1949-10-26

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill Y-3 of the Senate, intituled an act respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada and Newfoundland.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we cannot consider a bill with respect to so-and-so "in Canada and Newfoundland". Surely that day is gone. The greater includes the lesser, of course. Surely we cannot have it that way now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was merely informing the house that I had received from the Senate a message, which is not debatable, informing this house that the Senate had passed a bill, the title of which I read.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I think it should be referred back to them, and they should be told to get their English straight.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Follwell be substituted for that of Mr. Bennett on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Hellyer be substituted for that of Mr. McLean (Huron-Perth) on the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 117, to provide for the dissolution of marriage of persons domiciled in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
Some hon Members: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of the bill is to give to the Exchequer Court of Canada jurisdiction to deal with divorce actions in the case of persons residing in Quebec and Newfoundland. Jurisdiction as to alimony, care of children and other matrimonial causes will remain in the provincial courts of those two provinces.
This bill does not establish divorce courts in Quebec or Newfoundland, or interfere in any way with provincial rights. It does not change the grounds for divorce. It does not make available to persons residing in Quebec or Newfoundland anything not now available to them, but merely transfers the hearing of divorce petitions filed by persons residing in those two provinces from parliament to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the bill? Carried. Mr. Knowles moves, seconded by Mr. Coldwell, that this bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Dropped.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Edith Cohen. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Ida Lindy Angel Katzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marian Latora Glendening Joncas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Eva Neren-berg Anger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Josephine Teweson Paul Bero.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Ross Erskine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Jeannette Mathilda Seymour Oswald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of George Bennett Gagnon.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Bill No. 112, lor the relief ol Bertha Rudolph Holzberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Moore Bowen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Laurence Bouchard Pappini.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nana Rosenberg Taube.-Mr. Winkler.


OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	In 1948, what was the total amount paid by the federal government for old age pensions in the province of Quebec?
2.	What was the total amount paid by the government of the province of Quebec for the same year?


Mr. Claxlon:: 1.	For the twelve months January 1 to December 31, 1948, the government of Canada paid the following amounts for old age pensions and pensions for blind persons in the province of Quebec:
Old age	$ 16,015,515 53
Blind	 923,954 21
Total	$ 16,939,469 74
2.	The amount paid by the province of Quebec for the same twelve-month period would be approximately one-third of the amount paid by the government of Canada, as follows:
Old age	$ 5,338,505 17
Blind	 307,984 74
Total	$ 5,646,489 91
Note:	This amount might be slightly
increased or decreased on account of adjustments between the province of Quebec and the other provinces.



NORTON, N.B., MAIL COURIER-ROUTE 6

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Were tenders called for the carrying of mail for rural route No. 6, Norton, King's county. New Brunswick?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?
4.	Is he a veteran of either the first or second world war?


Mr. Rinfrei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Stanley O'Leary, Norton, N.B., $1,200; Herbert Harold Tait, Norton, N.B., $1,250. (Mr. Tait subsequently reduced his tender to $1,175 in a letter to the department dated 27th August, 1949, which date was after that set for the closing of tenders, namely, 29th July 1949.)
fMr. Speaker.]
3.	To Stanley O'Leary, on 23rd August, 1949, for $1,200 per annum.
4.	No record.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the foreign exchange control board, the Bank of Canada or any other government department or agency authority to delay, open, read or censor first-class or airmail addressed to or from the United States or any other foreign country?
2.	If such authority exists, are any private letters being so interfered with, and for what purpose?


Mr. Rinfret:: No department of government or other agency has authority to delay or open first-class or air mail for censorship purposes. The Post Office Department has authority to open letters under section 51 of the Post Office Act.
No letters which do not contravene regulations issued by the Postmaster General under the powers conferred under the Post Office Act are interfered with.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce asking that western Canada be given more adequate representation on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such representations?
3.	What is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Representations were received subsequent to appointment by the governor in council on October 10 of Mr. William Parker, of Winnipeg, to the board of directors of Canadian National Railway Company, to be effective November 1, 1949.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



CHARLOTTETOWN, P. E. I., POST OFFICE-SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO STENOGRAPHERS

Mr. McLure:: 1.	How many stenographers are employed in the Charlottetown post office and postal district office?
2.	Did the stenographers all receive a special stenographic allowance of $5 per month?
3.	Has this allowance been discontinued? If so, when?
4.	Will the stenographers in Saint John, Halifax and Montreal offices have their allowance discontinued?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	One in Charlottetown post office; one in Charlottetown post office inspector's office.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes; 1st October, 1949.
4.	Yes.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the province of Newfoundland requested the federal government to investigate the desirability of establishing one or more national harbours under the national harbours board?
2.	If so, what areas have been designated for the establishment of national harbours?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



POTATOES


Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	How many bushels of Canada grade 1 table potatoes were exported from Canada to the United States during the period from September 15, 1949, to October 17, 1949 inclusive?
2.	How many bushels were exported through each port of exit?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Canadian exports are compiled on a monthly basis, that is, all customs entries received in Ottawa on the last day of the month are included in that month's summary. The tabulation system does not permit the segregation of entries for part of one month and part of another. There will be no tabulation of export shipments for the month of October until November 15. The latest information available is for the month of September:
Exports of potatoes, n.o.p. (except seed) to U.S.A., 117,877 bushels.
2.	Not published by ports of exit.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: What effort has been made by the government of Canada to collect and make available statistical and scientific data about the natural resources and economy of Newfoundland, since April 1, 1949?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


PLASTER ROCK, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Was a piece of land purchased at Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, in 1939, for the purpose of building a post office?
2.	Were plans, specifications and tenders called to build a post office in 1939 at Plaster Rock?
3.	If so, why was the building not built?
Orders for Returns
4.	What was the post office revenue at Plaster Rock in the year 1939?
5.	What was the revenue of the post office at Plaster Rock in the year 1948?
6.	Has there been any action taken in regard to building said post office in the last year?


IMPORTS OF FILMS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	What amount of American dollars was used in payment for United States films imported into Canada for the years 1947, 1948, and 1949?
2.	Did the United States film industry offer to render any particular service to Canada on account of continued unrestricted import of films into Canada?
3.	If so, what form did these services assume and what is their estimated value to Canada?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Return tabled.


BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Church:: 1.	What are the functions of the board of transport commissioners regarding freight and passenger rates?
2.	Have they exclusive jurisdiction over these matters?
3.	If so (a) why has a board of professors and one judge been appointed for the same purpose: (b) what jurisdiction has the said select board over freight and passenger rates?
4.	What is the cost to the country of this royal commission?
5.	In what year was the board of railway commissioners, now called the board of transport commissioners, given jurisdiction over the telephone and express companies rates?


Mr. Chevrier:: Return tabled.


INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What to date has been Canada's total financial contribution to the international refugee organization?
2.	Who are the Canadian representatives on IRO?
3.	Are IRO funds utilized to pay travelling and related expenses of displaced persons desirous of taking up residence in Canada?
4.	How many displaced persons who have established residence in Canada had their travelling and related expenses paid in full out of IRO funds?
5.	How many had their expenses paid in part?
6.	Have any Canadian sponsors of displaced persons been reimbursed in whole or in part for money spent to bring displaced persons to Canada?
7.	What is the general policy of IRO in determining which displaced persons should receive financial assistance to enable them to reach Canada?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Shaw:: 1. Under existing immigration regulations, what type of evidence is accepted as proof that a German national did not agree with nazi doctrine?

Interim Supply
2.	Have any German nationals who served in the German army during world war II been admitted to Canada as immigrants?
3.	Have any persons other than German nationals who served in the German army during world war II been admitted to Canada as immigrants?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee o 1 supply.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a day or two ago I spoke to the leaders of the different parties and indicated that I would like to ask the house today to allow me to move to go into committee of supply in order to provide for a further month's interim supply. All of them told me that they would have no objection to my doing so. Of course this action would require unanimous consent of the house, and, if I may have that consent, I should like to make that motion. It is understood, of course, that if these proceedings take a relatively short time we will then resume the ordinary business and take up private members' motions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $114,516,603.83, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, except items 43, 419 and 452, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $5,012,437.50, being three-twelfths of the amount of item 559 as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950; a sum not exceeding $2,446,984.33, being one-twelfth of the several items, except item 681, to be voted, as set out in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland); a sum not exceeding $5,876,758.33, being one-twelfth of the several items to be voted as set out in the further supplementary estimates, and a sum not exceeding $2,302,500.00, being nine-twelfths of items 779 and 935 to be voted as set out in the further supplementary estimates laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950.
He said: The committee will recall that prior to the dissolution of the last parliament six-twelfths of the general items had been voted, and additional items for certain special activities for which additional amounts were required in the early part of the year. Last month parliament voted one-twelfth of the general items, including the Newfoundland

supplementaries which had been tabled. This made in all seven-twelfths of the general estimates, together with the full amount for certain items.
Today I am asking for an additional one-twelfth of the general items, including the supplementaries, and additional amounts for three items. These three items are item 559 in the main estimates, which provides for advances to national harbours board for the retirement of maturing bonds of Montreal harbour that become payable on November 1; item 935, which is a similar item relating to national harbours board maturing bonds,-and item 779, which provides for a payment of $1,075,000 to the international children's emergency fund. The interim supply I am asking today, together with the amounts that were previously voted, would cover eleven-twelfths of those particular items.
The form of the bill to be founded on this resolution will of course be the same as other supply bills which have been passed by the house from time to time on previous occasions. The passing of this bill will not result in the voting of the full amounts of the items, and will not prejudice the rights of hon. members to discuss any of the items when they come up for consideration later this month. Of course I give the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will toe respected, and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of the measure which will be brought before the house.


Mr. Church:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question about this interim supply bill. The money will have to be paid; there is no doubt about that at all. I want to ask the minister whether the interim supply bill will include a sum sufficient to recoup municipalities for the services they provide to crown properties. For example, I mentioned last week that in 1905 the Whitney government in Ontario for all local improvement roads, sidewalks and so forth paid money for all crown properties in the right of the province all over Ontario. I suggested that the dominion government would be well advised to pay for similar services throughout Canada. Other cities are providing the same services for crown properties as Ottawa does. Ottawa gets half a million dollars, while they receive nothing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nothing is contained in the main estimates, or in the supplementaries which have been tabled, for items such as those referred to by the hon. member. The whole question of crown properties in municipalities has been under consideration for some time. I think the Prime Minister indicated to the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities that it was hoped to be

able to make a statement at an early day as to what government policy might be in that regard.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the statement be made before the end of the present session?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to make any particular comment on this course of action, except to say it is becoming so prevalent as to amount to the following of a precedent. Many people seem to feel that parliament has some control over expenditures, but the experience of the last several years has been that the control is more theoretical than actual. Within the last few months we have granted power to the government, in advance of any accounting, to expend tens of millions, and have ratified expenditure about which we know nothing.
Just before I came into the chamber I secured a copy of Durell's Parliamentary Grants, for the purpose of referring to the days when things were otherwise. It is still the authority as to the responsibility of the executive to the House of Commons, but it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. At page 20 I find these words:
The proper office of parliament, as Mill points out,-
The author is quoting John Stuart Mill.
-is "to watch and control the government, to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable, to censure them if found to merit condemnation . . ."
This function is the responsibility of members in all parts of the house. I do not condemn any party, but as a private member I say we are not discharging this function. Somebody will say to me that we have a public accounts committee. Reading Durell I find that there are three stages in finance -estimates, expenditures and accounting; and that there is a duty on the part of parliament to examine expenditures. I sometimes believe that if the government were to include in the estimates an item of $5 million for which there was no justification whatsoever, under our present system of examination in the House of Commons it could be passed. This is a serious matter. .
When one looks back over the years when government was less complex than it is today, when hon. members now on the other side of the house were on this side-


Some hon. Members:: On both sides.


John George Diefenbaker: When the reverse
was the fact, there was an examination of expenditures.


Mr. Lesage:: A good opposition.
Interim Supply


John George Diefenbaker: I am not discussing the matter from that point of view. It is all very well to talk about a good opposition, but with the hundreds of millions of dollars expended today, and without members on the opposition side of the house having the necessary techniques and experts available to study the estimates, we in the House of Commons cannot discharge our responsibilities.
I rise solely for the purpose of suggesting that if we as members are to discharge our responsibility, the time has come to depart from parliamentary tradition, if you will, and make available to the opposition experts who will assist in the analysis of these accounts, without which an examination of the expenditures becomes a haphazard farce.
Somebody has said: What about the public accounts committee? There is no institution in Great Britain more effective than the public accounts committee. The reason is that it is a committee composed of members of the House of Commons-and I am quoting again from Durell:
. . . who have shown their interest in financial questions, even though, as opponents of the government, they might during the investigations of the committee obtain further facilities for criticizing its policy. It is recognized that the question of public accounts is a national and not a party question, and, as such, the investigation is made in the public interest and from a financial, not a political, point of view. Discussions in the house itself on financial questions, on the other hand, are apt to follow party lines, and the real issue is apt to be obscured.
I granted that the withholding or granting of supply is an important function of parliament, I suggest that something must be done in order to improve the techniques whereby members of the house can discharge their responsibility instead of pretending to discharge it when as a matter of fact they are unable to do so.
In the United Kingdom-and it may seem an unusual course to follow-the chairman of the public accounts committee is a member of the opposition, the purpose being to ensure a complete investigation of all expenditures made or asked for from parliament. My purpose in speaking at this time is to suggest that a committee be set up along the lines of the public accounts committee of the United Kingdom, which has done great work. That it is not actuated in any way by party considerations is indicated by the fact that the chairmanship is bestowed upon a member of the opposition.
If we are to discharge our responsibilities, we must be given information which today is unavailable to us. We ask these questions on the order paper day by day; we get some information, but not enough to give us an intelligent grasp of any one feature of these

Interim Supply
expenditures. For that reason I ask the government to give consideration to making available to those who are in opposition- and equally, of course, to members supporting the government-the services of experts, including the Auditor General, in order to make possible an intelligent examination of the accounts.
I did not rise to protest what was being done. What is in fact being done today is only a short-cut, the course that is followed in connection with all estimates. In one case we may talk about them in detail. On a motion such as this, of course, we do not discuss individual expenditures, but in any case there is not that examination which, with over-all expenditures of $2,500 million, the people of Canada have a right to expect on the part of members in all parts of the house.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I do not rise either to oppose or to support the argument made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I merely wish to point out that the public accounts and the estimates are two different things. The estimates before us represent moneys not yet appropriated or expended, so that a discussion of the estimates is quite different from a discussion of the public accounts.
I have been in this house a fairly long time, and if there is any one thing which in my opinion you cannot keep free from political bias it is the public accounts, when the public accounts committee meets. That is quite natural, because when the public accounts committee meets, the opposition of course is looking for scandal or wrongdoing, and the government will do everything in its power to see that they do not find what they are looking for. There will be objections to giving information, and all that sort of thing. I believe we could have a committee on public accounts that would properly analyse these accounts if we set about it in the right way.
I believe there is a great deal to be desired in the way the estimates are dealt with in this house. We give too much time to a few departments, and hardly any time at all to a great many others. Every year as long as I have been here we have spent afternoon after afternoon and evening after evening on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. We have minutely examined every cutworm and every boll weevil in the prairie provinces, and we have investigated thoroughly the various functions of that department. But when we come to the estimates of other important departments, they go through this house at the rate of about a million dollars a minute, with no consideration whatever.

I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre to this extent at least, that we should attempt to devise some effective means of dealing with both the estimates and our public accounts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps before the Minister of Finance replies I might briefly contribute two thoughts that have struck me.
The first has to do with the form of the estimates, to which attention has been drawn in previous years. That form is not such as to lend itself to a thorough analysis of our expenditures. Two years ago the Auditor General submitted to the public accounts committee detailed recommendations with respect to the form of the estimates and other matters, which he said would enable hon. members to conduct a detailed review and to fulfil their duty of satisfying themselves and the public that the expenditures sought by the government were proper. In the intervening two and a half years no action has been taken with respect to those useful and comprehensive recommendations coming from the Auditor General, and I would urge on the minister that the time has come when they should be given attention. They were the product of much thought and long experience on his part, and should receive consideration by the government.
My other thought has to do with an alternative procedure which has been tried by this house on previous occasions; and I mention this particularly in the hope of interesting the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The one exception to the ordinary rule that estimates are considered only in committee of supply, so far as I am aware, has been with respect to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, since a standing committee on external affairs was first set up in 1945. In each of the intervening sessions the estimates of that department have been referred to the standing committee, and I am prepared to say that they have been given more careful review and more thorough analysis there than the estimates of any other department have received in committee of the whole house. The simple reason is that in the committee it has been possible to question officials of the department. The under-secretary has been there, and members of the committee have been afforded an opportunity of eliciting firsthand information which has been of the greatest value to them.
It is utterly impossible to carry on a detailed review and analysis of proposed expenditures, running into billions of dollars, under the clumsy, awkward procedure the house follows in committee of supply. As

every hon. member well knows, it is impossible to examine properly these heavy proposed expenditures in a committee which includes all members of the house, where there is no opportunity to direct questions to officials; where it is possible only to ask questions of the minister and to obtain from him information that he in turn has obtained from the officials sitting before him.
I am reminded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that on at least some occasions the accounts of Canadian National Railways have been reviewed by the sessional committee on government-owned railways.
There, it seems to me, we have two useful precedents which justify wider application of the method there pursued; and I do urge that consideration be given to extending this practice, and in particular that the minister be good enough to study the extensive recommendations made by the Auditor General to the public accounts committee in 1947.


Mr. Pouliol:: I am sure the members of the government will appreciate the suggestions that have been offered by the hon. members who have just spoken.
The estimates are divided into two parts. In the first part the various items are listed, and in the second part there is a detailed statement of expenditures. In order to understand the whole thing, one must read the reports of the various departments which throw light on the items appearing in the estimates.
As to the public accounts, I shall give some comfort to the minister by reminding him that some years ago, on my protest, in which I was supported by the member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the former member for Davenport, Mr. MacNicol, I succeeded in having the public accounts reformed. No member of the opposition had complained before about the fact that during the war no item less than $25,000 was mentioned in the estimates. It was only after the three of us complained to the then minister of finance- Mr. MacNicol called it an outrage-that we succeeded in obtaining this reform of the public accounts. The government should be given credit for that.
If the opposition wish to scrutinize the public accounts, they could divide themselves into various groups-in fact I believe that has been done. These groups could specialize in various departments and become familiar with certain aspects of public business. They could ask pertinent questions of the government. Questions on picayune matters should not be asked, and the members should abstain from theorizing during discussion of the estimates. The purpose of the committee of
Interim Supply
supply is to allow members to obtain supplementary information about the estimates that are before the committee. If we are to have never-ending speeches and repetition of the same thing by the same people every time an item is called, then there will be no end to the discussion.
The reason the discussion of estimates takes so much time is that so many members have no sense of proportion as to what is important and what is not. They waste much time on small detailed matters. If the members would consider the whole aspect of the matter in the first place, and then get down to particulars by asking questions so that they would be informed instead of trying to inform the government, more rapid progress would be made, and the procedure in passing the estimates would be more satisfactory to the members of the committee and to the public at large.


Mr. Graydon:: The member for Temiscouata has provided one of the best arguments I have heard for a change in our system of studying the public accounts. What the member for Eglinton said a few moments ago was only too true-that the two committees which have been examining the estimates of the railways and of the Department of External Affairs have worked to the benefit of both departments and of members of the house. I am in some agreement with the suggestion of the member for Temiscouata that if estimates are discussed in a committee there is a disposition to deal with them in a more businesslike manner. This is not so in the committee of supply.
Many of these items in the estimates are details that call for the immediate attention and presence of the officers of the department concerned. I do not think it is quite good enough to follow the old system, which has been followed for so many years, of proceeding in leisurely fashion in committee of supply with an examination of perhaps one department, and then, at the last moment, having a tremendous rush to complete the business before the house. No one is given a fair opportunity of dealing with the items in question. In at least some of our departments I believe we could well adopt the system suggested by the member for Eglinton, that is, the method which has worked so well in the external affairs and railways and shipping committees.
If the matter is dealt with in a standing or special committee, there is an opportunity for questioning of the departmental heads. In the committee of supply all one gets is an echo from the departmental heads through the ministry. The departmental head whispers something to the minister, and the

Interim Supply
minister pipes it back to the house. It would be much better if we were able to direct questions to the departmental officers. From my experience, the echo system of cross-examination does not work out very well, There are two other reasons why this change should be made, to enable us to examine the departmental heads from time to time. One has to do with the amount of time that the house ordinarily sits each year. I believe the length of the session could be cut down, without affecting the quality of the work done, if the major part of the estimates were brought before appropriate committees. Perhaps it would be proper to have the administration item for each department considered in the committee of supply, but the other items should go before the appropriate committee. If we did this I believe it would shorten our sessions and increase the efficiency of parliament.
Moreover, with about ninety new members of the house, and with a large proportion of the membership supporting the government, I can readily understand that there must be many members who are anxious to have more to do. It is difficult for a party with a hundred and ninety members to provide subject matter for discussion for the ordinary member. Every member, no matter in what part of the house he sits, has a responsibility to discharge to his constituents. They have sent him here for a specific purpose, namely, to do his part, along with the other members, in providing good government for Canada. Under a system such as I have suggested, I believe these members would find a way in which they could use their respective talents. It would make members feel they were part and parcel of the parliament of Canada, and not simply listening members for ninety-nine per cent of the time that parliament is in session. There should be something more for a member to do than just to sit and listen. He ought to have an opportunity of participating in the actual work of parliament, and it is for that reason I have made my suggestion.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has given consideration to calling a meeting of external affairs committee for the purpose of considering the estimates of that department. His answer may be that he is not the officer responsible for calling the committee, but if the government intends to call the committee this year it ought to be done fairly soon, because it may be only a matter of weeks before the session concludes. I believe the committee ought to have a reasonable time to deal with the matters which will come before it.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the second interim supply biU we have been asked for, and it simply means that we are only holding a post mortem on these expenditures. In answer to the hon. member for Peterborough West, the minister expressed the hope that all of the estimates would be passed by the end of October. Next Monday is the end of October, and here the government are asking for another bill. The businessmen of the country expected some reduction. After all, it is important to the country. We can find no reduction in the expenditures. The Auditor General has been forgotten.
I want to thank the hon. member for Temiscouata for his remarks about the former member for Davenport, Mr. MacNicol, and myself. Years ago we did support here a new system in respect to interim supply and the public accounts. The principle of the bill before the committee is simply this. It means taxation without representation, the very principle upon which the thirteen original American colonies seceded, after the Boston tea incident. I do say that the public accounts committee should have been called to inquire into these expenditures. We are only holding a coroner's inquest into them. This is the second interim supply bill this session. I say that we should have some system whereby the Auditor General, the House of Commons and the public accounts committee should exercise some control over aU these expenditures. They are the forgotten people, so far as the government of Canada is concerned.


Mr. Coldwell:: In this committee this afternoon we have listened to a discussion similar to others we have heard over a period of years. I would remind the committee that in 1945 or 1946 there was general agreement that some attempt should be made to refer as an experiment some of the estimates to appropriate committees in order that they might be looked into by those committees and reported to the house. The government agreed to that procedure, and so did the party which I have the honour to lead; but my recollection is that it was not agreed to by the official opposition at that time. I am glad we have had this afternoon this suggestion made by several members of the official opposition, because I feel that this is the way these estimates might be dealt with more effectively. Perhaps we can get general agreement in this chamber to try the experiment of having the estimates of some departments dealt with in this way.
While I am on my feet, may I say that the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon stated that we could elicit information from the government by way of questions. But may I point out that we do not always get

information from the government by way of questions. Indeed, the answers to questions sometimes exemplify the old proverb that some people can use words to conceal their thoughts. I know that some time ago I asked a question and it was answered on October 12. The question was:
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?
The Minister of Agriculture, from one end of that province to the other during the recent election campaign, said this had been done.
2.	If so, when was the offer made, and1 by whom?
The answer given by the minister of reconstruction was as follows:
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.
Yesterday I obtained a return of all the correspondence that had taken place on this particular matter between the federal government and the provincial government. In that correspondence I can find nothing that would warrant any statement of the type which was made by the Minister of Agriculture and which I was trying to verify. So when we are told that we can elicit information from the government by way of questions, I would point out that it has been demonstrated over and over again that we do not always get the information we ask for. I think the idea put forward by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Peel and others is something that the house and the various groups in the house should consider and try.
I support what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said with regard to the need of assistance to the opposition groups in the way of research and so on. In these days when we have so many activities and so many complex problems to deal with, it is impossible for individual members to dig up the information that is required. The advantage that the government has in dealing with these matters is perfectly obvious. There are the ministers, the ministerial assistants, the deputies and all the departmental officials. When a question comes up for discussion in the house, or when something is likely to be dealt with in the house, the ministers have all the assistance they require to get the information together for their own purposes. That is true not only in connection with the business of the house; I think many of us have reason to know that it is also true when public matters are being discussed in the country, whether it is during an election period or
Interim Supply
between elections, that the government side of the house has had an advantage all the time with regard to information. I hope that some way can be worked out to deal with the matter. The hon. member for Lake Centre suggested a way when he spoke of what was done in the British house with respect to the discussion of estimates; that procedure is rather different from the methods that we have been discussing this afternoon, but it indicates the attempt that has been made in what we sometimes call the mother of parliaments, to see to it that the public expenditures have a thorough investigation. Out of this discussion this afternoon I hope that something constructive will result.


Gordon Graydon: May I just point out to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that I think he must be labouring under a misapprehension-


Major James William Coldwell: No, I am not.


Gordon Graydon: -on the question of the committee being set up on estimates. I think it was in the year 1942 or 1943 that I made my first speech in the house advocating that particular procedure. I remember only one member of the house, and he did not happen to be on our side, who objected to the procedure which I suggested. I have repeated that suggestion and have taken substantially the same position today. I never heard anyone in our group who opposed me on the position I took. Perhaps the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is mistaken, because on many occasions we have asked for this procedure, and I have not heard of any division on it.


Donald MacInnis: On that point, may I point out that the opposition agreed to the abstract principle when it was raised, but when the matter was put in concrete form and the committee was offered, they refused to accept it.


Gordon Graydon: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite right.


Gordon Graydon: When was that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have listened with a great deal of interest to this discussion, and I want to thank all those who have contributed to it for the objective way in which they have been considering the problem of an examination of the proposed public expenditures. I am not at all times in agreement with all the views expressed by my friend the hon. member for Lake Centre; but with a good many of those he has expressed today I am in agreement. I must say I do not think the House of Commons satisfactorily discharges its responsibility of examining in detail the estimates of proposed expenditures

Interim Supply
for a year. I have been here for eight or nine years now, and for seven or eight of those years I have been closely connected with the Department of Finance. As hon. members know, the estimates for the year in considerable detail are tabled in the house early in the session. If parliament commences in January, they are usually tabled by the middle of February. They set out the proposed expenditures of the government for the year. Departments are opened as rapidly as possible, but for understandable reasons there is considerable delay in getting all departments entered so that they can be discussed. Moreover, when we do come to consider the estimates themselves, my experience has been that the discussion rarely relates to the particular item of expenditure under consideration. It usually relates to agriculture in general, or to transport in general, or to something else; but it does not relate to the particular thousand-dollar item or million-dollar item which may be before the committee.
If I may say so, in my experience in the House of Commons, with only one or two rare exceptions, I have heard no suggestion made to reduce any item under consideration. That, again, is understandable. I made a statement once in the house that the only place where reductions in expenditures were made was in my office. I said that, because that is the place where treasury board meets, and where we consider the expenditures of the various departments.
I do believe that the practice of consideration of departmental estimates can be better organized than it is at the present time. My hon. friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) quite properly pointed out that the function of the committee of supply of the house, to examine proposed expenditures, is quite different from that of the public accounts committee, whose function it is to consider expenditures long after they have been made, in order to see whether or not they were properly made-and if they were not properly made to make a recommendation as to how the practice should be changed in the future.
Then, as to the suggestion that expert assistance should be made available to afford members of parliament in general, and perhaps members in opposition groups in particular, an opportunity to know what the real details of estimates are, let me say, as I said before, that the individual items and the details in the book of estimates itself are available early in the session.
I cannot speak for departments other than my own, but with respect to my own department I can say-and I feel it applies to other departments as well-that any member of

parliament who asks either the minister or the permanent head of a department for information as to the details of a particular item in the estimates will receive that information.
I receive such requests fairly frequently from members-not as often as one might expect-but I do receive them, and endeavour to see that the information asked for is furnished.
So, if I may venture to offer the suggestion,
I believe the remedy in great part lies with ourselves; and if we do not take up too much time debating matters other than those relating to public expenditures, and if when we do consider the estimates and restrict our discussion to the particular item before the committee, then perhaps the proposed expenditures will receive more detailed consideration than they do at the present time.
Just one final word as to the suggestion that we change the system, and that we have the estimates considered by special committees of the house. That procedure has been applied in only one case, namely in respect of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. They have been referred to a special committee.


Gordon Graydon: And those of the Canadian National Railways.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That committee considers the budget of the Canadian National Railways, not the estimates. The committee on railways owned and operated by the government is each year furnished with the capital budget of the railways and, I believe, with the operating statement. But those are not estimates; they are the regular railway budget. They are not departmental estimates voted by parliament.
The only items upon which the house is bound to vote, and which are considered in special committee, are the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I am not a member of that committee, but I am told it has proved to be a most satisfactory committee. Perhaps it has been particularly satisfactory because foreign affairs in this parliament, as in the parliament at Westminster, have been dealt with almost entirely on a strictly nonpartisan basis. There is never any question of partisanship entering into a discussion of external affairs. I have been told that in considering the estimates in that committee, as has been the case in the house, not too much attention is paid to the particular item in the estimates under consideration. Perhaps under the estimate for an embassy in some European capital the discussion is likely to range over Canada's policy with respect to the United Nations, or something else of that kind. However, as I say, I am speaking only

from hearsay. I am personally not satisfied that the committees system can be used generally under our British parliamentary system.
The point has been made that permanent officials should be made available before these committees to be examined as to details of expenditures. In a special case I think that is all right; but we must not lose sight of the fact that under our system the responsible minister must come to parliament, state his policy, state his items of expenditure and take the responsibility for them.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has suggested that the minister is only the echo of the deputy minister, who gives the minister the information. I think that is not a fair statement, nor is it accurate. When we are in committee of the whole considering the estimates of a department, the minister of that department will have his officials in front of him. Then, when a question comes up, we will say, in connection with the experimental farm at Lethbridge, the amount to be spent and what it will be used for, the minister may consult his deputy minister, or whoever the official may be. But the minister gives the information to the house and takes the responsibility for it.
I must confess that I believe if we were to engage in any widespread system of committees examining expenditures, and of submitting permanent civil servants to long attendance before those committees to furnish details of departmental estimates, we would find that the public service might be seriously interfered with, aside altogether from the propriety under our system of questioning permanent officials on matters of policy.
Another reason I have always felt it is not desirable to delegate to committees the responsibility which rests with the House of Commons in connection with the detailed consideration of expenditures is that every single member of the house is entitled to look at the expenditures and to ask questions with respect to them. That is the traditional right of any member of parliament. I do not think we can delegate that right to any committee.
I am not saying that for certain special types of expenditures or special public services it might not be desirable, as obtains in connection with the estimates for the Department of External Affairs, to have the estimates in such cases referred to appropriate committees for consideration. However, I do not think that that can be accepted as a substitute for the general consideration which should be given in committee of the whole.
I was impressed by the suggestion made the other day by the hon. member for Peel that, in arranging for the introduction of 45781-74i
Interim Supply
departments, such departments should be entered as promptly as possible, and that the items for administration of as many departments as possible should be called in fairly early rotation, so that a general discussion could take place with respect to several departments in the early stages of the session. Admittedly many of the items appearing in departmental estimates do not call for extensive consideration. But if, instead of taking up eight or ten days in committee of supply to consider the estimates of one department, we were to alternate with others, I think it would be a better system. For that reason I would thoroughly agree with the views expressed the other night and repeated today.
I believe this has been a most helpful discussion. Hon. members who have presented their views have done so in a wholly objective manner. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has stated frankly that he does not place the blame on any party or group, and that this was a matter concerning which the responsibility rested with parliament. That is a view which I share completely, and I believe if we will all co-operate we can improve upon our present system of considering estimates and expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words in connection with just one of the matters raised during this discussion. In doing so I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre with respect to supplying of expert assistance to opposition groups to help us in our scrutiny of the estimates.
The minister's reply to that suggestion was that it is possible for any of us at any time to go to any department and obtain the information we might seek. I would confirm the statement he has made. I have done it many times myself-indeed I believe some of the best speeches I have made in the house have been those in connection with which I have obtained all the necessary information from government departments. I can think of one particularly when I spoke about old age pensions, and I have spoken on that subject many times-in which the research was done at my request by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I found it quite useful and I know the same thing could be done in other departments. There is quite a difference between going to a department to ask for information or research and going to try to get someone in the department to tell you that certain things are wrong with the department. I do not think the employees in the minister's department would feel called upon to do that.

Interim Supply


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would hope not.


Mr. Mitchell:: Page Mr. Douglas.


Major James William Coldwell: All right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the function of the opposition, not the civil service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is the answer right there. The minister hopes that the employees in his department would not do that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are under no obligation to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Labour said that that is the function of the opposition.


Humphrey Mitchell: All I said was, "Page Mr. Douglas".


Stanley Howard Knowles: All we are suggesting is that members of the opposition should have some assistance in doing their job. I hope the minister will give further consideration to that suggestion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand it is the intention again this year to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on external affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance say that it is intended to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs for review.
I should like to make one or two brief comments on the observations of the minister with regard to the conduct of affairs in the committee on external affairs and in committee of supply. The minister said that it was not proper for members of the house to delegate their responsibility, and I take it that he meant to a committee. There has never been any suggestion that any member of the House of Commons was delegating his responsibility to that committee when the estimates of that department were referred to it. The estimates were referred to the committee after there had been some opening discussion in the house and what the committee did was to sift the items. I wish to say to the minister that I do not think the information to which he referred as hearsay is accurate. Certainly it is not complete because in that committee-I speak from personal experience because I have been a member of it since its beginning-there has been a detailed review of every item. Information was asked for by members of the committee and supplied by the departmental officials. Breakdowns of the items were supplied and we were given information as to expenditures in previous years. With ^ the figures right in front of us we were in a position to compare the proposed expendi-
ture with the actual expenditure in the previous year. As I say, the committee carried on the task of sifting. When the items came back to the house there was no restriction on the right of any member to obtain whatever information he thought he should obtain. But considerable information had been obtained already and considerable time of the house was saved by the work done in that committee.
In this connection I should like to call attention to a specific recommendation made to the house in 1947 by the public accounts committee. I have already mentioned the fact that the Auditor General made lengthy and detailed recommendations on this subject with the view of ensuring that the House of Commons would carry out its traditional responsibility to review proposed expenditures before voting supply. The Minister of Finance has drawn attention to the distinctive functions of the public accounts committee. It does review expenditures, but unfortunately that review cannot be made until at least a year and a half after the expenditures have been made. The work of reviewing estimates is an entirely different matter. It was with that in mind and after hearing the Auditor General that the public accounts committee made a recommendation to be found at page 551 of the proceedings of the committee for 1947. This recommendation reads as follows:
Your committee is also of the opinion that the government should explore the desirability of establishing a standing committee on estimates.
Let us be frank about this matter. If one committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the estimates of all departments it will have a heavy task to perform. There are limits to the time that an hon. member can devote to a committee, but it seems to me that that recommendation at least points to the direction in which the house must proceed in modernizing its procedure if a really serious attempt is to be made to discharge our responsibilities as members of the House of Commons in the voting of public money.
Much could be done, and the Auditor General has pointed this out, to improve the form in which estimates are presented to the house. At the present time the information given in the volume of estimates is of only two kinds. There is the proposed expenditure or estimate for the current year which the government asks the house to vote, and then in the second column is shown the amount which was voted by parliament in the previous year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the details at the back of the book.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to the nature of the information. The details given in the later pages are of the item to be voted but nowhere in the volume is there information as to the actual expenditure in the preceding year. Surely that is the sort of guide that hon. members need to assist them in deciding how much should be voted for a particular item for the current year. It should not be too difficult to get that information. The Auditor General recommended that that information should be given in the printed volume of estimates. He pointed out that it would save much time by eliminating the asking of questions about actual expenditures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In my experience it has seldom been possible at the time the estimates are printed to have available the actual expenditures in the preceding year. My hon. friend will appreciate that the estimates for the fiscal year are usually prepared in November or December. As a matter of fact I am writing to the departments today asking them to have their departmental estimates in for consideration by the treasury board by the end of November. However, they are seldom finalized, if I may use that word, until the middle of January. It is not always possible to have available at that time the actual expenditures in the previous year, but that information is almost invariably available when the item comes up for consideration in committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had that point in mind and I was just going to speak about it. The suggestion was made that as the printed volume was prepared toward the end of the fiscal year it would be possible at that time to give actual expenditures for eight or nine months of the fiscal year, with an estimate of anticipated expenditure for the balance of the year. That was also discussed in the public accounts committee.
Then with regard to obtaining information in the committee of supply, I have had some experience with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for several years. In an earnest attempt to save the time of the committee I asked the minister -this is a matter of record, at least for 1947 and 1948 and for other years as well-when the first item was under consideration to supply the committee with a breakdown of expenditures in the preceding year. With that information it would not have been necessary to ask questions on each individual item. However, each time I have been met with a firm refusal by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I was forced to take up time on each item to ask for the corresponding expenditure in the preceding fiscal year. I say that was a ridiculous waste of
Interim Supply
time. There is no reason at all why a minister, coming before the committee of supply with his estimates, should not be in a position at the very outset to supply the committee with a complete statement of the actual expenditures of the previous fiscal year item by item. That will save the committee of supply much time.
I should like to refer to two of the recommendations of the Auditor General to be found at page 429 of the proceedings of the public accounts committee of 1947. The second recommendation is in these words:
There may have been a time when the committee of supply minutely examined estimate items, but demands now made on the time of the House of Commons are such that complete examination of estimates is impracticable. Estimates should now be presented in such a form that members do not have to guess purposes to which votes will be applied.
In his third recommendation he says:
It is suggested that, instead of members of parliament having to seek explanations from ministers, "details" printed with the estimates should be in narrative form, setting out (a) the objects and purposes of the items; (b) explanations of increases; (c) the acts, if any, which will regulate application; (d) the anticipated revenues; (e) comparisons with previous years, and (f) such other information as is necessary to permit members to familiarize themselves with the purposes and implications before items are called by the chairman of the committee of supply.
These recommendations were the product of the thought and long experience of the Auditor General, one of the most respected officials in the entire public service of Canada.
I have one final comment to make on the minister's suggestion-and I cannot refrain from calling it a bogey-that we are challenging the principle of ministerial responsibility whenever we propose that a committee of the house should be established. Surely when the committee is simply appointed by the house, has to report back to the house, and the house takes the responsibility for everything that is done, it cannot fairly be said that there is any breach of the principle of responsibility.
In this parliament above all previous parliaments it seems to me more necessary than ever that members should be afforded every opportunity to obtain information, and to see that the house, with its large government majority, functions efficiently, and that the fullest possible information is made available in order that the house may study the problems before it.
I think that will apply particularly to the voting of supply. There are nearly one hundred new members in the house, every one of whom, along with those who have been

Interim Supply
here before, will profit by additional information and in other ways from the opportunities afforded in a committee of eliciting useful information, which are not afforded in the big committee of supply with a procedure that is so clumsy, in relation to a task of this kind, as to make it impossible for us to discharge our duties properly.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the discussion this afternoon has been one of the must useful that has taken place since the beginning of the session. In replying to the remarks that have been made, the Minister of Finance said that a large part of the remedy lies with the members. The whole debate has taken place on a basis that is in keeping with the importance of the subject that has been brought forward. I think we can go further, however, and say that the whole remedy lies with members of the house because this is the only place, subject to the concurrence or otherwise of another place, in which the remedy for the situation can be found.
I do not think that the discussion should be allowed to end where it is now. Many constructive suggestions have been made, and the fact that they are constructive has been shown by the response of the Minister of Finance to what has been said. There are some points which perhaps have not been sufficiently emphasized in relation to what has taken place in the last few years. The system under which the house is called upon to exercise its greatest responsibility, that of providing supply, is one that was devised for a time when expenditures authorized by the house were smaller than those of some of the individual provinces today in their own fields.
At a time when expenditures placed before the house were only a small fraction of what they are now, it may well have been possible to examine each item and to consider it in that measure of detail that is consistent with the need for actual knowledge of what the item means before it is passed, if that approval is to mean anything. The minister has said that when items come up for discussion a great deal of time may be spent upon one department, and in the case of another department spending as much or more hardly any time at all may be devoted to a number of items. There is a simple explanation for that fact. In the case of agriculture and other departments where a number of members have a ready knowledge of the type of things for which the money is appropriated, it is much easier for them to ask questions which are related to the real purpose for which the money is set aside. But with the increasingly

complex requirements of government administration, and with the many completely new fields into which government has entered in the past few years, there are many items about which most members have little information from their own past experience. Consequently, without an extended crossexamination of the minister as to the details that lie behind even a very large item, it may not be possible to secure a clear picture of the purpose for which that amount is included in the estimates.
I think there is a misconception in the suggestion frequently made in the house that it is not in keeping with our parliamentary system that there should be a delegation of ministerial responsibility to committees. There is no suggestion of delegation of ministerial responsibility if a subject under consideration by the house is placed before a committee so that members of the house may have all the information they should have before they are called upon to ask the minister those questions which will bring out all the facts that the house should have before reaching a decision. On the contrary, our system implies full knowledge of all essential details in the possession of every member, whether or not he is a supporter of the government. That is the very foundation of our parliamentary system. No matter how intricate the subject may be, no matter how long it may take to obtain the essential information, our system can only function if every member of the house is able to obtain information which enables him to reach a decision with full knowledge of every relevant fact.
Now that this discussion has arisen this problem should be met and a solution found. Our whole system has advanced through examination of the procedure and developments related to the expanding responsibilities of the government and the parliament which is called upon to approve the actions of that government. There is a great difference between the public accounts committee and the examination of the estimates, which was emphasized in the first instance by the hon. member for Lake Centre when he dealt with this subject. The reports of the Auditor General themselves constitute the strongest possible argument for an improvement in our system of dealing with estimates. Year after year the Auditor General refers to some item where the procedure should have been different; and in a number of instances large and important items are referred to in a way that indicates quite clearly that hon. members were not aware of what really were the details concerning those matters. If this subject is to be dealt with effectively we must approach

it on the basis of the scale of governmental responsibility today, and seek to find a solution that will make it possible for hon. members to fulfil their responsibilities and also to avoid unnecessary debate, which could be eliminated if the necessary facts could be obtained in another way. One of the most important problems facing this parliament is to find a way of shortening its sessions, without in any way limiting opportunities for debate. It will become increasingly difficult for men and women across Canada to offer themselves as candidates for parliament if the sittings of this house continue to increase in length year by year. The effective use of committees of the house is one way in which the session could be shortened*, at the same time permitting parliament to discharge its duties more efficiently. If these estimates were referred to the committees whose activities relate to their subject matter, there would be no delegation of ministerial responsibility.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said a delegation of parliamentary responsibility, not ministerial responsibility.


George Alexander Drew: There was a time when we mentioned ministerial responsibility.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not mean to suggest that it was a delegation of ministerial responsibility.


George Alexander Drew: Then let me say there would be no delegation of parliamentary responsibility, because the very existence of the committees indicates quite clearly that their activities have never been regarded as a delegation of parliamentary responsibility. This whole system of committees is embedded in our parliamentary system, and has been for many years; and the purpose for which committees have been provided is to give hon. members an opportunity to obtain information that will facilitate and expedite the business of the house. If a committee dealt with the estimates of a particular department and the experts and departmental officials were brought before that committee, with plenty of time at their disposal the members of the committee, representing both sides of the house, could obtain essential information in a way that is not possible here in the house, where a member may only ask questions of the minister. Then the minister quite frankly finds it necessary to lean over and ask his departmental officials for the answer. He is given that answer either orally or on a slip of paper, and that limited information is what comes back to the member.
Let us not pretend that this system is nearly as satisfactory as one under which members from both sides of the house could
Interim Supply
ask appropriate officials exactly what is involved. I want to emphasize that I do not think anyone on this side has been suggesting that such questioning should relate to whether the officials think the department could be better operated or better run, but certainly those who are called upon to discuss these questions have the same right as the government itself to know whether there might be an alternative method of presenting these figures, whether they could be presented in simpler form, or whether they could be placed before the house in a way that would provide more information. That is the sort of questions that might be asked. When that information was obtained the various details could be secured which would make it possible for those members in turn to be fully prepared to come into the house and deal with the estimates in a way that would save time here.
As was pointed out, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture take a very long time. Probably they would take a very short time if the committee had the opportunity of examining them in advance. Hon. members belonging to that committee could obtain the information they require, and then would be able to present their opinions as to what should be done and, of course, in the general discussion of the estimates they would offer suggestions as to how the administration of the department could be improved or changed.
We must remember that the public accounts committee can only deal with accounts which are practically two years old. What is essential here is that hon. members be placed in a position where, with equal efficiency, they can deal with the items they are required to pass upon, concerning future expenditure. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, there is a great difference between our system and that of the United States. However, we can perhaps consider what happens there, because they are handling enormous sums of money. All their estimates do go before committees, where they are subject to the most searching examination.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They come from committees.


George Alexander Drew: And they come from committees.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They originate in committees; that is the difference.


George Alexander Drew: There is a difference in the system. They do not, Mr. Chairman, originate with the committee, they originate with the officials who place the estimates before the committee. Then the committee deals with the estimates, after which they go to congress. They originate in the very same place that they originate here.

Interim. Supply
Under our system, the minister takes the responsibility of presenting the figures that have been prepared by his officials. In the United States the officials prepare the figures in precisely the same way, and hand them to the committee without having them dignified by the formality of being put forward by the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the United States, there is not responsible government; that is the fundamental difference.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that difference, but in the end we come back to the responsibility of the minister. We must remember that, as the minister himself has pointed out, we are talking about the responsibility of parliament as well. We have not only a system of responsible government, but we have a system of responsible parliament and that also is different from the United States system. Under our system of a responsible parliament, just as under our system of responsible government, there is that essential difference. In the end, however, we must assume the responsibility; in one case, the minister for presenting the figures, and in the other case, the members for passing them.
Under our system of responsible government, the minister has the opportunity of asking each official any detail that he wants. Every member of this house, Mr. Chairman, has a duty to have every essential fact before he passes upon the figures that have been presented by the minister. With the tremendous expenditures that are now put before us, there is no way in which this house will be able to deal effectively with this subject, unless some procedure is devised by which essential information may be obtainable which is not made available in this house. I repeat that we have not an opportunity of examining the experts. The experts are here to advise the minister, as quickly as possible and as comprehensibly as possible, in regard to questions that are asked on the floor of the house. That procedure does not elicit the information which each of us should be able to get.
Now, as an alternative method of obtaining information from departmental officials, which was partly implied by the minister, I feel sure that legitimate objection would be raised if a constant unorganized effort were made to obtain this kind of information. It would create confusion. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is any desire to prevent the members obtaining the information. One could easily imagine, however, the confusion that would result if, according to their own whim, any one of the members at any time attempted to detach officials from a department for the purpose of conducting

his own inquiry into those accounts. It could create confusion which might impair the efficiency of any department.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion that has taken place this afternoon indicates that now is the time to tackle this problem. The minister admits that we have passed the time when the older system fully meets our requirements. Many of the members have made it quite clear that they do not believe they can obtain the information they should have in this way. Above all, there is a necessity for using another system to shorten the inquiry which takes place in this house, and which in many cases is lengthened simply because of the system we now have.
While it is not possible to put this forward in the form of a motion, in view of the statement made by the minister that the answer rests with ourselves, I do urge that he give immediate consideration to the advisability of setting up a small select committee of this house to consider and recommend an improved procedure for examining and dealing with estimates of expenditures placed before this house. If that is done, then the work of the minister as well as the work of the members will be facilitated and we shall have started back towards a responsible parliamentary system. It is all very well for us to talk about a responsible parliamentary system, but the test of our responsibility is the extent to which we pass supply with knowledge of those facts that assure that we have accepted our responsibility.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just want to make one comment in connection with my hon. friend's remarks. I know that the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) wants to say something. In part, what I had in mind when I said the remedy lies with ourselves was that, before we go too far in changing our system, I would appeal to the hon. members to make use of what already exists. In this book of estimates which I hold in my hand, there are over two hundred pages in fine print. Those pages contain details, rather specific and comprehensive details, of the various services. Before I was a parliamentary assistant and before I was a minister, I was a private member. I am free to confess that even for those departments in which I was interested, I never took the time or trouble to examine any of the details of an item until that item came up in the house. Perhaps I was an exception, but I do not think so.
I believe it is fair to say that the majority of members, through pre-occupation with other important matters, do not spend a great deal of time studying this volume which is tabled every year about February 15. I agree with my hon. friend that if every member of

parliament went haphazardly to the heads of the different departments and requested specific information about every item, it would mean a very heavy burden on the department. If any member of parliament, however, takes any single item in this book of estimates and, after examining the detail in the back of the book, desires further detailed information about that item, I can assure him that the departmental officials will give him every bit of information that they give to the minister of the department concerned. That does not mean, of course, that there will be time available in the house for the careful, detailed consideration that perhaps some members would want to give. I simply say this: do not let us condemn the system or the lack of information until we organize our own debates so as to facilitate the discussion and as long as we fail to make use of the information which is available.


Mr. Fraser:: I see the Minister of Labour has just come in, and I wish to take one item in his department to illustrate something that I have said a number of times in this house. The estimates do not give the full details for any department. Even if you look in the section for the department concerned, you cannot find all the expenditures of that department.
Although the Minister of Labour is responsible for unemployment insurance, we have to go to the public works department to find added figures with regard to the unemployment insurance commission. It is quite a chore to go through all these items to find the details for one item. There is page after page for buildings that are rented by the Department of Public Works in the province of Ontario, which are put at the disposal of the Minister of Labour. The Department of Public Works pays for the construction of those buildings in some cases, the improvements, repairs, rents, salaries of cleaners, furnace men, the coal, water, light and elevators; everything in connection with the building. Those amounts, however, are not chalked up against the Department of Labour. If our estimates and our accounts were run in the way a business company would run them, we would not have estimates in this style. We would have estimates that would be easy to read and that any businessman could check easily on the minister's items alone instead of having to go to other sections.
I notice under unemployment insurance you go all down the line, Fort William, Galt, Gananoque, Gloucester township and so on, page after page. After checking for other items, in Ontario alone there is almost $600,000 extra that we have to check into in 45781-75
Interim Supply
the unemployment insurance section of the minister's department. The minister shakes his head.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer the question if my hon. friend wants me to.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe I am right. I am something like the Minister of Finance. I have not gone into all these details.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why go into all the details now? I was thinking of when I was a private member.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister goes into all the details now because it is his responsibility. When he was a private member of the government party he said, Let the minister do it, not me. But in opposition it is different. We want to catch the minister on something that is wrong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You cannot do that. That is attempting to achieve the impossible.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister stated that in few cases have members asked for a reduction. I am one of those who have. I see that the Minister of Labour wants to get to his feet.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I do not. But I will
answer my hon. friend.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have here the public works estimates, and in them, all the way down, one thing will be noticed. Let us take Toronto alone.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before the termites got there?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, this was before the termites got there. They have there a number of buildings. A number of them are unemployment insurance commission buildings, and so it runs. Here is one building, $58,000. But that is not in the minister's own estimates for that department. If the minister wants to answer me, I will give him the opportunity.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Peterborough West is talking as a businessman, and I appreciate that fact; and I think he will agree with me that most government businesses are run in reverse, even the restaurant.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Unbusinesslike.


Humphrey Mitchell: There you get a $2 meal for 75 cents. I do not go there often.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: For obvious reasons. I will let the hon. member draw his own conclusion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To keep your girlish figure.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my hon. friend. I think all hon. members will agree that my organization co-operates with all hon. members to the best of its ability.

Interim Supply


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes. I made no reflection at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand that. If my hon. friend were a businessman, he would perhaps dictate a memorandum to one of his staff if he wanted to get some information. As to my department, that is all you have to do. You do not even have to put a stamp on the letter. You do not have to write a long letter. You just have to say that you want to know what is going on in Peterborough, and we will tell you. It is just as simple as that. Might I also say this to my hon. friend. It is estimated that every minute this House of Commons is in session it costs $60. I think his little speech will be chalked up as expenses against the city of Peterborough unemployment insurance. I do not say that in a critical sense. My hon. friend and all other members can rest assured that as to my department-and I am sure the same is true of every other department-if you want information in advance, we will get it for you. If you write to the wrong department, we will see to it that the letter is sent to the right department. We cannot be any fairer than that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked for a little bit of information, Mr. Chairman, but the minister got to his feet and never answered my question at all. He got off on the wrong track. He switched back on something and he chalked up some money against me. I do not know what it is, but I figure that the time the minister took will also be chalked up against him; and he has taken more time in this chamber than I have. But I am asking the Minister of Finance now if he does not think that the whole estimates of a department should be put down in the book of estimates for that department and not spread out by the Department of Public Works.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer my hon. friend in this way. It is not necessarily an argument that it is right, but for a great many years the Department of Public Works has acted as the government landlord, as it were. It has purchased buildings, maintained them and repaired them for other departments. That has been one of the traditional functions of the Department of Public Works. I think that in some cases-and my colleague the Minister of Public Works will correct me if I am wrong-there is included in the departmental estimates an item to reimburse the Department of Public Works for expenditures which are made on behalf of that department. Offhand, I cannot answer whether that is the case with the unemployment insurance commission but I am inclined to think that it is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I could not find it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Possibly we should make some changes in that system. That is the sort of thing I should be glad to consider. I have listened with interest to the opinions expressed here, and I should be glad to discuss with the comptroller of the treasury and the departmental officials whether the method of set-up of the accounts can be changed to make them more clearly understandable. In fairness to my own department and to my own officials, I want to say that I am convinced that the public accounts today are presented in a clear and comprehensive fashion. In my personal experience I have had a good deal to do with seeing to the presentation of accounts; and as public accounts go, I think the public accounts of Canada are clearly presented and clearly understandable. That does not mean that they are perfect. It does not mean that there cannot be made changes which would make them clearer still. In answer to my hon. friend with respect to public works items, I can simply tell him, what he well knows, that that has been the method, probably since confederation, of presenting these figures.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that. But during the first years of confederation little money was spent. It was a matter of only a few million dollars. Now the figures are up into the billions, and I really believe that a change should be made. I mention the fact that the Department of Public Works takes care of a number of other departments but at the same time the treasury officers of the Department of Public Works are paid for by the Department of Finance.


Alphonse Fournier: That applies to other departments.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That applies to the other departments; but because of the fact that it applies to the other departments, it does not at the same time give a true picture of any department because a number of officials in each department are paid for by a different department. I feel that even those treasury officers should be charged up to the proper department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer my hon. friend in this way. He is dealing with an accounting matter, namely the provision of treasury officers in the Department of Public Works or in any other department. They are in effect performing the functions of internal auditors, and in an ordinary commercial corporation they would be charged up to the corporation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But in this case the corporation is the Dominion of Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In a private corporation the internal audit in the sales department or in the manufacturing department is not necessarily charged up to that department as such. It is probably charged up to general overhead because that is what in fact it is. I am not an expert accountant, although I have considerable knowledge of accountancy. As I say, there may be a clearer way of presenting these estimates, but I do not think it is misleading to have the treasury officers who perform the function in the Department of Public Works charged up to that department and the treasury officers in the other departments charged up to those departments. It all comes back to the same place in the end, that is, to the taxpayers of Canada generally. As long as the system is understood by those who are considering it, I do not think there can be a great deal of misunderstanding on that point.


Mr. Green:: Does the Minister of Finance not think that a greater use could be made of the public accounts committee? We have an Auditor General who is exceptionally capable, one of the senior officials of the government, who reports-


Douglas Charles Abbott: To parliament.


Howard Charles Green: And he reports directly to parliament. Each year he brings down a very comprehensive report, in my opinion a report which is well worthy of study. Then nothing happens. I think once or twice that report has been referred to the public accounts committee; but the discussion in committee has been more or less at random, and certainly not undertaken in a thorough way.
It does seem to me that is one of the great weaknesses in our system of checking expenditures. I realize that in the past the public accounts committee has been used as a political committee. I remember different questions being referred to it-such as the Bren gun inquiry, in which I took part myself. Then, there have been conducted by that committee other inquiries which were political in their nature.
But it does seem to me there is work of a non-political nature which could be done by that committee, namely carefully reviewing the report of the Auditor General. There are 50 members on the public accounts committee, and if they were given the opportunity to review the public accounts they would acquire a pretty fair knowledge of the expenses incurred by the government. They would be able to make many sugges-
Interim Supply
tions which would help cut expenditures, and improve our whole method of conducting the business of the country.
As the minister knows, the government has never willingly given the public accounts committee any work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend allow me to answer at this point?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest the minister himself might well take the lead in asking the public accounts committee to go over the report of the Auditor General.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to answer the hon. member on that, because I think unintentionally he has not been quite fair. This matter of the public accounts committee is one place in which parliament, as distinct from the government, can exercise its responsibility.
As my hon. friend knows, the public accounts committee is a standing committee of the House of Commons, and it is open to any member to ask that the committee be called together. And so far as I am aware- and this is certainly true since I have been Minister of Finance-no government has refused, or been reluctant to move to have the public accounts for a particular year referred to that committee. I know that, without the slightest fear of successful contradiction. I assert now that this is the place where parliament, as distinct from the government, can exercise its responsibility.
The Auditor General is an officer of the House of Commons, and the public accounts committee is a standing committee of the house. It is open to my hon. friend or to any other member to ask that that committee be set up and organized, and that the public accounts be referred to it-and I personally would be very happy, and have always been very happy, to refer the public accounts to that committee.


Howard Charles Green: I was trying to be helpful. I was not criticizing the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is that?


Howard Charles Green: I was not trying in any way to be critical of the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But the point is that it is not the responsibility of the minister to ask that the public accounts committee be organized, or that the public accounts of Canada be referred to that committee. That is the responsibility of members of parliament.


Howard Charles Green: But there is quite a difference between any private member asking that the public accounts committee be called, and then going into that committee without being in
45781-75i

Interim Supply
a position to see that an effective check is made of the public accounts, and the government calling that committee together. The government has a great majority on every committee. What I was suggesting is that it should take the lead in arranging that the public accounts be considered by that committee. If the minister does not wish to do it that way, then perhaps it could be done by getting the leaders of the different parties in the house together, and having them agree that the public accounts be referred to the public accounts committee, and an attempt made to go carefully into the statement of the Auditor General.
I am confident the results would be beneficial to the minister himself, if that kind of check were kept on expenditures. It would also give private members of the house who served on the committee a much better knowledge of the way government business is carried on in Canada; and I believe that eventually, within a year or two, the result would be that members of the house generally would be far more proficient when considering estimates. However, that is only a suggestion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps my hon. friend and I have been talking at cross purposes. Let me make myself clear. The Minister of Finance has a great many responsibilities; but the responsibility for the calling together of the committee on public accounts and referring to that committee the public accounts of Canada is not one of them.
It is open to any member of the house to ask that the committee be called together. The Minister of Finance has not the slightest objection to having the accounts of the past year or of any other year referred to that committee, and would willingly facilitate that procedure. But I repeat that it is not his responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister suggest a way in which this could be worked out effectively? I understand his position is that he personally does not feel he should have to do it. But surely there should be some way in which it could be worked out?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not an expert on procedure, but I believe I did suggest a way. The hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman), is perfectly well aware of what has to be done to have the public accounts committee brought together. And, as I have said, the minister will facilitate in every way the consideration of the report of the Auditor General before that committee.


Howard Charles Green: If it is done in the way in which the minister suggests, then that means that the opposition will be considered to be walking into that public accounts committee looking for a fight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily.


Howard Charles Green: And the government members would come to the committee prepared to put up a defence. Other parties in opposition would be considered as also looking for trouble. Of course that is the wrong attitude in which to get results in the committee. What I am suggesting is that a warlike committee-and warlike committees have their points-is not the most effective. A businesslike committee would be more desirable. Certainly we could not have the committee meeting in a businesslike frame of mind if it must be called together by some member of the opposition demanding such action.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe it was the former prime minister who said only a few years ago that any member could call the public accounts committee together, but on his own responsibility-and he stressed that feature.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may just intervene again- let us try to have this clear: The public accounts committee is a standing committee of the House of Commons. I quite agree with the hon. member that when it is examining public accounts it should not be functioning with the attitude of a fishing expedition or a scandal-finding committee. It should be attempting to work in a constructive and objective way.
If, as I suggested, the Whips were to get together-and that is what I meant in my suggestion when I referred to the hon. member's colleague from Grenville-Dundas-the desired result could be accomplished of calling the committee together.
Perhaps it is an unfortunate coincidence that the public accounts committee seldom sits, with the exception of sessions preceding elections. I do not know why that is so- probably in the past it has always been in the hope of uncovering something to discredit the government of the day. I agree that that is not the way in which the work of the committee should be approached. But I repeat that it is a committee of the house and not a committee of the government. It is not the responsibility of the government to initiate a reference to the committee on public accounts.
The government, and I speak only in my capacity as the Minister of Finance, responsible for the accounts, will co-operate in every way for a proper consideration of the

accounts before the public accounts committee-and so far as I am concerned, I will make it as non-partisan as possible. But I wish to make clear what the legal and practical situation is.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra touched upon a point I mentioned when I spoke as the second speaker in this debate. I am at a loss to understand how we can accomplish what he would like to do. He says that these accounts would be examined in a non-partisan or non-political spirit. While it is desirable, with the composition of this or any other house being as it is, I submit that that is quite impossible. If the hon. member means anything he means that the opposition will not look for anything, that they will just go over the accounts; they will not be looking to see if expenditures have been properly made or if expenditures have been made that should not have been made. If any such expenditure has been made, the government is not going to try to prevent the facts coming out. That is not being realistic about the matter. I agree that there is no difficulty in getting any standing committee set up, but if the public accounts committee is going to examine accounts in the way the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has mentioned, several things will have to be done. Perhaps one thing would be to have the committee composed fifty-fifty of government and opposition members. There might be difficulty there because that is not the way the other committees are set up, but if it is the intention to examine these accounts without fear or favour perhaps that is the first thing that will have to be done.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member not think that private members on the government side of the house who were on a committee of that type would be just as ready as an opposition member to point out where they thought mistakes had been made? The hon. member is taking it for granted that the government members are all going to try to hide everything.


Donald MacInnis: If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will tell me what the purpose is of the inquiry in the public accounts committee then I will say whether or not I think private members on the government side will be as anxious as he is to bring out everything.


Howard Charles Green: Check the auditor general's report.


Donald MacInnis: I cannot see members on the government side trying to find out if
Interim Supply
there is anything wrong with expenditures that have been made. I think that is asking too much.


An hon. Member:: That would be a miracle.


Donald MacInnis: That would be a miracle and that kind of miracle does not happen. If the proceedings of the public accounts committee do not give a true picture then it is up to the opposition to bring out the facts. As I said before, we might as well be realistic about it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well if we could get back to what the discussion was really upon this afternoon, the voting of interim supply. Growing out of the discussion of interim supply the hon. member for Lake Centre in a clear and extremely useful proposal pointed out that it would be highly desirable if in examining the estimates we were able to adopt a procedure similar to the efficient system employed in Westminster. It was suggested that we would then be able to prepare ourselves to consider the estimates and assume our responsibility for supply. We would then have before us the essential facts which we should have before us before accepting our responsibilities. It was in relation to that proposal and the suggestion for improving the system of examining our estimates and assuming our responsibilities for supply that I proposed to the minister the consideration of setting up a select committee to consider the improvement of our system for examining these estimates before we pass upon them and to make recommendations thereon.
I realize that the subject of the public accounts committee has also been under discussion, but I do not think we should confuse the two things. The public accounts committee deals with what has passed, and what has considerably passed. It is important that we should deal with that. So that there may be no doubt about our position, we propose to insist upon the calling of the public accounts committee at the next session when we will be able to deal with exactly the same accounts that we would deal with this session. That is why we are not insisting upon the calling of the public accounts committee during this autumn session.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the hon. member is quite right. We would not have time to go into them at this session and we can do the same thing at the next session.


George Alexander Drew: The only reason we are not asking for the calling of the public accounts committee is that the last public accounts that are available are those presented by the Auditor General up to March 31, 1948.

Interim Supply


Douglas Charles Abbott: I announced the other day that the new ones are in the hands of the king's printer.


George Alexander Drew: We will be able to deal with the accounts that are before us now during the next session. Having said that, and having supported what has been said by other members in regard to the desirability of a wider use of the public accounts committee, I emphasize that my proposal for the setting up of a select committee did not relate to the public accounts but to the examination of the estimates so that we might be really prepared to assume the greatest responsibility that we are called upon to assume as members.
When the Minister of Finance says that at the back of this book are a number of pages containing details, and suggests that perhaps we do not examine those details, I think hon. members will recall that when estimates were under examination before hon. members displayed a considerable knowledge of the details. It is the necessity of going behind those details that we are discussing. No one has suggested any impropriety in the form; what is being suggested is that there should be an easy and workable method by which essential information can be obtained.
Let us take one example, the Department of National Defence estimates for the equipment and supplies required by that department. Under broad reference in each department expenditures of some $218 million are provided for. No one can tell by examining those items what are the essential details, and yet these items equal the total expenditures by the government of Canada a comparatively few years ago. All that is suggested is that we find some mechanism by which hon. members can in an orderly way, and assuming their responsibilities for supply, find out what the details are so that when they come into the house the items can be discussed with full knowledge. It was in relation to that suggestion and only to that suggestion that I made the proposal for a select committee.


Mr. Bater:: Possibly as a new member I should not get up on this occasion, but I have listened to the statements made this afternoon, some of which have indicated that hon. members think the sessions should be shortened. I say now that I will not go back to my constituency and say that I am in favour of more business of parliament being done in some of the little anterooms in this building. I contend that open discussions in this chamber are the very pillars of democracy. The very essence of our parliamentary system lies in the fact that we have the right to say: Mr. Speaker-or Mr. Chairman-we would like to know this or that, or we believe

this or that. With these four galleries around us, I maintain that this chamber is the place in which to transact most of the nation's business. I quite agree that possibly there should be adopted some method whereby we can become more rapidly familiar with the operations of the various departments, but I think each party can make a start by instituting study groups if they wish to acquaint new members with the workings of the different departments of government. It is suggested that the proposed plan will shorten the sessions of parliament, but let me say that at times the percentage of attendance has not been very high in some quarters of the house since the session began. Perhaps they want a still shorter session. I would not like to see the system changed so that more would be done in committees and less in the house.


Mr. Shaw:: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I are fully prepared to support the proposal that a committee be set up for the purpose of endeavouring to determine more effective methods of dealing with the estimates. We quite properly disagree, however, that we should guess, as it were, what the possible outcome might be of such action. It has been indicated this afternoon that all the estimates should be referred to committees of the house. Naturally we hold individual opinions as to the result of such an action. Personally I find it extremely difficult to agree that, by referring all the estimates to various committees, satisfactory results would be obtained. I think of the multitude of new committees that would have to be set up. I think of committees sitting concurrently and making it utterly impossible for an individual member to attend all of them, or even to attend when matters of special interest to him were being considered. I can conceive of such committees sitting morning, afternoon and night in order to accomplish their purpose.
Some emphasis has been laid on the necessity of shortening our sessions. I am not quite so certain that that should be our objective. In my opinion the objective should be greater efficiency, and not necessarily shorter sessions. Of course, if the two could be achieved in one move that would be fine, but those of us who have been here for a considerable period of time realize that we really move swiftly during the last month of any session of parliament. Will any hon. member say that our most effective work is done during that period or that the word "efficiency" would be a proper one to associate with our actions at that time?
With respect to the information that is available in connection with the estimates, I would be the first to admit that there is far more information available than I have made use of. Agriculture was referred to

this afternoon. I am not unmindful of the fact that,	quite	apart	from the	details	ofthe agricultural estimates that are supplied, we have the report of the Department of Agriculture, and we also have detailed information	as to the	operation of suchactivities as P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. Personally I think there is a good deal of information available if we	avail	ourselves	of it.	Iwould hasten to add that there are a number of things	that	could	quite properly	be
referred to committees, but speaking for myself I cannot see that efficiency or satisfaction will result from referring all our estimates to the various committees that exist now, or that may be created at some future time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to conclude by saying that I think we have had a most helpful discussion. I do not think members of the committee expect me to express any specific views as to the different suggestions that have been made, but I shall be very glad to consider, between now and the next session, what the government might do to expedite the efficient study of the estimates. I think with the co-operation of all parties we should be able to effect some improvement in our system.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $114,516,603.83, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items, except items 43, 419 and 452, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950.
2.	The sum of $5,012,437.50, being three-twelfths of the amount of item 559 as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950;
3.	The sum of $2,446,984.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items, except item 681, as set forth in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950:
4.	The sum of $5,876,758.33, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items as set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950; and
5.	The sum of $2,302,500, being nine-twelfths of items 779 and 935 of the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950.
Ways and Means
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 118, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-$114,516,603.83 granted for 1949-50.
Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear, is it not, that in no case have we yet passed twelve-twelfths of any single item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. The highest proportion is eleven-twelfths in certain special items which I have indicated. The total being voted under this bill will be $130,155,283.99.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the minister the same question I asked before, changing only the month. Does he expect to have all the estimates through by the end of November?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never assumed the qualities of a prophet, but I am hopeful that we will be nearing the end of this session, if not at the end of it, by the end of November, and I would hope that by that time the estimates will have been passed and the final appropriation bill put through the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


John George Diefenbaker: That, in the opinion of this house, immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing a bill or declaration of rights to assure amongst other rights:
1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of parliament;
2.	That habeas corpus shall not be abrogated or suspended except by parliament;
3.	That no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and in no case by order in council;
4.	That no tribunal or commission shall have the power to compel the giving of evidence by any one who is denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards;

Human Rights
And that as a preliminary step the Minister of Justice do submit for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to degree to which fundamental freedoms of religion, speech and of the press and the preservation of the constitutional rights of the individual are matters of federal or provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should point out that this resolution may be out of order on the same grounds as the resolutions previously moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). The first portion of the resolution contains these words:
-immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing a bill or declaration of rights-
This, of course, does not constitute an instruction to the government. However, I would ask hon. members to look at the last paragraph of the resolution. The words "immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of" do not apply to or govern the concluding portion of the motion, which requires unconditionally that as a preliminary step the Minister of Justice shall submit a question to the Supreme Court of Canada. This purports to convey a direct order to the government to do something which could not be done without an expenditure of public money. I would think the first part of the resolution would be in order, but in my opinion the latter part would be out of order; and if part of a resolution is out of order the whole resolution is out of order.
Unless anyone would like to offer any comments, I am prepared to rule now that the resolution is out of order.
Before calling the next resolution may I state that I regret finding it necessary to declare a resolution out of order merely on technical grounds. I have given the matters some consideration and have spoken to the chief of the orders and notices branch suggesting that, when a resolution is handed to him which appears to be out of order on the ground that it would involve the payment of public money, he should bring that point to the attention of the hon. member who has filed the resolution. The hon. member could then quite easily change a few words and the resolution would be in order. As a matter of fact I have almost come to the conclusion that in future, when a notice of motion is out of order on technical grounds, I will give the hon. member an opportunity to modify his resolution, provided he does not widen its scope. I believe that would be only fair. I do not believe resolutions coming under the heading of notices of motions should be ruled out of order on mere technical grounds.
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]



CIVIL SERVICE


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi) moved:: That, In the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the establishment of a special committee, during the present session, to examine the advisability of granting to the French Canadians the proportion and classes of civil service positions to which they are entitled.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to draw the government's attention to the important problem of French Canadian representation in the federal civil service and to point out the necessity for essential reforms in the operation of the whole machinery of the commission.
Need I add that my intention is not to blame the present administration for conditions that existed before it assumed power? On the contrary, I am pleased to note that since Mr. Mackenzie King's successor took up his duties, the situation about which my fellow citizens rightly complain today has somewhat improved. On the other hand I submit, and my claims are based on indisputable facts which it would be too long to recall here, that French Canadians hold neither the number nor the class of federal civil service positions to which they are entitled by their population figures and do not receive fair treatment from the parties responsible for the allotment of positions.
We have had sufficient proof of this in the apparent interest of the previous administration in this matter. I might recall that a group of members from the right headed by the former Solicitor General, was assigned the task of investigating the causes of and of suggesting a remedy to this increasingly alarming situation.
No report was ever published on this investigation. I would ask the government today to appoint an official committee comprising members from all political groups in this house, in order to carry out a full investigation on the situation as regards the French Canadian people in the federal civil service and to submit conclusions to the house.
The best way to promote national unity is to grant minorities their just dues. My fellow-citizens ask for no favours, no privileges. They do not care for that. All we want is a tangible recognition of our rights. If we look into the past, we find that in 1918, civil servants numbered 54,169 of which 41,618 were permanent. Sessional paper No.

301,919, of 1918, gives an individual list of 16,184 permanent employees, of which 3,493 or 21-58 per cent were French-speaking. From this date onward, the representation of French-speaking Canadians in the federal civil service has unfortunately been reduced. Thus, the Auditor General's report for the year 1945 shows that French Canadians held only 12J per cent of all positions commanding a yearly salary of $2,400 or more.
As far as deputy ministerships are concerned, the percentage of French-speaking deputy ministers dropped from 14-28 in 1918 to naught in 1946.
Today, out of 19 deputy ministers, we have three, exactly half of what we are entitled to.
The 1941 census showed that the total population of Canada reached 11,506,855 and that the French-speaking population was 30-27 per cent of the whole.
However, in 1946, according to a table prepared by the Ottawa Journal under date of April 4 of that same year, out of 37 officials who were deputy ministers or held comparable rank, five only were French Canadians. The former received $313,500 annually, against $38,500 for the latter. Among these was the Dominion Archivist, Mr. Lanctot, replaced in 1948 by Mr. Lamb. This caused Mr. Eugene L'Heureux to write in Le Soleil, on September 16, 1948, that Canadians of good will found this appointment somewhat surprising, to say the least, and that the principle of alternation should have been respected by choosing Mr. Donald Fee as Archivist and Mr. Marion as his assistant.
Mr. L'Heureux continues:
That would have been fair and reasonable. After all the official bilingualism which must form the very basis of our confederation does not require that key positions be divided into French Canadian territories and English Canadian territories but, as far as possible, the alternation of French and English Canadians in all positions.
Otherwise it would be admitting that one group is qualified for certain functions but unqualified for others. We cannot admit that. In the first place it is contrary to facts and in the second place, it goes against our pride.
To let French Canadians predominate at the Archives, for instance, while they are excluded from the Department of Finance would be an utterly unacceptable solution of the public service problem. We want our share, and no more than our share of influence and salaries, in each of the federal departments whenever we are qualified on the score not only of ability but also of educational training and practical experience.
(Text):
The March, 1949, issue of the National Home Monthly magazine has published the names of the top-level consultants of the brain trust of Canada in tabular form The tables are as follows:
Civil Service EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Hon. L. B. Pearson. Minister Arnold Heeney, Under-secretary Herbert Moran, assistant under-secretary (economics) ; Escott Reid, (U.N. assembly); Gerald Riddell, special assistant to the Secretary of State. Dana Wilgress, London H. Hume Wrong, Washington T. Stone, Washington
Embassy and legation staffs: General A. G. L. McNaughton, U.N. adviser atomic energy; R. A. MacKay, Newfoundland.
TRADE AND COMMERCE Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister M. W. Mackenzie, deputy minister Oliver Masters, assistant deputy minister; S. D. Pierce, asistant deputy minister, stockpiling-reports direct to Mr. Howe; Alex Skelton, assistant deputy minister, economic research special assignments; Hubert R. Kemp, commercial relations; Dr. C. F. Wilson, wheat; Herbert Marshall, statistics; George Heasman, commercial intelligence; Bert Butler, public relations; W. F. Bull, austerity program; Wilbur E. Uren, dominion coal board-controls and priorities; J. H. Berry, capital goods export program; W. Bennett, Eldorado; J. R. Baldwin, air transport board; Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, national research council.
Consultants in Canadian industry: H. Carmichael, McKinnon Industries; W. Wecker, General Motors: J. E. Simard, Sorel Industries.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Douglas Abbott, Minister Dr. Clifford Clark, Deputy Minister Kenneth W. Taylor, assistant deputy minister; R. B. Bryce, international loans; A. K. Eaton, taxation; J. J. Deutsch, works trade; M. W. Sharp, budget; Charles Gavsie, taxation; Hector McKinnon, tariff board; B. G. McIntyre, comptroller of the treasury; C. F. Elderkin, inspector-general of banks; W. C. Ronson, the mint.

[Stage Direction]
Graham F. Towers, governor; Donald Gordon, deputy governor; L. Rasminsky, economic adviser and foreign exchange control board; J. E. Coyne, economic adviser; J. R. Beattie, research and idea man.

[Stage Direction]
David Sim, National Revenue (customs and excise); V. W. Scully, National Revenue (income tax): H. L. Keenleyside, Mines and Resources; W. J. Turnbull, Post Office; A. MacNamara, Labour; G. F. Davidson, Health and Welfare; J. C. Lessard, Transport; F. P. Varcoe, Justice.
Special Consultants
F. A. McGregor, combines investigation; Jack Pickersgill, Prime Minister's Office; N. A. Robertson, clerk of the privy council and secretary to the cabinet.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I can prove that only two French-Canadian names appear on this list, two out of fifty-seven. It is a scandalous proportion, against which we shall never cease to protest.
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if it is acknowledged that we are entitled to three supreme court judges out of nine, why are we not granted the same treatment in the different departments of the federal government? Here are a few examples of the manner in which French Canadians are being treated in certain departments. I have chosen five at random. They are probably neither the worst nor perhaps the most important.
(Text):
The following table illustrates my next point:

[Stage Direction]
Employees receiving salaries at annual rates of $3,000 or over:
Administration service, 19-2 French Canadians.
Science service, 240-9 French Canadians.
Experimental farms service, 240-18 French Canadians.
Production service, 397-54 French Canadians.
Marketing service, 179-12 French Canadians.
Special service, 57-0 French Canadians.
Total, 1,132-95 French Canadians (less than 9 per cent).

[Stage Direction]
Employees receiving salaries at annual rates of $3,000 or over: 102-3 French Canadians (less than 3 per cent).

[Stage Direction]
Sixty-two-1 French Canadian (less than 2 per cent).

[Stage Direction]
Administration and special projects, 33-2 French Canadians.
Mines, forest and scientific service branch, 494- 26 French Canadians.
Lands and development services branch, 112-4 French Canadians.
Indian affairs branch, 60-5 French Canadians.
Immigration branch, 61-7 French Canadians.
Total, 760-44 French Canadians (less than 6 per cent).

[Stage Direction]
One thousand six hundred and ninety-three-135 French Canadians (8 per cent).
It means that out of 3,749 civil employees in five departments only, receiving an annual salary of $3,000 or over, 278 only are French Canadians, a small fraction over 7 per cent. As I said before, we are not asking for any privilege or favour; what we want is fair treatment in every department. We must not forget that. The salaries and wages paid to 125,337 permanent and temporary civil service employees for the year ended March 31, 1947, are $223,777,000.

(Translation):
Because they do not have their rightful number of civil service positions, the French Canadians are each year losing millions of dollars, besides the influence they could exert in the federal administration in the best interests of the country. The Chambre de Commerce of Montreal submitted to the Gordon commission, appointed by order in council on February 15,	1946, a quite exhaustive brief dealing with the federal civil service and with the place which Frenchspeaking Canadians occupy therein. The businessmen and members of the professional classes in the Canadian metropolis deserve to be warmly congratulated and thanked for having brought to light facts too little known by the general public and particularly by the English-speaking community.
Consequently, the Chambre de Commerce submits, in the summary of its findings, that the decrease of the French Canadian representation in the civil service is due in part to the development of certain abuses in the civil service, more particularly the creation of powerful groups within the service and the failure to recognize official bilingualism; it therefore asksthat the powers of the Civil Service Commission be increased so as to prevent the natural creation of powerful groups in the public service from being an obstacle to the appointment of civil servants of French Canadian origin to high executive positions.
Secondly, it suggests that bilingualism be officially recognized in the service.
The act of 1919 establishing the charter of the Canadian civil service did not take into account the requirements of official bilingualism.
Through this error, the classification of civil servants is a source of serious injustice and disagreement. The case submitted by the Chambre de Commerce will illustrate that fact. The bilingual typist and stenographer are both in the same class as the unilingual typist and stenographer. They draw the same salary although they are required to know two languages instead of one. Often the bilingual stenographer is called upon to do translation work in spite of the fact that she is supposed to be qualified only to take shorthand in both languages. She is thus expected to do the job of a translator although she is not paid as such.
More than ever, and I expect the situation will grow worse, the federal government intervenes in the affairs of the private citizen. More than ever the French Canadian people must keep in touch with the various departments. Every day the government

must deal with the French Canadian citizens on matters related to taxation, to import permits, to rationing, to unemployment insurance or to family allowances. I wish the government would always do it in French in order to avoid much trouble and much discrimination.
(Text):

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the motion of the Prime Minister concerning amendments to the con-
Business of the House stitution. If we dispose of that we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply concerning housing. I will not announce anything further than that.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government not taking up tomorrow the notice of motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Alphonse Fournier: No, not tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 27, 1949