at the next election and say, "Elect us and we will save you from your doom". That is the kind of deal they are trying to put over to the Canadian people. The Canadian people are not going to go for it. They are once again going to recognize that their hope lies in electing a Conservative government under the greatest Prime Minister that ever held office in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think you have ruled already that when a member finds that a misstatement has been made by a previous speaker he should take the first opportunity immediately after that speech to correct that misstatement, and that is what I want to do. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated and based his whole speech on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said that our leader advocated a policy of free trade between Canada and the United States. At no time has the Leader of the Opposition, nor have I in my remarks today, stated anything to that effect. What I did state, by putting on the record the position of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal party, was the advocacy of an Atlantic alliance; that is, a free trade area of the western European countries, Canada and the United States, but not Canada and the United States alone. I made it quite clear this afternoon that economic union with the United States would be undesirable for us politically and otherwise.
Alleged. Lack of Trade Policy


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. If we are in a free trade area, including the United States, does it not then mean that we are having free trade with the United States and with a lot of other countries as well? Is there anything which he could do that would stop cheap goods flowing over in tremendous quantities and putting our people out of work and causing our factories to close down?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what question has been put to me but there seems to be at least three in the statement made by the minister. What I say in answer to the minister's question is that an Atlantic alliance can be formed among the western European countries, Canada and the United States in the same manner as a common market was formed among the six countries of western Europe and was a success.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech just delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). All we heard was a lot of words which might properly have been spoken not only during an election but some time in the 1930's. This is what we object to.
It would have been far more interesting had the Minister of Trade and Commerce chosen to speak on the government's trade policy and given the house some indication that the government is aware that there have been tremendous changes in the world which make Tory protectionist trade policies completely obsolete. I find it rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a relatively young man, has such outmoded and antiquated ideas and theories on trade and commerce.
Hon. members will agree, I believe, that one of the most acute and urgent problems facing the government is that of trying to fit Canada and her high cost economy into a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive world market. The international picture in the field of trade is becoming more and more complex and it is difficult indeed at this stage to forecast what that picture will be 10 or 20 years from now. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if Canada is to find and adopt an advantageous and useful role in this increasingly important field of trade, it will have to adjust its sights not on short-run expediencies which can be but temporary but on an over-all long-run commercial policy which will best serve Canada's interests and be in keeping with the present trends of international trade.
There has been a profound evolution in our concept of international trade within the past

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy 50 years. The old pattern of international trade and the protectionist trade policies of the empire era have long since been discarded and new trade relationships and policies adopted to meet new world situations. Within the past 15 years some 38 nations of the world have attained their political independence and along with their sovereignty went the responsibility of bolstering their economies which they are rightly seeking to do by the processing in their own countries of their raw materials and marketing of the products.
The rest of the world could not be and was not indifferent to the impact that this evolution has had on the international trade picture and the necessity and advantage for all to aid these new nations to stabilize their respective economies. The commonwealth trade preferences, the multilateral trade agreements such as GATT, the international monetary fund, the international bank for reconstruction and development, the Colombo plan, the United Nations technical assistance fund, all were organized to meet the new problem, and we can best judge the success of these endeavours by imagining what would have happened, both in terms of world economics and world politics, had we failed to keep up to new world demands.
Although we have cause to take some satisfaction from what has been done, it would be wrong and dangerous to imagine that the problem of trade has been solved. One has only to recall that not so very long ago we were greatly concerned with the economic plight of, and took steps to bolster, the economy of western Europe. Since then, a relatively few years, the recovery of western Europe and that of Japan have been so outstanding that not only have they increased competition in the international market but they have in fact disturbed, if not disrupted, some of our own home markets.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the problem of world trade has not been solved but on the contrary we stand on the threshold of a new era in the field of international relationships and trade, and Canada with her high cost economy, her alarming unfavourable trade balances and her urgent need to export cannot afford to lag behind with the government's outmoded, ineffective and unimaginative thinking on international trade.
There is a marked reluctance on the part of the government, if not in accepting the revolutionary changes in the international trade picture, certainly in attuning its thinking and its policies to trends which in recent years have become clear-cut. Since 1935 there has been throughout the world a gradual lowering of trade barriers, the abandonment of bilateral trade arrangements and a continuous movement toward multilateral and

freer trade. It is absolutely useless for the government to try to fight this world trend toward freer trade by attempting to camouflage its trade restrictive policies behind a barrage of administrative red tape as it did in the amendments to the class and kind provisions of the Canadian tariff recently. That is the type of thinking that will not only isolate Canada from the current international trade movement but will make favourable trade negotiations with other countries impossible and ultimately jeopardize Canada's badly needed export trade.
Another example of the application of traditional Tory protectionist policy and the government's refusal to acknowledge and accept the new concept of world trade was the backing away by the government in 1958 from an offer to establish a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom. Nor has the government since 1958 to this day decided to scrap its traditional trade policies and thinking, which are not only obsolete but are harmful to our economy at this very crucial time. Not so long ago the Minister of Finance suggested to the United Kingdom government that it should not join the common market; otherwise Canada would be forced to take appropriate steps in retaliation. No doubt the United Kingdom government would have been impressed and alarmed at this Victorian threat some years ago but under the present world situation the minister's suggestion received the consideration it deserved, and it appears inevitable now that the United Kingdom will join the common market.
The best gauge by which to measure the depth and the scope as well as the consequences of the political and economic changes in the world and the proof that Canada will have to adopt more realistic, more imaginative and more practical trade policies are the fact that Great Britain, the mother of parliaments, the emblem of sovereignty and independence, may judge it necessary to sacrifice a part of that independence in order to maintain its economic stability in the face of changed world conditions. We cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, how much thought, how much reflection, how much consideration must have been given by the United Kingdom to that extremely weighty problem, but we can imagine fairly well how irritatingly naive must have sounded the Minister of Finance's advice and threat at such a crucial moment in the history of Great Britain.
The United Kingdom must, just as Canada must, seek to protect and even defend its economic security as well as the welfare of its people by taking whatever measures are deemed appropriate to cope with new and

challenging economic and political problems on a world scale. The western world in the past 15 years, in order to establish lasting world peace on the basis of understanding and co-operation between the nations of the world, has spared no efforts, no amount of ingenuity and no amount of money to avert a catastrophic third world war. With the United Nations, NATO and SEATO we have succeeded so far in avoiding a third world war and have at least retarded the communist military aggression in Europe and Asia. But Mr. Speaker, who would dare claim that we have enjoyed during these past years a state of even comparative peace? Who would dare assert that the tensions and strifes of the cold war are limited only to occasional military skirmishes, political jockeying for position, the nuclear arms race, the missile and space travel races? What about the world economics race which is more fundamental, a race in which we are handicapped because of the diametrically opposed principles on which western and communist economies are based?
We have sought to unite the western nations in military alliances. We have built up military defences around the world and we have been so busy in keeping the U.S.S.R. from gaining any military advantage over us that we apparently have lost sight of the fact that the real ace up the communist sleeve is their basic economic advantage over us.
The western countries have done little or nothing to bridge this gap and to prepare defences in the event of an economic war which Mr. Khrushchev himself warned us would inevitably be launched. Very little success has been achieved in uniting the western countries in an economic alliance which might be able to offset whatever economic advantage the U.S.S.R. might have over us. Mr. Speaker, it is because an economic war could achieve what the communists have set up as their dedicated objective whereas an all-out nuclear war obviously could not do so, that I am convinced that the western nations most vulnerable spot in their fight against communist domination lies in the field of world economics; and strangely enough, that is the field in which there is the least unity, the least co-operation and the least planning among the nations of the western world.
It is no doubt because of a lack of appreciation of the full impact of present economic and political changes, because of a too narrow and too short view of the international trade problem and because of a continued and incomprehensible underestimation of the Soviet threat and because of the blind adherence to obsolete traditional trade policies and political expediency that governments
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy like this government fail to see in the common market and the free trade area the embryo of greater economic unity, co-operation and strength for the western world. I cannot help but feel that in the minds of many people and of many nations the common market and even the free trade area are considered as discriminatory and restrictive trading blocs and are looked upon as a potential danger to their own export markets.
In the light of present world problems I believe it is wrong for Canada and other nations to consider the common market only in terms of the short-run effects on some of their European exports. If indeed the world situation warrants, as indeed it does, the United Kingdom along with other European nations taking unprecedented and revolutionary steps to meet new challenges effectively, surely Canada cannot expect to meet those same challenges as well as the higher cost economy problem which she has without making some readjustment at least in her export trade.
The common market and the free trade area must not be looked upon in the very narrow, negative and indeed provincial light in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) views them. These organizations are to me unprecedented and necessary experimentation in the field of world economics not only toward freer trade but toward an essential economic unity and co-operation which we must achieve not only in Europe but among the nations of the western world if we are to meet successfully the challenge of a changing world economy as well as to withstand the pressures of an economic war with the U.S.S.R. and her satellites.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot and must not continue to look upon these organizations in an unfavourable light and to remain isolated and aloof from the tremendous effort and movement that is being made to meet the world problems and challenges of this generation. On the contrary, in the light of Canada's trade deficits and her increased difficulty in competing in her own home markets as well as in foreign markets, because of the disruption of traditional trade relationships, because of the possibility of increased economic competition from the Soviet union and her satellites and because of the paramount necessity of aiding the underdeveloped nations of the world, Canada cannot afford to be without a definite, well-thought-out, long range foreign economic policy. The stakes are too high and the situation too tense for Canada to continue to indulge, as she is now doing, in off the cuff, hit-or-miss trade policies, in apologetic but none the less restrictive trade measures with all her hopes
3952	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy of solving her problems pinned on the loud-talking high pressure salesmanship of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the importance and consequences to Canada of world economics warrants the adoption of a definite Canadian foreign economic policy which should be based on a thorough study and understanding of present world problems and should contain both long range and short range measures to cope with these problems. Surely, under present conditions a Canadian foreign economic policy should be given at least the same consideration and importance as is given to foreign affairs policy and indeed more coordination and planning than are now being given to national defence policy. Certainly the long range measures of a sound Canadian foreign economic policy should include not only the acceptance of the European common market and the free trade area as the basis of a trade-promoting endeavour and not a trade-inhibiting endeavour but this long range policy should also include a sincere effort and leadership on the part of Canada to extend the membership and principles involved in these two organizations to a wider North Atlantic economic alliance as a first step to reaching economic unity and co-operation in the whole of the western world.
No one, of course, doubts the necessity and the advantage of aiding the underdeveloped countries at a crucially important point of their economic history. But how will the western world be able to give the necessary assistance and protection to these new economic entities if the western world is plagued with economic problems of its own and is further weakened by a lack of unity and co-operation in the strategically important field of economics?
It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's foreign economic policy should be to support and encourage the principles involved in these European economic associations and seek to extend the application of these principles to Canada and the other North Atlantic countries, in order to strengthen our own economies in the North Atlantic area so as to be in a far better position to be able to help the newly independent countries stabilize their own economies.
It would be most unfortunate if Canada and other countries, particularly the underdeveloped countries, should look on the common market or the free trade area as discriminatory and inward looking when in fact both are laying the basis for freer trade on a world scale and at a time when the economic principles being experimented with in these organizations might be the only basis on which we can hope to achieve stability in
[Mr. Cardin.l

world economics without having to sacrifice our economic and political ideologies.
One would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have been ready and eager to attend the recent meeting of the O.E.C.D. instead of going there backwards and reluctantly. One would have thought that he would have taken the lead in putting teeth into the O.E.C.D. so that it might have some chance of success in co-ordinating world economies, in achieving economic growth and employment in member countries and in contributing to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis which, as we all know, are the aims of the O.E.C.D. These aims are excellent and timely but how can they be successfully achieved if the organization has no authority to carry out its objectives?
Surely we have learned the lesson at the United Nations, that the best aims and objectives, the best motives and intentions are useless without the authority for carrying them out. Admittedly, under the circumstances, it would have been difficult, if at all possible, for the United Nations to have been given the authority it needed to carry out its objectives.
However, this is not the situation among the member nations of O.E.C.D., most of whom belong either to the common market or the free trade area, and all of whom are desperately concerned and eager to contribute toward a more stable world economy and are at the same time dedicated to the preservation of our western ideologies.
Canada could and should have taken some initiative in trying to give O.E.C.D. the authority it must have if it is to co-ordinate the economies of its members and help the underdeveloped countries develop their economies.
Most of the economies of the underdeveloped countries, as hon. members know, are based on two or three basic products, on the stability of which depend the whole of their respective economies.
Canada and the western nations have contributed large sums of money to help these underdeveloped countries help themselves. Most of these countries have used this aid very judicially. However, the fact remains that any artificial fluctuations in the prices of these relatively few commodities means that the whole economic structure of these nations could be destroyed, and whatever aid may have been given them would be wasted.
We have examples in the past where the U.S.S.R. has tampered with the price of commodities, as she did with tin, aluminium and asbestos. We can expect that the U.S.S.R.

will continue to employ very questionable trade practices with the uncommitted countries for political purposes.
Canada could and should have tried to devise some method by which O.E.C.D. might have at least made these unacceptable trading methods less dangerous by making them public, if not protecting the underdeveloped nations or any other nation from these artificial price fluctuations or very questionable trading practices.
O.E.C.D. is not now in a position to cope with this problem among the others they face. My point is that Canada could and should give leadership in making O.E.C.D. a strong economic organization, western style, and, while adhering to the principle of democracy, establish a much needed unity, co-ordination and stability of the economy of the western world.
This is the type of role Canada could play in achieving world economic stability if this government had a real economic policy in relation to the rest of the world.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, we have again seen quite a lot of action in this house today. I suggest first of all, sir, that the subsequent motion which the opposition moved in supply did not do them any more good than their performance heretofore.
They have chosen to come forward again with a grievance with regard to trade at a time when Canada's position in world trade never had a more active champion than the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). They have chosen to come forward with this grievance at a time when our trade is at a level which we would like to see maintained at all times in Canada and which, unfortunately, throughout a great many years of Liberal rule was lost almost completely.
One of the first things about which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) again rose and spouted was the British free trade offer. Unfortunately, for the last few minutes of his speech I was called out of the house and did not hear whether the Liberals accepted the British free trade offer. Do they believe in it? Would they have accepted it had they been in office? Does his industrial riding know that the British free trade offer was a manufacturing free trade offer only and had nothing to do with agricultural products?
Does the hon. member for Laurier have any idea about agricultural produce and how it is supported in England, in the outer seven or the inner six? I do not think he has; I do not think anybody in the Liberal party has any idea about trade or trading. They sold Canada's birthright. They sold it year after
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy year. They gave it away to the British many years ago in the British wheat agreement. That was the time we in western Canada started to doubt these people. That was the time we started to believe they would tell us anything to become re-elected. Fortunately for them there was a war; there was Korea, and they maintained power.
However, this question of trade is only one of the means they have used to try to divide this country. They have got up on the rooftops and in this house and spouted their free trade doctrine. I defy any one of them to tell me what it is, because they do not know. It is a myth and a figment of their imagination. There is no such thing as free trade.
Ask our farmers about free trade. Ask them where they can buy, for instance, a diesel tractor manufactured in England, or even in the United States, at a lower price than we are paying in Canada, and which is selling in those countries at a lower price.
We have no duty against tractors, and yet we even take into consideration the question of freight rates. Can we in western Canada, or anywhere else in this country, buy a tractor from these countries at the retail price plus freight? This is free trade. We cannot do it. Of course we cannot, because the manufacture of these tractors is controlled by international companies. Then where does free trade come in?
What about the British free trade offer, this great figment of the Liberal imagination? Do the textile workers in my hon. friend's constituency think it would help them? Do the manufacturing and industrial workers in any of the industrial cities right across Canada think it will help them, with our smaller market? It would not help them at all.


Lionel Chevrier: What are you doing for the textile workers?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have done a great deal under the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, and if the hon. member will just bear with me a moment-


Lionel Chevrier: You put 35,000 of them out of jobs.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -I will educate him a little with regard to subsidies. We in western Canada, Ontario and Quebec have a problem with regard to hogs. We have thought about this problem a great deal, even though my hon. friend may not have done so.
We want our farmers to be able to sell their produce at a reasonable price. A year or so ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton and the former minister, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness),
3954	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy persuaded the British to admit 25,000 tons of pork into England. I suggest to my hon. friend that he look at some of the English papers published at that time to see the reaction in the British House of Commons and in Britain itself, the very mother of the commonwealth, with regard to the importation of a little bit of pork from Canada.
What did these people say? They were up in arms about it. Why? Because they, too, wanted to produce a little bit of pork. What is the attitude of the British government toward their farmers? This is why their free trade offer was a manufacturing free trade offer, and this is something hon. members should remember.
The subsidies in Britain vary from year to year. Every agricultural product which is produced in Britain is subsidized, as it is in every other country in the outer seven. One of the greatest problems the countries in the inner six have had to face is the whole question of subsidy on agricultural produce.
Just for the record, in England the subsidy now paid on a bushel of wheat is seven shillings. I am sure my hon. friends can mentally convert that into dollars very quickly. The subsidy on oats and barley is five shillings to 15 shillings. The subsidy for plowing land and putting it into cultivation is seven per acre. One third of the cost of drainage and one third of the cost of fertilizer is subsidized. The subsidy for clearing old woodland and putting it into cultivation is 15 per acre. The subsidy is eight per head for calves that reach the age of six to nine months. Other subsidies are paid on eggs, other livestock and pork.
My hon. friend suggests we should have a free trade area with Great Britain. I suggest to him that he could not do anything which would more quickly throw a great mass of workers in Canada out of jobs.
I want to take up one other thing which is particularly important to the Liberal party. They are the great traders, so-called. As I have said before, they traded us-they traded us down the river. For years and years and years they came out to western Canada and said on platforms there what a great thing free trade was for the farmers of western Canada. Then they came down here and spoke in favour of protection. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has done the same thing even in the last few years. Out in the west he is a great free trader, saying: we have got to get rid of these tariffs. He did not say we must get rid of the subsidies, though it amounts to the same thing. But down here he said: we must increase the tariff on imported automobiles. This is the great Liberal line. I understand the hon.


member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) criticized us severely because we did not increase tariffs enough to protect some of the industries in that area.
All we ask of industry in Canada is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been asking, namely that management and labour should get together with the designers to produce products which will show that Canada is not as stagnant as the Liberal party would like to make out, to show that we can produce these goods in Canada if we are given leadership by the government. I suggest we are getting that leadership now, and never before in our history has Canada had a trade minister with the vigour, the imagination and with the ability to go out and sell as we are honoured to have in Canada today. As I have said, we have listened over the years to the Liberal party and their bunch of nonsense. I am surprised that they should make any attempt to bring it up again.
Hon. members opposite like to talk about trade with Japan. We have, through negotiation and common ordinary horse trading, developed a better position in our trade with Japan than ever before in the history of this country. We sell to Japan grain and other basic raw materials that we never sold before. We are selling more than ever before; the gap between exports and imports has narrowed. We have done all these things and yet the opposition has the audacity to bring forward a grievance with regard to trade.
I turn now to a subject which is of particular interest to my home province, the question of oil and gas. We know the position of the Liberal party in this connection. They did not want to export any of it. They said: we have got to keep that at home. The hon. member for Laurier and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat talked about a great free trade area including the inner six, the United States, Canada and perhaps the outer seven. Can hon. members see what would happen to our oil industry in Alberta if that were to come about? As a matter of fact, the only thing which has kept our oil industry progressive and kept jobs available in Alberta today in the oil industry has been the policy of this government with regard to oil and gas. There has been no other reason for it, and I want to compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce for going out to Calgary not long ago and setting it on the line again to the international oil companies. I do not know if those companies paid the Liberal party before, but they certainly had them in their pockets when they wrecked the entire oil industry of Alberta. Talk about trade. These people do not know the meaning of the term. We should like to see this country, where it is at all feasible, use the

oil and gas produced in Alberta and Saskatchewan and in any other province that may have it. We commend the government for its oil policy and we commend the minister for having the courage to stand up and defend it and say it is going to be implemented if these international oil companies do not do what they should have done.
The question of gas is a similar one. How many people are working in Canada today because of the national energy board, because of the export of natural gas? We have these commodities which are in surplus in Canada, and hon. members opposite would have us join a free trade area controlled perhaps by their friends but certainly not controlled to the benefit of the people of Canada.
The hon. gentleman asks: what have you done? Well, we have increased our exports to the United Kingdom by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16 per cent while our balance with the United States has remained relatively the same. In Ottawa itself we held a trade conference and put into operation a sales plan the like of which has never been seen here before under the leadership of a vigorous minister. I know the minister can be accused of all kinds of things in this regard. He can be accused of being theatrical. But for the first time in the history of this country we are doing something about trade. When gentlemen opposite say they know the meaning of the word, I say they do not.
As an example, only last year a retired farmer from Saskatchewan was instrumental in selling a million bushels of malting barley to Peru, a market that government officials had failed to contact. I have told the people of western Canada and suggested to the wheat pools out there, and in particular to the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is rather vocal at times, in voicing some of its ideas, that if they spent half the money they spend campaigning against this government on getting out and selling some of the produce that they are handling in the markets of the world we should be a lot better off; and if the rest of the pools, the united grain growers and the other western organizations would show a greater concern about marketing their produce rather than depending on the government the export picture would look even better than it is. Here, of course, is where socialism falls down. Government people will never show the same enthusiasm for selling a product or take the same interest in doing this job. Again, if many people in private industry would take a lead from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and accept as their motto those initials which he has engraved on his cuff links we in western Canada in the farm areas would be a lot better off.
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
What else have we done? We have heard a lot of jeering and have been subjected to a lot of criticism with regard to the setting up of a productivity council. We have heard it is not going to be any good. We have heard you cannot take the best brains in the country and put them together and expect them to come up with anything. If we cannot control them, it is no good, our critics say. Perhaps this is the way they run their government but I am happy to be associated with a government which does not operate that way; a government with enough courage to take action with regard to setting up a productivity council to approach business, labour and representatives of agriculture and other forms of community endeavour in order to bring them together. We need something which will encourage us to lower our costs and which will help us to produce better so that we are more able to compete for world markets. We have been criticized for this by those people who think they know something about trade.
We have now on the order paper a bill sponsored by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in respect of a national design council. This is something of importance. We have a number of people in Canada today who are designing, inventing and producing new products who need leadership and help in getting these products into the right channels so that they can in turn help our over-all economic position. In spite of all these things the opposition maintain that we have done nothing.
I would also mention the baby budget, for which we have been criticized. I will have something more to say about the class or kind legislation but I want to say something in regard to my own constituency at this point.
The provisions of the baby budget in themselves have meant the difference between 400 men working, or not working, in my own constituency. These provisions made it possible for a pulp mill in my area to continue operating. In spite of that we have been told that we have done nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member would be in order in discussing the budget at this time. That is a debate we have now completed.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Thank you, sir. I acknowledge the propriety of your suggestion in this regard.


Lionel Chevrier: He has been out of order for the last half hour.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: My hon. friend felt quite free to wander over the whole subject of trade and I therefore felt that I
3956	HOUSE OF
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy should be permitted a reasonable time to tell him what we are doing and what we have done.
With regard to the dominion bureau of statistics' booklets put out a few months ago, I might say that they contain some of the most valuable information available to members of parliament and other Canadians who are interested. These two books are coloured blue and yellow and it is the blue book which is of particular interest to me because it indicates the products which are imported into Canada and particularly agricultural products. Canadian citizens in western Canada feel that our country is an agricultural country, and very properly so as this is the basic industry upon which we depend. However, if one looks at this book regarding agricultural products brought into this country, it will be seen that they amounted to approximately $681 million; $38 million from the United Kingdom and $365 million from the United States. In spite of this we are told that we have done nothing by the implementation of a national policy on agriculture, by diversifying the production on our farms and by setting up policies through which we can at least keep the domestic market for our own farmers. Are they free traders? No, they are not. If you attempted to explain the term "free trade", you would have difficulty in many parts of Canada.
Referring to this dominion bureau of statistics' book in regard to animal products imported, one finds that something in the neighbourhood of $143 million has been imported, $18 million from the United Kingdom and $82 million from the United States.
We are an agricultural country and we pride ourselves in this and base our economy on agriculture, yet these people have suggested that we join a free trade area. They have not referred to agriculture primarily because they do not know anything about it. I must mention that we do have problems regarding trade in respect of some of our agricultural products. We have a problem in western Canada regarding our sheep industry. We would like to see the importation of lambs and mutton from Australia and New Zealand confined to that period when our own lamb and mutton is not available to the market. We have made some progress in this regard and hope to make more so that our own farmers will have the advantage of the domestic market in this regard in Canada.
We have heard talk about free trade this afternoon. I suggest that this free trade is only a figment of Liberal imagination, and I use that word with a capital "L". They have spouted this policy during the years, particularly in western Canada, with the assistance


of a few particular newspapers which I think seriously gave their assistance for their own advantage and welfare rather than for the welfare of Canada as a whole. These hon. members suggest that we should have a free trade area with the United States. I would ask them how they propose to handle the wheat problem if they do have a free trade area. The United States has now a billion bushel surplus and at last count we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 500 and 700 million bushels surplus. Those hon. members suggest that they are going to solve this situation by having a free trade area. Perhaps they can solve the problem by giving the wheat away if they can find someone to take it. I would suggest somewhere along the line perhaps they will be willing to pay back to the farmers of western Canada the $600 million which they stole.
The things I have mentioned my hon. friends on the other side forget about when they start talking about trade. When the Prime Minister suggested we should try to divert 15 per cent of our trade from the United States to the United Kingdom he was speaking as a Canadian not representing western Canada but Canada as a whole. The hon. members for Laurier and Essex East spout at one moment for free traders but when they get back in their own ridings they then become high protection advocates. I am afraid that I am unable to follow that policy. I believe we must be good horse traders and am very proud that this government and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, represent the best horse traders that I know.


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and participate in this debate today because during the past year it has been my privilege to have attended several meetings of the standing committee of the NATO parliamentarians conference in Europe, during which time this question of trade was discussed at great length.
Today we are dealing with a motion made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I will read this motion in order to bring it back into perspective. It is as follows:
This house regrets the protectionist and inconsistent trade policies of the government and its failure to develop a long term foreign economic policy to enable Canada to participate fully in the challenging new opportunities in the field of international trade by implementing a vigorous program to promote the expansion of our secondary manufacturing industries and by encouraging the development of an Atlantic economic community.
I think perhaps it would be wise on my part to introduce at this point some background regarding this whole problem which has been raised by the opposition in the house

today. I am referring to the convention on the organization for economic co-operation and development which was recently passed by this House of Commons. I will just quote from article 1 which reads as follows:
The aims of the organization for economic co-operation and development (hereinafter called the "organization") shall be to promote policy-designed :
(a)	to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy;
(b)	to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and
(c)	to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.
I am sure that all hon. members are aware of the fact that this new organization for economic organization and development is the successor of a former organization which was known as the organization for European economic co-operation, the so-called O.E.E.C.
As you know, sir, a committee of four wise men was set up to study the whole question of O.E.E.C. and what future changes might be made in that organization. The
O.E.C.D. is the result of the study of the four wise men. The four wise men, of course, were Mr. Burgess, Mr. Clappier, Sir Paul Gore-Booth and Mr. Xenophon Zolotas. Ambassador Burgess of the United States was the chairman of this committee. They brought down their report in April, 1960. When one realizes that this report which was brought down by the four wise men was the precursor of this new organization whose convention we ratified, then there develops a kind of significance. I should like to quote from the report of the four wise men regarding matters of trade, and I shall attempt to correlate it with the amendment now before the house. I am quoting from page 27:
The aim of the O.E.E.C. was to restore the economy of its member countries and thus enable them to meet fully the trade and payments obligations arising from their undertakings in world organizations. Thus the O.E.E.C.'s first trade activities encouraged the development of trade primarily among its member countries, so as to complement the stimulus that American financial aid would be exerting on the European economy and reduce and even wipe out the dollar gap. Twelve years later, a high degree of success has been achieved in this direction-*
I might mention that the original O.E.E.C. was set up in April of 1948. I continue:
Twelve years later, a high degree of success has been achieved in this direction: balance of payments difficulties have, in general, disappeared; external convertibility of the principal currencies has been restored; and the liberalization of trade in industrial products is almost complete. Furthermore, the liberalization of trade in Europe has played an important role in unshackling world trade.
90205-6-250
Alleged Lack of Trade Policy
But since the O.E.E.C.'s activity in the field of trade was in pursuit of objectives now largely achieved, and since it operated in a context which is now superseded, one might conclude that the future organization should do nothing in this field and abandon all the rules and procedures evolved in the course of 12 years of European co-operation.
One might be tempted to do this at first sight, since active co-operation in the field of trade, limited to the 18 European members of the O.E.E.C., runs up against the well-known objections which led governments to give us our task on January 14. Furthermore, bearing in mind the GATT rules and the duties (of various orders) which the industrialized countries recognize towards the underdeveloped countries, trade co-operation in a group consisting of the United States, Canada and the 18 members of the O.E.E.C. would evoke similar objections.
Nevertheless, since commercial policy, as an element in general economic policy, will certainly be within the responsibility of the future organization, it is difficult to imagine that such a clear-cut answer would be acceptable. Nor, moreover, would it be opportune, since the initial objectives of the
O.E.E.C. have not been fully achieved by all its members. On the other hand it should be publicly accepted that the trade activity of the future organization will be carried on according to the principles of the GATT.
In making reference to these remarks of the four wise men, I am going to point out something which apparently has not been too apparent in this house. The people who are today proposing a free trade area of the Atlantic economic community; that is to say, of the free western world as we know it, are the people who in the year 1948 did not see fit even to join as full members the organization which at that time was known as the
O.E.E.C. At that time Canada and the United States were only associate members of this organization which in the years which followed developed such great success in the field of trade and in the recovery which took place in Europe. Today we are being asked to create a free trade area. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce who replied to the amendment today made it very clear that this was a switch in the thinking of members of the opposition.
The hon. member who spoke just prior to me made it very clear that there are men who speak for the opposition in this parliament who one day say one thing and another day say another thing because when this opportunity was presented to them when they were members of the government they rejected it; they did not become members of this great Atlantic community when they had an opportunity to do so. But they criticize the present government for not doing enough, although Canada has now become a full member of the organization for economic co-operation and development.
There is an impression about that by being part of an organization such as the Atlantic economic community, then suddenly all barriers will disappear and we shall have what

Alleged Lack of Trade Policy I might describe as an almost idealistic state of no tariff barriers whatsoever. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not so even today in the common market among the so-called inner six of Europe who are close to economic integration and, yes, I might even suggest there is some tendency toward political integration in this particular grouping; they have not eliminated all their tariff barriers. In fact, they are progressively taking action to bring about certain changes. On July 1, 1960, the first set of internal tariff reductions in the E.E.C., which is the inner six, and the first set of these for the E.F.T.A., which is the outer seven in Europe, came into operation. In each organization their internal customs duties were lowered by 20 per cent on the basic duty. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, sometimes when we listen to the debates in this house and we hear about these free trade offers we feel that there will be no tariffs, and all this criticism about protectionists and inconsistent trade policies of the government simply flows out of the window because it just does not make sense. For example, the Federal Republic of Germany, which is a member of the inner six, also has a lot of its trade outside of the grouping known as the inner six. I might say that a high proportion of its trade is with what we call the outer seven and it has lower tariffs than the others. Tariff reduction has been used on their part to curtail inflation in that country. Germany, which is a member of the inner six, is obliged to raise its tariffs from July 1, 1960, and again before December 1, 1960, in accordance with the proposals of the commission of the European community. Therefore, we see that this proposal for a free trade area is not as simple a proposition as it is being made out by the speakers who have spoken for the opposition.
We might refer to some of the problems which face the inner six and the outer seven in Europe. Perhaps we should not forget that in that so-called Atlantic community which we speak loosely of as the inner six and the outer seven there are other, as it were, forgotten countries of the western world such as Greece, Turkey, Spain, Ireland, Finland and Iceland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Finland has joined the free trade association.


John William Kucherepa: Yes, but not in a direct way. My hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillin-gate interrupts.
There have also been contacts with other countries in Europe but not as part of the structure as we understand it and as we know it. These changes have taken place in Europe. These blocs have been formed, the inner six and the outer seven and we find there are

great difficulties in achieving further integration of the inner six and the outer seven.
Reference might be made here to the position of the United Kingdom in this regard. At the present time the United Kingdom does not adhere to the treaty of Rome for several reasons, two of which I think are of great importance. The first is, of course, the United Kingdom's connection with the commonwealth. Some people suggest that this is not a very important force but when one realizes the extent of the trade of the United Kingdom it then becomes another matter.
The commonwealth is the world's largest preferential trading organization. Sometimes some of the hon. members to my right do not seem to be aware of that. Its exports are about 19,000 million annually or over 25 per cent of total world exports excluding trade between members of the Soviet bloc. Its imports are more than 110 million and represent 30 per cent of world imports. One-quarter of the world's population lives in the commonwealth.
A high proportion of commonwealth trade Is in primary commodities from underdeveloped countries, some of whom are wholly dependent upon the United Kingdom market. It is politically unthinkable for the United Kingdom to enter into any agreement with the Six which would have as its effect the ruin of even a small British colony or country. Such action would be the end of whatever influence the United Kingdom possesses as the motherland of the commonwealth.
These things are very significant, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that there are these great divisions among the nations of Europe and they have not been able to find common ground in the European field even though they were members of the organization for European co-operation for so many years. Even with the efforts of the organization for European economic co-operation, its success can be measured by the fact that two distinct trading blocs have developed.
From what I have observed in Europe I may say that despite all the efforts which have been made on both sides there does not seem to be thus far a coming together of the thinking of the leaders of the two blocs. There is no question that the inner bloc is a much more strongly integrated organization than the E.F.T.A. which is a rather loosely organized group. Nevertheless, there are the difficulties that arise primarily because of the position of the United Kingdom which out of deference to other members of the commonwealth will not sacrifice the preferential treatment it accords to them and vice versa.
The problem has been tackled by many of the leading lights of Europe in the field

of economics but no conclusions have been reached yet. The commission of the European economic community is an organization headed by Professor Hallstein, a very distinguished European in the field of trade, and on March 28, 1960 he said in Strasbourg that it will be possible for the community- the inner six-to show good will toward all other GATT members by reducing the level of the common external tariff. He went on to say that such a move, if it were matched by reciprocal action, would "open the way, particularly in Europe, to tariff reductions which will take into account all the essential needs of European trade".
We hear talk about tariffs being wiped out lock, stock and barrel but this is not so. In the few minutes I have been speaking I think I have been able to demonstrate that even within that group which we know as the inner six there are tariff barriers which are applied on the part of those countries belonging to the inner six with respect to the members of the outer seven. In the case of some members of the inner six these tariffs are more lenient than in the case of others. In particular, I refer to the'German system of tariffs which provides for lower tariffs so far as members of the outer seven are concerned than is the case with some of the other countries belonging to the inner six.
Members of the opposition have brought up the question of free trade in the Atlantic economic community. I think there is no question that when the minister replied to the charges of the opposition he made it very clear that on this continent we might suffer greatly if the type of program being put forward by those who sit on my right were implemented because we have problems of which Canadians are well aware. There is the problem of transportation. The hon. member who preceded me spoke about the problem of the cost of transporting various items from eastern Canada to western Canada. What would their suggestion mean to our economy? What would it mean to Canada's economy in general? I would think that the hon. member who moved the amendment and
Business of the House
his supporters are suggesting something in which they themselves do not believe because, as I have gone to some trouble to point out, when they had the opportunity in 1948 to become a part of this Atlantic community- and we all admit it has had certain successful results-they rejected the idea. Yet they come into the house today and say that the present government, which was the first government to ratify the new O.E.C.D. convention, is not doing the thing which they themselves failed to do when they had the opportunity to do so in 1948 and which, if they had had the foresight to do so, would have meant that we would not have the problems in the field of trade that we face in Canada today.
We have a minister who works hard, who is selling as much as he can, who is promoting trade for Canada, and I am sure the people of Canada are grateful that such a minister is occupying this position today. The point I should like to make is that those who have introduced the amendment had an opportunity to do something in this field. They had a chance to become a full member of the Atlantic economic community and they rejected it. May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader whether there is any change in the program for this week announced by his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be no change except possibly for Friday. I may have to name a different department so far as estimates are concerned and if so I will do it tomorrow night.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister indicate now what the department will be that he intends to call?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-250i
[Stage Direction]
Question