1949-10-12

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Benidickson Boisvert Brooks Campney Cardiff Carter Coldwell Cote (St. Johns-Iberville -Napierville)
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Courtemanche
Dickey
Dechene
Diefenbaker
Fair
Fulford Gingues Gour (Russell)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hartt
Knowles
Leger
MacKenzie
Mutch
Parent
Pouliot
Richard (Ottawa East) Riley
Stewart (Yorkton) Tustin-29.
(Quorum-10)
Argue
Balcer
Bater
Bonnier
Brooks
Cameron
Campney
Casselman
Cauchon
Cleaver
Cote (Verdun-La Salle)
Cournoyer
Croll
Decore
Demers
Eyre
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
George
Hansell
Hosking
Hunter
Jeffery
Johnston
Kent
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Lennard
Little
MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) McLean (Huron-Perth) Murphy Nose worthy Parent
Richard (Gloucester)
Roberge
Robertson
Sinnott
Stanfield
Stewart (Yorkton)
Tustin
Valois
Warren
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Winkler
Wylie-50
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Beaudry
Bennett
Bertrand
Beyerstein
Black (Cumberland)
Bonnier
Bourget
Breithaupt
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Chevrier
Clark
Darroch
Dewar
Douglas
Eudes
Ferguson
Garland
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson (Comox-Alb Gillis Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green
Harrison
Hartt
Hatfield
Healy
Herridge
Hodgson James Jutras *
Lafontaine
Lennard
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maybank
McCulloch
McGregor
Mclvor
McLure
Murphy
Murray (Cariboo) Nixon Noseworthy Pouliot
Richard (St, Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley Robinson i) Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thatcher
Thomas
Thomson
Weaver
Whiteside
Whitman-60.
(Quorum-12)
Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Beaudry
Belzile
Benidickson
Bennett
Blackmore
Bradette
Breithaupt
Brooks
Cannon
Cleaver
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville Napierville)
Dumas
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gibson (Comox-Alberni) Gour (Russell)
Harkness Harris (Danforth)
Hunter
Isnor
Laing
Leger
Lesage
Low
Maltais
Macnaughton
Maybank
McCusker
McLean (Hviron-Perth)
Picard
Prudham
Quelch
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rowe Sinclair
Smith (York North) Smith (Moose Mountain) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Weaver
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Winters-50
(Quorum-15)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson
Ashbourne
Balcer
Beaudry
Benidickson
Blue
Boisvert
Boivin
Brisson
Browne (St. John's West)
Cauchon
Cavers
Cleaver
Cloutier
Croll
Cruickshank
Denis
Diefenbaker
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fulford
Fulton
Fraser
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Hansell
Helme
Homuth
Isnor
Johnston
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Langlois (Gaspe) Larson Major Maybank Murphy Picard Pinard Prudham
Richard (Gloucester)
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Robinson
Sinclair
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Thomas
Warren
White (Hastings -Peterborough) Winkler Wright-50
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson
Arsenault
Aylesworth
Bater
Bennett
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie Blue
Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Hatfield
Herridge
Hetland
Jones
Jutras
Kent
Browne (St. John's West) Kickham
Bryce Catherwood Cavers Charlton Clark Cloutier Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Courtemanche Coyle
Cruickshank
Darroch
Decore
Demers
Diefenbaker
Dumas
Elderkin
Fair
Fontaine
Gauthier (Lapointe) George
Gosselin
Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough)
Laing Lapalme Leger Lesage MacKenzie McCubbin
McLean (Huron-Perth) Murray (Oxford) Murray (Cariboo) Quelch
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge Ross (Souris)
Sinnott Studer Thomson Whitman Wood Wright Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20)
Boisvert
Boucher
Church
Denis
Green
Henry

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Homuth
Huffman
Knowles
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lapalme
MacDougall

MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Pinard Quelch Robinson
Ross (Souris)
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-20.
(Quorum-8)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Bennett
Black (Cumberland) Blair Bryce Cannon Catherwood Conacher Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cournoyer
Cruickshank
Fulford
Gibson (Comox-Albemi)
Gillis
Harrison
Helme
Henderson
Higgins
James
Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Leger
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
MacNaught
Maltais
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McLure
Pearkes
Smith (Queens-Shel-burne)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Thomas-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Benidickson
Black (Cumberland)
Boivin
Brisson
Campney
Dumas
Elderkin
Eyre
Ferrie
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Harkness
Herridge
Higgins
Hosking
Hunter
Jones
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Larson
Little
Mclvor
McWilliam
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Rowe
Simmons
Sinnott
Stick
Thomas
Weaver
Welbourn
Wylie-35
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Balcer
Beaudoin
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher
Bourget
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Carroll
Cloutier
Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Croll
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gillis
Gingras
Goode
Higgins
Homuth
Johnston
Kent
Knowles
Lapalme
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
Maybank
McWilliam
Mitchell
Murphy
Nixon
Pouliot
Ross (Hamilton East) Smith (Calgary West) Stewart (Yorkton) Thomson Weaver-35
(Quorum-10)

Boucher	DEBATES Messrs: Murray (Oxford)
Casselman	Pouliot
Fauteux	Simmons
Henry	Smith (Calgary West)
Knowles	Valois
Major	Viau-12
Balcer	(Quorum-7) EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs: Gauthier (Portneuf)
Bater	Graydon
Beaudoin	Green
Benidickson	Hansell
Bradette	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Ereithaupt	Laing
Campney	Leger
Coldwell	Low
Cote (Matapedia- Maclnnis	
Matane)	Macnaughton
Croll	McCusker
Decore	Mutch
Dickey	Picard
Diefenbaker	Pinard
Fleming	Richard (Ottawa East)
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Robinson	
Rosemont)	Stick
Fraser	Winkler-35.
Gauthier (Lake	St.
John) (Quorum-10) PRINTING (Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Argue	Messrs: Harkness
Ashbourne	Healy
Bertrand	Hetland
Beyerstein	Hodgson
Black (Chateauguay- Hunter	
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Knowles	
Blackmore	Lapalme
Boivin	MacLean (Cape Breton
Bonnier	North and Victoria)
Browne (St. John's Maltais	
West)	McDonald (Parry Sound
Bryce	Muskoka)
Cameron	McGregor
Cardiff	Mclvor
Cauchon	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cavers	McWilliam
Charlton	Murray (Cariboo)
Cruickshank	Murray (Oxford)
Darroch	Robertson
Decore	Shaw
Douglas	Sinnott
Fauteux	Smith (Queens-Shel-
Ferguson	burne)
Ferrie	Stanfield
Follwell	Studer
Fontaine	Tustin
Gagnon	Weaver
Gingras	Whitman
Gosselin	Wright-54.
Gour (Russell) (Quorum- ) LIBRARY (Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:	
Applewhaite	Carter
Beyerstein	Casselman
Blackmore	Church
Brown (Essex	West) Cleaver
Standing Committees
Conacher
Coyle
Dechene
Demers
Eudes
Fauteux
Gingues
Gourd (Chapleau)
Hansell
Hellyer
Henderson
Higgins
Homuth
Hunter
Jones
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Knight
LaCroix
Laing
Leger
MacNaught
Mcllraith
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Ratelle
Rochefort
Ross (Hamilton East) Smith (York North) Smith (Moose Mountain) Tustin Valois
White (Middlesex East)
Whiteside
Winkler
Winters
Wood-44
(Quorum- )

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Ereithaupt
Casselman
Coumoyer
Dewar
Ferguson
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gour (Russell) Hansell Harkness Jutras Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Leger
Lesage
Little
McCulloch
McGregor
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rochefort
Simmons
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stick
White (Hastings-Peterborough) -24
(Quorum- )
Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely: Messrs, Argue, Ashbourne, Bertrand, Beyerstein, Black (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Blackmore, Bolvin, Bonnier, Browne (St. John's West), Bryce, Cameron, Cardiff, Cauchon, Cavers, Charlton, Cruickshank, Darroch, Decore, Douglas, Fauteux, Ferguson, Ferrie, Follwell, Fontaine, Gagnon, Gingras, Gosselin, Gour (Russell), Harkness, Healy, Hetland, Hodgson, Hunter, Knowles, Lapalme, MacLean (Cape Breton

Standing Committees
North and Victoria), Maltais, McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka), McGregor, Mclvor, McLean (Huron-Perth), McWilliam, Murray (Cariboo), Murray (Oxford), Robertson, Shaw, Sinnott, Smith (Queens-Shelburne), Stanfield, Studer, Tustin, Weaver, Whitman, Wright, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Applewhaite, Beyerstein, Black-more, Brown (Essex West), Carter, Casselman, Church, Cleaver, Conacher, Coyle, Dechene, Demers, Eudes, Fauteux, Gingues, Gourd (Chapleau), Han-sell, Hellyer, Henderson, Higgins, Homuth, Hunter, Jones, Kirk, (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, LaCroix, Laing, Leger, MacNaught, Mcllraith, Pearkes, Proudfoot, Ratelle, Rochefort, Ross (Hamilton East), Smith (York North), Smith (Moose Mountain), Tustin, Valois, White (Middlesex East), Whiteside, Winkler, Winters, Wood, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: That Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Breithaupt, Casselman, Cournoyer, Dewar, Ferguson, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gour (Russell), Hansell, Harkness, Jutras, Lafontaine, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge), Leger, Lesage, Little, McCulloch, McGregor, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Rochefort, Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, White (Hastings-Peterborough), be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbolt (Minister of Finance):: I wish to announce, Mr. Speaker, that, barring unforeseen contingencies, I intend to reintroduce the budget a week from tomorrow night, October 20, at eight o'clock.


Mr. Graydon:: That means the same budget?


Mr. Fraser:: No changes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a good budget.
[Mr. Fournier (Hull) .1



REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MR. CHURCH IN DEBATE ON OCTOBER 11    STATEMENT OF MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Last night when I was not in the chair the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) stated that when the Speaker was in the chair he had handed him a motion with regard to the Supreme Court Act. Doubtless he meant by the word "handed" that he had sent the text of a motion to me. I would assure him that the document never reached me, nor was it placed by anyone at my chair. I have caused a thorough search to be made through all the papers and documents which came to my chair yesterday, and it is not among them. What happened to it after it left the hon. member for Broadview I do not know.
I should further like to point out that I have carefully read the speech that the hon. member for Broadview made yesterday on the third reading of the Supreme Court Act, and there is no reference by him in that speech to his motion. In fact, he stated in part as follow:
I want to make only a few remarks on the motion for third reading. I do not wish to object to it any further.
Standing order 45 provides that all motions, before being put from the chair, must be moved by an hon. member and seconded by another hon. member. According to the official report of the House of Commons debates of yesterday, the motion to which the hon. member for Broadview referred last night was never moved by him, nor was it seconded by another hon. member. Accordingly it could not in any event have been put from the chair, and I am satisfied that no injustice has been done to the hon. member for Broadview. However, my main purpose in rising at this time is to assure the hon. member for Broadview that the motion which he mentioned last night was never received by the Speaker.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: On a matter of personal privilege, by leave of the house, may I just say this. I did hand in, when the Speaker left the chair, a motion for the six months hoist. It will be noticed that in committee the Chairman told me that I could not move it, that I would have to have his consent to bring it forward or have it voted upon as an amendment. A mistake was no doubt made. I may say that you, sir, have always acted fairly in these matters. I did suggest at the time that I might have leave to recommit the bill to committee for the

Questions
purpose I mentioned, and I notified the chairman of the committee of the whole of that fact. He sent me down a note that I could bring it up in that way but I would have to have a vote on the clause in committee. There is no doubt that what you have said, Mr. Speaker, is quite correct. But I did hand in a motion for the six months hoist.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What is the total number of employees engaged by the government of Canada under P.F.R.A. in (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan?
2.	How many employees are there at each of the dominion experimental farms in Alberta?
3.	Exclusive of those employed in connection with the P.F.R.A. and the dominion experimental farms, how many dominion government employees in Alberta are engaged in connection with agricultural activities?
4.	Of those referred to in questions 1, 2 and 3, how many were appointed to their present positions since January 1, 1949?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Alberta field offices, 240; Saskatchewan field offices, 620; Regina head office, 80.
2.	Lethbridge experimental farms service, 91; science service, 61.
Scandia, 2; Lacombe, 44; Manyberries, 12; Beaverlodge, 21; Fort Vermilion, 9.
3.	257.
4.	(1) Alberta, 23; Saskatchewan, 78.
(2)	27.
(3)	25.
Note: With reference to 4 (1) above, this group is composed of engineers, economists and technicians taken on for surveys and investigations in connection with major irrigation projects.


ALLOCATIONS FOR RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. Green:: What allocations, if any, has the treasury board made for reconstruction projects under vote 384 of the estimates for 'the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950?


Mr. Winters:: Funds from reconstruction vote 384 have been invoked for the furtherance of the following projects:
(1)	An amount of $40,000 to provide for the preparation by the Department of Transport of design plans and specifications for the construction of an icebreaker.
(2)	An amount of $150,000 to the Department of Public Works toward water control improvements on the French river, Ontario.
(3)	An amount of $4,200 to provide for the preparation of design plans and specifications for the construction of a virus laboratory by the Department of Health and Welfare.
(4)	An amount of $70,000 to the Department of Mines and Resources toward the construction of a road for access to the Portland canal mining division, British Columbia.


MILITARY OBSERVERS IN PAKISTAN
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has a new group of officers been selected to proceed to Pakistan as military observers?
2.	If so, who are the officers selected for this duty?
3.	Do they belong to the active ar reserve army?
4.	For what length of time will they be away from Canada?
5.	Has the original mission to Pakistan been recalled?
6.	What is the estimated cost of this mission?


Mr. Claxion:: 1.	Yes, to the United Nations commission for India and Pakistan.
2.	Replacements for original appointees were:
Lt.-Col. A. G. Wygard, supplementary reserve; Major C. D. Ives, reserve force; Major W. T. Thompson, M.C., reserve force; Major Guy Vangeois, reserve force.
Additional appointees on request of United Nations through the Department of External Affairs:
Major F. E. Eaton, reserve; Major J. L. Malkin, supplementary reserve; Major R. S. C. Archbold, reserve; Major H. S. Moore, reserve.
3.	Reserve forces.
4.	One year, approximately.
5.	No. Term of service of original appointees had expired and replacements made as indicated in reply to No. 2.
6.	Estimated expense to government of Canada (pay and allowances only) to 31st August, 1950-$39,792. Expenses other than pay and allowances paid by United Nations commission.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	How many Canadian citizens were in receipt of the old age pension as of December 31, 1948?
2.	How many Canadian citizens were of pensionable age as of December 31, 1948?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Number of persons receiving pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act as at December 31, 1948-Old age, 248,289; blind, 9,425; total, 257,714.
2.	Number of persons in Canada seventy years of age and over as estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics in 1948- 582,411.

Questions


NEWFOUNDLAND HOTEL, ST. JOHN'S-QUESTION AS TO PURCHASE BY C.N.R.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways purchased the Newfoundland hotel at St. John's?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price for same?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICIES
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many war risk insurance policies have been taken out for each of the years since war risk insurance was established?
2.	What is the amount collected from premiums during each of these years?
3.	How much was paid out by way of claims in each of these years?
4.	How many outstanding claims are still unpaid and what is the total amount of these claims?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	Number of
policies issued* *
September 15,	1942-March	31,	1943	
27,232April	1,	1943-March	31,	1944	
17,179April	1,	1944-March	31,	1945	
1,500April	1,	1945-February 17,	1946	
113*Excludes Canadian government property, transit policies and the special scheme for the insurance of grain.	Net premium receipts from2.	Other than
Government of Government of
Canada
September 15,	1942-March	31,	1943	$4,586,507.40April	1'	1943-March	31,	1944	
3,106,475.61April	1,	1944-March	31,	1945	
110,314.34April	1,	1945-February	17,	1946	
13,220.50
Canada $ 809,132.18 2,088,979.78 329,669.16
Less rebate authorized by P.C. 11038 dated December 3, 1942

3.	Claims charged to war risk insurance fund* Fiscal year
ended March 31	Free Compensation
1944	$ 825.21
1945	-
1946	1,070.02 *Claims include interest and adjusters' fees.
4.	None.
Insured Property


$33,303.09 COMBINES  DENTAL FIRMS    COST OF PROSECUTION
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the total cost of the prosecution of the dental firms for alleged offences under the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	How much was paid to each of the counsel?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Prosecution under section 498 of the Criminal Code: trial, $19,839.16; appeal, $16,888.35.
2.	D. L. McCarthy, K.C.: trial, $7,787.26; appeal, $4,262.00.
McMillan, Binch, Wilkinson, Berry and Wright: trial, $5,500.03; appeal, $5,163.27.
D. A. Keith: trial, $2,868.66; appeal, $1,283.86.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE-UNITED STATES  AMOUNTS CONTRACTED FOR, 1948-49
Mr. Coldwell:: What amounts of American exchange were contracted for, each week, through the Canadian banks, acing on behalf of the foreign exchange control board, covering the period from August 1, 1948 to October 1, 1948 and August 1, 1949 to October 1, 1949, by (a) all importers; (b) all coal importers?


Mr. Sinclair:: The records of the department are not kept in a way which would permit giving exactly the details asked for by this question. I have discussed the question with the hon. member and have given the information which is available. I think he has agreed to drop the question and perhaps to reframe it later.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Johnston:: 1.	Under the N.H.A. integrated housing scheme is there a regulation covering a 25 per cent holdback of the proceeds of a joint loan to the builder building for sale?
2.	If so, is this holdback held until the house has been sold to a satisfactory purchaser when the unit has been completed?
3.	Under the N.H.A. integrated housing scheme is there an inspection and/or an appraisal fee of $20 permitted?
4.	If so, what work is to be performed in order to earn this fee?
5.	Must this $20 fee apply to each individual's property?
6.	Must there be a properly written inspection and/or appraisal form made for each individual's property before this fee is chargeable?
7.	To whom is the fee payable?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No. However, under the 1949 integrated plan the builder is required to transfer title to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the floor joist stage of construction and is required to trustee with the corporation the purchaser's deposit or down payment. When the property is completed and the builder has executed a transfer of title to the purchaser, the conveyance to the corporation is then cancelled and the purchaser's down payment is paid over to the builder. Prior to release of the trusteed deposit to the builder, steps are taken to ensure that he has paid all carrying charges on the property up to date of completion, including interest on advances made under the mortgage loan, taxes and fire insurance premium; otherwise the equivalent of such carrying charges are deducted from the trusteed deposit.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	When completing an application for a National Housing Act loan the applicant agrees to pay an appraisal fee of $20 for which the lending institution makes an inspection of the site and completes an appraisal of the proposed property. The lending institution inspects the property at various stages of construction to assure that standards under the National Housing Act and the plans and specifications are being substantially followed, and to determine the extent to which mortgage moneys may be advanced to the borrower.
5.	The $20 fee applies to each individual property except in project development where, by regulation, order in council P.C. 3138, dated July 20, 1948, the following schedule of fees is established:
$20 for each housing unit up to and including 50 units.
$18 for each housing unit in excess of 50 up to and including 100 units.
Questions
$16 for each housing unit in excess of 100 up to and including 150 units.
$14 for each housing unit in excess of 150 up to and including 200 units.
$12 for each housing unit in excess of 200 units.
6.	A written appraisal report is completed by the lending institution with respect to each property. In project development an appraisal report may be completed only for each house type.
7.	The fee is payable to the lending institution by the borrower.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Of these how many are eligible to contribute toward a supplemental pension in addition to the basic pension of $25 per month to which they will be entitled on retirement at age 65?
3.	How many are now contributing toward such a supplemental pension?
4.	How many Canadian National Railways employees, upon retirement, will qualify, according to their present status for noncontributory service pensions?
5.	How many employees now working for the Canadian National Railways will be entitled on retirement, according to their present status, to only the basic pension of $25 per month?
6.	Is the basic pension of $25 per month available to all employees and, if so, on what conditions?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	On Canadian lines at December 31, 1948, 102,163.
2.	All except temporary employees and those who commenced after age 55 and those who are now contributing to other railway pension funds, viz.: 5,462 contributors to Intercolonial provident fund and 23 contributors to Grand Trunk Railway superannuation fund.
3.	Contributors to C.N.R. pension plan, 35,267. Contributors to I.C.R. and P.E.I. provident fund, 5,462. Contributors to G.T.R. superannuation and provident fund association, 23.
4.	Service pensions are payable to employees who entered the service before attaining age 50 who at December 31, 1934, had at least ten years' allowable service and at age 65 have at least fifteen years' allowable service. It is not possible to say how many employees will meet these requirements.
5.	There is no record of the number of employees who on retirement will be entitled to only the basic pension of $25 per month. Approximately only one-third of eligible employees are contributing to a supplementary pension.
6.	Basic pensions are payable to (a) employees who entered the service before December 31, 1934, who had less than ten years' allowable service at that date and

Questions
who have at least fifteen years' allowable service at age 65; (b) employees who entered the service after December 31, 1934, at not over age 45 and who at age 65 have at least twenty years' allowable service.
immigration, 1946-47-48


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many immigrants have been brought into Canada during 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	How many were classed as displaced persons?
3.	How many displaced persons had contagious disease on arrival?
4.	Were any put in isolation hospital at North Bay?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1. Immigrants admitted to Canada:
1946 			 71,719
1947 			 64,127
1948 			 125,414
Total 			 261,260
2. 1946 		
1947 			 7,345
1948 			 47,388
Total 		
3 and 4. To answer these questions would necessitate an examination of all 54,733 displaced persons files, as the information requested is not otherwise available.



NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What have been the revenue and expenditure for the Newfoundland railway for (a) operation of the railway; (b) operation of the steamship services; (c) other operations, during the six-month period ending September 30, 1949?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National
Railways advise as follows:
September results are not yet available, but revenues and expenditures for the Newfoundland district for the five months ending August 31, 1949, are as follows:
Revenues	$4,038,500 00
Expenses 	 5,543,124 73
Operations of railways and steamers are treated as one, no division being made in the revenues as between rail and water line movements.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SUPERANNUATED EMPLOYEES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of noncontributory service pensions (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to

$69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 or over per month?
4.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 or over per month?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	55 under C.N.R. prior plan.
2.	2,743.
3.	(a), 841; (b), 664; (c), 354; (d), 275; (e), 150; (f), 108; (g), 234; total, 2,626.
4.	(a), 476; (b), 2,095; (c), 1,440; (d), 1,258; (e), 731; (f), 652; (g), 2,292; total, 8,944.



METAL LOCKBOXES AND CHAIN LINK FENCE


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Were tenders for metal lockboxes for district architect, Halifax, Nova Scotia, called by the public works department, during the month of September, 1949?
2.	If so, could tender forms and specifications be obtained in (a) Halifax; (b) Montreal?
3.	Were tenders for construction of chain link fence, immigration hospital, Quebec West, Quebec, called by the public works department, during the month of September, 1949?
4.	If so, could tender forms and specifications be obtained in (a) Quebec; (b) Halifax?
5.	Is chain link fence manufactured in New Brunswick?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) no.
5.	No information available in the department.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many persons, by provinces, have been prosecuted in connection with infractions of the Income Tax Act from January 1, 1949, to date?
2.	Of these, how many were farmers?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The following is the list of prosecutions under the Income Tax Act:
Nova Scotia, 1; Quebec, 5; Ontario, 3; Alberta, 3; British Columbia, 1; Total, 13.
2.	There have been no prosecutions against farmers under the Income Tax Act.



WOODSTOCK, N.B., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department recommend to the Department of Public Works that a new post office building be built in the town of Woodstock, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, when will the recommendation be acted upon?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. Yes.

2. Due to the necessity of carrying out more urgent works, the construction of a new post office building at Woodstock, N.B., will not be undertaken at present.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES-SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Cold well:
1. Did the government of Canada at any time from July 1, 1944 to July 30, 1949, make any offer to the government of Saskatchewan to help finance the trans-Canada highway on a fifty-fifty basis?
2.	If so, when was the offer made, and by whom?
Mr. Winters:: 1.	Possible bases of financial participation were indicated publicly and discussed between ministers of the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	How many members are on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's board of governors and executive?
2.	What remuneration, salary and expenses were paid to each of these governors and executives during the years (a) 1947; (b) 1948?
3.	(a) What are the names of the headquarters staff; (b) what are the duties of each; (c) what is the salary of each?
4.	What is the total number of staff and employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
5.	(a) Who compose the staff and employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the maritime provinces; (b) where are they located and what are their duties; (c) what salaries, wages and expenses were paid to each of these employees during the years (i) 1947; (ii) 1948?


Mr. McCann:: Return tabled.



VETERANS


Mr. Pearkes:: What procedure should be followed by ex-members of the Canadian armed forces and merchant navy, who served during world war II, and are now resident outside of Canada, in order to obtain their campaign stars and medals?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: For a copy of order in council P.C. 34/2231, dated November 3, 1923, dealing with the establishment of secretaries, administrative branch, Post Office Department, effective April 1, 1923.



TARIFFS AND TRADE


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for
Orders for Returns
Broadview (Mr. Church), after quoting an article from the Globe and Mail, asked if Mr. Wilgress, our high commissioner in London, was expressing government policy on the question of the trade agreements. The answer is that Mr. Wilgress at the time was in fact speaking as chairman of the international conference on the agreements, but the views he expressed were in line with government policy.
The hon. member for Broadview also asked:
What is the effect of that policy on empire preference-which should be first, last and always in our minds-and on trade within the empire.
The answer is that under these agreements there are some minor reductions in empire preferences; also the agreements would produce some reductions of tariffs between countries of the commonwealth and other countries. So that on balance its effect should be to increase trade between countries of the commonwealth as well as between other countries. The fact is that the agreements have been entered into by all the countries of the commonwealth. Britain and Australia, like Canada, have already signed.


Thomas Langton Church: May I say to the hon. gentleman that the proposal also hangs preferential trade on the sour apple tree, like John Brown's body.


Brooke Claxton: That is a good place for it too.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, standing order 63 be amended by adding after subsection 1:
(m) on public health, welfare, social security and housing, to consist of thirty-five members, ten of whom shall constitute a quorum.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of submitting this motion to the house today. In one sense it is the reward of patience, because I have had this same resolution on the order paper in each session commencing with October, 1945. This is the sixth session, and this is the first time that it has been reached with opportunity for debate.
I may say that the suggestion contained in the resolution was first offered to the government on September 27, 1945, at which time the then prime minister undertook to look into the matter and consider it.
Sir, the resolution requires some brief review of the committee structure of the house. I wish to do this briefly. I do not

Standing Committees
wish to weary the house, but I think there is some information which may be of interest particularly to the newer members.
What has happened this afternoon in the appointment of the select standing committees of the house brings this matter directly to our minds. At the present time we have in the house twelve standing committees. As well there are two joint committees of both houses. A third committee was appointed today to assist Mr. Speaker in connection with the restaurant. In what I have to say I am making no reference to the last committee. I am dealing with the standing committees, of which there are today twelve, and then the two joint committees, those on printing and the library.
When one reviews the history of the committee structure of the house, Mr. Speaker, one begins with the rules adopted by the house in 1876. At that time the rules did not set forth, as they do today in standing order 63, the list of committees. In standing order 63 we have a list of the committees, and we also have the number of members who constitute those committees, and also the quorum in each case fixed by the standing order.
In 1876 there was no list of committees set forth in the rules, but there was a reference to some of these standing committees. At that time it was apparently the practice of the house to appoint standing committees at the beginning of the session, but there was no catalogue of committees that the rules required the house to set up at each session. However, at that time three standing committees were referred to in the rules, namely, banking and commerce, railways, and a joint committee of both houses on printing. In some respects these committees thus enjoy seniority.
In 1890 a revision of the rules added reference to another standing committee, namely, that on miscellaneous private bills. In 1906 several additions were made to the list of standing committees, the number at that time being fixed at eight house committees and two joint committees on printing and the library. In 1910 three more committees were added, making eleven, and the two joint committees. These three were on marine and fisheries; on mines and minerals; and on forests, waterways and water-courses.
In their present form our rules date from the revision of 1927. The rules in this respect are today exactly as they were adopted in 1927, with the exception of one amendment that was made in 1945, which I shall mention in a moment.
The effect of the 1927 change of the rules with reference to standing committees was briefly this. First, two of the standing com-

mittees, namely that on mines and minerals, and that on forests, waterways and watercourses, were combined into the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. In the second place, a committee on industrial and international relations was added. In the third place, the rule fixed for the first time the number of members of which each committee was to consist and the number that was to constitute the quorum. At that time there were thus ten standing committees, plus the two joint committees of both houses.
One change was made in this list of committees in 1945. Hon. members of the last parliament will recall that in September, 1945, Mr. Bracken, then leader of the opposition, drew attention to the fact that the committee on industrial and international relations embraced two subjects that were not closely related, but were of such great importance as to justify the appointment of a standing committee on each. That suggestion was accepted by the prime minister, and an amendment was made in September, 1945, eliminating the committee on industrial and international relations and replacing it by two committees, one on industrial relations and another on external affairs. This brings us to the present time, with twelve select standing committees of the house and the two joint committees of both houses on printing and the library.
I make this one observation on that subject before I leave it, to draw attention to a remark of the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, in 1345, in dealing with the suggestion of the appointment of two standing committees, namely on external affairs and industrial relations.
On page 110 of Hansard of September 12, 1945, the prime minister said in response to the suggestion of Mr. Bracken:
If there were two separate committees, therefore, it might and I believe would improve the opportunities of hon. members to give careful study to these questions.
If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, that is the keynote of my approach to this question today. The appointment of committees of this house should be designed with that object in view, namely, to improve the opportunities of hon. members to give careful study to questions of importance coming before the house.
The resolution that I have the honor to submit to the house today will, if it is adopted, provide for the establishment of a select standing committee of the house on matters of the highest importance to all Canadians, and the appointment of that committee will improve the opportunities of hon. members to give careful study to these questions, namely, public health, welfare, social security and housing. In my submission every one

of them is a question of vast importance to all Canadians, and when the four of them are linked together, as I think may properly be done, in the scope of this committee, it offers to hon. members an improved opportunity to give careful study to these questions.
Now, sir, it is fair to ask, how is our present committee structure working? I have indicated that it has not been revised in the last 22 years. There has been just this one amendment. I have before me a table, for which I am indebted to the committee branch and the parliamentary librarian, indicating the number of meetings which each of the select standing committees has held in the past five years. I have begun with the first session of the twentieth parliament of Canada. I put the figures before the house to illustrate facts which I think are of importance. In the first place there is public business of very great importance which at the present time does not fall within the scope of any of the standing committees. In the second place, if the suggestion is made that we have enough committees now, I would answer directly by saying that some of these committees are not meeting at the present time and apparently have not met for years. If there is any question of either reducing the number or avoiding any enlargement of the number of committees, then I suggest we might very well eliminate some of the committees which do not meet today, and replace them by a committee which will meet to deal with the matters of importance set out in the proposed resolution.
The first of the select standing committees, that on privileges and elections, has not met in the last five sessions of parliament. The committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines during the past five sessions has met four, four, five, three and six times respectively. The committee on miscellaneous private bills met two, two, three, four and five times respectively. The figure I am giving in each instance is the number of meetings
Standing Committees
the committee held throughout an entire session of parliament, beginning in 1945.
We realize that the committee on banking and commerce is an active committee. We find it held 10, 20, 26, 25 and 2 meetings respectively. Turning to the public accounts committee we find that in the last five years it met once in the 1945 session, and in 1946 did not meet at all; in 1947 it met 28 times; in 1948 it did not meet, and there were two meetings in 1949.
The committee on agriculture and colonization did not meet in 1945, 1946, 1948 or 1949, but held six meetings in 1947. The committee on standing orders held one, three, six, one and three meetings respectively. The record for the committee on marine and fisheries stands at two, two and one, respectively; this committee did not meet in 1948 or 1949.
The committee on mines, forests and waters did not meet in the last five sessions. While the committee on industrial relations did not meet in 1945, it held 48 meetings in 1946, nine in 1947, nine in 1948, and failed to meet in 1949. It is one of the new committees, having been established in 1945. It can be seen that it met a need, because it was more active than most of the other committees.
The other new committee established in 1945, on external affairs, held 15, 21, 15, 9 meetings in the first four years, and none in 1949.
The committee on debates did not meet in 1945, 1946, 1947 or 1949, but held one meeting in 1948. The joint committee on printing held its meetings as follows: one, one, one and three respectively, up to and including 1948. It did not meet in 1949.
The joint committee on the library of parliament held two meetings, one in 1946-and one in 1948. In the lifetime of the preceding parliament the only meeting of that joint committee was held on July 22, 1943.
For the convenience of hon. members I would ask that this complete table be placed on Hansard.
Committees Appointed by House of Commons during last Parliament and Number of
Committees Met
Standing committees (as listed in standing order 63)
Privileges and elections	
Railways, canals and telegraph lines	
Miscellaneous private bills	
Banking and commerce	
Public accounts	
Agriculture and colonization	
Standing orders	
Marine and fisheries	
Mines, forests and waters	
Industrial relations	
Debates	
External affairs	
Printing (joint committee)	
Library (joint committee)	
45781-45\
1945	1946
Nil	Nil
4	4
2	2
10	20
1	Nil
Nil	Nil
1	3
2	2
Nil	Nil
Nil	48
Nil	Nil
15	21
1	1
Nil	1
1947	1948
Nil	Nil
5	3
3	4
26	25
28	Nil
6	Nil
6	1
1	Nil
Nil	Nil
9	9
Nil	1
15	9
1	3
Nil	1
Times These
1949(1)
Nil
5
2
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

Standing Committees Special and sessional committees
Canteen funds	
Dominion Elections Act	
Flag committee (joint)	
House procedure (no record in this branch. Dr. Beauchesne was clerk of the committee)..
Human rights	
Indian Act	
Prices	
Radio broadcasting	
Railways and shipping	
Redistribution	[DOT][DOT]
Standing orders revision. (No record in this branch. Dr. Beauchesne was clerk of the
committee)	
Veterans affairs	
War expenditures and economies	
1945	1946	1947	1948	1949(1)X	X	13	X	XX	X	19	4	X2	14	X	X	XX	X	X	met	XX	X	8	13	XX	25	67	36	XX	X	X	77	XX	28	25	X	X10	9	9	10	13X	X	10	X	Xmet	met	X	met	X36	52	X	39	X9	41	X	X	X
Where an "X" is indicated.
Note: The same special committees are not appointed session after session, the committee was not appointed that session.
I believe it is no disparagement of other committees to say that the two committees which were established first in 1945, did fill a need in the committee organization ot the house, as evidenced by the large number of meetings they held. This points unmistakably to the fact that there is a need of modernization of the committee machinery and structure of the House of Commons. Because of the inadequacy of the committee structure there are great gaps in the allotment of public business within the scope of the various standing committees.
I do not believe that in the House of Commons, in this year of grace 1949, it should be necessary to say anything about the cardinal importance of the subjects which I suggest should be assigned to a new standing committee. In my resolution I include public health, welfare, social security, and housing. Each of them is a subject of first importance, and happily they are related. I suggest they lend themselves logically and reasonably to inclusion within the scope of reference of one committee.	.
There is no reason why the subject of housing ought not to be included within the scope of a committee studying health, welfare and social security. I am sure hon. members are aware that in Great Britain the subject of housing falls within the departmental responsibility of the minister of health. I do not believe any member of the House of Commons will contend seriously that housing is not directly related to public health, welfare and social security.
There is need of better opportunity in the house, through the machinery of the house, for the study of these subjects. There is need of provision being made so that hon. members may give careful study to these questions, again using the expression of the prime minister in 1945.
Social security is not a subject on which we have reached the end of our legislative

responsibility. It is going to present continuing problems, and it is needful that the house should undertake a comprehensive approach to this question as it pursues the study of social security problems. If I have a criticism to make of the manner in which social security questions have been approached in parliament in the past, it is that the approach has been piecemeal and has not been comprehensive. The time has come when that condition should be remedied. I see no way, apart from the assistance of a committee of this kind, in which the house would be able to undertake that comprehensive approach. Such a committee would provide an opportunity for continuous study, the gathering of information and the eliciting of opinions from responsible organizations which have studied these questions. These opportunities do not exist at the present time.
The committee organization of the house does not now admit of the calling of any person before a committee of the house to discuss questions dealing with public health, welfare, social security, and housing. It is true that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) brings in his departmental estimates they will be considered in committee of supply. The committee of the whole house will sit here, and the minister will have one or two officials in front of his desk. He will have opportunity to confer with them in hushed whispers, and will be able to give us his opinions and also information elicited at second hand from his officials. But we are not permitted to question the officials.
It is no invasion of the principle of the responsibility of government to parliament to propose that, as in the case of the other standing committees of the house, hon. members should have an opportunity of eliciting at first hand information from these departmental officials. An opportunity should also be provided through the committee machinery

of the house to enable responsible organizations, represented by people who have made exhaustive studies of these questions and whose opinions and information would be of the greatest assistance to parliament, to come before a standing committee so as to make that information and those ideas directly available. Today if they wish to lay their information before parliament all they can do is go to the minister. What goes into the minister's files does not come before the house; we do not have access to or knowledge of submissions made by such organizations.
I am glad that the matter of national health has come, by reason of the insistence of the house and increased public interest, to be regarded with greater and greater respect, and, I hope, urgency. I hope that before this twenty-first parliament runs its course some concrete and forward step will be taken in the field of public health, something more far-reaching than we have heretofore attempted as a nation. That step should be taken in concert with the governments of the provinces. But under the present organization of the business of this house it would be impossible to give to such a measure the close and detailed study it ought to receive.
Hon. members will recall that some seven years ago a special committee of the house was set up to study the whole question of national health in Canada. There was also a special committee on social security. Those committees terminated in each case with the end of the session in which they were appointed. The fact that it was found necessary to set up special committees in the fields of social security and national health is proof abundant that a standing committee embracing those two important subjects would be of the greatest assistance to this house in the discharge of its duties and in meeting a need that is being urgently felt today.
We have been told by the government that it is intended to introduce a measure at the present session to amend the National Housing Act. I am sure the house is awaiting with interest the introduction of that measure. As a matter of fact, I think most of us wish the government would bring it down quickly. Any measure that promises assistance in solving the national housing problem ought to be brought down without a moment's delay. When the measure comes before this house I can see that it will be of the greatest assistance-unless we are to be treated as mere rubber stamps or as people whose ideas are of little interest to those bringing down the measure-if a committee is available to which the measure can be referred and in which we may obtain the views of those who are dealing with this problem in its various
Standing Committees
aspects throughout the country. In that committee the measure could be reviewed, and the result would be legislation that would be vastly superior to anything that is likely to be passed by this house if information of the kind were lacking.
Would it not be of the greatest assistance to hon. members when dealing with that measure if, for example, they could have before them the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, hear his ideas and obtain directly from him any information he may have? He is not a deputy minister, and there could not be any suggestion of an invasion of the principle of the responsibility of government in proposing that the head of a crown corporation should from time to time appear, along with his officials, before a standing committee of this house in order that the house may perform its duty in seeking firsthand information from the corporation with reference to the discharge of its responsibilities. Under our present procedure there is no opportunity for carrying out that important duty. I am sure I need not dwell further on the value the individual member of such a committee would derive in obtaining information.
I have respect for the information that hon. members possess, but I think that I am being only fair and realistic when I say that regardless of how intensive our study of particular subjects may be, it is impossible, in the time available in one lifetime, considering the other duties we must discharge, to obtain all the information available on any subject. If hon. members could have access thus to further information and research I am sure it would enable them to do a vastly superior job as members of parliament.
Far from invading the principle of responsibility I suggest that such a committee could be of great assistance to the ministers concerned, in the one case the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and in the other the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I am sure that these ministers would appreciate receiving the considered views of those who had made an intelligent study of the problem under consideration. Any minister worthy of his office should welcome the assistance that a standing committee would be able to give.
The need for such a committee is illustrated further by the fact that there has for years been in existence under this roof an informal committee made up of members of both houses who are interested in the subject of national health. That committee does not make any attempt to go into the field of housing or social security or welfare; it deals only with health. It has no status in either

Standing Committees
house; it is simply made up of a group of interested individuals who arrange luncheons from time to time, to which the members of both houses are invited, and at which they hear papers read in relation to the subject of public health.
This committee is of limited assistance because it has no status, but the fact that such a committee has existed, informal as it may be and limited as its effectiveness has been, illustrates, and I think proves conclusively, the need for a standing committee in this field.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the observations that have been made in times past on this subject. I hope it will not be said that there are too many committees of the house. That would be a poor answer to make to a suggestion of this kind. If the need exists, the fact that there are fifteen committees today is no answer to the request that a sixteenth committee be appointed to enable this house to discharge its responsibilities with reference to the public business. If that had been the answer given by Mr. Mackenzie King in 1945; if he had said that eleven standing committees of the house and three joint committees were enough, we would not have had the two committees which were set up in 1945 and which have proven to be exceedingly useful and active. I refer to the committee on external affairs and the committee on industrial relations.
Can it be said that the existence of standing committees subtracts one iota from the principle of responsibility? I submit not. What is the difference between twelve standing committees and thirteen standing committees in respect to the principle of responsibility? Surely one more committee to deal with subjects as important as these would involve no subtraction from the principle of responsibility. If the appointment of twelve committees constitutes no invasion of the principle of responsibility, then the addition of another committee would create no subtraction from that principle.
Ten days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), speaking for the government, agreed that another standing committee of the house should be appointed, this time on atomic energy. Why? Because atomic energy is a subject that has attained first importance, in the national as well as the international sphere. Because of that fact the government agrees that there should be another standing committee of the house, in relation to subjects pertaining to atomic energy. There was no suggestion then that that violated the principle of responsibility. If there was no violation then, there certainly is none involved in the resolution I have submitted to the house this afternoon.
IMr. Fleming.]
In the face of those facts I hope that no one will suggest that we in this house are drawing too close to the United States system instead of sticking to the principle of responsibility. If we have anything to learn from the committee structure of congress at Washington, I do not know why we should be too proud to learn it. Personally I think parliament ought to welcome the opportunity to create possible improvements in the operation of the machinery of the house wherever it can find means of doing so. If, as I urge upon the house, the addition of this committee to the machinery of the house provides that opportunity, I submit that we should welcome it.
On previous occasions the government has been asked to consider this proposal. I shall give the house one extract from Hansard which reports what was said the last time the subject was before the house. I may say that my suggestion for such a committee on this occasion was made in the course of the debate in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I refer to Hansard of June 11, 1948, when the present Minister of National Health and Welfare was dealing with the suggestion that there should be such a standing committee. He was reviewing some of the suggestions made by hon. members in the opening debate on the estimates of his department. At page 5141 of Hansard of that date he said:
I do not think I have now anything else to say, except that the suggestion made for the setting up of a committee dealing with both health and welfare matters is one which is receiving attention. The suggestion has much merit, and I am hoping that I shall be able to take some definite steps at a later date in connection with it.
I hope the significance of those remarks will impress the house. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, the member of the government most closely in touch with matters which would come within the scope of this proposed committee, said that the suggestion that there should be a select standing committee of the house on matters of national health and welfare, social security and housing had much merit. He adds:
. . . and I am hoping that I shall be able to take some definite steps at a later date in connection with it.
It seems to me that the resolution which I respectfully offer to the house presents an opportunity to do something definite, in the words of the minister, in connection with a matter that has much merit. It is a resolution which, in the words of Mr. Mackenzie King on September 12, 1945, will improve the opportunity of hon. members to give careful study to these questions.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong the discussion. I merely rise to compliment the sponsor of the resolution. That is one time that he has put his talents to good use. He did an excellent job in introducing it and he put a lot of work on it. I want to give him full credit. I agree with all his arguments. For several reasons there is a great necessity for a committee such as the hon. member advocated. For example, there are ninety-two new members of the house. Many of them will not get an opportunity to speak, no matter how much they would like to do so. There are also several reasons for that being so.
The committee structure gives a member, new or old, great opportunity to learn what is going on in the country in all of its ramifications, much greater than he would have merely sitting in the house no matter how long he may remain here and how many speeches he may hear. For that reason I think it is a good opportunity to give the new members, the younger ones particularly, a chance to meet experts in every field in committee meetings. The fields that the hon. member mentioned are of the greatest importance to the Canadian people.
The question of health leaves much to be desired, despite grants to the provinces, the building of hospitals, and so on. Hospitals may be built, but unless you have money you cannot get into them. A large percentage of our population is not receiving the advantages of medical science that are available today. That is a matter that should be examined very carefully, but I shall leave any further remarks on it to my friend who was on his feet when I rose and who, as a medical doctor, is much better qualified to speak on the subject than I am.
There has been a lot of work done in committee on the question of social security. We had the Marsh report. We studied it; we studied the Beveridge report, and the New Zealand set-up. We spent months in committee on the question of social security. Witnesses were brought from all parts of Canada at great expense. It cost the government a lot of money. The Marsh report has gone to the archives to gather dust. I think it would be a good thing if the Marsh report were brought forth again and submitted to the committee that is being advocated at the present time. That report covers the whole field of social security. A lot of work has been done in the past and it should be followed up.
The federal government is making health grants to the provinces but many of the provinces are not spending the money. I think in 1948 Nova Scotia only spent about
Standing Committees
one-third of what was available. They said that plans were needed and that certain things had to be done before they could take advantage of the grants. The question of housing is tied up with the whole matter of health. I am sure that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), who has that problem under his consideration at the present time, would welcome a subcommittee of the main committee to study it with him, do some of the work, take some of the responsibility, and assist his department. It can be done. There are hundreds of people in Canada with expert knowledge in all these fields. The machinery should be created whereby they could come here and give the government and the committee the benefit of the information they have.
I have no intention of delaying the matter at all. I merely rose to support the hon. member and compliment him for raising the matter.	.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) on bringing this matter to the attention of the house. This resolution has been on the order paper-I was going to say for years-during the last session of parliament, and unfortunately we never had an opportunity to discuss it. Taking the place of a standing committee of the house, there has been a voluntary committee on health which I have found very entertaining. Meetings have been held about once every six weeks. Very often scientists have addressed us on matters concerning health or research. The trouble with such a committee is that it is not practical. Entertaining though it may be, it is not practical to gather in the members to discuss a matter of research or a highly technical matter effecting some cure. The committee is not fulfilling its purpose. The fact that it is well attended proves it is an entertaining committee and that members are anxious to attend the lectures. It reveals an interest on the part of every member of the House of Commons in the matter of health. Members realize their responsibility to their constituents regarding health and social security. They attend meetings to find out what they would like to tell their constituents and what they would like to do for their constituents.
I congratulate the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) on the attitude he has taken. He mentioned the Marsh report, however, and I intend to show that national health in this country has changed so rapidly that the Marsh report is now getting old. If such a committee were set up the ground covered by the Marsh report would have to be covered again. I said conditions in this country were

Standing Committees
changing, and I intend to show that ideas formerly held concerning national health have gone by the board. Diseases which were on the top of the list as a cause of mortality have now gone to the bottom of the list, and the whole picture has changed.
We have been through a war. It is unfortunately true that the greatest progress in research and the treatment of new diseases has been made under the stress of war. Scientists were faced with the problem of dealing with some of these situations and the whole scientific army of our nation set to work to find answers to our problems. We are still reminded of the last war, of its inhumanities and the cruelties that were perpetrated. During this post-war period we are trying to envisage a future in which the physical well-being of all people will occupy the minds of those who are striving for better conditions throughout the world.
Use should be made of the scientific knowledge accumulated in the last three centuries. A few hundred years ago the goal of those interested in the art of healing was to have physicians so well learned in the knowledge of diseases that the sick under their care got well. The thinking at that time was in terms of curing disease. There was no conception of the fact that the physical welfare of a community meant more than proper nourishment and shelter, or that under such conditions only a small part of the population could benefit from the new treatments and additional skill. During the past two decades the fight to eliminate disease and suffering has received an acceleration which was not possible in previous centuries.
In talking of this matter we are all very much aware of the discoveries of scientists like Pasteur or Lister. Bacteriologists have made tremendous advances in the discovery of viruses and the part played by insects in causing or transmitting diseases. Remarkable progress has been made in immunology, nutrition, hormones, vitamins, and some of those discoveries have been little short of miraculous. Newspapers and magazines have been filled with articles about new discoveries. Some of those articles give the public false impressions. The false impression received by the laity through these articles sometimes causes a great deal of trouble. Our laboratories, our hospitals and our physicians have been armed with new scientific equipment and drugs. They are providing services which were unknown a century ago.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that, if this new knowledge and equipment are to be used effectively for the benefit of the whole nation, it is not sufficient to improve only the method of curing disease. Our

great objective should be to keep people well. We have the advantage of these discoveries that were made. We are positive now,'for instance, that there is no reason why any child in this country should die of diphtheria. Scientists have discovered a method of immunizing that child against this disease. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, when a coroner's inquest should be held if a child dies of diphtheria. If an accident occurs on the highway and someone is killed, a coroner's inquest is held and the whole affair investigated. A child can die of diphtheria and the only formality is a certificate signed by the attending physician. I say that when a child dies of a disease against which it could have been immunized, it should call for a coroner's inquest.
New discoveries made in other branches of medical science have broadened our idea of that remarkable thing we call life. I use the term "life" as it might be applied to the human body. Our knowledge of preventive medicine today shows it would be foolish to attempt to keep all the people well by curing disease. The advances made in preventive medicine will bring about less disease. This is the ideal towards which we should strive. As knowledge is gained in the field of public health, there should not be the call for additional hospitals and physicians. That may be a new viewpoint in this matter, but I submit, sir, it is the ideal towards which we should strive. It will cost less to keep people well and the nation will enjoy a state of health that would have been unknown a century ago. We can look forward to a new concept of health by using the discoveries already made to keep people well.
I bring these matters to the attention of the house because I believe this resolution calls for a committee of the House of Commons. These matters could be placed before that committee. When matters affecting national health are considered in this house, the consideration is limited to the few hours during which the estimates of that department are before us. Questions are asked of the minister and answers are given. No opportunity is afforded to study the broader aspects of a program of public health that would serve the nation and avoid this mortality rate. The members could learn what it means not only to cure people but to prevent people from becoming ill.
Professor Winslow of Yale university medical school, and editor of the American Journal of Public Health, gives a good definition of public health-and this is what should be before every member of this house if he had a chance to hear about it on a committee -which is as follows:
Public health is the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting physical and

mental health and efficiency through organized community efforts for the sanitation of the environment, the control of community infections, the education of the individual in principles of personal hygiene, the organization of medical and nursing service, for the early diagnosis and treatment of disease, and the development of the social machinery which will insure to every individual in the community a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health.
I can give the house another definition- this is a shorter one and is more concise- from Webster's dictionary, in which the state of health is defined as follows:
The state of being hale or sound in body, mind or soul, especially freedom from physical disease or pain.
As to the history of movements in public health, during all the years of man's existence he has been worried about diseases which afflicted him. He spent his time and his money trying to cure and to prevent those afflictions, but he laid more emphasis on the question of cure. His efforts were doomed to disappointment because he knew nothing about the etiology of these diseases. But, sir, the whole picture has changed in the past forty years. Those diseases which I mentioned in the beginning as being at the top of the list as a cause of death forty years ago are now down at the bottom, and at the top of the list we now find diseases of adult and advanced age. Those diseases of adult and later life are now listed in the first ten causes of death. The health problems of today therefore are entirely different from those at the beginning of the century.
There are other matters affecting our population which I think should be brought before a committee. We are all aware of the high cost of hospitalization. Any of us who have been unfortunate enough to have to deal with a situation like that have found out about the tremendous cost of hospital beds and the bills which had to be paid. This puts the matter of hospitalization and relief in time of sickness beyond the financial powers of the ordinary man. The cost of hospital beds has reached a height which makes it difficult for people in the lower income brackets to pay for them. Even ward rates are now at such a height that they are equal to the cost of a private room some years ago. In seeking to obtain hospitalization and to pay for hospitalization, the public are in a difficult position. This matter again could be threshed out in a committee where the costs could be obtained from the people who have to deal with institutions.
Infant mortality in Canada has shown a sharp decline. I remember speaking in this house four years ago and calling attention to the high rate of infant mortality in Canada. Since that time the rate has gone down. This decline is due in large measure to a decrease *	45781-46
Standing Committees
in the number of deaths from diseases of infants such as diarrhoea and enteritis. Immunization against infectious disease has helped to cause the decline, by controlling communicable diseases of childhood. Whereas diphtheria was the leading cause of death forty years ago, it has now practically disappeared in centres where a campaign of immunization has been carried on. Serious illness at the childhood ages has been much reduced. Pneumonia is another example. We all remember the mortality rate of pneumonia and how it was dreaded by the populace some years ago. It once ranked high as a cause of mortality, but owing to the changes in treatment of this disease, the death rate is now about the same as that for tuberculosis. The reason for this decline is the use of important scientific discoveries, such as the sulpha drugs and penicillin. The result of all these changes has been that major illnesses and chronic invalidism now exist mainly at the older age levels. This is the result of scientific discoveries and of treatment which saved a large number of people from premature death, and which spared them from infancy to the prime of life. The leading causes of death are now those conditions common at older ages. Death from these causes in older people are now a large part of the total.
Years ago, sometime about the year 1710, Joseph Addison, the great English essayist, wrote an essay which appeared in the Spectator. He called this essay "The Vision of Mirza", which it might be of interest to the house to review, having regard to what I have been trying to say about the changes in the causes of death.
In this allegory, which Addison professes to find among certain oriental manuscripts picked up in Grand Cairo, the writer is taken into the high hills of Bagdad, where he has a symbolic vision of life. A spirit asks him what he sees, and the tale goes on:
"I see a bridge," said I, "standing in the midst of the tide." "The bridge thou seest," said he, "is human life; consider it attentively." Upon a more leisurely survey of it, I found that it consisted of three score and ten entire arches, with several broken arches, which, added to those that were entire, made up the number about an hundred. As I was counting the arches the genius told me that this bridge consisted at first of a thousand arches; but that a great flood had swept away the rest, and left the bridge in the ruinous condition I now beheld it: "But tell me further," said he, "what thou discoverest on it." "I see multitudes of people passing over it," said I, "and a black cloud hanging on each end of it." As I looked more attentively, I saw several of the passengers dropping through the bridge, into the great tide that flowed underneath it; and upon further examination, perceived there were innumerable trap-doors that lay concealed in the bridge, which the passengers no sooner trod upon, but they fell through them into the tide and immediately disappeared. These hidden pitfalls were set very thick at the entrance of the bridge,

Standing Committees
so that throngs of people no sooner broke through the cloud, but many of them fell into them. They grew thinner towards the middle, but multiplied and lay closer together toward the end of the arches that were entire.
There were indeed some persons, but their number was very small, that continued a kind of hobbling march on the broken arches, but fell through one after another, being quite tired and spent with so long a walk.
That is the story of this vision. Hon. members will note from the story that the number who dropped through at the beginning of the bridge, which would represent infantile mortality, since the hidden pitfalls were close to the entrance of the bridge, grew thinner at the middle and lay closer together toward the end of the arches which were entire. The three score and ten arches of the bridge represent the years of human life. I give you that little part of the essay of Addison to represent what is happening at the present time. Instead of the body falling off at the beginning it now falls off toward the end of the bridge.
Every party in this house is committed to some form of national health plan. We possibly do not all agree as to how this will be brought about, but we are all striving toward the one goal. There are certain facts which stand out. First is the proportion of the people in middle and later life who require treatment and attention. The second is that the chief causes of disability and death are today, and possibly will be in the future, those which are characteristic of middle and later life, the cardiovascular-renal diseases; that is the heart, kidneys and blood vessels. They are now well at the top of the list as the cause of death or as the cause of disability in mid-life and later life. Heart disease mortality, and especially coronary disease of the heart, has become all too common. It is difficult now to pick up a paper in which you do not read that somebody in the prime of life has been suddenly snuffed out by coronary disease of the heart. Science has produced early and better methods of diagnosis, but apart from the strain and the stress of life during this decade, the causes of this disease, which is apparently bringing about an increasing number of deaths, demand research. We must make provision for the treatment and the care of an increasing number of cardiac cases which cause disabilities and invalidism.
Again I say, sir, that the whole picture has changed. These matters should be before a committee where we can ask specialists, and those who are learned in these matters, why these things exist, just what we are doing about them in the way of research, and what we are doing about the increased necessity of hospitalizing these people.

I am now going to talk about cancer for a few minutes with the same object in view, namely, to show the necessity of a committee considering these matters. This is a problem with which we must deal. It presents a problem so far as research is concerned, but it presents a challenge to those who are doing research. Every year in Canada approximately 14,000 to 15,000 people die of cancer, and according to the last statistics of the disease it still stands high as a cause of death in this country. I have stated several times that these statistics show changes, but it would appear that the number of cancer cases is increasing as the span of life grows longer. We can illustrate the picture more clearly by considering the fact, or at least the probability-and this is not pleasant to think about-of eventual death from this disease. The number of cases has increased steadily, and while it may be because of the better methods of diagnosis, yet the casualties are rising. It would appear that the number of new cases is higher. People are becoming more aware of the problem and are demanding better diagnostic facilities. It is a tragedy, sir, that cases of cancer are discovered in patients at a time when little can be done. The people who are competent to deal with these cases do not get them early enough. Better diagnostic facilities would mean a great deal for many cases of cancer, if they could be diagnosed in the early stages. The treatment of early lesions under skilled care has proven to be very valuable and often results in entirely eliminating the disease. We thought at one time that there was no hope. Now we do believe that with early diagnosis there is a hope that a large percentage of these cases will get better. We must take steps to intensify any method which has been shown to be of value in holding the disease in check.
I might also point out that the people who are unfortunate enough to acquire this disease are elderly, and have to undergo a long period of invalidism and hospitalization. Many of these people have not the resources to pay for nursing and attention over a long period. This is a case where health insurance and sufficient hospital accommodation could be of great assistance in providing better care.
There is another great question facing us, namely, the problem of mental health. The average member of the House of Commons takes for granted that when a minister makes a certain statement or gives certain figures or statistics that is the end so far as he is concerned, or his connection with the estimates before the house. In the case of mental health, if we had this committee-and I bring this to you again, sir,-where every member could ask questions of these people, and

understand them, the members, irrespective of their political affiliation, could deal with the matter in a way that is not possible when it is merely brought to the attention of the house for an hour or two some afternoon. Mental health is assuming a great significance in Canada. This is a remarkable statement, but it is true. The number of beds occupied by patients suffering from mental disease, or emotional breakdowns, is nearly equal to the number of beds in all the other hospitals. Mental disease is now equal in importance to physical handicaps. I do not think that the average hon. member is aware of the significance of these two statements. We must pay more attention to the provision of hospital or institutional facilities for advanced cases, and mental hygiene must take its place in dealing with a situation such as that.
Unofficial estimates-and I have checked these as well as I could from the material at hand-show the number of the mentally ill in Canada at the present time to be 200,000, 100,000 permanent and 100,000 temporary. The word "temporary" refers to those who have probably had an emotional upset and are temporarily deranged. The health league of Canada estimates another 600,000 partly disabled, making a total of 800,000 people in Canada. The cost of mental disease in Canada is approximately $500,000,000. Statistics show that the number of people in mental hospitals is increasing faster than the general population in Canada. That is something which we should all consider. Any person within sound of my voice hearing a statement like that cannot well vote against a resolution which calls for a committee in which hon. members would study these matters and make arrangements for the treatment and hospitalization of these people in the future. It may be that the increase in the number of patients is due to more complete diagnosis. The Canada Year Book says that the number of patients in mental institutions per 100,000 of the population in 1946 was 399-5, as compared with 396-5 in 1945; 388 in 1940; 352-8 in 1933; and 305-4 in 1931. The number per 100,000 of the population in 1931 was 305-4. The number in 1946 was 399 [DOT] 5. These statistics are taken from the Canada Year Book and they are absolutely authentic.
It may be that in the consideration of these matters before a committee of the house some hon. members might feel that political affairs would enter into the discussion. Let me place on record what happened in the committee on veterans affairs. For four years that committee held meetings. I remember the former minister of veterans affairs stating in the house that this was the greatest committee 45781-461
Standing Committees
that had ever functioned, and he made highly complimentary remarks about the work accomplished.
While there might have been the occasional incident which might not fall within that description, we can forget about that. The fact is that ninety-nine per cent of the time the veterans on that committee worked for the benefit of veterans in Canada. I am sure every hon. member of the House of Commons is interested in this matter of health. Is there any reason why a committee of the house would not be of assistance to any minister holding the portfolio of national health and welfare, so as to work out arrangements and discuss health matters to the advantage of all the people in Canada?
I have mentioned mental diseases and cancer; I have referred to the changing view so far as the population is concerned, and the arrangements we will have to make in the future in order to deal with that situation. As I said in the beginning of my observations, when such enthusiasm is shown over a voluntary committee called once in six weeks to hear a scientific lecture, it seems to indicate that that is something members want to hear about and to discuss.
I have said that every political party in the house is committed to some form of health insurance. I do not agree with all of them. I have no doubt we will be told in the house about the benefits of the plan in England, or that in New Zealand. Those plans may be advocated here. Any plan, sir, that has to do with the relief of human sickness or pain is praiseworthy. We must discuss this matter in the light of what will be the best plan for all Canada.
A committee could consider these plans. As I see it, politics need not be brought into its deliberations. On such a committee we could study what has happened in England, where they have a system of state medicine. We could discuss what is happening in the United States, and consider what would be the best plan for Canada.
Those are matters of importance, matters of life and death. They are vital, so far as this nation is concerned. I am not going to discuss at length the matter of health insurance of various types.
It has become apparent, however, that some of the health insurance plans already submitted in connection with state medicine have been very costly, and in some respects have not achieved the objectives they sought to achieve in the beginning. In connection with some of them the cost has gone up at a tremendous rate. I know of no substantial group in Canada who are urging state medicine as an alternative to the present

Standing Committees
system. I know of no important exponents of state medicine, in that sense; but I think we are all committed to some form of treatment whereby people will have the advantages of the scientific discoveries of past years.
The suggested committee should have the power of discussing this plan. There should be available to all citizens in Canada a program of medical care which will provide preventive, diagnostic and curative services. This program should provide a service of a high standard under conditions satisfactory to the doctors and to the public. Such a plan should not in any way infringe upon the principles of either the medical profession, the public or any others concerned. It should be a method of accumulating funds for services required to maintain the health standards of this nation.
We cannot take on something that we cannot afford; let us be sensible about that. The United States is now in the throes of discussing some plan of that type. These matters should be discussed before a committee, so that when we do adopt a plan to which all parties in the house are committed, it may be the best we could have for this country. That matter should be fully discussed.
We will never get anywhere spending two hours in a discussion of the estimates some afternoon when there is no other government business. I appeal, sir, to the members of the house to consider these matters, and to realize that we are dealing with matters of life and death. It is shocking to think that. scientific discoveries have been made, and that we have failed in the House of Commons to approve of them, or have permitted them to become matters of political discussion-and this at a time when people are suffering and dying.
Let us have this committee; let us discuss these matters intelligently. Let us look into the question of mortality rates in Canada. Hon, members will recall that I have said there are some things that can be well handled, given the opportunity; for instance, I have in mind the immunization of a child. As I said at the beginning, a matter like that should call for a coroner's inquest, and not simply be passed over by parliament during some hour or two in an afternoon when the estimates are being considered.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me this afternoon to support the motion offered by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), in which he calls for an amendment to standing order 63, having for its purpose the setting up of a
[Mr. Blair.)
standing committee or committees to deal with the subjects of public health, welfare, social security and housing.
I appreciate the observations of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), who has just taken his seat. I am not as well qualified as he to speak in matters of health. By profession he is a physician, and speaks whereof he knows. At the same time I would add that the imperative need for health, welfare, social security and housing in these days makes an impact not only upon the minds of physicians but upon the minds of all people with ordinary sense.
I rise to support the resolution not only because it involves these four subjects, but because it would necessitate a change in standing order 63. In these days when we must face many problems, the committees which must deal with those problems should be an asset to any government having the responsibility of determining policy in Canada.
I am not going into the details of public health itself, but I should like to present one angle of this subject. There is quite a move on foot in other nations as well as ours to bring in what is commonly known as state medicine. Are we to assume that in connection with a subject of that kind the government is going to take full responsibility of determining policy without any parliamentary investigation? State medicine is a big issue. Some of us would oppose it on the basis that it was socialistic while others would support it because they believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Canadian citizen would be better cared for in matters of health through such a system. All I am saying now is that there are two opposing views in connection with that problem.
Surely the government should be willing to say: "Let us lay the subject open, let us lay it bare before the people of Canada. Let us have a parliamentary committee to which any organization, any individual or any municipal or provincial government could come to make their views known, and upon the basis of such an investigation we as a government will determine our future course and policy". I mention that as one reason for setting up a parliamentary committee.
The cost in connection with any system of public health or welfare or social security would be tremendous, and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has touched on this phase of the question. During last session when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) presented the government's policy with respect to social security I delivered a speech, although it was not what might be called a major speech. I asked the minister a most pertinent question. I wanted

to know if this government was going on and on and on with certain social security measures which would cost a tremendous amount of money and which in this day of apparent prosperity it might be reasonable to suppose the taxpayers of Canada could provide, and what the minister would propose in the way of financing such a program should there be a period of depression.
Surely we could have expected that a responsible minister would have projected his thinking into the future far enough to be able to say what this government or any succeeding government would do in such a case, but the minister did not answer along those lines. He gave no indication of what plans would be made to meet such huge obligations. He answered my question by saying, "Oh, well, we have always done it before, I feel confident we will always be able to do it again". Any business corporation in Canada that went out on a limb like that would be considered very unsound indeed, and yet we have the government administering what is perhaps the biggest business in the country not being able to say what they will do in the event of possible adverse circumstances facing this nation.
I am in favour of this resolution because it calls for the setting up of an additional committee to deal with these matters, but I am disappointed that the resolution does not go further. I am disappointed that it does not propose the setting up of committees to study a further number of what I would regard as very important problems facing Canada today.
Government today is not the same as it used to be. There was a day when parliament met purely as legislators. There was a day when the government administered the affairs of the country simply on the basis of the legislation that had been passed. I am not saying that in those days governments went on holiday, but all they had to do was to see that the legislation already passed functioned reasonably smoothly throughout the year. But we seem to have passed that day. Government has become big business. Government has set up all sorts of government corporations.
Parliaments have met and in their legislative responsibility have delegated tremendous powers to the government. We have become not only legislators but in a sense administrators. We are asked to take a holiday from the administrative angle of it at the close of each session. But government being big business makes it most important that everything of national importance done in this country should have the closest scrutiny.
Standing Committees
I should like to ask a question or two with regard to some of these government corporations. I am entirely in sympathy with what the hon. member for Lanark said when he asked what opportunity this parliament had to discuss these vital issues except for an hour or two on some estimate. I need to mention only one or two of these corporations, for instance Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which would be covered by this resolution which calls for a committee on housing. That particular government corporation is big business, but there is no opportunity for the details of that business to be considered by this parliament.
The minister may suggest that we can discuss it on the estimates, but I should like him to point to one estimate in that blue volume that has anything to do with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. His answer to that would be that we could discuss it on the first item, departmental administration. We know how far we would get in discussing a corporation of that kind on item No. 1 of the department. Surely a corporation that is responsible for the administration of a tremendous amount of housing in Canada should be scrutinized carefully by a parliamentary committee. I say that is only reasonable.
There are other similar matters. I believe the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) mentioned the other night that there should be a complete revision of the standing committees of the house. Take, for instance, the civil service of Canada. I believe there are in the neighbourhood of 123,000 civil servants. What opportunity have we in the house to discuss the administration of the civil service? We should have a standing committee so that any civil servant, be he office boy or the head of a department, could come and make his wants and wishes known. As legislators, how much do we know about the inner workings of the civil service? Perhaps someone will rise and say that we have an opportunity to find out. It is all very well to say that, but I assure you there are not enough hours in the day for me to read everything that comes to my desk. We all know that is the case. Why should we not have specially delegated duties imposed upon various committees? Why should we not specialize in this or that subject and leave no stone unturned in respect to any important matter that faces the country?
Then there is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. By way of licence fees it takes from the taxpayers of Canada about $5 million a year. Then it comes to parliament over and over again for loans from the consolidated revenue fund. Nevertheless there is no standing committee on radio broadcasting.

Standing Committees
In the estimates there is an item of nearly $3 million for the international shortwave station. Three million dollars is a lot of money to spend on broadcasting to the world. I know it can be said that we can discuss that on the estimates, but there should be a committee examining these matters very carefully.
The national film board requires about $2 million a year. Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the national film board, a great and powerful medium of propaganda, places before the people almost anything it pleases, using motion pictures, which not only mould people's minds but so affect their emotions that they reach decisions one way or another. On top of that there is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. To be polite, I suppose I should say that it is a powerful medium for the dissemination of information, but all information is propaganda. You can call it by a nice name if you want to.
Here are these powerful government institutions. Are we going to say that the only time we have to discuss such matters is a few minutes on the estimates, which are usually brought in in a rush near the end of the session? These subjects should be scrutinized with a great deal of care.
I said that government was big business. I must say I believe the ministers of the crown bear a tremendous burden of responsibility. I do not see how they can keep their fingers on all the details of their departments. I know it is done through an efficient organization from the man at the top down. Let us take the Department of National Revenue. If ever anything needed to undergo an overhauling it is the administration of the Income Tax Act. I cannot discuss a resolution on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), but 1 know that all over the country there is dissatisfaction with the administration of that act. I do not blame the minister entirely. He has a tremendous job on his hands.
I think ministers of the crown should welcome committees that would go into these matters and make reports in order to assist them in the determination of policy. I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) in his seat looking at a newspaper. I know he has a tremendous responsibility. I wonder how much opportunity the house has to scrutinize in detail all that is done by the Department of Public Works. We know that last year a decision was made to move the printing bureau to Hull, and that it caused a great deal of concern. I think the minister was a bit embarrassed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He got the votes though.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know, but it seems to me that the minister would have been well

advised to have had a committee go into the matter and recommend where the printing bureau should be established.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that the location of public buildings is decided by a body created by statute in 1946. I refer to the federal district commission. If you read the statute you will see that this body makes recommendations as to sites. That is the way it was proceeded with in this case.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not criticizing the fact that the minister may have proceeded according to a statute. I merely suggest to him that it might have been better if a committee could have given advice on the matter. If the minister says that they have proceeded according to a certain statute, that is playing into my hands. That supports my argument because the statute may not be a good one. If it is not a good one what could be better than to have a standing committee of the house suggesting that the legislation should be changed?


Alphonse Fournier: You did not oppose that measure.


Ernest George Hansell: No, I did not; the minister has misunderstood me. I am not criticizing him. I am merely suggesting what might have been done, or what might be done in the future, by select or standing committees having their hands on every detail of government administration.
I believe I can conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our democracy has become topsyturvy. First of all, governments determine their policy. Legislation is brought down and put on the doorstep of parliament. The government says, "There you are, boys; that is it. What have you got to say about it?" It does not make any difference what we have to say about it. What difference does it make? We could holler so loudly it would give the lie to the disappointing acoustics of this chamber, but it would not do any good. The government has decided. It is similar to saying, "The gods have spoken."
As I say, our democracy has become topsyturvy. That is not the manner in which the business of the country should be conducted. The government determines policy and has the last say on the matter. Members of parliament have become what the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, merely rubber stamps. We like to throw out our chests and say, "Well, we are members of parliament." We are members of parliament, but for what? If democracy means anything, before government policy is determined the matter should be brought before the people's representatives. This

would enable the government to ascertain what the people want and, on that basis, determine what government policy should be. The picture would then be that the people would be asking the government to do this or that. At the present time the converse is true. The government tells the people what they should have.
I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a revision of our standing committees. Those committees should have the opportunity of going into every detail and scrutinizing with the greatest care everything that is of national importance. There is another matter which I think is of tremendous importance. I know when I mention it someone is going to make a mountain out of a molehill. In the United States, for instance, the seriousness of communist forces in that country has been recognized. A committee on un-American activities has been set up. As soon as that is mentioned someone says, "Yes, and what a farce." I wonder whether it is a farce. It may have appeared to be so, but I should like to tell you that it has brought the danger of the infiltration of communistic forces into the United States to the attention of the average citizen of that country. At the moment, I do not know that I would be prepared to suggest that a committee of that sort be set up in this house. I may say that the issue is tremendously important in Canada. We are trusting that the government has the matter well in hand, and that is all we can say about it.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, every national issue that concerns the welfare of our people, whether it is the paying of income tax, whether it concerns a different way of life, whether it is a matter of security and health or whatever it is-someone mentions the atomic bomb. I do not know that we need to know a great deal about the atomic bomb, but I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if two or three of them were directed at Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg-


Mr. Thatcher:: And Moose Jaw.


Ernest George Hansell: That might be a good idea. I want to say that the people of Canada would not know what to do under such circumstances. I believe it would be a good thing for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to tell us sometime whether anything has been done to inform the people of Canada on what they should do in such a case. No one can say with any certainty that something might not happen overnight. Wars are no longer declared; let us remember that. The firing of the first gun starts them. This is another of those great issues upon which information should be furnished. We are running our parliament with committees that
Standing Committees
were set up before I was born. I do not think I need to say anything more about that, Mr. Speaker, except to bring to your attention the urgency of this matter and ask hon. members to support this resolution.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: should like to take two or three minutes in this debate. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) made one remark which I thought was particularly pertinent. He stated that parliament is not like what it used to be. That is very true. As a matter of fact, this session parliament seems to be like a morgue or a church. While waiting for a vote, perhaps we should sing hymns instead of "Home on the Range". I am in favour of setting up any committee if such action will liven up the house.
I have been a member since 1945 and have seen a number of parliamentary committees set up. These committees sit for a while, discuss matters and report to the house. Quite frequently, nothing is done thereafter about those reports. For instance, I remember the first committee to which I was appointed -the flag committee. I felt very important because I had been chosen by our group to be a member of that committee. I was present during many hours in which the committee met and finally selected a Cana dian flag. The committee reported, but we have never heard another word about its recommendations for a flag. Before setting up another committee, I suggest to the government that it would be wise to do something about the reports of committees, which were set up in the last session.
The Indian committee which my friend the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) has mentioned a few times was set up in 1946. That committee sat for three sessions and made some excellent recommendations. We have not heard much about them since that time.


Mr. Hodgson:: Neither have the Indians.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No, neither have the Indians. Then, the prices committee was set up with a good deal of fanfare. That committee managed to waste several hundred thousand dollars of the taxpayers' money. A report was brought in, but prices are still going up and very little has been done about the recommendations which the committee made. I could mention other committees but I shall not take the time of the house.
Then there have been royal commissions along the same lines. It seems to me a committee was set up to study the rules of the house. There was a royal commission on prices, a royal commission on fuel, and others. The royal commission studies a matter, but usually nothing is done about its report.

Standing Committees
Why set up another committee if it is simply going to discuss matters and result in no action? If the committee is to mean anything, and I support the setting up of the committee if it will mean anything, I think the government must give some undertaking that action will be taken after recommendations are made. This resolution today calls for a committee to discuss housing. Housing is an acute problem, and I think the people of Canada want some action in the matter now. They do not want it to go to a committee and be buried there for six months or a year, then have a report back and still no action taken. I think there is that danger.
I approve this resolution in principle. If the government adopt it, I hope they will give some undertaking that they will make use of the committee and adopt some of the recommendations it makes. I know that my time is not perhaps as valuable as that of some hon. members; but I do not want to waste it again in another committee, spend months sitting on it, and then have the government just bury the report. I speak personally in this regard.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to support this resolution and to take the opportunity of associating myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and by others who have spoken in this debate. I think it must be admitted that there is a great deal of truth and merit in what has just been said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). It seems to me that committees of this house can be of two kinds. One kind is a committee to help the government avoid responsibility; that is the kind of committee that the hon. member has just mentioned such as the prices committee, the flag committee and so on. We all regret the waste of time and money that those committees involve, and I think the protest just entered by the hon. member for Moose Jaw was fully justified.
But in addition to that kind of committee- that is the committee to help the government to avoid responsibility-there is another kind; and fortunately it can be said with a great deal of truth that the majority of the committees of this house are of that other kind, namely, the kind of committee to help the government share responsibility. This committee which the motion of the hon. member for Eglinton envisages is, I am certain, that type of committee. What he has in mind is a committee which will be available at all times to examine the various problems in the fields which he has suggested should be made the responsibility of a committee; which would be available, independently as it were, to obtain evidence and opinions on those matters,

in order to enable the members of the house to express their opinions in the light of those views; and, further, would be available as a standing committee of this house when such important legislation as the proposed bill to amend the National Housing Act is being considered in the house. If there were such a committee, then it would be, one hopes, a matter of course that such legislation would be referred to it. Then the president of Wartime Housing Limited and the president and officers of the various welfare organizations across this dominion could come before that parliamentary body and give their direct evidence; and of course it is quite impossible for them to do that in the house.
I think the hon. members who have spoken previously have outlined the advantages which would follow in the sphere envisaged by this resolution. But I also want to associate myself fully with everything the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said just a few minutes ago. As he pointed out, the other night when the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were being discussed I made a few brief remarks on the necessity for overhauling our committee system. It seems to me that this is another proof that the time for that overhaul is ripe; I refer to the fact that so many members, on a resolution this Wednesday afternoon, would speak in this manner and would support the motion of the hon. member for Eglinton. I should just like to mention a few more reasons which I think were omitted, if I may use that word, from the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod.
Things which in the past Canada did not seem to be immediately concerned with, and things which the Canadian government as a government were not concerned with, have since the time of confederation and since the time of the various revisions of our rules become matters in which the government is deeply involved. These are matters on which it is surely necessary that we should have committees of this house to assist in doing two things. One would be to assist the government in putting legislation through with the utmost co-operation from all members and from all parties in the house. I think that is one quite legitimate function which would be served by a committee. The second is to enable the members of the house to inform themselves on the issues involved in the legislation which is discussed in the committee, and to inform the government as to what are in fact the views held by the various sections of the country which they represent.
As has been said already, our government is in business in a big way. It is a development which some of us have regretted from

time to time, or opinions have been expressed regretting it. Some say that governments should not be in business. But it does not matter, Mr. Speaker, what your view on that subject may be, the fact is that the government is in business. It is probably correct to say that the developments that have taken place in the world and in this country in the last few years and the developments which it seems will take place in the future are such that the government cannot help getting into business, and will go on getting into business in a bigger and bigger way. That being the case, the machinery which was set up-


Mr. Mitchell:: My hon. friend is talking like a socialist.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but I would point out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that it is his government which, over the past fifteen years, has been getting into business in a big way. It is not a socialist government.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I point out to my hon. friend that I think I know something of the position of his party and its arguments for the American system of government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Labour does not know what I am talking about, because I have not come to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member does not even know himself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not know that the minister had added to his accomplishments that of mind-reading.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not difficult to read my hon. friend's mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is this. Whatever may be one's views, this government, in common with all governments in the world, is getting into business and has to deal with business problems; I do not mean merely commercial business, or business in the narrow sense of the word. The very nature of things has seemed to make it essential that the government should become more and more intimately concerned with the average everyday activities of the life of this nation. That being the case, it is a fact that the machinery devised for the conduct of the business of government many years ago is no longer adequate for conducting the business with which the government has to concern itself at the present time. I think that is the main reason why we should have an overhaul of our committee system.
If everything is to be done on the estimates, and if our only opportunity to examine what the government is doing in these different spheres is to be confined to the estimates and
Standing Committees
the committee of the whole which is called the committee of supply, and it is a committee of this whole house with 262 members, we would need thirteen months a year just to get through the estimates alone if we were really to examine these things as they should be examined. We would need to sit here solidly for those thirteen months, if we could have a year of thirteen months. The only alternative is to revise our committee system and to set up, to deal with these various problems, a number of committees to which members may be appointed, thus giving them a chance to study those subjects in which they are interested, to become informed on them and to deal with them in the detail which they merit.
I should like to mention a few matters to show that there are conspicuous gaps in our present committee system. There are such things as the judiciary. We have no committee now to which any of the constitutional measures coming before us at this session can be referred. The bill which we passed yesterday and the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for a further amendment of the constitution are cases in point. We have now in Canada a court of final resort, namely, the Supreme Court of Canada. It is in a sense a part of our constitution because it is the court of final appeal on constitutional matters. We have no committee which can deal with that aspect of the matter. There is no committee on the judiciary; there is no committee on defence. As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) mentioned, the atom bomb is a great source of peril hanging over the nation and over the minds of the people of the nation. Whether it is regarded as a part of defence or not there should be a separate committee to deal with the matter, which has been promised. It is involved in defence. There is no committee on veterans affairs. There is no committee on housing, and that brings me back directly to the resolution which is before the house at the present time.
If I may put it this way, Mr. Speaker, enough has been said to convince any person taking a detached view of the need of this country, and taking a detached view of the opportunities available to hon. members to study these problems and of the means by which hon. members may find their opportunities, that he should not vote against the resolution so ably put forward by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) would have spoken to this motion, but he is at Lake Success as

Standing Committees
one of the Canadian delegates to the meeting of the United Nations, and as acting Minister of National Health and Welfare the responsibility has fallen on my shoulders of speaking to this motion.
I must say that from the time taken by the six hon. members of opposition groups who have spoken on the motion it began to look as if a new device was being practised in this house, and that is, that hon. members of the opposition were engaged in an endeavour to talk out their own motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have thirty-five minutes now.


Brooke Claxton: I will not take thirty-five minutes, and at the end of my remarks I shall be ready to have a vote, if that is the wish of the house, but I hope that what I say will make that unnecessary.
Hon. members who have spoken have taken a very reasonable position, and have put forward points of view which they have expressed quietly and in a way to command respect as well as attention; but I do suggest to the house that one or two things can at once be mentioned which indicate that there are two sides to the question.
The first is that in the history he gave of the development of committees in this house the hon. member for Eglinton referred to the fact that in 22 years there has been only one change, and that was made in 1945, which I think should lead hon. members to the view that the house has not lightly disturbed the set-up of committees.
The second point which I might mention is that in the discussion of the six speakers who have preceded me it is rather noticeable that not a single one of them has referred in any way, shape or form to the practice followed in the other countries in which there are British parliamentary institutions. My belief is that the system of government which we call the British parliamentary system is the best form of government yet devised by man to regulate his affairs. The fact is, as hon. members must know, though they did not refer to it, that in no parliament of the British commonwealth, so far as I know, is there in existence any committee of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton.
In a minute or two I propose to develop the reasons why that should be so; but before doing so may I at the outset say that the suggestion made by the hon. member and the point of view which I am going to express on it have no reference to the subject matter of public health, welfare, social security and housing. I am in favour of public health; I am in favour of welfare; I am in favour of social security and I am in favour of housing;

and I do not want my remarks on the subject of this motion ever to be construed in such a way as to indicate for a second that anything I have said is in the direction of blocking further development in all these four important matters.
If there were any tendency to misunderstand the position regarding them, then I could point to the fact that possibly the reason why I should be speaking today in the place of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is that from some time in 1944 until 1946 I held that portfolio, and during that time I was responsible for the administration of the social security measures and the health measures of this government; and also as a member of the committee of the government I had a part in formulating the green book proposals which are still the most forward-looking and comprehensive plans of social security and health yet put forward in any country.
The motion is one to amend standing order 63 by adding after subsection (1) words which would create a new standing committee:
(m) on public health, welfare, social security and housing, to consist of thirty-five members, ten of whom shall constitute a quorum.
It is a motion to set up a committee and not to give Canada and Canadians a new heaven or a new earth, and I suggest that the arguments put forward by the hon. members who have spoken, all representing opposition parties, indicate clearly and unmistakably what is really in their minds. If I may put it this way, what they would like to see is what is only natural, and that is government by a committee and notably a committee of opposition members; whereas we believe in the system of government by a committee, but a committee representative of the party in power and responsible through that party to parliament and to the people as a whole. I believe that there the issue lies. Let me say at once that if this were the only committee to be suggested, or if we were to proceed only in a certain direction to a limited extent, then the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and reinforced by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) particularly, would be very persuasive. If the committee were a committee to study a matter so as to enable members to be better informed on subjects of public importance, then it might serve a very useful purpose.
But that is not the object of the committee, as developed by the hon. members. It is very clear that what they have in mind is a committee which would be responsible for initiating legislation involving the expenditure of public funds and amounting in effect to a program of legislation to be put forward by

a committee representative of various parties, and not by the cabinet which is responsible to the crown and which under our constitution is the only group that can advise on a matter of public expenditure.
As the hon. member for Eglinton has said, this matter was first put forward in the house on December 15, 1945. At that time I was minister of national health and welfare, and made a brief reply. It was put forward again, and on April 10, 1946, Mr. Speaker ruled that the motion was out of order, on the ground that a special committee had been set up to assist him in reference to standing orders.
The suggestion was renewed on May 30, 1946, upon which occasion as reported at page 2052 of Hansard I said:
I must say that my own idea with regard to this some time ago was that there should be such a standing committee; but on considering the matter and looking into the practice in the United States and in England, I am coming to the view that it probably would be a mistake lor us to have a number of standing committees dealing with the functions of different departments, such as they have in the United States. That leads to a totally different parliamentary system, one which is very much more similar to that in force in the United States than that on which we have modeled our own parliamentary system, namely, the parliament at Westminster, where they have no functional committees. They have five standing committees, and matters are referred to one or another of the committees by Mr. Speaker. From such examination as I have made of it, and comments made in England I believe that the British procedure is the best; that the multiplication of functional committees in the United States leads to an effort by committees to administer departments. I believe that experience has shown that our system is as good as, if not better than, any in the world.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister read the next sentence in which he said he had an open mind on the subject?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly. As I have indicated, I had already changed my mind. The hon. member will not trap me in any way in that respect. I went on to say:
Therefore, on that point, on which I have an open mind, I certainly am not convinced that we should change. I think we should consider most cautiously the institution of standing committees which have a definite relationship with the department and to which estimates would regularly be referred.
But I can add that as my hon. friend knows very well, since he has followed me through Hansard, on two later occasions I indicated that the views I now hold are definitely opposed to the views he has put forward.
As I have said, the position is that in the United Kingdom, where they have a system of government on which our own is modeled, there are six standing committees lettered A, B, C, D and E, and one dealing with Scottish matters. There are no functional committees. The only matters referred to the lettered committees are legislation.
Standing Committees
The only authority bearing on the advisability of this procedure is found in Campion's An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, where, at page 238, he says:
The function of a standing committee is to consider and amend public bills. It is true that S.O. No. 47, permits the reference to a standing committee of "other business" as well as bills, and that in 1919 the experiment was tried of referring to a standing committee certain portions of the estimates. But this experiment is not likely to be repeated.
In other words, since 1919 the only matters referred to standing committees in the British House of Commons have been bills, and those references are made by Mr. Speaker of his own volition to one or other of the named committees.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: I think I should be allowed to finish. I should like to see this go to a division, if possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would like to ask a question. I was going to say that probably the minister will agree that in the United Kingdom parliament sits practically all the year round, whereas in Canada we sit for about six months. Does the minister agree that that has any bearing in the matter?


Brooke Claxton: No, not the slightest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we are considering the period of months in which we have to look into these matters-


Mr. Cruickshank:: That is long enough to listen to you.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member will look into it further he will see that in Canada we sit for about the same number of days as they do in the United Kingdom. The fact that those days may be concentrated more at one season of the year than another, it seems to me-and I may be unable to follow the hon. member-has no bearing whatsoever on the point under discussion.
Further, one would have thought that if this were going to be such a panacea for governments it would have been adopted in some of the other countries which follow the British system of parliamentary government. I have in mind, for example, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and now India and Pakistan. I have had inquiries made, and I have made inquiries of representatives of these countries, and I am assured that they have no such committees.
What is more, since I have been interested in the subject of parliamentary procedure ever since entering the House of Commons, and at one time held the view that it was desirable to have such committees, I have

Standing Committees
discussed this matter with the leaders of various parties in various countries of the commonwealth; and I have found without exception that they share the view I am now putting forward, namely that the institution of functional committees of this kind, if extended, inevitably would have the effect of breaking down our representative and responsible system of government.
The hon. member for Eglinton said, "Let no one say we should not have this because they have it in the United States, and we would be getting too close to the American system." He added, "If we have anything to learn, we should not be too proud to learn from the United States." I thoroughly agree with his last remark-if we have anything to learn. While I have the greatest possible respect for the American system of government and for American institutions which, in so many ways, are similar to our own, I certainly will not acknowledge that in any respect whatever are their parliamentary or congressional systems superior to ours.
I believe that the reason for that is the historical development of the country which resulted in the system of checks and balances which they found necessary when they "cut the painter" as a consequence of the American war of independence. But we have had no need to cut the painter in that way. Our development has been orderly and peaceful and it was not necessary for us to say to the king, "We will have no more." It was never necessary for us to impose checks and balances because our development, like that of the British system, has been orderly, peaceful and progressive.
It should be made clear just what the difference is between this country and the United States. In the United States all executive power is invested in the President, not in the governor in council or in the cabinet. The President's cabinet are not elected and are not responsible to congress; they are responsible only to the President. The President is elected for a fixed term and the only way in which he and the members of his administration can have continuous association with the members in both houses of congress, and vice versa, is through the device of the congressional committee. It is before the congressional committee that the administration and its representatives put forward the legislative programs, meet objections and answer questions.
But that is not the case in Canada. Here the Prime Minister and his cabinet are appointed by the crown because the party they represent commands a majority in the House of Commons-and what a majority it is. That is because they have received the

support of the electors in a majority of divisions. The Prime Minister and his colleagues meet the members of parliament because they are also members; they meet those members every day on the floor of the house and answer questions and explain legislation. They are not separated from the members by that separation of authority which exists in the United States.
The two systems are entirely different. To pick bits out of the United States system and endeavour to introduce them here is showing a failure to understand how fundamental it is to our system of government that legislation involving the expenditure of funds should be introduced as a government measure which may or may not be referred to a committee, depending upon the will of the house. Once you set up a whole range of committees to deal with all the operations of government it becomes inevitable that those committees will endeavour to administer the affairs of the different departments and thereby remove from the government the responsibility which is theirs and theirs alone, and which is the great reason for the success of our form of government. We can be held to account in the house and in the country, but the President of the United States cannot be held to account for legislation that is introduced in consequence of a sitting of a congressional committee.
These proposals are apparently plausible and reasonable but they must be examined and scrutinized with the greatest care because they strike at the roots of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy as we know it in Canada. Of course it may be said that we have done it already. Of course we have. But that, subject only to the exception of the committee on external affairs, happened a long time ago. The activities of these committees have become pretty well defined. But what has been suggested today by most of the speakers is that the committee should take on itself the responsibility for laying out lines of policy involving expenditures.
Another reason why that course is objectionable is that under our system the government goes to the people, outlines its platform and either secures or does not secure the support of the people. Having been returned to office it feels that it has a mandate. Each year in the speech from the throne it lays before parliament its program for the session. Since our governments are reasonable, and I believe as intelligent and as responsible as any that can be found, that program is conceived with the idea of meeting the needs of the Canadian people with such means as the people are willing to put at the disposal of parliament for the purpose.

In other words, the art of government is the art of the possible, the art of balancing what is desirable with the means by which it can be achieved. That can be done only by a government that has a long view of the whole comprehensive picture of departmental activities. If you have one committee on social security, another on housing, another on agriculture, another on fisheries and another on defence, each initiating lines of activity and developing programs of their own, then where will you have that comprehensive program that is necessary in order to carry on the government of the country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: I am watching the clock. I do not know if the hon. member wants to have a vote on this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister be logical and go as far as to recommend the elimination of all standing committees?


Brooke Claxton: I have indicated already that I would not do that. In conclusion may I draw to your attention in a most summary way the reasons why I think this motion should not be acceded to. In the first place a committee considering policy, administration, appropriations and expenditures would be useless unless it made recommendations to the house. Such recommendations would have to be accepted or rejected by the government after it had already arrived at a decision in respect of the very matter which was the subject of recommendation. Such a decision would have been arrived at by the government in the light of its knowledge and appreciation of the various needs of government and the means whereby those needs might be met. That is where the responsibility of the government comes in.
To the extent that a committee substituted its views for those of the government and the party to which the government is responsible, and the majority in the house to which the government is responsible, it would remove responsibility from the government.
In the second place such a committee would remove responsibility from the party supporting the government and tend to get away from the two-party system which we believe fundamental and essential to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy.
Standing Committees
In the third place it would throw out of balance the government's program for the raising of revenue and the allocation of appropriations. Fourth, it would cut directly across the fundamental principle that only the government can propose expenditure. Fifth, it would put departmental officials in the position where they would either have to agree or disagree with the minister to whom they are responsible or state that an answer could not be given as contrary to government policy, and so interfere seriously with the administration of the public service.
The hon. member who moved the motion, and I believe three out of four others who spoke, made other suggestions relative to the reorganization of the committee set-up. I must say that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), in giving the list of fifteen committees, made out a pretty good case for the elimination of some of them because they have seldom if ever met during the last five sessions.
I suggest this is the kind of thing which could only be considered as a part of a general examination of the rules of procedure of the house. I suggest also that to consider the establishment of a single committee, when several others have been put forward by hon. members, would not be the best course to follow. While I am personally opposed to the project and would vote against it if it is put forward now, it seems to me that the best time for the matter to receive consideration would be at a moment when the rules of procedure and the structure of parliamentary committees as a whole were under consideration.
Motion (Mr. Fleming) negatived on division.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow the Prime Minister will move the motion in his name under government notices of motion concerning sittings on Mondays. Then we will take up item No. 11 under government orders, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Mines and Resources, and then item No. 16 under government orders, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Fisheries. Then we will go into supply and first take up Agriculture, then Veterans Affairs, Transport and Labour, but I cannot give the order of the last three departments.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 13, 1949