Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

I should like to read a brief news dispatch and on it base a question to the Prime Minister. In the Vancouver Sun of January 28 there is a dispatch from Washington, D.C., the opening sentence of which I will read:

Quietly, without need of treaty or negotiation, the United States and Canada are preparing to defend this continent from invasion, on a joint, cooperative basis, the armies and navies of both working together by definite plan.

I am not [DOT] asking the question by way of adverse criticism, but I should like to know whether this statement is correct and whether there are any commitments involved.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

A question of such importance as the one which the hon. member has asked is one that I should not like to answer offhand. I should like to see the statement and read it carefully. I gather, however, that the purport of the question is this: Are there any commitments on the part of the present government with the government of the United States in respect of the defence of the Pacific coast. If that is the

question I answer that there are no commitments that I am aware of, and I think I should be aware of any if there were.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

There was the other prior question which I asked as to whether it was correct that there is an arrangement to defend this continent from invasion, involving joint cooperative action, or to what extent the statement is correct.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I should think that an arrangement would be in the nature of a commitment and, I repeat, there is no commitment. I have not the least doubt that there has been an exchange of information between the authorities in the United States and the authorities in Canada with respect to matters of common concern; in any event, that would be most desirable; but beyond exchange of information on matters of common concern I think I can assure my hon. friend that there has been nothing that could have the semblance of a commitment of any kind.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :

Some days ago, just after the beginning of the debate on the address, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question with reference to the business that would be taken up following the close of this discussion, and he mentioned that in all probability the trade treaty would come up for consideration. So far as one knows now, the vote in the present debate will be taken either this afternoon or this evening. Has the Prime Minister made any change in his plans? If not, will he tell us whether we shall proceed to-morrow with the trade treaty in the event of the debate concluding to-day?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

If I remember rightly,

when I replied to my hon. friend's question on the previous occasion I intimated that if we concluded the debate towards the end of a week we would not in that week go on with the trade agreement. I might take advantage of this opportunity to mention that, to-morrow being a government day, the government would like, if possible, to proceed with such business as appears under the head of government business, and to that end I intend later to ask the permission of the house to proceed to the order for government notices of motion in order to advance

The Address-Mr. Cleaver

three or four resolutions. I had intended asking the house for permission to have the resolutions advanced a stage to-day so that to-morrow they might appear on the order paper under government orders. The resolutions will be found at page 34 of to-day's order paper. I would also ask my hon. friend -I do not suggest that he give me a reply at the moment; I simply mention the matter now so that he may have time to think it over-whether we might also have permission to go into committee of supply on the estimates of some department should the other business be summarily concluded. In that event we should like to take the estimates of the department of national revenue or those of agriculture.

Mr. MANION:

I am afraid my right hon. friend is developing a rather subtle sense of humour; we are not likely to get into supply to-morrow. May I ask him which of these government notices he proposes to go on with? He need not tell me now, but perhaps he will this evening.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We propose to take up the second resolution, which requests that the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan the sum mentioned in the resolution. That is one. Another is the bill respecting the Ottawa corporation agreement. The Minister of Justice has a bill with respect to penitentiaries. It is the resolutions with respect to these three which the government have in mind.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

That is

only a resolution.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It is simply

a resolution. What we wish to do is to inform the house that His Excellency the Governor-General has been advised of these resolutions.

Mr. MANION:

I merely wanted to know

what the government's intentions were. I do not want to cause any trouble in the house; I like to help everything along.

Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):

I wish to direct attention to one way in which every

hon. member may make a personal contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment, but before proceeding I concur heartily in all the complimentary remarks that have been made with reference to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address, to the new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Manion), and to the two new cabinet ministers. May I be permitted also to say how pleased my constituents were to learn of the restoration to health of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). We hope that he will long enjoy good health so that he may be able to carry the very onerous responsibilities of his office.

At this time I should like to join with other Canadians in expressing our delight at the proposed visit of the king and queen to Canada this year. I do not know of any king and queen in the past who have so captivated the hearts of Canadians as have their majesties. Perhaps it is because, through the use of the radio, we were all permitted to share in the coronation ceremonies. Perhaps it is because of their wholesome family life, of which we are all so proud. Perhaps it is for both reasons.

We have listened to many fine speeches in this debate. Many of them will read particularly well in the ridings for which they were intended. It would almost seem as if a general election is in the offing. Let me say at once that I hope the people of Canada will not be subjected to the upset and turmoil of a general election until we have had an opportunity to weigh by actual experience the value of the new three-way trade agreement. I do not know of any safer way of arriving at a correct conclusion with respect to any subject than by actual performance. Actual performance is very much safer than prophecy, especially where the prophecy has a political tinge.

Every member of this house who has spoken in the debate has commented upon the serious problem of unemployment. I wish to offer a suggestion whereby I believe every member can make a direct contribution in his own riding toward the solution of the problem. I refer to the employment of men by house builders. This government cannot claim all the credit for the present national housing act, because in 1935 the then Bennett administration realized that the construction trades were lagging far behind the general recovery which was just commencing to be felt in this country, and a special committee on housing was set up. We are indebted to that committee for some very valuable findings of fact:

The Address-Mr. Cleaver

1. At that time over $60,000,000 annually was being spent to maintain the building trades in idleness. Over sixty per cent of our then unemployed were dependent upon the building trades for employment.

2. We had a shortage at that time in Canada of over 55,000 houses. That shortage has since grown to over 80,000.

The records of the bureau of statistics as to house building confirm these figures. I take first a long ten-year period in order to determine if possible the normal annual housebuilding needs of Canada. I have actual figures of the yearly construction of houses during the period from 1921 to 1930, and I ask leave to put these figures on the record without taking the time of the house to read them.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member can do so only with the unanimous consent of the house.

Agreed.