1933-02-15

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Morand be substituted for that of Mr. Peck on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Coote be substituted for that of Mr. Campbell on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Wilson be substituted for that of Mr. Campbell on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This bill proposes a rather technical amendment to the Exchequer Court Act in respect of claims made against the crown. It proposes the adoption of a uniform law throughout Canada in regard to money paid to the crown under a mistake of law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
53719-IS4



BANK ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister, for the Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Bank Act.
He said: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) I move for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Bank Act, the effect of which is merely to extend the existing charters for a year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister, for the Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
He said: I would ask the consent of the house to move, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act. This is exactly similar to the bill amending the Bank Act, and will extend the operation of the existing provisions of the law for another year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Was an inquiry held at Halifax, in connection with the firing of a live shell by the C.G.S. Arras, at the fishermen at Cape Wolfe, Prince Edward Island, and damaging the property of Mrs. E. F. Hopgood, of Cape Wolfe?
2.	If such an inquiry was held, will the minister give a full copy of the evidence taken at the investigation, giving the names of those who gave evidence and those who represented the department?
3.	Is Captain Barkhouse, who was in charge of the C.G.S. Arras, still being retained in the employ of the department?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, if asked for.
3.	Yes.
INDIAN TRUST FUNDS*


Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	What was the amount of the Indians' trust fund standing to the credit of each province in 1920 and 1932?
2.	What was the total sum derived from the alienation of Indian lands in each province, from 1867 to 1920, and from 1920 to 1932?

t
2122	COMMONS
Questions


Mr. MURPHY:: The first part of this question is answered, and with the consent of the hon. member who placed the question on the order paper the second part is dropped.
1.	1920	1932	Nova Scotia.. .. $	33,061	24	8 30,693	85New Brunswick..	45,877	06	42,814	01Quebec	332,495	90	397,117	66Ontario	5,158,001	52	6,068,885	51Manitoba	299,016	48	328,067	34Saskatchewan. ..	1,947,862	57	1,780,401	25Alberta	1,641,524	46	3,036,009	35British Columbia.	550,688	82	856,623	27Miscellaneous ac-	counts	891,384	44	1,103,466	97


Mr. SAUVE:: 1,	2 and 3.
Fiscal year ended 31st March
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaoINNIS:
1.	How many employees have been dismissed from the Department of Interior since 1930?
2.	How many have been dismissed in each branch for the same time?
3.	What was the average remuneration to employees for the year 1930?
4.	What was the average remuneration to employees for each branch for the year 1932?
5.	What was the floor space occupied by each branch in 1930?
6.	Have any of the buildings occupied by the department in 1930 been vacated since?
7.	What was the total number of employees in 1930 (all branches) ?
8.	What was the total number of employees in 1932 (all branches) ?

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaoINNIS:
1.	What was the amount of estimate, with quantities and prices, submitted to the Department of Marine for approval by Vancouver harbour commissioners, for the dredging work for the extension to the Lapointe pier at Vancouver?
2.	Were public tenders invited, if not, why?
I Mr. Laurin.]

Mr. LAURIN:: What provinces submitted claims to the federal government since 1920, respecting the alienation of Indian lands, by virtue of the judgment of the privy council dated November 23, 1920?


Charles Murphy: The province of Quebec.


SMITHERS, B.C.-POST OFFICE
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total revenue of the post office at Smithers, British Columbia, for the years 1929-30-31-32?
2.	What salary and other remuneration was paid to the postm,aster at that place during the same years?
3.	What was the total rent paid for the post office quarters during the same years?
	Salary and other	Rent
Revenue	remuneration	allowanceS6.356 72	82,155 45	8406 006,711 15	2,567 17	438 006,066 96	2,714 46	469 006,291 06	2,578 82	453 50
3. What is the name of the firm employed, the names of directors, if any, and amount of deposit and date of commencement and completion, respectively?
4.	What is the name of any other firm from which figures were obtained with prices?
5.	What was the total amount paid in connection with this dredging, with amount of extras allowed, if any, and quantity of material removed, with unit prices?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, including telegrams, letters and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Fisheries, or any of his officials, and the authorities of the provincial government of Quebec, from April 1, 1932, to date, regarding the improvement of the fisheries in the province of Quebec.


GRANDES BERGERONNES, QUE.-WHARF
Pierre-François Casgrain: For a c-opy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, and other documents with respect to improvements of landing facilities at the wharf of Grandcs Bergeronnes, in the county of Saguenay, effected since January 1, 1932, to date.

Rules oj the House-Estimates


HAVRE ST. PIERRE, QUE.-WHARF
Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Public Works and the municipal authorities of Havre St. Pierre, in the county of Saguenay, with respect to improvements and reconstruction work carried out at the wharf in said locality, since January 1, 1932, to date.


ST. LOUIS DE GONZAGUE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. RAYMOND:: For a copy of all telegrams, complaints, correspondence, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the postmastership of St-Louis de Gonzague, county of Beauharnois, since May 1, 1932.


BEAUHARNOIS, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Donat Raymond: For a copy of all telegrams, complaints, correspondence, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the postmastership of the town of Beauharnois, and changes effected since November 8, 1932.


POINTE FI.F.URANT, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of pay lists and account for materials supplied the Department of Public Works for the construction of the Pointe Fleurant wharf and the approach thereto, in the county of Bonaventure in the year 1932.


ST. PAMPHILE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. FAFARD:: For- a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, and petitions exchanged, since January 1, 1932. to date, between any individual and the Post Office Department, respecting the post office of St-Pamphile, county of L'Islet.


TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and Mr. G. G. Serkau or any of his associates in connection with the proposal to exchange Canadian cattle and hides for Russian commodities.


RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, in order to decrease the cost of government, shorten the length of sessions, and deal with the business of the country in a more practical and intelligent way, a select standing committee of the house be appointed to consider the advis-53719-134J
ability of referring certain agreed estimates to a special committee where all information relating thereto may be provided by the ministers after which the committee shall report to the house, such report to be debatable in detail under the rules of procedure.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in bringing this
resolution before the house my object is not so much to obtain the endorsement of the house, as that has been done already on at least two or three occasions, but in older that parliament might take such action as would facilitate business, lessen the length of the sessions, reduce the cost of government to the people of this country and permit us to conduct our business in a more scientific and businesslike manner.
In moving this resolution I realize that I am asking the house to deal with one of the great prerogatives of the House of Commons, a prerogative which is the result of hundreds of years of struggle dating back to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, when parliament obtained the right to redress for its petitions before supply was granted. When we look back over the development of parliamentary institutions we find that a very interesting story is told on the pages of history. It was a surprise to me to find that in the great charter wrested from the then reigning monarch in 1215, nothing was said about taxation. At that time taxation did not exist; it was simply a matter of the liberties of the subject and of rents. In fact, there was no parliament in existence at that time. When we realize that all parliamentary activity emanated from the crown, we get more or less of a key to the structure. For example, in those days parliament was summoned by royal writ; it met in a royal palace by royal command. Royalty's business was the first on the agenda, and royalty reserved the right of either rejecting or accepting the petitions of parliament. It was not until the year 1327 that we find parliament presenting to the then reigning monarch its petitions in one common bill. That action was the origin of the name of the chamber in which we are now doing business, the first designation of a branch of parliament as the House of Commons. The struggle continued, it ebbed and flowed through the pages of history, parliament sometimes gaining and sometimes losing in the struggle. A considerable gain was made during the reign of the Tudors, but that was lost in the reign of the Stuarts, until finally one was beheaded, bringing about the great revolution.
I should like to remind the house of the great principles of that revolution, upon which we do not put enough stress to-day. That

Rules oj the Home-Estimates
was the real genesis of parliamentary control. The first concession obtained from the then reigning sovereign was that there should be parliamentary government in contradistinction to government by the monarchy. The second concession was that the House of Commons should be supreme. It needs no elaboration on my part to show this house how important it was that the House of Commons should be supreme over the House of Lords or the reigning monarch. A third and very important concession was that the House of Commons should represent the people. Hon. members who have studied the pages of history know that up until that time the House of Commons did not represent the people of the old land. That concession did not go into effect at that time, because of the limited franchise held by the people of Great Britain; it was not until the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed that the ordinary voter secured control of parliament and parliamentary activity. In outlining these steps in the development of the power of the House of Commons, it is worth while to note that the House of Lords in Great Britain did not come into existence until some centuries after the House of Commons.
Having attained that authority, and having put it upon a safe foundation, the people of the old land became, probably not indifferent but not quite so active in enforcing their rights. From that time on we have had some deviations from parliamentary procedure, and it is to correct some of these that I have put on the order paper the resolution which is now before the house. If I might read some extracts from certain authorities on parliamentary government, I would say that, having attained the supreme right to control the executive, the finances of the country, we have probably been a little negligent, indifferent, in exercising that right. One of the greatest authorities on parliamentary government which I have been able to find, makes this very significant statement:
The House of Commons-now that it is the true sovereign and appoints the real executive -has long since ceased to be the checking, sparing, economical body that it once was.
And that it was created to be.
Another, Mr. Pollard, who, I am told, is one of the greatest authorities of the day on parliamentary government, says:
Legislation has grown too complicated for profitable discussion of its details by a body of 700 general practitioners of politics between the bureaucrats who inform the minister and the spokesman who will have to suffer or profit from their administration.
That to-day is the statement of fact by which we are confronted in the house and, I

think, in nearly every other legislative chamber on this continent and many in Europe. It is to remedy that defect that I ask the house now to pass this resolution.
This is not new to the house. It was introduced first in 1921 by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, now Senator Lemieux. In 1925 the committee of the house which revised the rules, made a similar recommendation, and in 1930, the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) introduced a resolution along the same lines, which passed this chamber with the endorsement of the then prime minister, now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and with the blessing of the present prime minister (Mr. Bennett). But, sir, we have not been able to get any action and it is in order to get some I have again had the temerity to bring this resolution before the house and to ask hon. members to spend a little of their time to see whether we cannot devise some method which will be more in conformity with modern business methods than the one which we are now following.
Many of us who sit and who have sat in this house for several years are amazed at the unbusinesslike procedure we follow in passing the estimates. In days gone by I have seen millions of dollars, yes, on one occasion I saw every item of every department of government passed in one night. Is it any wonder that the Canadian people are to-day critical of our methods when they see millions and tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars voted without any legitimate, honest or competent scrutiny as to where the money was going or whether it was being properly spent in conformity with the policies of this country.
What methods are followed in other countries? I went to some trouble to find out what they do in the United States. I find there the president has a personal representative who does not belong to any of the committees, and before whom the head of every department must bring his estimates. He scrutinizes them and, if necessary, cuts them down, forwarding them to the president with his recommendation. If the president approves them-and this is long before they go to congress-he sends them to the House of Representatives, not for consideration as a whole, but to be considered by a committee on estimates before they go to the house. This committee is divided into subcommittees. For example, if the post office estimates are up, they go to a subcommittee on post office estimates. They tear them to pieces if they like; they summon heads of departments, members of congress, ministers and others and

Rules of the House-Estimates
put them under oath, examine them and thus get a thorough knowledge of the expenditures of the country. After they have passed the committee, they are referred to the House of Representatives, and the house debates them in committee of the whole for two or three days. Then they go to a committee where members are permitted to move amendments in speeches of five minutes duration. During that time they can either cut out the estimates, increase them or pass them as they stand. In other words, they have power to pass upon the budget which goes to congress. After they are passed by the house, they are sent to the Senate which has the same power either to reinstate something that has been cut out or to eliminate something that has been in the budget or to add to it. The crux of the whole argument I wish to present to the house is this, that at the present time the control of the expenditure of this country is all in the executive. The House of Commons, the backbenchers, have not a thing to say about the matter. The government makes up the estimates, brings them before parliament, which has to pass them, or else there is an election and a new government. That, to my mind, has eliminated from parliament the control of the finances of the country and centered it in the executive. This is contrary to the spirit of democratic government and particularly to the spirit of the British people. I have described the way in which public finances are handled in the United States.
Then I went to Germany and found there a similar process, only a little more drastic. If you will believe it, there they have a committee on estimates, composed partly of the representatives of the people and partly of business men, outside the representatives of the people, who are selected on account of their ability and capacity for business. All bills pertaining to trade and commerce are referred automatically to that committee. That brings into play in the government of the country the greatest brains in the business world. After these measures have been disposed of, they must come back for ratification by the elected representatives of the people. That, again, brings the control of the finances of the country back where it should be, namely, to the elected representatives of the people.
Then I went to Great Britain where I found that the very first steps towards controlling expenditures in that country were taken away back in 1902 when they passed a statute giving parliament power to form a committee on estimates. That was not acted upon until 1912, but in 1912, 1913 and 1914 that committee was active. When the war broke out, the committee ceased to function for a few years but it was revived in a committee on national expenditure under the chairmanship of Sir Herbert Samuel, and in 1916, 1917 and 1918 it functioned along a similar line in Great Britain going, not only into estimates but into other expenditures such as those involved in war, passing on them and sending recommendations to the house. When they ceased to function in 1920, I think it was, they presented to the House of Commons their recommendations and thirteenth report. I should like to quote briefly from them, although I do not like reading extracts to the house, but I think the house will be interested in hearing the *recommendations the committee made regarding national expenditure and particularly the estimates of the parliament of Great Britain. Before the committee made their recommendations they sent out questionnaires to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the heads of all departments and influential people in the government, asking for their opinions on how to handle the estimates of the house, and after replies had been received and the committee had sat for some three or four years and heard all the evidence they made the following recommendations to the British House of Commons:
We are of opinion that the existing procedure of the House of Commons is inadequate to secure proper parliamentary control over the national expenditure.
Is there anyone here who would dispute the application of that statement to the procedure of this house regarding our national expenditure? The next recommendation was:
We recommend that there should be appointed each session two standing committees on estimates, each consisting of fifteen members, and a third should be added if experience showed that this was desirable.
I want the house to note that recommendation because I shall refer to it later. The third recommendation was this:
It should be the duty of the committees to consider the annual estimates and such supplementary estimates as the conditions allow, and report to the house any economies which they regarded as desirable and which did not raise questions of policy.
Both in the United States and Great Britain questions of policy were eliminated from the consideration of the committee. Policy, of course, always has been and must always be a matter for the government of the day. The next recommendation was this:
For the assistance of the committees there should be appointed an officer of the house with the title of Examiner of Estimates.

Rules of the House-Estimates
Similar to what they have in the American republic. The next recommendation was this:
Opportunity should be provided for the consideration by the house of the recommendations of the committees in the manner proposed.
There were many other recommendations which I shall not read because I dislike reading matter to the house. It looks to me like a lack of respect for the house and rather like a lack of intelligence on the part of the speaker, as if he could not make his own speech.
The recommendations which I have quoted were not carried out. In 1926 the British house appointed a committee on estimates. It did not function very successfully, and for that reason criticism was offered in this chamber some years ago against adopting any similar plan here, but if you will read the history of that committee, and the reasons are set out in the report from which I have quoted, you will find that the reasons for its failure were threefold. First, the task put upon it was too great. Only one committee was appointed instead of two or three, and it would have taken that committee several years to make the rounds of the different departments. The second reason was that no expert counsel was appointed to assist the committee. I mean counsel for the committee, not for the government, just as when a royal commission is appointed counsel is also appointed to help bring out the evidence. That was a recommendation made by the Samuel committee of 1921, but it was never carried out.
I am not attempting to lay down any policy for this government to pursue. I am simply asking the house to appoint a committee to investigate this question. I submit that it is time that we in this house took upon ourselves the doing of the business of this country in a businesslike way. I do not think I am far astray when I say that a good board of directors would do in three weeks all that this parliament takes four or five months to do, and if ever there was a time in the history of this country when we should do things economically and relieve, if possible, the burden of taxation upon the people, that time is now. If we had such a committee we could utilize the best brains of this parliament, some of which are not now being used. We could bring into activity many minds whose labours would help to shorten the sessions of this house and enable us to do our business much better than it is done now.
I wonder if the members of this house and the people of this country realize that this session will cost this country approximately $3,000,000, or on an average $25,000 a day for

every day we sit. I know that some one will tell me that there are a lot of fixed expenses. That is true. Indemnities of members of the Senate and Commons are a fixed charge, but I looked up the figures and I found that that does not account for half the total expenditure. Without going into details, I think it is fair to say that the controllable expenditure, which is the other half, could be reduced in proportion to the shortening of the session. If you could shorten the session by one-third, it would mean a saving to the people of this country of approximately half a million dollars. Now if that amount can be saved, it should be saved. Furthermore, surely the time of the members of this house is worth something to themselves back home attending to their own business.
I discussed this proposal with a member of the house the other day, and he said, "No, I am against you." I asked him why. "Well," he said, "I object to any man coming between me and my ministers for what I want." Imagine such an objection! If what he wants is legitimate he can go before any committee, substantiate his claim and get what he wants.
Another member said to me, "No, you would spoil my fun with the ministers." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a playhouse, and with all due deference to the hon. member I submit that $20,000 a day is a little too much to pay even if the fun is enjoyed by the member to whom I allude.
What are the objections to the present method? Has anyone ever seen a more ridiculous spectacle than is now presented to the house when estimates are up? Some member asks the minister a question. The minister leans over and whispers to his deputy. The deputy cannot address the house; we cannot ask him any questions direct, but we have to ask him indirectly because the minister does not know the answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter McGibbon: I am not referring to
any particular minister. I have been here since 1917, and I find that they are all the same-every one.


Mr. HANBURY:: I thought the hon. member was referring to the Minister of Railways.


Peter McGibbon: No, he is generally pretty well posted. What did we see in this house last night? The only man in this house who knew the answer to a question about the Strathcona trust fund was the Prime Minister. Not another member knew a thing about it. The deputy knew, and if we had been able to cross-question him, do you not think that we should have been able to get more infor-

Rules of the House-Estimates
mation? But we have seen it year in and year out; we know the way the ministers have to account for their actions. In my view the way ministers are worked during the
session is a shame.


Wilfred Hanbury: Why not turn over the government to the deputies?
Mr. MoGIBBON: If my hon. friend will vote for this resolution, we will. We have listened to questions asked across the floor of the house which had no more to do with the matter under discussion than with Mars. I am not blaming anybody; probably I have been as great an offender as any other hon. member. I want to say however that in my experience estimates have been used as the chief instrument of blockade and obstruction; that has been their main purpose. Since I entered this house in 1917 I am convinced they have been used most effectively in that way. That line of procedure might have been all right ten or fifteen years ago, but surely parliament must make progress. Surely we have to have better business methods in this House of Commons. Surely the time of this country and government is worth money. Surely the time of hon. members is worth something. As I have said, the text of this resolution has been endorsed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King); it has received the blessing of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett); the principle contained in it has twice passed this house, and was once recommended by the committee in charge of the revision of the rules of the house. If at this time we can put into action the resolution now before us we can save the country annually from $300,000 to $500,000.


Mr. NEILL:: On previous occasions the resolution did not appear in the same terms.
Mr. MoGIBBON: No, but the principle was the same. I do not know whether the government would agree to it or not, but I am of the opinion the suggested change would restore to the House of Commons some power over the treasury which at the present time it does not have. Had the estimates of a department passed a non-partisan committee the work of the minister upon [DOT] entering the house would be minimized. I ask hon. members this question: How much time was spent by this house on estimates from the railway committee, after those estimates had been considered by the committee? We have never spent more than ten or fifteen minutes. Further than that, hon. members would have a chance in the smaller committee to hear the officials of the departments, to scrutinize
them. Hon. members would be in a position to gain accurate knowledge of the business before the house, and for that reason criticism in the house would be more effective.
I do not like the practice of reading during debate, but at this time I should like to read a few comments which I believe would be of interest to hon. members. Within the last two years a committee on national expenditure has been formed in Great Britain, before which have appeared some of the greatest minds in the country. The evidence was published in 1931. The Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin had this to say:
I think the estimates committee serve a useful purpose, by all means.
He was referring to the committee which functioned in the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. I give that to the house as a testimonial from a man who was once prime minister of Great Britain. Hon. members will note in his view the estimates committee was serving a useful function. Then we turn to the words of the Right Hon. David Lloyd George:
There has been no examination by the House of Gammons itself of the estimates; no careful scrutiny whatever wdth a view to finding out whether it is possible to reduce the expenditure without detriment to the efficiency of the public service.
He states that there has been no careful scrutiny of estimates in Great Britain. Is it not time that they had it? I think that query might apply equally to the House of Commons in Canada. We have had no efficient examination into our expenditures to see whether they were in conformity with the policies of government, and were not extravagant. We ought to have it. Then Mr. Lloyd George states further:
The minister must have the ultimate say,-
Of course he must have; otherwise we would be forfeiting the basic principle of responsible government.
-subject, to what parliament says, but it would enable the House of Commons effectively to supervise, and not only that, but to keep itself informed.
I wonder if that would not be applicable to this House of Commons? I should like now to read the statement of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, the man who advocated the formation of a sub-parliament in Great Britain which would be responsible to parliament. On that sub-parliament he suggested there should be not only members of the House of Commons and House of Lords but that in addition he would commandeer for that body the best business brains of Great Britain. To the sub-parliament would go all bills relating to trade and commerce. In my view

Rules oj the House-Estimates
that suggestion is worthy of consideration, because in the consideration of bills touching trade and commerce we should have, to help members of the House of Commons and the Senate, the best help from outside sources. In that way we would obtain more valuable information. Here is what Mr. Churchill said concerning procedure in supply:
He suggested our present method of discussing on supply was quite useless.
Is there any hon. member who will dispute that statement? Undoubtedly our present discussions in supply are quite useless. All hon. members are aware of the truth of that statement. We talk, and talk, and talk, all day. In the old days before the introduction of the eleven o'clock rule-which I thought was a mistake-talk would continue until the early hours of the morning. It was only at that time that business could be transacted. In my view the procedure in supply is an anachronism.
Mr. Churchill states further:
I agree that after they have been presented to parliament their consideration should take place by committees, dealing with each branch, military, civil and so forth, and those committees should apply the scrutiny which the public imagine is applied on the supply days.
Yes, the public imagines scrutiny is applied in this house; but is it? Does any hon. member apply any real scrutiny to supply voted in this house? I do not know of any such instance.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to
know if the hon. member has in mind the appointment of only one or of several committees?


Peter McGibbon: All I am asking is that this house appoint a committee to discuss the matter now before us. It will be the duty of that committee to formulate plans and rules, and to decide whether or not we shall have one or a dozen committees. I am making no definite suggestion in that connection; all I want is action. When that committee reports to the house, the matter will be open for discussion. But for heaven's sake in dealing with the business of our country let us bring our methods up-to-date. To-day we are using methods which were in vogue fifty or sixty years ago. May I read further from the words of Mr. Churchill:
I think one witness, at any rate-Mr. Lloyd George-went further than that and suggested it was not merely a matter of controlling expenditure, but it was a matter of using the control of expenditure as a means of controlling the executive.
I do not know whether that suggestion would be agreeable to the government; I

suggest it is worthy of consideration. When advocating the appointment of a committee on estimates in Great Britain, that was the main point stressed by Mr. Lloyd George. Then Mr. Churchill continues.
... or giving the House of Commons more authority over the executive than it possessed at the moment. He suggested our present method of discussing on supply was quite useless.
They all agreed. I think we can all say amen to their prayer; it is absolutely useless. May I quote another one. This is from Sir Herbert Samuel, who I think needs no introduction. He says:
The House of Commons as an institution would gain more power, and the cabinet would have less power. I think on the whole that would be an advantage.
I am not making any comment on that. Then one of the members puts this question:
You really want to do three things; you want to make an estimates committee more effective in its check of the estimates, you want to make an effective opportunity on the floor of the house to debate its reports?
Sir Herbert Samuel: Where necessary.
Q. Some of its reports, shall I say?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you want to make it possible on minor issues for the house to amend the estimates without causing a parliamentary crisis?
In the United States the committee has power to knock out the estimates or to increase them, either in the House of Representatives or the Senate. One of the main things in Sir Herbert Samuel's report was that that should not be considered a vote of want of confidence in the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter McGibbon: These are some things
to consider. Sir Herbert Samuel says further:
I want to take it a little further than that. Is the object that of more employment of members, or is it the control of the executive, because any of these objects or all of them could come under the scheme?
He wants to make this an instrument for employing the unused brains in the house. I think we have a lot of them here that are not being used. I myself feel that I have not enough work in the House of Commons, and I try to look up some. I have not half as much work as I do at home, and I would rather have more. One must be active and alert and keep his brain working, otherwise one deteriorates. I think a very important point in these recommendations is the suggestion that we employ all the brains we have here.

Rules oj the Home-Estimates


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have not given very much consideration to the subject matter of this resolution, but I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. McGibbon) for the industry he has displayed and the information he has given the house. I have been a member of this house since the spring of 1921; I have sat through every session, and each year I have been impressed with the amount of the time of the house that is wasted in the consideration of the estimates. I know there are certain reasons which would move one portion of the house at all events to exercise such control as they may over the estimates. For ten years I sat in opposition, and I know that criticism of the estimates is the only weapon an opposition has against the furtherance by a government of undesirable legislation. A government can put through by sheer weight of numbers, whether it is right or wrong, legislation which is objectionable to an opposition. But on the estimates an alert opposition, if properly generated and handled, can in the long run seriously embarrass a government in respect of legislation it desires to put through to which the opposition takes objection. From the standpoint of political tactics, therefore, I can understand why an opposition would oppose such a move as is suggested by this resolution. But apart from that I cannot see that any great advantage accrues to any political party by following the present practice. It has been stated here to-day that this practice has been in vogue since confederation, and I presume in deliberative assemblies in Canada long before that. While the fact that it is antiquated is no argument against it, yet in my humble judgment it is not evidence in its favour.
If we can dissociate our minds for the moment from the question of party tactics and consider this resolution on its merits, I suggest that the resolution has much to commend it. After all what does it seek? It does not seek by one fell swoop to impose on this house a new policy or new methods of procedure in connection with the estimates; it merely aims at the appointment of a special committee to study the question. If hon. gentlemen who have been in the house a considerable time will reflect I think they will agree with the mover of this resolution that bhere is room for improvement in the method of considering the estimates. What has been the experience in recent years? What is the experience in the provincial houses? I have never been a member of a provincial legislature, but for a good many years I have watched the legislature in my own province function, and I know that government legislation and private legislation have the right of way for very much the major portion of the time that the legislature sits, and that as a rule under every government the estimates have been crowded through in the last forty-eight hours. 1 do not know what the history is in the province of Quebec, or in the legislature of Ontario, but speaking generally that is the history in New Brunswick. And it never was truer than in the days of William Pugsley. The estimates were on the table, members had some opportunity to study them, but consideration was deferred to the last minute. I say that is not a businesslike way of transacting public affairs.
The parliament of the United Kingdom is the parliament of an empire, dealing with great empire problems. The mover of the resolution has done well to put on the record excerpts from reports and evidence from Great Britain in connection with this matter, because they have had to study it there. In my humble judgment there is no doubt that the sessions of parliament in Canada last too long, having regard to the business that we actually transact. Ninety per cent of the members of this house must earn their living outside the limits of Ottawa. We cannot do that, do justice to our families and to ourselves, and provide for our old age if we spend five or six months a year in this city. If we would we could transact all the business of parliament in three months in any given year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Less than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I
agree; less than that. At one time, when I was in opposition, the question of the indemnity paid to members of parliament was being discussed in this house, and at that time I made a sporting offer to the Prime Minister. I said that I would give back to the treasury of this country $1,000 for every month he would shorten the session, and I guaranteed that we would do just as much business.


An hon. MEMBER:: You can afford to do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not say I could afford to do so, but it would pay me to do so, through increasing my earning power in other ways, and I think it would pay most hon. members as well. That is my personal view, but of course there is a far wider aspect that should appeal to most of us. Can we transact business of the detailed character which is involved in the estimates by the method we have followed during all these years? Those of us who have had anything to do with corporation management in an ex-

Rules of the House-Estimates
ecutive or administrative capacity know that such management could not be carried on in this way. As a matter of practice such routine matters as these never would come before a board of directors.
So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are agreed on the premise that this is an expensive and cumbersome method of transacting business at least we ought to explore the possibilities of newer and better methods. To that extent I am in accord with the resolution. I do not say that I would be prepared to go quite so far as my hon. friend would take us, but I am prepared to agree that we should study the question and see what is being done in other jurisdictions. An hon. member may say, "What right has a member from Saskatchewan to say what public works shall be voted or withheld in my county? I know the county; he does not know it. I know the needs of my county; he does not know them." The argument is that the member himself is best qualified to say what his constituency needs, and I agree with that argument if he is the right kind of member, but that is not the point.


Mr. McPHEE:: AA'hy single out Saskatchewan?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was just an illustration; I might just a>s well say Quebec. I have nothing against Saskatchewan; there was no personal allusion at all. I suppose if you go through the estimates for the last ten years you will find that less money has been spent on public works in Saskatchewan than in any other province of Canada, while the maritime provinces have received their fair share. They take care that they do receive their share, and there is a reason for that. Just glance at a map of the maritime provinces; look at the hundreds of miles of coast line, and then call to mind storms such as the one we had on the first day of this month, when practically every exposed breakwater and wharf in the maritime provinces was damaged. These will have to be repaired, and who is going to do that work?


Pierre-François Casgrain: The same applies to
Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, to
a more limited extent. I notice, however, that Quebec receives other favours. I might mention the citadel and a few other places where we have been spending money year in and year out since confederation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is money well spent.
fMr. R. B. Hanson.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: AVhat
harm will be done if we set up a committee of this house, composed of earnest men, to study the question of changing our method of transacting business? There is no reason why we should not take that step. Personally I have reached a point in my life when I do not see how I can spend six months in Ottawa every year, especially since the stock market debacle of 1929. I have to earn my living, and that applies to other members as well. Let us do something that will shorten the sessions of parliament, and when parliament is not actually in session we may be able to do a great deal more for our constituencies. On the whole, therefore, I think I must vote for this resolution. No harm will be done; a great deal of information may be obtained, and the cost to the country will not be very great, while on the other hand we may be able to save the country a great deal of money.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to
offer any objection to the suggestion contained in the resolution proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon), but I must say that while there is a chance of reducing the time spent in the house on the general discussion of estimates, I fail to understand how some of the reforms suggested by the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken can be brought into effect. After all this is a responsible government; they must take the responsibility of presenting the estimates, and I fail to see how a committee could reduce or increase those estimates. It might shorten the time spent in discussion, and of course that would be worth while.


Peter McGibbon: AArould my hon. friend
pardon me? I did not have time to finish my remarks. All these estimates would have to come back to the house.


Charles A. Stewart: I was just
going to say that if this were the case I fear that instead of being shortened the period of discussion would be lengthened.


Peter McGibbon: No one could speak for more than forty minutes.


Charles A. Stewart: AVe discussed this question when I was a member of the preceding government, and while we favoured some such action we felt that it would be unfair to delegate to a committee the entire right of discussion. Another method suggested was that any member interested in any item coming under any department could have the privilege of appearing before the committee and making representations, but

Rules oj the House-Estimates
after all under our system of government the government of the day must take responsibility for preparing the estimates. That is the first point. When they have prepared the estimates and submitted them to the house, they have the privilege of reducing or increasing those estimates or of introducing new estimates and so on, and to the government belongs the responsibility. My hon. friend holds out the hope that some control might be exercised over the government or over the individual ministers. I fail to see how that could happen, because after all every individual on the other side of the house is pledged to support the program of the government, and each member does support it. Seldom if ever does a member differ from a minister or the government itself on any question, whether it be estimates or legislation.


Peter McGibbon: If my hon. friend will
notice, the resolution refers to certain agreed estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: I know my hon. friend has qualified his request, but I am merely pointing out the only merit I see in the resolution, which is that it might possibly shorten the time spent in discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
that not be worth while?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it might be, but after all if the estimates eventually are returned to the house for discussion I doubt if any time will be saved. If the report of the committee was to be considered as final, then some time might be saved.
A great deal has been said about the advantages of sending the estimates of the Canadian National Railways to a special committee of this house before which all the officials of the company are called to furnish all the information required. In spite of the work of this committee, I find abroad a great deal of criticism with respect to the expenditures of this railway. My hon. friend shakes his head, but evidently he has not been travelling in the same portion of Canada as I have.


Peter McGibbon: My hon. friend misunderstood me.


Charles A. Stewart: I am merely citing one instance to my hon. friend. The government in power delegated to that committee all the criticism which was properly the function of government. That committee has carried on for the last ten years and yet we find the results of its investigations being criticized to a greater degree than the operations of any minister who has come before the house and submitted to its criticism.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the
hon. gentleman say that the work of that special select committee on government railways has been criticized?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
wish to convey that impression. I made the statement that the conclusions of no committee of this house have been more criticized than have those of the committee dealing with the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. Upon that committee were representatives from every section of the house and if that is a criterion of what is going to happen if we delegate the investigation of all estimates to a committee, then I doubt that the work of that committee will be a success.
I do not wish to enter into a discussion upon this matter, I merely wanted to point out some difficulties which I think would be in the way. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to accept the motion of the hon. gentleman that a committee should investigate these matters and report to the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, some years ago I voted against a resolution of a less stringent character than this one, and I propose to vote against this one. There seems to be a tendency to. reduce the powers of the ordinary private member of the House of Commons. There has been an ever-increasing desire by all governments to do this. During the ten or twelve years I have been here, I have seen this under both the late and present governments. The effort has been made to take more and more power away from the private members and concentrate it in the hands of the government. In the course of another hundred years we will probably have all power concentrated in the hands of one man. I agree with the first part of the very able speech of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) when he said that it took one hundred years or more of hard struggle for the British Commons to obtain control over the voting of supply, but to my mind this resolution proposes to vitiate a right which is about the only one we have left.
The hon. member quoted the opinions of British statesmen and various committees that dealt with this matter in Great Britain, but he neglected to mention that no action had been taken, things remaining as they were before. According to the quotations by my hon. friend, these statesmen seemed to be in favour of another system but apparently they were not able to inaugurate a system better than that already in force.
Rules o) the Home-Estimates

The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) referred to the railway committee and I had made a note to speak about that. This committee consists of perhaps twenty or thirty members amd, as the member for Muskoka said, it goes thoroughly into the railway estimates. The officials of the railway are before the committee, a report is made and the result is that only a few minutes are spent in putting it through the house. The result of this procedure is that 90 per cent of the members know nothing about the details. When they go home and are asked whether they voted this or that way, they have to reply that as these matters were dealt with by a committee of twenty or thirty members and then passed by the house, they do not know anything of the details. As the hon. member stated, perhaps if these estimates had been investigated more thoroughly by what I might term the common, ordinary members of the house, more objection might have been taken and the gigantic expenditures, of which everyone is now complaining, cut down. When theise matters were going through the committee, the complaint was that we were not spending enough, and possibly if they had been threshed out in the house, better results would have been obtained.
Some years ago, much against my desire, the membership of the various committees was cut down considerably, until to-day the average membership is about twenty or twenty-five. Twenty-five men are to decide the appropriations to be made throughout the different provinces. As the hon. member for York-Simbury (Mr. Hanson) says, how can a mjan from one province or from one district exercise a wise discretion over an expenditure to be mpde in another province or another district in which he may never have been? It is not always a case of defending an expenditure, sometimes we have to inquire about an item which has been omitted and the only one who is qualified to deal with such a matter is the member from the particular district. The hon. member for Muskoka gave an apparent answer to my objection when he hinted that this would be a means of our obtaining power over the Minister of Finance. If this is going to be done, I should like the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to give his opinion upon a system by which we are to override the government.


Peter McGibbon: I think the hon. member misunderstood me; I was explaining the system in the United States where they do that.


Alan Webster Neill: And a more pernicious system does not exist than that of the American system of log-rolling. I say to the member for Muskoka "I will vote for your rotten post office if you will vote for my virtuous wharf." We had that demonstrated last June, when the United States senate put through a tax on lumber which put the lumber interests of British Columbia out of business. This tax was rejected at one stage but it was later openly stated that it was put through at the last miinute-an election being in sight

the lumber interests agreed to vote for something other interests wanted, and they had to vote in return for the duty on lumber. It would be highly undesirable to have a similar practice in this parliament.
The resolution reads:
-the committee shall report to the house, such report to be debatable in detail under the rules of procedure.
In replying to a question asked by an hon. member to my right, the hon. member for Muskoka said that members would be allowed to speak only for forty minutes during the debate upon the report.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member is misquoting me again, that remark applied to the system which they have in the United States. I could not tell what would be done in this house, that would have to be decided.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Edmonton was not discussing the system they have in the United States. He was questioning the fact that we -would save time because there would be a rehashing in the house, and the hon. member replied that speeches would be limited to forty minutes.
If the report of this committee is simply to say: We recommend that $340,000,000, or whatever it is, be voted, and we are only to be allowed forty minutes to debate that report, then I cannot stress too strongly how undesirable that would be. If, on the other hand, there are attached to the report all these detailed estimates and we are allowed to discuss them in detail, that takes away the grievance I have just mentioned, but it brings us to the situation that we shall not be one bit better off than before as regards saving time, because, if I want to talk about a grievance, for instance, in regard to fish hatcheries in my constituency, I am not going to be stopped from doing so by twenty men, who do not know what a fish hatchery is, saying that they have passed the item in a committee. In my opinion this will not save time. We shall have to sweat in committee

Rules oj the House-Estimates
all morning and then come to the house and go through the whole thing again in the afternoon. Hon. members will not be satisfied to accept the dictum or statement that the committee has passed an item. It may be said that this course was pursued with the committee that dealt with the railway estimates. That is true, but the matter was of more general application to Canada as a whole. When, however, the matter under discussion relates to an hon. member's own riding, he is not going to let it pass without making either a protest or a defence of the item. As I say, if we discuss the matter in detail, then we shall not shorten the debate in the house, and if we do not discuss it in detail, then the situation will be exceedingly undersirable from the point of view of private members.
This question was very fully discussed three or four years ago and while, because perhaps of an indifferent house and a more or less snap vote, the resolution was passed, the obvious disadvantage of the suggestion was such that the government never pushed it and the opposition saw fit not to ask for it to be done. That is some evidence that back in the minds of hon. members on both sides was the thought that the present system, with all its evils-and I know how time-absorbing it is and so forth-was the best, but there are many things which we have to endure in order to get something of greater advantage. The right of free speech has been very costly to acquire, and we want to be exceedingly careful before we allow any portion of that to be taken away from us. I am willing to sit here and listen to an hon. member talk about some subject in which I am not interested, provided that later on I am permitted to bring up a matter in which I am. That is what we are here for, and the debate that takes place in the house gives the government, which is the ruling power, a cross-current to public sentiment that they will never get out of a committee. The committee is composed of ten, twenty or thirty men. In the house the government, while they may vote down opposition and jam through their bills and estimates, will find out what it is to their interest to do in the future. Let us take, for instance, the debate last night on cadet training. Was it not clearly expressed on both sides of the house that the government would be well advised to cut the vote down next year? Had that estimate been put through in committee, would the government have been seized of that sentiment? That is the advantage in discussing these matters in open debate, and that is the purpose for which we are sent to parliament.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in 1925 I introduced in the house a resolution that the estimates should be referred to various select standing committees. Ever since I came here I have been impressed by the unbusinesslike way in which the house in committee of the whole deals with the estimates that are presented to us each session. I agree with practically everything that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) has said in regard to the unbusinesslike way in which we deal with estimates. The motion I introduced at that time was referred to a committee which was revising the rules of the house, and in the report made by that committee they suggested that this question of dealing with the estimates was important enough to be referred to a special committee of the house to be taken up at the next session. I do not think that recommendation was carried out. In 1930 the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) introduced practically a similar resolution. It stated:
That, in the opinion of this house, the estimates should be referred to select standing committees before being submitted to the committee of the whole.
That is the method which I have always felt might very well be adopted, not only to save time, but to enable hon. members to have an intelligent idea whether we were getting value for the money spent. This is not possible when we deal with estimates in committee of the whole. That committee is too big. The deputy minister and heads of branches who may be assisting the minister are not allowed to be questioned. We should be able to put them on the witness stand. The estimates, for instance, of the Department of Agriculture, should be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture which could bring the heads of the various branches of the department before it. In this way it would be able to find out what we were doing with the money, whether we were getting value for money spent and whether all the items should be voted the following year. Perhaps it might suggest that the government reduce the estimate or take money from one branch and spend it in another, thus securing better results in promoting the interests of agriculture. I mention that department only as one instance of what might be done with the estimates of the different departments.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it not a fact that the committee on agriculture is now supposed to meet and has every facility for calling the heads of the department before it?
Rules oj the House-Estimates


George Gibson Coote: Unfortunately the committee on agriculture meets only when it is given some special reference by the house. Those estimates might very well be referred to that committee every year.
The resolution submitted by the hon. member for Muskoka is somewhat differently worded from resolutions introduced in the house before, dealing with the same matter. The hon. member asks that:
A select committee of the house be appointed to consider the advisability of referring certain agreed estimates to a special committee where all information relating thereto may be provided-
And so on. That, as it is worded, apparently contemplates the appointment of one committee to deal with estimates. The estimates are too voluminous to be dealt with by one committee.


Peter McGibbon: That committee could
submit a report recommending the appointment of a dozen committees.


George Gibson Coote: I was just going to ask the
hon. member for Muskoka whether we might take it for granted this was a wide enough reference to a special committee to give it power to recommend a reference of the estimates to more than one committee. I take it for granted such a course would satisfy the hon. member for Muskoka. With that understanding I am very much in favour of the resolution and I should like to see that special committee appointed.
I should like to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I shall not attempt to discuss all the objections he has raised. He said that the government was influenced by the discussions which take place in the house. Perhaps it is or, at least, should be, but discussions on particular estimates such as that which took place last night with regard to cadet training ran be staged in the house just as well after this procedure is adopted as now.
The other point which came to me while the hon. member was speaking as to the possibility of influencing the course of the government, was that as a rule not very many members of the cabinet are in the house when the estimates are being discussed. The minister who is putting through his estimates must of course be present, but the other members of the government are likely to be in their offices dealing with other business matters. If the minister in charge of the estimates of his own department were at a meeting of a special committee dealing with those estimates, where questions

could be put in a much more businesslike way and his estimates discussed very carefully, he would soon acquire more information about his department than he is able to do now with the limited time at his disposal.


Alan Webster Neill: He would die of overwork.


George Gibson Coote: In putting his estimates
through a special committee he would get a better idea of the work of his department than he could by putting them through the committee of the whole house. Sometimes the most important items in his estimates may go through without any discussion, because, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) says, certain members have a grievance to air. But most of the time of the committee is not taken up with the airing of grievances. It is taken up in an endeavour to get information as to what is being done with the money voted, and we do not get much real information after all, because there are too many members trying to question the minister at once. So far as I personally am concerned I think it would be an improvement if this proposal were adopted, or at least tried out. I think it would result in the business of this house being conducted in a more businesslike maner, and I am sure we must all admit that it is time we adopted any method which will enable us to do the work of this house in a more businesslike manner than at present.
Before I sit down I should like to disagree emphatically with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Muskolca-Ontario, in regard to the eleven o'clock rule. I know of no business institution in Canada and no gathering of business men or board who would sit till one or two or three, and even seven o'clock in the morning to get their business done. That is a most unbusinesslike way of doing business.


Peter McGibbon: It is the only method of breaking blockades.


George Gibson Coote: We can break blockades by
other methods. I would suggest that it would be much better if, instead of the present hours, from three to eleven p.m., we sat from two till ten o'clock. That would be a long enough day. A great many of the members of this house are here at nine in the morning and stay till eleven or eleven-thirty at night, and it is altogether too long a day. Every year we hear the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition paying tributes to members who have passed away, and some of them I believe are passing away because of the un-

Rules of the House-Estimates
businesslike way in which we do our business and the late hours we keep. I think that the new method suggested of examining estimates would be much more businesslike, and therefore I am very much in favour of it.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said this afternoon on this resolution. I am bound to say that I do not believe that any of the time of the house from the beginning to the end of the session is better spent than the time taken by members of the house in discussing in committee of the whole the manner in which the money of the people of this country is to be expended. After all, it is one of the great safeguards of the rights of the people to have this discussion of the expenditure of public money in a committee of which every member of the house is a member, rather than have it discussed in a committee confined to certain members. I do not care how good such a committee may be. No doubt they would consider the estimates day after day just as conscientiously as they could be considered, but it would be a committee composed probably of members who were appointed to it because of their views in regard to certain things. Some of them would be appointed because they were in favour of expenditures, and others because they were opposed to expenditures. But judging by what has taken place in this house as a result of the recommendations of committees, the result has not been to decrease the expenditure.
I listened with much interest this afternoon to the remarks of my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) who I am sorry is not in the house at the moment. It struck me that he was hardly as logical this afternoon as he usually is. In the first place he said that as a general rule estimates were rushed through the various legislative assemblies in this country in about forty-eight hours, but before he got through he went on to explain how much of the time of the house was lost in putting through the estimates. I thought he was hardly consistent.
After all, the greatest safeguard which the people of this country have is the discussion in committee of the whole house of the estimates. I go further and say that I believe the greatest assistance which the minister in charge of a department can have in the performance of his duties-and the duties of a minister in charge of a department are by no means light, particularly in some departments-is to receive suggestions from every quarter of the house when he is passing his estimates. Take, for example, what
occurred last night, to which reference has already been made. I do believe that last night's discussion was of great benefit. I must say as one who for a time did have the responsibility of submitting to the house and putting through the estimates of an important department that in no part of my duties did I receive as much assistance and information as I received from all sides of the house in the suggestions that were made by the various members while my estimates were being considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman say that in his time a single estimate was reduced by one dollar?


Mr. MALCOLM:: That is not the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and if the Prime
Minister will look over the records, he will see that estimates have been reduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this house?


Peter McGibbon: It could not be done
except on motion of the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I have myself moved in
this house to have estimates reduced.


George Gibson Coote: The exception proves the
rule.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid the Prime
Minister is thinking only of the time since his government came into power; for I know of no estimate of this government which has ever been reduced, no matter what discussion took place in committee of the whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree, and it is not
likely to be.
.Mr. ELLIOTT: That may be, and if that is the finest compliment the Prime Minister can pay to the discussion that takes place in regard to the estimates, I do not attach much value to it. But after all, is there not something more important than the day or two extra that may be taken on the estimates? How are you going to preserve the right of members to move an amendment on going into supply from time to time if you have all the estimates passed beforehand by special committees of this house? That would take away the right which members now have of moving want of confidence motions on going into supply.
I have heard this question discussed at great length during the time of the former government, and I must say that I never was converted to the theory that any good purpose would be served by taking up the time of this house with a lot of the subjects that
Rules oj the House-Estimates

are discussed here from time to time rather than in discussing the expenditure of public money when the estimates are going through. Personally I do not believe the change would serve any useful purpose. At no time in the history of this country was it more important than it is now that the people's representatives should discuss in committee of the whole every item of expenditure that comes before us, and I believe we should make no change that would have the effect of curtailing the discussion on the expenditure of public money. Those are my views, and I think the house would be well advised to consider very carefully the suggestion before making any change.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer a word of congratulation to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbqn) upon the very evident trouble to which he has gone in the codleotion of the information he presented to the house upon the introduction of his motion. However, very much to my surprise, I find myself inclined to agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


John Campbell Elliott: Why to your surprise?


George Reginald Geary: I am inclined to the view that by adopting the suggested change we would be giving up the advantage to be found in the discussions centring around the estimates, if before coming into this house and being dealt with in committee of the whole .these estimates passed through a special committee appointed for a particular purpose. But the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has given so much attention to the matter, has produced so much information and material which seem to indicate that the trend of government in these days is towards some such procedure as he suggests in his motion, that I propose, so far as my vote will allow, to let him have his committee and, at least to that extent, to support him.
Reference has been made to the Canadian National Railways committee, but I am inclined to believe that we gain no advantage from such reference. To begin with, it did not deal with governmental estimates, but with estimates presented by the managers of a railroad. That committee went into business details, costs of right of way, maintenance accounts, hotels and that sort of thing. After examining officials of the railways, ascertaining how the money was spent and how expenditures compared with those of previous years, and the reason for the increase in maintenance of way, and like matters, those estimates were passed by the special com-

mittee. When they came from the committee to the House of Commons, then for the first time the government of the country entered into consideration of the matters with which the special committee had dealt and for the first time the government took control of the miatter and became responsible for the passing of those estimates.
As the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) stated a few moments ago, there have been some criticisms of the results obtained by that particular committee. I was a member of the committee, took as active a part in its deliberations as I found passible, and was deeply interested in the information given to us. What was done in that committee however formed no shelter for the government which subsequently, for the first time, took into its consideration the results of the committee's work and authorized the expenditure of the moneys included in the estimates.
In the committee of supply we have placed before us a governmental estimate-if you like, a departmental estimate. It is brought down in committee and subjected to search by questions asked in committee; officials of the department are here to assist, and the estimate is treated, from first to last, as money being spent under the authorization of the government in power, a government which is responsible to the house for the expenditures of public moneys. Nor do we derive much help, as I see it, from studying the practice adopted in the British House of Commons, because in this House of Commons we have not the extreme detailed work they have in the British house. Not only does that house consider the problems of overseas colonies, but they must consider the smallest matters relating to local government boards, matters which in this country would be treated as municipal affairs. However, in Great Britain all those small details come within the purview of the British House of Commons and could not possibly be properly considered unless some short cut were adopted to bring them to the point where they might be passed by the government and brought into the spending category.
In my view the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made a very good point in his discussion of the matter when he said that the government and hon. members generally could derive a fairly accurate crosssection of the opinion of the house during discussions on the estimates in committee of the whole. With the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) I can very well see that there is every opportunity before a select committee,

Rules of the House-Estimates
such as the agriculture committee, for inquiry into a particular subject. In such a committee however we get only the views of those on the committee interested instead of the views of all hon. members who happen to have a like interest. Toronto has received very little from this House of Commons by way of expenditures; we have every reason in the world to complain. But I cannot see that we would get any more if the suggested change were adopted. Nor do I think that the argument that estimates are put through too quickly has any more strength than the argument that they are put through too slowly, or that too much time is wasted in their consideration. I have seen estimates involving expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars pass committee of supply in less than a second; on the other hand I have seen very small matters take up the attention of the committee for hours. Sometimes it is done deliberately, and used as a weapon. But I do not believe we will be relieved from that opportunity for deliberate obstruction by the method suggested by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I fail to see how his suggestion will save the time of the house. The members working on the committees will have their mornings taken up in consideration of the estimates; those estimates will be brought back to the house, and, except for the interrogation of members who have already considered the estimates in the smaller committee, I cannot' see where there will be any stopping of interrogation by other members equally interested. I believe there would be as lengthy discussion when the report came back to committee of the whole as obtains under the present system. If members of the special committees wish to discuss matters with the officials before them, well and good, but I remain to be convinced that the changed system would have the effect of saving the time of the house.
I do believe, however, that there must be more in the notice of motion before us than I had thought, and while I cannot say the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario will attain his objective I am ready to vote for the appointment of a committee, in order that the whole matter may be threshed out and if thought advisable some solution or recommendation be brought to the house. As a matter of fact I do not believe that on discussion of the estimates there is as much time wasted as there is in committee discussions on other matters. I am not saying it offensively, but the fact is that a great deal of conversation takes place emanating from different quarters of the house on subjects which, 53719-13S
before the speechmaking is completed, are worn quite threadbare and do not give any particular advantage to the country. Time is taken up in discussions of matters dear to the hearts of some hon. members but which may be a bit faddy. Hon. members are entitled, however, to speak on such subjects as much as they like. I am not objecting to hon. members pursuing their hobbies or fads, or speaking as long as they please, but I do venture to say there is as much time taken up in that way without advantage to the country as there is in the discussion on the estimates when they are before the committee of the whole.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few moments in support of the motion before the house. In my view the procedure suggested, namely that of passing upon the estimates in committee prior to introduction in committee of the whole, is not calculated to shorten the work of the house and will not shorten the session, nor in my opinion is it particularly desirable that it should.
To my mind the important argument in its favour is that the discussions, when they do take place, could be based on much more accurate information, and so be much more intelligent than they are at the present time. I suppose I have followed the work of the committee of the whole as closely as the average member during the last twelve years, and I have found, as I think all hon. members will agree, that at least half the time in committee of supply is spent not in eliciting information of importance with respect to expenditures of money, but in debating comparatively trivial matters from a more or less political viewpoint. Time after time when an estimate is before the committee an hour, yes or a day or two, may be spent over some comparatively small thing, and then the vote itself, a large vote, goes through with practically no consideration at all. My reason for supporting this proposal is that before such a committee those who are definitely interested and who might desire to obtain accurate information as to the way in which money is spent, and the actual need of a particular expenditure, would undoubtedly elicit that information from the officials who would be brought before the committee. They would realize, as all of us who work on a committee do, that in the main the work of the committee is not supposed to take the place of the work in the house but is preparatory to it, and that it would enable hon. members in the committee of supply and in the house to ask for and



Rules of the House-Estimates
receive information that would be of value to the entire committee. It might, I believe would, centre the attention of the house upon important matters of expenditure, instead of, as is too frequently the case at the present time, upon more or less trivial questions of political import. I do not believe it is of central importance that it should or that it would materially shorten the session. But I do believe it would give to the house year by year a far deeper and more accurate conception of the expenditures of the country. As we see the effects of the expenditure throughout the country, as we travel around and see the white elephants erected in every part of Canada as monuments-I will not say to the lack of intelligence, but perhaps to the indifference of parliament in respect of expenditures-and as we see the weight of debt and the attitude of the people towards it, I think we will agree that anything which would give us more intelligent control over parliamentary expenditures would be all to the good. I believe that through the adoption of this proposal we can have a more intelligent conception and therefore more intelligent control of parliamentary expenditures than we can have under the present system.
I for one would be delighted to give a special committee as requested the opportunity for considering this whole question and if possible suggesting a better method of dealing with estimates. That is as far as the motion goes. After all the main argument in favour of the motion lies not so much in the very fine presentation made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon) as in our knowledge of what has gone on during past years and in the condition of public indebtedness and the public treasury at the present time. I think we all recognize that it will stand a great deal of improvement. The responsibility of checking expenditures is upon us, and this will enable us to discharge that responsibility with some degree of intelligence and knowledge.
As for the necessary and desirable opportunities of discussing grievances in the house on motions for going into supply, after all not only the report of the committee but every item of the estimates would have to go through the committee of the house just as they do to-day, except that they would go through after at least those interested had obtained in committee information which they cannot obtain here, and which would, as I said, enable them to give some guidance to the committee in questioning and examination of the ministers.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that no harm would come, and possibly good results would ensue from the adoption of this procedure, and I should be glad to see the motion pass this house.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, I know that all the
members who have spoken on this resolution have been members of the house for some years, therefore as one who came here in 1930 I wish to speak on behalf of the younger members. It is the duty of every member of this house to become conversant with the business of the country, and I do not know of any better way of achieving that object than by having the details of the estimates placed before them as they come from the ministers. If there is no other reason I submit that the government have a duty to the younger members of this house to see that they are placed in a position-not where they have to go before some committee because after all, we are only human; we cannot go to several committees in one morning,-where they have the details of the estimates placed before them in such a way that when they return to their constituents to answer for what they have done in this house they can give ,an intelligent answer as to what they have voted for or not voted for. That is one reason why, although the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) is entitled to great credit for the manner in which his motion has been presented, I cannot support it.
One other objection to the resolution is this; it is quite conceivable that a minister could take his deputy to the special committee and have all the questions answered there, and the minister not be conversant with his department at all. That may be far-fetched, but it is conceivable, and I do not think it is the intention of this house or of the people of Canada. For these reasons I am opposed to the resolution, principally because I think the younger members are entitled to get all the information they can from the questions asked by the older members and by themselves as to what the proposed expenditures are for.


Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: I wish
to compliment the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) not only for the excellence of the wording of this resolution but also for the very fine historical sketch which he gave on the development of the functions of parliament and the evolution of our rules of practice and procedure. I entirely concur in what has been said with respect to

Rules of the House-Estimates
the resolution by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), and I rise only to speak in support of the resolution because there is one aspect of the economic situation of this country upon which I think it may have considerable effect.
We constantly read in the public press of a growing demand for reduction in taxation consequent upon government expenditure. I wonder if all hon. members of this house realize that in the organized parts of the province of Ontario we have five taxing bodies, each of which in turn has a staff which has to be maintained by public expenditure. In a village, town or township in the organized part of Ontario, as well as in the city, you have first a school board, which, although it does not itself impose taxation, nevertheless determines what taxation shall be imposed and the municipal council automatically has to impose that taxation. Then you have the village, town, or township council, as the case may be, functioning to impose taxation. Then you have the county council, which is made up of representatives of the councils of the local municipalities that I have mentioned imposing taxes. Then you have the provincial government, like the others maintaining a staff and imposing taxation. Then you have the Dominion government, which is also a taxing body. Some time ago I read some statistics, which I believe to be accurate, which showed that of every seventeen or eighteen persons you meet on the street one is maintained by some government, some municipal institution or some taxing body.


An hon. MEMBER:: One out of seven.


James Earl Lawson: I hardly think the average would be as high as one out of seven. Even assuming that my recollection is correct, I think hon. members will agree that if we are to have economical administration we should favour the study of any proposal which is designed to bring about that condition. As I understand it, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) merely proposes that a select standing committee of this house be set up to consider the question of referring certain agreed estimates to a committee of the house, and it seems to me that this committee can function without additional expense to the country. It will be able to consider the question much more thoroughly than can be done on the floor of this house, so I unreservedly support the resolution.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me expressed some fear that the information which he may obtain as a member of the house under the present system would be curtailed.
I think his fear is groundless. In the first place, if he should be a member of the committee studying the estimates he will obtain the information at first hand. If he should not be a member of the committee, then he can obtain all the information he desires from the published reports of that committee. Then he has ample opportunity for full discussion of the estimates when they are sent from the committee to the house. To my mind, sir-and I hope no hon. member will take offence at my statement-this is what we will accomplish; I have observed, as I am sure many other hon. members have observed, many occasions in this house during the consideration of estimates when questions were asked apparently soliciting information which really added nothing to the consideration of the item then under review. In my opinion, sir, if such a committee were set up the time of that committee would be taken up in ascertaining all necessary information, and the time of the committee of the whole house would not be taken up so much in seeking that information but would be devoted to the discussion of the estimates in connection with which the information was already available.
One hon. member fears that this step may be an encroachment upon the doctrine of responsible government, but I am unable to follow that line of reasoning. The government of the day still would have to take the responsibility for its estimates, and I feel convinced that if as a result of the development of information in that committee, or if as a result of the discussion in the house based upon that information the government sensed the cross-section of opinion which has been referred to, it would have the same effect on the government that is now shown in the discussion which takes place in the house.
My hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) pointed to the work of the special committee on national railways and shipping; apparently he thought a committee of the house studying the estimates would be in an analogous position. I have not been a member of the railway committee since I have been a member of this house, but if my information is correct, one of the difficulties which confronted several members of the railway committee has been that when questions were asked concerning some proposed expenditure, the attitude was taken that it was not in the public interest to answer those specific questions. I can readily appreciate that this ground might be well taken when we are operating a public utility in eompeti-

Rules of the House-Estimates
tion with a private enterprise, but surely no such situation could arise when, the government was endeavouring to pass its estimates through this house. Therefore I am very strongly in favour of the resolution, and I believe the matter should be sent to a select committee for consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the ground has
been so fully covered and, I think, the objections so well answered that I do not wish to take the time of the house to say anything with regard to the resolution except that I heartily endorse the principle. I might express the hope that if such a committee should be set up it might consider the possibility of the establishment of not one committee but of a number of committees roughly corresponding to the different departments, in order that a number of members may be at work at the same time, and of course any controversial item could be discussed on the floor of the house. I think the mover of the resolution is to be congratulated for having brought this matter before the house.


James Malcolm: I am sorry I was not able to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario Mr. McGibfoon) who introduced this resolution; I only came into the chamber when the hon. member for Macleod '(Mr. Coote) was speaking, but I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks made in support of this resolution.
The hon. member for Macleod discussed the very much overworked member of parliament; he said he thought the work of the committee of the whole in dealing with estimates added much to our labours, and expressed the view that as a result of the strenuous work we carried on here a good many members had died. I want to say to the hon. member for Macleod that I do not think the setting up of such a committee will do anything but add very materially to the work of the hon. members of this house. We are supposed to foe in the house in the afternoon and evening. The morning is the only time we have to look after our personal mail and office work, and at present there are regularly constituted committees which take up enough of the morning without adding more committees. I strenuously object to his argument in favour of the resolution on the ground that it will lessen the work of the members.
I understand that the desire of the hon. member who introduced the resolution is to 
bring about economy, yet in speaking on this subject the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) admitted that it will not result in any economy in public expenditure. Indeed, he said that members of the house would have the benefit of all the evidence submitted to the committee.


Alfred Speakman: There will be a saving of time.


James Malcolm: There will be no saving of m(oney, I am sure, because if tire reports of the committee are to be of any use to the members of the house, those reports will have to be printed and members will have to take time to study them. It has been said also that items are rushed through. That is quite true. Many of the large items contained in these estimates do not need to be considered for a moment, because the government is obligated to make the expenditures in pursuance of previous commitments, and these items are not controversial at all. The only items contained in the estimates which are controversial are perhaps expenditures which are not always of a major nature. I submit that there is really very little use in discussing nine-tenths of the estimates submitted by the Prime Minister and his government, because the government are not responsible for the itemis, which are voted in the ordinary course of federal business. I rather resent the criticisms which have been made as to the size of these estimates. In defence of past parliaments and the present parliament, may I say that in none of the spending bodies of the dominion has there been so little increase in expenditure as in the case of the federal body. My hon. friend referred to the tremendous burden of debt but he knows quite well that two billions out of the two and a half billions of debt was not voted by this house, but came about as a direct result of the war. If he knows anything about Canadian finance he knows that the Dominion of Canada is spending only about one million dollars a day in the administration of its business, and that fully half a million dollars a day is taken up in the interest on the national debt and the payment of pensions to our soldiers. He knows perfectly well that before the war the expenditures of this parliament were a larger percentage of the present-day expenditures than is the case with the provincial and municipal bodies. I contend that with the exception of the tremendous burden of debt incurred during the war, the federal government has not increased the burden of taxation upon Canadian taxpayers to the same extent

Rules of the House-Estimates
as the various municipal and provincial governments.
Tlie present and past methods of dealing with the estimates presented by the ministers, have been very satisfactory, and I do not think anything would be gained by having these taken up in a small committee room where a few hon. members would deal with all the estimates. Every hon. member is interested in certain items and he makes it a point to be present in the house when those itenns are to be considered. The ministers know from the attitude of the representatives of the people whether or not certain expenditures are justified. As one who has put estimates through the house, I know that valuable information is gained from the speeches delivered on the opposition side as to the justifiability of certain items. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he says that the items are not likely to be changed, but I do not agree with him when he says that the influence is not there. It happens quite often that the following year's estimates will show a reduction in a vote because of the temper of the house when the previous estimates were being considered.


George Gibson Coote: It depends upon the government.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend has never put estimates through the house. If he had he would probably have a different viewpoint. He has never been a member of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has hopes, though.
Mr. MAiLCOLM: I appreciate the idea in the mind of the hon. member for Muskoka when he made the suggestion that the railway estimates could not be dealt with in the house as well as before a committee where the officials could be called to explain their expenditure. However, as the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary) pointed out, it is an entirely different situation when a minister is presenting his estimates. He has before him his deputy, who can advise in connection with the various questions asked. He knows what his own policy is and can answer accordingly. The questions asked in connection with the estimates are not so numerous in comparison with the number of items which go through. There are pages and pages of items dealing with civil government salaries upon which no discussion is had. There are pages of items which are continued year after year without change; they have been discussed in previous years and no further discussion is necessary. I have in mind one item dealing with steamship subsidies in the maritime provinces. Year after year I was questioned by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) only in connection with the changes made in this vote. The changes were discussed and explained and the whole item finally went through. There is no use discussing items which are established from year to year as the government is not in a position to make radical economies in that regard. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, many of the items represent commitments which the government has to put through in the ordinary course of its business.
I do not think anything will be gained by taking away the privileges of parliament. It would be a mistake to restrict still further the time available to members in the mornings; nothing would be gained because when the report of the committee was presented to the house a member would be able to discuss those items in which he was interested. For these reasons, I am not in favour of the resolution.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to hear what a former minister (Mr. Malcolm) has to say with regard to the information he received from the discussions of the house in committee of the whole. I am quite satisfied that the average minister receives considerable information in that way. The resolution moved by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Me-Gibbon) is not intended so much to control the expenditures of government as to expedite business. The members of parliament who are elected to attend to the affairs of the country are supposed to consider all matters from the viewpoint of the country as a whole, but it has been the practice of many hon. members to consider many matters only from the viewpoint of their own particular constituency. When the estimates are presented to the house, each hon. member has his eyes glued upon them to see whether or not there is anything for his own constituency. If the estimates were put through in one report, as is intended by this resolution, each hon. member would have the opportunity of discussing those items in which he was interested. It would make no difference to hon. members but would mean an economy in time in passing the estimates through the house.
We find very frequently that the passing of estimates is used for obstructive purposes rather than the obtaining of information. I remember that when the estimates were before the house last session the opposition held up the business of the house by asking a lot of questions which did not bring out any useful

Rules of the House-Estimates
information. The consequence was that the time of the session was extended and an increased expenditure had to be made by the government. The government knows what is needed for the country, they know the amount of expenditure which is necessary. They know what their program is to be for the coming year, they know that a certain amount will be required to carry that out. In order to pay their indebtedness they budget for a certain amount, and the House of Commons cannot control that in any way. I am not in favour of doing anything by which the members of the cabinet would not be in control of their particular departments. The minister of each department knows how much money will be needed and what expenditures are necessary during the coming year.
Not only would the business of the house be expedited by the adoption of this resolution, but the report of this committee would make the information available to every member of the house more accurate in character. I am quite sure it would be necessary to have those reports printed, and to that extent expenditure would be increased, but each member would have them available to read what he wanted to find, and the minister, if he so desired, could read the reports and give the information in the house while the estimates were being considered in committee of the whole.
There would also be time economized for the individual member. Last year we stayed here a very long time, longer than was necessary. Not only did this cause an increase in expenditure, so far as the country is concerned, but it also created an increased expenditure for the individual member, because we might have been home long before. I notice many times members of the Progressive party feel we stay here too long and they are unable to return home in the spring in time for seeding. It would be advantageous for members from the west as well as from other parts of the dominion to be able to return home earlier in the year and not to stay here until the hot weather drives us out. Consequently I am in favour of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Muskoka, and I should be glad to see some method adopted whereby the session might be shortened.
I was very much interested in the remarks of an hon. member on the back benches who gave his viewpoint. He will get over it in a few years. When I first came here I was of a similar opinion, that it was of advantage to have an opportunity in the house to ask questions in regard to public expenditures. One gets the information in that way, but as

I said before, he can get it from the report of the committee. If the house would take into consideration the benefit that might accrue and not look at the matter from the viewpoint of obstruction, this resolution, if put into effect, would bring about considerable economy for the government and in addition the situation would be of advantage to the individual members.


Pierre-François Casgrain: 
Peter McGibbon: May I correct the hon. member. They did make such a recommendation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Well, if they did, I am sorry they did not bring up the matter in the house for discussion. If that is the case, I do not recall its being discussed openly. If the idea had such merit it should long ago have been adopted. But if it was not adopted or not pressed very strongly at that time, the probable reason was that the people who held the reins of power in those days might have been afraid of the child brought out in the special committee.
If I thought the passing of this resolution would conduce to the better conduct of the affairs of the house, without depriving members of their rights and privileges and would curtail the session and lessen expense, I would be in favour of it. But I fail to see any of
these advantages, and for that reason I do not feel I can support the resolution. Before I sit down, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Muskoka on his praiseworthy effort in delving into the past and all the various debates held on this subject and in presenting to the house such a fine statement. I am sorry that I cannot agree with him on the subject matter of his resolution.
Right, Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :	Mr. Speaker, this motion is one that
asks the house to refer to a special committee a question of procedure in the conduct of the business of this chamber. That is all. The case which was made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. MoGibbon)_in my opinion warrants such a committee being set up. In 1932 the British parliament set up a committee which considered this and other matters at very considerable length and made a report, in the course of which, dealing with the question of the estimates, they said:
Your committee, therefore, make it their first recommendation that the estimates committee should be enlarged, and that a close working arrangement should be established between that committee and the public accounts committee They are of opinion that, while estimates and accounts are separate matters it would be advisable that closer touch should be established between the working of the two committees. They think that it should be within the competence of the estimates committee to take into consideration matters of policy as well as ot detail, and that it should be one of their duties regularly to survey the relation of the total public expenditure to the national income, it is obvious that the staff at the disposal of the present estimates committee is inadequate to the performance of their responsible duties, and your committee have considered how this difficulty could best be overcome. They are not ot opinion that this duty should be allotted to members of the treasury staff. EvOTy estimate, before it has been presented to parliament, has already been submitted to the treasury end passed. Once its sanction has been given, the function of the treasury must rather be to meet and answer criticism than to stimulate and direct it. Your committee are quite clear that the effective work done by the public accounts committee is largely due to the fact that they have at their disposal the reports and investigations of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They consider that the estimates committee ought to be provided with an official adviser of the same kind, with similar powers of investigation. They are aware that this is a major departure, but they do not think that any members of governments or of the house, can look back over the last ten years without desiring to overcome the difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way of an effective control by the House of Commons of public expenditure. They need only recall that during this period outside committees have been set up on two occasions in grave national emergencies to do work which ought to have been done, and could have been done, had the machinery been available, by members of the

Rules of the House-Estimates
House of Commons. On consideration of the evidence placed before them, they are inclined to recommend that the adequate technical advisers for the service of the estimates committee should be taken from the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They understand, however, from the Comptroller and Auditor General that there would be difficulties in carrying out this recommendation, partly on statutory grounds, and more particularly, on the ground that it might complicate the relations between the Comptroller's staff and the departments. Your committee, accordingly, urge that, if these difficulties prove insurmountable, the estimates committee should be provided with an independent technical staff adequate for their functions.
Your committee have also considered the question of the lack of opportunity under present Standing Orders for an adequate discussion of the reports of the public accounts and estimates committees; and they recommend that at least three of the supply days should be set aside for a definite consideration by the house of the reports from the committees, whether they cover the whole, or any part, of the annual estimates and accounts.
The fact that a committee of the parliament of Great Britain arrived at that conclusion does not, of course, except by reason of the large experience they have had in that house, give any weight to the conclusions which may be reached here except, as was pointed out by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), that they have to deal with many problems there that we have not yet encompassed.
This is a matter dealing with procedure. It is a question of how we can best conserve the time of parliament in order that matters of the greatest importance may receive the most consideration. The matter of estimates which involve the expenditure of public moneys being freely and fully considered not only in their details but, as has been pointed out, in relation to questions of policy, is a matter of such importance I think as to warrant investigation by a select committee of this house, more especially in view of the fact that when the rules were under consideration on the last occasion a report was made which contemplated the possibility of just such action being taken.
But there were difficulties. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King)) then leading the government, discussed this matter at some length one afternoon, and I remember that I pointed out the difficulties that I foresaw in dealing with estimates purely as a matter of committee management. The former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has pointed out some of those difficulties. But there is no member of this house who does not desire that every step should be taken and every means within our power employed that will conduce to the fMr. Bennett.]
effective and efficient conduct of public business. I do not say that that will be accomplished by reason of this particular step being taken, but I do say that it is worthy of consideration.
Unfortunately I was called out of the chamber during part of the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, but listening to the very strong case that he made and the illustrations he gave I think most of us will be inclined to agree that on more than one occasion during our time in this house small matters have been magnified and much time has been taken up with questions that affected large matters of policy in only the very slightest degree. It is the inevitable result, of course, of our present system of government. Whether or not the effect of appointing an estimates committee will be to remedy the defects which are apparent to all of us, I cannot say.
I can best illustrate my position in this way. We, in this country, at the moment, are confronted with great difficulties, and there is a tendency on the part of many to say: Well, we can never get along, and we must therefore start anew and repudiate the past. That is probably the severest criticism that could foe made against democracy. As to how democracy is to be trained to a sense of its responsibilities, whether results are to be arrived at by counting heads regardless of the qualifications of the heads to deal with the problems engaging their attention, is still, so far as government is concerned, the greatest question confronting mankind. If the committee to be set up in pursuance of this resolution looks into this matter and arrives at only a partial solution of the problem, we shall have done something perhaps to bring home to the mind of each one of us and of those whom we represent that, after all, in the ultimate analysis, whatever happens and has happened in the past, whether it be the building of railways or obligations of another character matters not, they have been undertaken by the will of the people; and the uncontrolled and unfettered exercise of power by a majority has brought about the position in which we now find ourselves. If the committee carrying out this investigation along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is able to make a report which will simplify the procedure of this house in dealing with financial problems, I believe it will have done this country a service. As a considerable number of hon. members with large knowledge and wide experience are anxious to make some contribution to their country, I support the reso-

Rules of the House-Estimates
lution, and propose, if it is acceptable to the house, to appoint a committee of hon. gentlemen who have not enough to do, remembering that Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do, and who might possibly be better employed in dealing with a problem of this kind than in the idleness which sometimes invites a game of bridge or other less attractive pastime. I trust that the house with that object in view will adopt the resolution and appoint a committee representative of all parties of the house composed of members with wide experience to make suggestions and recommendations as to how, dealing with financial problems arising out of the estimates, we may best-shall I say?-prevent abuses and improve the present procedure of this house.


Alan Webster Neill: If the Prime Minister will
allow me a question, would not the object sought be better achieved by an extension of the functions of the public accounts committee? I have here the debates of 1930 in which the right hon. gentleman himself took that view at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the question which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has asked is one which has given me cause for consideration on more occasions than I care to think. How much work has the public accounts committee of this house done during the last five years?


An hon. MEMBER:: Very little.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it
met?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it met once or
twice. I dare say that the present leader of the opposition, looking into the matter, found that the estimates committee were correlating their activities to those of the public accounts committee in England. I was amazed, in the investigations I made in England, to find the care with which study was given to the expenditures of last year by the committee of the house this year, in order that they might satisfy themselves that the moneys voted by parliament had been properly expended. So much so that on one occasion I was struck with the fact that they reported upon the wages paid to labourers at Portsmouth in connection with public undertakings. When the matter was under discussion in this house at the instance of the then leader of the government, I directed attention to the fact that I did not think the public accounts committee in the last parliament had done any work comparable to that which it was originally intended they should do. I am satisfied that
on investigation a committee of the house may be able perhaps to stimulate the activities of that committee or make some other finding with respect to procedure which will render more efficient the effective control of the finances of the country.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: 
Peter McGibbon: Read the whole resolution.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have read it all; if
the hon. member will just allow me to proceed for a moment or two I shall be most obliged to him. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking.


Peter McGibbon: I am sorry.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not see how it
would shorten the length of the session, because, whether we like it or not, we all know that in discussions, whether on the floor of the house or in select committees, politics arise. A select committee appointed by any government would be a committee in which there would be a majority of government supporters. From my experience in this house I have come to the conclusion that in most select committees-not in every committee I have been on-but in most committees, politics come in to the fullest extent.


Peter McGibbon: We have always had unanimous reports.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, they may be
unanimous when they are made, but they are not unanimous when they reach the floor of the house. Time after time select committees have brought in reports which, though

Rules of the House-Estimates
supposed to be unanimous, were not accepted by a majority of the members of the house. I have no doubt that the select committee advocated by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario might bring in unanimous reports, but they would not be unanimous when they reached the house. In my humble judgment, instead of shortening the sessions the proposed change would add to their length. There would be debate and controversy in committee, and a duplication of that debate in the house.
Another point occurs to me, namely, that whether private members happen to be on the government or the opposition side, they have very few privileges. One privilege they enjoy, however, is that of taking part in discussions on the estimates; they may approve or criticize. To my mind that discussion should take place on the floor of the house, because it is the government of the day which is responsible for the expenditure of public moneys, and the fullest possible publicity should be given to such discussions. If the resolution before us were adopted and a select committee considered the estimates, there might be a tendency to say: "This is what the committee decided to do; we want the members to back up the report." In such circumstances I for one would not approve; I should still want to have the privilege I hold as a private member to enter into a discussion on the floor of the house concerning any estimate which might come up. I am convinced the resolution would fail in its purpose of shortening the session or decreasing costs of government. As I said a moment ago if I thought for one moment it would achieve the purpose which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario believes it will, I should be inclined to support it. I have come to the conclusion, however, after listening to the discussion, that I for one would prefer to follow the old practice of having the estimates presented on the floor of the house so that every hon. member may give full attention to them. For these reasons I cannot vote for the resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit the resolution is out of order. A decision has been made on a resolution couched in exactly the same language as that now before us, and in view of that fact I say the present resolution is contrary to the rules of the house. For instance, there is a rule which states the house shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon. If I chose to introduce a resolution stating that we should meet at three o'clock in the afternoon, would I not be ruled out of order?

Let me compare the two resolutions. The only possible difference is that in the present one the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. MciGibbon) has made use of a preamble. Notoriously, however, a preamble is not connected with the substance. If we left out the preamble, the resolution would read in this way:
That, in the opinion of this house, a select committee of the house be appointed to consider the advisability of referring certain agreed estimates to a special committee.
The rest of the resolution is in the nature of a preamble, and is not essential. I shall read the resolution which was introduced on March 12, 1930, by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) who moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the estimates should be referred to select standing committees before being submitted to the committee of the Whole.
That, of course, is somewhat different to the one now before the house. But the same day it was amended by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) who moved the following resolution:
That the resolution be amended by inserting the word "certain" in place of the word "the" in the second line thereof, and by inserting the words "or a special committee" after the word "committees" in the second line thereof.
So it would read like this:
That, in the opinion of this house, certain estimates should be referred to select standing committees or a special committee before being submitted to the committee of the whole.
That is precisely the resolution that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is now seeking to introduce. I may say that the motion of the hon. member for Camrose, as amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod, was agreed to on division. The division is not stated. It will be found on page 550 of HansaTd of the 13th of March, 1930.
I submit that we cannot do what we have already done, as it were. The thing is superfluous. We have already agreed that certain estimates shall be referred to either select standing committees or a special committee. Therefore the motion to-day is wholly superfluous, and I submit, sir, that it is out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The resolution to which
the hon. member refers was introduced at a previous session, not at this session; therefore it does not affect the motion before the house to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: Then would it be in order
for me to move that the house meet at three o'clock to-morrow and spend the whole afternoon debating it?

Private Bill


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are standing
committees.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the meantime I find
that the resolution is in order.


Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to join in the compliments that have been tendered to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) for the splendid presentation he has made of this resolution. We appreciate that he is an experienced member of the house and is qualified to suggest ways and means of expediting the business of parliament. I believe there is a strong feeling throughout this country that we spend here days, yes weeks and months more than are necessary.
I appreciate also the objection voiced by some of those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, and indeed by_ some who sit to your right, that the adoption of such a proposal would to some extent limit the rights of individual members. Personally, however, I cannot agree with that, because when the report of the committee comes back to parliament it is only reasonable to assume that the right of examination and debate would still exist. On the other hand I am inclined to believe that in this parliament, as well as in other legislative bodies, the privilege of discussion of the estimates has been much abused. I recall sitting in the legislature of Ontario until four o'clock in the morning over some trifling matter, while in the later days of the session the house would rush through millions of dollars of estimates without so much as the batting of an eye, even on the part of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Therefore I feel that the estimates provide an excuse for those who wish to gain political advantage.
I believe it would expedite the business of parliament if the estimates were first submitted to a committee. There is a feeling throughout this country on the part of business men that we, representing the people of this dominion, transacting the biggest business in Canada, do not do so in a businesslike way. It would be ridiculous if a board of directors carried on some of the petty discussions that have occurred in this house on matters that come up in the estimates. We come to parliament, the speech from the throne is brought down, defining to some extent the general principles and policies of the government of the day. Then we have the budget, setting forth, as I have always understood, the general financial program of the government. The estimates are the more detailed and routine administration of those general principles and policies, and it seem to me that
the discussions thereon have been in many cases far afield. I have frequently been present when one member would select a certain estimate and take occasion to depart widely from the matters dealt with in that estimate. In fact we have even heard the weaknesses of government, policy, or the fiscal policies of the government, discussed and condemned by those who sit to your left, sir, on items merely affecting some particular ward in a riding. Therefore it seems to me this proposal would be a step in the right direction and would do no violence to the desire of hon. members to safeguard their rights as members of this
house.	_	.
I think the country is anxious that we as its representatives should be practical in the administration of its affairs. So I am therefore prepared to support the resolution, feeling that it would not in any way deprive individual members of their rights, even the younger members, but would tend to do away with the abuse that occurs when an hon. member talks forty minutes and again five minutes and later another forty minutes. It would tend towards shortening the sessions of parliament and giving the members opportunity to attend to their own business, and yet would not restrict proper debate. It would indicate to business interests that we appreciate the fact that we are here for a higher purpose than that of marking time and playing politics on matters that are important to them as taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 16, 1933