1950-04-28

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I as a matter of privilege, but not referring to a report in Hansard, refer to the Montreal Gazette of this morning and ask that there be a correction made in the dispatch entitled:
Sellar urges radical changes in presentation of estimates.
Auditor General critical of officials by-passing spending authority; suggests free food sent overseas needed by workless of Canada.
In the course of the report it is stated that three important briefs were presented by Mr. Sellar to a house committee and then the report continues:
In one of the briefs, Mr. Sellar criticized the principle of gifts of food by the farm prices support and like bodies to organizations in Europe and Palestine which were caring for refugees, especially the undernourished children. Mr. Sellar said that it was surplus food supplies that were given to Europe but he thought that such surpluses should be distributed in Canada if and where real need existed.
I am sure that any member of parliament who read that would be surprised that a public official would be expressing opinions on policy before a parliamentary committee. I immediately got the briefs in question. Although I do not wish to be critical of the gentleman who attempted to summarize them, because they were quite long-as they had to be, because it was necessary for the Auditor General to make reference to the authorities upon which his objective statements were based-I would suggest to him that he read the briefs again. I am sure he will not be able to find, any more than I was able to find, anything that would give the slightest colour to that kind of paragraph.
Civil servants are often taxed with being bureaucrats, but they are in a position where they cannot speak for themselves here, and I suggest that the gentleman who wrote that dispatch when he reads this will in fairness to Mr. Sellar wish to correct the false impression to be derived from the paragraph I have just quoted. I am sure he will do that after he has had time to peruse carefully the briefs he was attempting to summarize.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I think the Prime Minister is perfectly correct in his reference to what was disclosed in the briefs presented to the committee; nevertheless in the discussion which took place I think the points that appear in the newspaper article did come out, and I believe it only fair to the reporter to say that this did happen. I want also to make it clear that in my opinion there was nothing whatever in the attitude of the Auditor General which suggested that he was trying to lecture members of parliament or tell us our duty. Indeed his attitude was entirely the reverse, and he was very emphatic about that. In fairness to the pressman in question I think it should be said that what the Prime Minister read from the newspaper account in my opinion does cover the course of the conversation that took place in the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the committee, and probably there will be an occasion to discuss what took place there when the committee reports. Until it does I would not attempt to infringe the standing order concerning matters being considered by committees. But the paragraph I read positively states that in one of the briefs Mr. Sellar made the observations which are reported. I refer to the briefs because they are not before the committee only; they are available to everyone, and there is nothing in the briefs which would justify a statement of that kind.


Mr. Fraser:: It was in discussing the briefs that what was contained in the newspaper report came out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I hope it did not
come out in that form. I should hope no public servant would attempt to usurp the functions of those who are elected by the people.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Speaking as a member of that committee, may I say that Mr. Sellar is not in the position of a civil servant. He is responsible to the House of Commons and to parliament. He made it very clear today that in what he said there was no question of endeavouring to dictate. Indeed I cannot understand the attitude the Prime Minister has taken.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: This man was called
before a committee of the Senate and asked

Empire Day
for his suggestions, which he gave. After all he is not just a civil servant; he is responsible only to parliament.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But whether responsible to parliament or to the government, it is not the function of officials to determine matters of policy. The hon. member expressed surprise at my attitude. He could not have listened to the terms used in this newspaper article, in which it is said that Mr. Sellar stated in one of the briefs that he thought such surpluses should be distributed in Canada if and where real need existed. I am sure the hon. member did not catch that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: It was the last statement made by the Prime Minister to which I was referring.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I am sure the hon. member did not catch that part of the paragraph to which I was making special reference.


Mr. Pouliol:: Lake Centre should not lean too much on bureaucracy.



EMPIRE DAY


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to make a brief statement regarding the ceremonies which are being organized for May 23 of this year. As hon. members know, for a number of years May 23 has been observed in most provinces as Empire day.


Some hon. Members:: May 24.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, May 23. May 24 is
a legal holiday, but on the day before in the schools of many of the provinces there are ceremonies; and the occasion has been described as Empire day. Originally it was-
-a day devoted specially to the study of the history of Canada and to such special other exercises as might tend to increase the interest of the pupils in their own country and strengthen their attachment to the empire to which they belong-
-to quote from the original definition of the purpose of the ceremonies, in 1899. We have received representations from many organizations that some occasion should be provided for emphasizing the advantages and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship in respect of our status and worth in the commonwealth and to the world.
It seemed appropriate that this might be done in the schools in each province on May 23, in such a manner as might be decided upon by the provincial educational authorities, without in any way interfering

with the exercises traditionally observed on that occasion, but rather as supplementing them.
We therefore consulted the provincial premiers and it has been arranged that on May 23 this year the occasion might be found in the schools to give attention to Canadian citizenship as the basis of our position in the commonwealth. It is not intended that it should be a public holiday, but that suitable exercises could be observed, both in schools and by public-spirited organizations, in order that we may become more deeply conscious of our own citizenship and all that it implies.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position now to answer the question I brought to his attention yesterday, and which was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as to any steps being taken to prevent the recurrence of floods in southern Manitoba.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am in a position now to make a short statement on the question that has been raised by the hon. member for Provencher, and which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
As hon. members will recall, in a statement to the house on May 3, 1948, the then secretary of state for external affairs replied to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. member. At that time the minister stated:
Our information is that the present flood . . . did come principally from international waterways which flow from the state of North Dakota into the province of Manitoba. While to some extent it is a recurrent flood, it had caused no disaster of this magnitude since 1916.
That was in 1948.
The reference to the international joint commission, dated January 12, 1948, covering waters from the eastern boundary of the Milk river drainage basin up to and including the drainage basin of the Red river, does allow the commission-
That is, the international joint commission. -to make recommendations with a view to preventing the recurrence of such floods.
The fact that the waters of the Red river have an international aspect, in that they rise in the United States, means that a satisfactory solution of the problem of flood control can be obtained only by the co-operation of the governments of both countries. It was for this reason that both governments agreed

to make a joint reference of the matter to the international joint commission. Under the reference the commission, among other things, is required-
To conduct necessary investigations and to prepare a comprehensive plan or plans of mutual advantage to the two countries for the conservation, control and utilization of the waters under reference in accordance with the recommended apportionment thereof.
Control of flood conditions, combined with improved low water flows on the Red river in Canada, is one of the principal objectives this government hopes to achieve as a result of the reference and its investigations. These engineering investigations are being conducted for the commission by a board of engineers from the federal services of the two countries, working in co-operation with provincial and state engineers.
The unfortunate and unhappy conditions which exist today at and in the vicinity of Emerson, Manitoba, result from the high flows crossing the international boundary from the Red river basin into the states of Minnesota and North Dakota, and to some extent from the Manitoba portion of the tributary Pembina river. Control of these waters through construction of storage reservoirs in the United States has been the subject of study in that country, but it has been stated with authority that complete control by that method is not feasible. Additional United States studies are being conducted on which to base a comprehensive plan and recommendations.
The United States government has made, and is making, large contributions to flood control in the Red river basin in that country. Storage dams have been built, channel enlargement has been made and confining dikes have been built. The dams tend to hold waters back from Manitoba, while the other two methods tend to send it downstream faster. Studies indicate, however, that the net effect of these measures on flood peaks in Manitoba is negligible.
Approximately ten miles downstream from Emerson, the Roseau river enters the Red with waters gathered in Manitoba and Minnesota, while at the city of Winnipeg the Assiniboine river joins the Red, bringing with it the waters of the Souris river, which are also under investigation by the commission looking to complete utilization and control.
The various studies necessary to the comprehensive planning of all the phases of these investigations are involved and difficult. The engineers have, however, already gathered a great deal of data on which to base conclusions. These data are being analysed, and it is hoped that on completion of the studies the two nations will have plans which
Inquiries of the Ministry will include measures for the alleviation of flooding such as is being experienced at present.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: May I ask the minister whether that report is up to date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This report, Mr. Speaker, is up to date. The report of the engineers has not yet been submitted to the international joint commission, but that will be done shortly.



REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May 1 ask a further question about the flood situation in the Red river valley?- but perhaps this question will have to be addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government received representations from the mayor of the town of Morris, Manitoba, or any other official in that area, requesting federal financial assistance in the relief of distress and destruction caused by these floods? If so, will consideration be given to any such requests?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I heard from press sources, before I received it, that a telegram had been dispatched to me. I have received it now, and it reads as follows:
I would like to ask your government to give aid to the flooded area of the Red river valley as this is a national emergency. This area flooded bad in 1948 and 1950; many people have suffered great financial loss. Would suggest that a royal commission be set up to investigate flood control, also income tax exemptions of the repairing of homes this year.
I received that telegram a few minutes ago, and all I can say is that the matter will be looked into, but not at this moment by a royal commission. We shall endeavour to ascertain what the situation is, and then determine what action, if any, should be taken. Hon. members can be assured that it is the desire of the government to treat every part of the country in the same way. Should there ever be in any part of the country the sort of disaster there was in the Fraser river district, the people of that section would be entitled to expect that they would be treated in the same way as the residents of the Fraser river valley were treated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is obvious, but just to complete the record will the Prime Minister give the name of the person who signed that telegram?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, it is signed by Mr. Harry Shewman, M.L.A., mayor of Morris.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Cruickshank:: I presume I am in order, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, but I want to speak on behalf of the people of Fraser valley. The people and government of Canada were very fair to us.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope the government does the right thing for the people of Manitoba who are being flooded out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.



QUESTION AS TO EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Jutras: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of National Revenue to take this question as notice, and give me an answer at the next sitting of the house. I have received many communications from the people in the flooded area showing great concern over their inability to file their income tax forms within the allotted time. Will the minister make a statement at the next sitting of the house as to what consideration will be given to this matter?


Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: I shall take that question as notice.



DEAN OF CANTERBURY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in last night's Ottawa Journal, to the effect that Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the "Red" Dean of Canterbury, will visit Canada next month. Will the minister say whether he has been or will be granted a visa to enter the country at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I assume that the gentleman referred to, the Dean of Canterbury, is a British subject and in possession of a British passport. A visa therefore would not be required for his entry into this country. I have no knowledge whether such entry is contemplated by the gentleman, but if he were contemplating a visit to Canada at this time I would imagine it would be no contribution to international peace, nor would it be welcomed by any great number of Canadian citizens except possibly the communists and their friends.

On the orders of the day:


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he is prepared today to give any information on the question I asked him on April 26.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I have nothing to add to what was said then by the parliamentary assistant. I did not know it required anything further, but I shall look into the matter to see if anything can be done.



WAYS AND MEANS

["He must have been a trained chairman of a commission.\nAt six o'clock the house took recess."]
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of ways and means.



Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on more than one occasion, it has been my intention to avail myself of the appropriate opportunity to present a motion which will seek to express the opinion of this house in regard to a thorough inquiry into the organization of government, and the ways and means by which the efficiency of government could be increased, the duplication of services avoided, and a reduction in the over-all cost of government effected.
I believe it is particularly appropriate that such a resolution should be moved while we are still considering the financial affairs of the government as presented to this house. It is for that reason I take advantage of the motion to go into committee of ways and means to discuss this subject. At the conclusion of my remarks I shall present a motion which will set out the purpose which I believe could well be carried into effect, to the advantage of the government, of parliament, and of the people of Canada.
First, I should like to read into the record a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on April 1:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to place before you a proposal which I believe should be given early consideration. It is prompted by the statements made recently to the members of the Senate by the Auditor General, Mr. Watson Sellar, and the information contained in the report presented to the House of Commons a few days ago upon the organization of the national film board.
The report of the film board and the Mainguy report last year both disclosed a very serious lack of organization. It happens that these are the only

two reports since the war in regard to the organization of any department or agency of government. It is, therefore, significant that in these two cases there was evidence of a serious lack of organization which could only lead to unnecessary expense and costly duplication which interfered with the efficiency of the service rendered.
The statements of Mr. Watson Sellar emphasized the difficulty with which members of parliament are confronted because of the unsatisfactory way in which public accounts are presented and the difficulty of dealing with them effectively under present arrangements. For these and other reasons I think that a royal commission should be appointed immediately to inquire into the organization of the departments "of government as well as the various public agencies under the control of the government. This commission should have the widest powers to inquire into all details of organization and also the relationship between the various departments and government agencies.
In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance last Tuesday that we must expect public expenditures to continue at the present high level, I think that it is essential that every possible step be taken to increase the efficiency of administration and avoid duplication of costs as a result of overlapping or inefficient services, such as those which were disclosed in the Mainguy and film board reports.
Yours sincerely,
George A. Drew
The Prime Minister had left Ottawa at the time this letter was delivered; and on Monday, April 3, I received a letter from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) informing me that the Prime Minister was away and that this letter would be given consideration upon the return of the Prime Minister after the Easter holidays. That is now four weeks ago; therefore I think it is appropriate that this subject should be brought forward at this time.
In a radio broadcast by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on April 11 there was a reference to the general manner of dealing with public accounts. In that broadcast he used these words:
It may be that the procedure for considering the estimates and for organizing government departments and agencies could be improved, as Mr. Drew suggests. The government is always willing to consider seriously proposals along these lines, and it usually takes the initiative in making changes when they are needed.
We have under consideration the budget, and we have passed from the general consideration of the budget to ways and means. If the government had come to any decision to take the initiative in improving the method of dealing with public accounts, it would seem that the matter would have been dealt with by this time. Although that may not have already been done, it may be that the government will approve the motion I shall subsequently make; I hope it will.
28, 1350
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
When we come to the reasons for a commission of this kind, first of all I am suggesting that the commission should follow a course similar to that followed by the Hoover commission in the United States. When Mr. Herbert Hoover was appointed as chairman of what was officially described as "the commission on organization of the executive branch of the government", he was directed to conduct an inquiry and to make recommendations along lines somewhat similar to those which I shall propose. That commission was made up of twelve men, but its activities were not in any way limited to those of the twelve men appointed to the commission. As soon as the commission had been set up, Mr. Hoover at once enlisted the services of some three hundred of the best business and constitutional experts in the United States. He sought the assistance of people with training which would qualify them to deal effectively with the various fields of government activity. He organized these experts into twenty-four separate "task forces", as he called them. Those task forces were directed to investigate and to analyse each of the distinct administrative responsibilities of the government and of the various agencies of the government. Not only did those task forces of experts inquire into the various fields of administrative responsibility; with the assistance of the most competent accountants they also made recommendations as to ways in which the accounting, and the presentation of the various estimates of the departments of government, could be improved.
I have outlined the general procedure followed by the Hoover commission, because that commission made comprehensive recommendations, the putting into effect of which it has been estimated could effect a saving up to $5 billion a year in the cost of government in the United States, without reducing a single government service now being given. That commission, which was set up in July, 1947, presented eighteen different reports between January and April of 1949. Already many of these recommendations have been put into effect, at an estimated saving of some billion and a half dollars. But there is still under consideration the further implementation of the remaining recommendations made in those important documents.
The government budget is the statement of the financial affairs of the government and of the country, having regard to activities which are under the administration of the federal authority. I think it can be stated that a government budget should clearly answer one simple question: What is the
1984	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry money wanted for? A government accounting system should answer one definite and simple question: What are the taxpayers getting for their money?
The present budget and accounting systems have only very partial answers to these questions. In some cases they give the surface indications of what the answer is; in some cases there is practically no answer at all. For that reason it is not surprising that Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General, appointed to audit the public accounts, should have been recommending now for several years an improvement in the accounting methods, an improvement in the system of presenting estimates to parliament, and a system by which parliament, as the body representative of the people, shall once again be able to assume effective control over the expenditure of public money. That is, in its essence, the recommendation of the Auditor General, who is not a civil servant in the ordinary sense of the word but, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, is the one man answerable to parliament, answerable to the House of Commons, who does not come under ;he ordinary civil service requirements.
I think it can be fairly stated that no individual in the public service of Canada holds a higher reputation for integrity, for knowledge of his responsibilities, and for the impartiality with which he has discharged those responsibilities than does Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General. For that reason it is high time the House of Commons should take notice of his repeated recommendations, and take the one effective course to implement these recommendations in a way which will bring to our assistance highly expert individuals who are neither members of parliament nor members of the civil service of Canada.
There are certain subjects which by their very nature can best be dealt with by committees of the House of Commons, or by joint committees of the House of Commons and the Senate; but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of those tasks for which the organization and appointment of a royal commission is particularly suited. Such a commission could bring to its service men and women from every part of Canada with the highest qualifications in each field of endeavour related in any way to the many activities of government or its agencies.
Whether those who would be called to the service of the state and of the people of Canada in this way would follow precisely the same course as was followed by the commission in the United States would of course

be a matter for decision by the royal commission operating within the terms of reference of the order in council appointing it. But I should hope that such a commission would bring to its assistance, in turn, just as the Hoover commission did, the services of persons who could deal effectively with every aspect of the extremely complex problems of government.
One of the great problems facing every democracy today is to make democratic government the most efficient kind, of government in the world, and also to provide effective measures of supervision over the widely increased activities of government which have resulted from the extended activities of all democratic governments during the last war.
Big government may not necessarily be bad government; but the type of big government which has emerged from this last war in most democracies can be bad government and can be dangerous government, unless it is brought under effective and efficient supervision, and devices for making it responsive and responsible to parliament are devised which are in keeping with its vastly extended services.
The method of supervising estimates and accounts suitable for the simple form of government which existed in the days before the last war, and in still simpler form before the first world war, is not adequate to provide that measure of supervision over the accounts and the spending of government which is in keeping with the basic principle of responsible government to which we adhere. The theory of responsible government which is the very bedrock of our parliamentary democracy is not that government be responsible for everything, but that government be responsible to parliament in the one essential requirement; parliament should be in a position to exercise effective control, with real knowledge of every detail of what the government is doing.
Do not let us be carried away by any suggestion that we alone, of all governmental bodies, can exercise completely flawless administrative responsibility here in Canada. The fact is that there have been only two small windows opened up through which the members of this house and the people of Canada can see something of the actual work of government departments or their agencies. Since the end of the war no single department has been fully under examination by any body of experts authorized to inquire into all its affairs. The only two inquiries which have been conducted were the investigation by the Mainguy commission inio certain limited aspects of our naval administration,

and the inquiry which was conducted into the administration of the national film board by a highly qualified group of business experts. In both those cases the reports indicated conditions which should make every member of parliament think about the necessity for a broader examination. I feel sure there is no naval officer in Canada more deeply steeped in the traditions of the Canadian navy or more affectionately inclined toward all who serve in that particular branch of the service than Admiral Mainguy. Nevertheless we find in that unanimous report presented by Admiral Mainguy and his associates such words as these:
Officers were also assigned to work without special qualification and several important departments were treated as though they were temporarily refuges for temporary misfits, rather than as fields of endeavour for the best available experts.
Admiral Mainguy would have no desire to be critical of any branch of the naval service. But, as a highly competent and highly qualified officer he saw these conditions, upon which he reported; and there were other conditions-many of them-which indicated a type of inefficiency, a lack of supervision, which pointed to the necessity for recurring supervision of activities of this kind, rather than a reflection in any way upon the general qualifications or spirit of the Royal Canadian Navy.
Those who have read the report of business experts who inquired into the activities of the national film board will have been struck by the fact that, no matter what kindly expressions might be directed to those associated with that board, there was a picture of disorganization which could hardly be exceeded in any case one can imagine. There was the description of various parts of the board carrying on their activities without supervision and without relation to the activities of others parts of the board. We find in the report tabled in the house such statements as these:
Budgets have been unrealistic, with the result that actual production costs have borne little relation to the budgeted cost.
And again:
Purchase arrangements have been made and, in a few cases, invoices have actually been received before the purchase requisitions have been submitted to the purchasing agent.
And another quotation:
Budgets have been prepared to cover part of the work only.	.
These and other statements indicate a situation which, I submit, should suggest to every member of the house the desirability of the kind of businesslike examination of the organization and interrelationship of
Public Service

Proposed Inquiry departments and government agencies which is carried out from time to time by any important business which expects to maintain some measure of business efficiency.
One of the things which has emerged, even in these very limited views which have been obtained with respect to a very small part of the immensely complex organization of government, and one of the things in fact which has been positively stated by men associated with agencies of government, is that the ordinary cost accounting methods do not apply. Just a few days ago a senior official of one of the agencies of government argued that you cannot apply ordinary cost accounting principles to a public service. Mr. Speaker, I think that cost accounting, which is the modern safety valve of big business, can be applied to government, and that there should be the same type of supervision of even such simple things as telephone communications, telegraphs, correspondence costs and things of that kind, as may be found in ordinary business.
Immense sums of money go into those items. We had, for instance, one new type of governmental activity which developed during the war. That was the creation of publicity and information services for departments of government for the purpose of maintaining public morale, in certain cases, and also, quite frankly, for purposes of propaganda directed to the general purposes of the war-and sometimes perhaps outside the exclusive purposes of the war. That was a development which came very largely with the last war. The fact that these activities continue was demonstrated clearly in a return given in sessional paper 102B and 102C of April 17 last, in which it was disclosed that departments of the federal government which had information and publicity divisions were employing a total of 366 employees to carry on publicity and information at a cost to the people of Canada of $1,275,508.43.
I notice the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has seen fit-as was very proper, if he thought it should be done-to write a letter to the press expressing his own opinion as to why it was necessary for his department to have sixty-four such employees.


Mr. Gardiner:: Which had nothing to do with the war. The set-up has always been there.


George Alexander Drew: I was going to explain that in the case of the Department of Agriculture there are certain activities, carried on for the general benefit of people in Canada who are interested in agriculture, which it is very important should be maintained. While I am not in a position to say that all these people

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry are employed for that purpose-and frankly I doubt that all of them are-nevertheless I do agree that in that particular department it is essential that the number of persons necessary to the giving of advice on strictly agricultural lines should be maintained. Having said that, however, I do suggest that an activity such as this in itself illustrates the importance of the kind of supervision and inquiry I am suggesting.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I make a suggestion? The letter which I wrote to the Journal was in reply to an editorial which had appeared; it was not with reference to the return made in the house. It simply pointed out that the definition of information and publicity used in the editorial did not conform with the term as used in the department.


George Alexander Drew: As the Minister of Agriculture knows, the editorial to which his letter referred was related to these sessional papers-


James Garfield Gardiner: But altogether wrongly.


George Alexander Drew: -about which I am speaking.


James Garfield Gardiner: It related in an altogether wrong manner to the return. The information indicates that there are nine persons in the department to whom you could apply the interpretation used in the editorial, and not sixty-four.


George Alexander Drew: I was indicating that in the case of the Department of Agriculture there is a necessity for the production of documents of this kind, but I was going on to say that the production of documents of this kind is the sort of thing that requires supervision from time to time. The government ns the administrative committee of parliament, and parliament itself, should have the advantage of outside advice to determine whether the most efficient and modern methods are being employed in carrying out that task.
Having made these observations in regard to the people employed by the Department of Agriculture-I qualify my remarks by saying that I am not satisfied that the whole sixty-four are employed for that purpose- I want to say that the remarks I made do not apply to most other departments. For instance, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Department of External Affairs needs fifty-one publicity and information personnel. There are no services carried on by the Department of External Affairs similar to those carried on by the Department of Agriculture. I am satisfied that an examination of that department will show that a large part of the work of those fifty-one men is devoted to straight propaganda on

behalf of the minister and the department and not to the production of information necessary for the people of Canada.
Then again I find that in the case of the Department of National Health and Welfare there are twenty-eight employees devoted to this work. The Department of National Health and Welfare does not need twenty-eight people for this purpose. I am convinced that a very large percentage of those people are devoting their time to the production of propaganda on behalf of the minister and the department rather than to rendering the kind of services which would justify employment of this kind.


Mr. Martin:: Is my hon. friend aware that when he was premier of Ontario that province complained about the inadequate service given in terms of health information by the department which I administered?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I am, and I do not think any criticism was better directed than that which was directed to your department because of its failure to give the kind of services that should have been given. Nevertheless I would point out that the people who could prepare the material desired are regular civil servants of that department doing regular jobs in the department, and not publicity and information people to the number of twenty-eight. I might point out that fifteen of those are not permanent civil servants; they are temporary civil servants, just as in the case of the Department of External Affairs, where thirty-seven out of fifty-one employees employed for that purpose are temporaries.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is in accordance with the staff quotas.


George Alexander Drew: They are not given that status which would be in keeping with the kind of service which should be rendered by those who are actually needed for purposes of this kind.
Then again we find that in the case of the Post Office Department there are twenty-eight publicity and information personnel employed. Will anyone suggest that you could not carry on the ordinary services required without these special publicity and information employees? There are regular civil servants who could do that job. Regular civil servants used to do that job. In most cases regular civil servants should still be doing that job and doing it within the ordinary requirements and supervision of the civil service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are all regular civil servants.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is not one who is not a civil servant.


George Alexander Drew: I am talking about civil servants assigned to particular tasks within the departments other than those having to do with publicity and propaganda for the minister or the department.
Take the whole lot of 366 and you find that 231 of them are temporary employees. The figure of $1,275,000 which has been given is not the total cost of these services; it represents only the salaries received by those 366 employees. Each of those offices is like a tap. Once it is turned on the money pours out for all sorts of other activities. The real cost of these services runs into the millions.
One of the things I want an inquiry of this kind to ascertain is how much these services really cost for the very extensive paper war that is being carried on, and not only by the Department of National Defence. Floods of publicity circulars of all kinds are distributed by these 366 employees. They go out in the form of press releases, printed pamphlets, and of course pictures showing the minister of the department doing something which will give an appropriate impression' of love and sympathy on the part of that minister for the particular task he is undertaking.
That is one place where these 366 publicists for the departments of government do make use of the national film board. I should like an impartial businesslike committee to inquire into just how many of the photographs that have been taken of ministers and distributed in the thousands by the national film board have been for the purpose of providing the public with service by the department or for the purpose of providing political service for the minister whose face has been so appropriately portrayed in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do they screen them before they take them?


George Alexander Drew: I think that is one part of the activities of the national film board which they thought was sufficiently safe to go on with while the screening was taking place. There is not a single member of this house who does not know perfectly well the enormous amount of material that goes out through these 366 men and women. Some of that is for the public service; and at the very outset of my remarks on this subject I conceded that in the case of the Department of Agriculture there is undoubtedly a very real importance in the kind of material that is going out. But when I recall the interruption of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), I would remind hi-. a:,d the house that civil hospitalization is entirely the responsibility of the provincial governments, and that one of the things I believe a body of this kind should do is to examine how duplication in matters of that kind can be avoided,
28, 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry so that the supervision and administration of such an extremely important matter as health and public welfare may be carried on with the full advantage of complete co-operation between the various governments but without the need for duplicating services in that regard and particularly without the need for that vast pile of paper that goes out to glorify the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the hon. gentleman will permit this question. He is making a very important and very constructive speech, but would he tell me in what particular there is duplication as between the Department of National Health and Welfare and any of the ten provincial health departments? Will he name one publication now being put out under the auspices of the department which I administer that has not been requested by the provincial governments and that is not in the national interest?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly. Literally tons of paper go out from that department throughout the year conveying the impression that the people of Canada discovered their bodies only when the present minister took office. They also try to tell the people of Canada that we would have no hospitalization plan at the present time if it were not for the beneficence of the minister.


Mr. Marlin:: You do not answer my question.


George Alexander Drew: I am answering the question. The minister knows perfectly well the kind of propaganda that is going out all the time. Additional propaganda of that kind goes out to create the impression that the only reason there is any hope of adequate hospital facilities is that a plan has been devised by the dominion government. By all means let this government support the provinces in their responsibility for hospitalization, but let us cease this attempt to create the impression that each of these things is being done by this national department. Certainly there are things to be done by that department. There is the administration of the pure food laws. There is co-operation with the provincial departments in matters of wider concern. There is the question of hospitalization relating to special subjects such as Indians and Eskimos. Doubtless more can be said about that another time.
One of the things I would like to have examined in that department, as in other departments, and something I believe members of parliament generally would like examined, is whether there is not the possibility of a great simplification of these services; whether, in those cases in which the dominion government is giving support to the provincial governments, the whole thing could not

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry be placed under the administration of one government or the other, instead of having those services multiplied right across Canada. The same would apply to such departments as those dealing with lands and forests, mines and activities of that kind.
One reason I am so convinced that a great deal can be accomplished by examining the relationship of those departments is the extent to which co-operation of that kind has saved money in a great number of cases, to my own knowledge. Just to give one example, hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars were saved to the people of this country through the wholehearted co-operation extended to the provincial governments by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in the education of the veterans who took technical training of various kinds after the war. In that instance the Minister of Labour discussed with the provincial departments of education ways in which effective training could be given demobilized veterans. Then, following the approval of broad plans for training and education of that kind, every cent of the money was paid over to those departments and to the staff set up for that purpose. I do not think there has been a more efficient operation in the past few years in this country than the training given in that way. Again, I recall that there was a great saving to the people of Canada through effective plans for co-operation in certain aspects of the supervision of our forest wealth.
These were not things that had been going on for years; they were new arrangements that had to be made. Through co-operation and examination of the whole problem on a businesslike basis plans were made under which in certain cases provincial departments of lands and forests mapped the great forest wealth of this country and made those photographs available to the dominion government. On the other hand the Royal Canadian Air Force carried out certain other mapping service under the federal government, and those photographs were made available to the provincial departments. I also recall a number of cases in which savings have been made through very effective co-operation between the dominion Department of Agriculture and the provincial departments. These things can be done and for that reason I think there should be not only an examination of the departments I have mentioned in order to bring about a still higher measure of co-operation and efficiency, but also an examination of all departments and the relationship between them.
[Mr. Drew.1

Now let us take one example of the way parliament is called upon to deal with estimates. Speaking about his own department the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) had this to say on April 25:
Because this is a big operation, I have felt that the Canadian people should have all possible information about what we were doing, and accordingly both in and out of parliament more information has been given on defence than ever before and I believe more than is being given in most other countries.
The very day that this statement was being made over the radio by the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the secretary of defence in Washington was giving the most detailed information to congress about every aspect of their defence, except the ultra-secret information connected with such weapons as the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and guided missiles. All the rest of the information was made available for anyone to read. As has been said so- often, we recognize now that the core of the defence of freedom rests with the United States. If the nation which is primarily responsible for the defence of freedom can give information to its elected members and the people of the United States, then the Minister of National Defence in Canada can certainly give equally full information to parliament and to the people of Canada.
A body of this kind could make inquiries, and could ascertain which part of the accounts, if any, in this country should be placed under any measures of secrecy. Another important thing that should be inquired into in regard to national defence is how this parliament can carry out effective supervision of the purchases for the Department of National Defence which are made by an agency of government not answerable in the ordinary way to the House of Commons. These are things that can be examined, considered and reported upon by businessmen, accountants and experts in that field.
I have put forward these arguments, Mr. Speaker, in the sincere and earnest hope that it may be the intention of the government to support this proposal. After all it is too much to think that we alone, of all the free peoples, should have avoided entirely these measures of duplication and inefficiency, which are ordinarily the inevitable result of a rapid expansion far beyond the size of the organization which was originally planned within the rules that have been set. We have been told on reliable authority that if the recommendations of the Hoover commission were fully implemented there would be an annual saving to the taxpayers of the United States of $5 billion. Proportionately

that would mean a saving in the neighbourhood of $500 million a year in this country. It may well be that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has some justification for a feeling of confidence that, relatively, we have found more efficient methods than others. I certainly am not conceding that, but it may be so. Even if it is so, it is difficult to believe that we would not find that at least one-fifth, two-fifths, or three-fifths of the same measure of weakness had crept into the organization of services as had crept into the services in the United States in precisely the same general field of activity.
In saying this I wish to point out also, that, as I believe, the civil service would actually welcome an examination into their general affairs, so that they would be assured of working under the greatest efficiency possible. By the very efficiency of that organization, they would be assured of reaching the highest positions based upon their qualifications. After all, there is nothing that contributes so greatly to the efficiency of the civil service as confidence within the civil service itself that the organization is one in which promotion and advancement relates only to efficiency and constant good service to the public whom it serves. I repeat that the people of Canada have reason to be proud of the high standard of the civil service of this country, but the civil servants themselves have indicated quite clearly that they wish to carry on their business under more efficient methods in certain details of their activities than they do today. I think such an examination as this would provide them with an opportunity of making recommendations for greater efficiency within that great permanent branch of the public service.
I have sought, Mr. Speaker, to put forward arguments which I believe support the request for a motion of this kind. I did not bring forward the motion until there had been adequate opportunity for the government to give consideration to these proposals. It is four weeks tomorrow since I made my request by letter. I would point out that if in these comments I have made any remarks of a nature reflecting on one department or another, I have done so only in answer to interjections which were made, and because I do know of certain cases through my own experience where very real savings could be made. Even if we did not have a single concrete example before us, and we have many, I still suggest that merely basing our approach upon the experience of ordinary business we could all agree that the time has come for an examination of
28, 1950	1989
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry this greatly expanded business of the people. We could then be sure at least, if of nothing else, that nothing can be done which is not being done to give to the people of Canada the most efficient government possible.
I emphasize once again that the greatest strength of the democracies in the days, the months and the years ahead will be the strength of the economy of government. It is part of the contribution to the struggle against the forces of evil that we keep the cost of government, and through that the taxation of the people, down to the very lowest point consistent with the services that the people want, and consistent with the maintenance of the efficient supervision of our public affairs. The people will form their impression of democratic government by their conviction that democratic government is either efficient or inefficient. What I have suggested would be the surest way of giving convincing evidence to the people of Canada that we have done all within our power to make democratic government in this country as efficient and as economical as is humanly possible.
I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
1.	Reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency.
2.	Eliminating duplication of overlapping servioes.
3.	Consolidating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature.
4.	Improving the general efficiency of government and assuring to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities.
And without limiting the generality of the foregoing to make such further recommendations as may contribute to the general efficiency of the organization of government."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the merits of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) or with the interesting speech he has just made to the house. That will be done by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) just as soon as I sit down within the next three or four minutes. I feel, however, that I owe a word of explanation to the leader of the opposition and to the house for there not having been a full answer in writing to the letter he addressed to me on April 1. There was an acknowledgment and a promise that the matter would receive consideration; and I can assure the hon. member that, just as soon as I returned from
1990	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry the enjoyable and restful holiday I had in Bermuda, it received careful consideration by the members of the government.
But we realized at once-and I am sure the leader of the opposition will agree-that this was a matter which concerns the prerogatives and procedures of parliament. We therefore felt that it was something which should be dealt with on the floor of this house, and not debated in correspondence. I am sure that the reason the leader of the opposition wrote his letter to me was that parliament was rising at that time and that there would have been no opportunity for making orally, in the house, the recommendations and suggestions that were contained in his letter. That is the only reason why there was not sent to the hon. gentleman an answer in writing to the suggestions contained in his letter. But those suggestions were given careful consideration. I will not say that the Minister of Finance was briefed by his colleagues, but he discussed with them the kind of answer it would be appropriate to make to the proposal; and it was felt that it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity. When the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat referred to this matter in his speech at the end of the afternoon on Wednesday, we considered whether or not it might be dealt with yesterday in the debate on the motion which was then before the house. But as appears at page 1920 of Hansard of Wednesday of this week, we noted that the hon. gentleman said:
I have already indicated that I intend to bring this subject up on another occasion.
We therefore felt that he had thereby implied that he had not said all he wished to say, and that it would be preferable for us to wait until the other occasion had arisen so that the matter might be dealt with more fully and more completely..
I thought it was only proper that that explanation be given here because I can assure the hon. gentleman that I shall always be greatly helped by any suggestions that can be made; and I should not like anyone to feel that we were lacking in courtesy in the manner of dealing with them. I think there will be opportunity now for a full discussion of what should be done in that respect, and it will be even easier after the hon. gentleman's speech than it would have been merely on his letter, because he has been able to amplify and to develop the ideas which were summarily expressed in the letter. He has now made it quite clear that the royal commission which he recommended was somewhat similar in character to the Hoover commission which operated in the United States. I felt that this idea was implied in


his letter, but it was not explicitly stated; and I think it is better for us to know exactly what is in the mind of each of us in this matter, because it is something which is of consequence not only to this day but to the future.
I shall not take up more time at this moment but shall leave it to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to deal with the proposal itself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated, Mr. Speaker, I had had some thought that, in closing the budget debate, it might be appropriate for me to say something about the suggestions put forward by the leader of the opposition in the letter to which he has referred concerning the appointment of this royal commission to look into the methods of government expenditure and the way in which those expenditures are scrutinized and examined. But the circumstances yesterday evening seemed to be conducive to a speedy disposition of the budget resolutions, and since the hon. gentleman had indicated that he intended to deal with the matter at a later date, I deferred making those remarks.
In a radio broadcast which I made after the receipt of the letter to which he referred and which was touched on by one of the speakers in the budget debate, I indicated that-and I am sure hon. members will agree it is the case-historically, at any rate, it was the primary function of parliament and if I may say so, of the opposition in particular, to perform the duty which my hon. friend is suggesting should be discharged by this so-called Canadian Hoover commission. As someone put it, I challenged the opposition to perform their historical function and to indicate some of the ways expenditures might be reduced and any of the ways efficiency might be improved.
May I say that one or two hon. members of the opposition have already accepted that challenge. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), in the able speech he made the other day, indicated certain specific fields in which he felt expenditures could be reduced. I am not going to discuss at this time the merits of the particular suggestions which he made. But in that speech lie did demonstrate that he had spent a great deal of time in analysing the estimates as presented, in co-ordinating figures which appear in them and in putting forward specific suggestions.
May I say by way of digression that I have never been too much impressed by the charges that it is not possible to get adequate information in order to intelligently

discuss the estimates. I do not want to single out individuals but there are a number of members in this house-perhaps the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is a notable example-who know how to ask questions in order to get information they want. If in reply to any question the hon. member for Lake Centre does not get an answer that satisfies him he is never backward in asking for supplementary information. That is the proper course to follow. That is the proper function of an opposition.
In his letter my hon. friend has suggested that there exists in the government service waste, extravagance, duplication of services and the like. I categorically challenge that statement; I categorically deny it. In my judgment there is no duplication, waste and extravagance.
As I said in my budget speech, and as I have said in radio broadcasts since, I would be the last to suggest that there is no room for increased efficiency and improvement in the government service, and efforts are being made at all times-with some considerable measure of success, may I say

to increase the efficiency and to eliminate such wasteful practices as may exist, and these efforts will be continued.
Incidentally I was interested in the tribute which the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) paid the other day to the work of the treasury board. And I speak with some knowledge of that because I spend a good deal of my time sitting on that board going into the tiresome, wearisome details of individual departmental expenditures.
The primary reason why the government feels that we would not be justified in accepting the suggestion that we should set up this outside board of accountants, business experts, or what have you, to decide what is, after all, the primary function of parliament, and in particular the function of the opposition, is that it has not yet been demonstrated, in our opinion, that parliament is unable to fulfil that function. We have a good many existing vehicles at hand. Let me note in passing that even in committee of supply on the estimates, in my observation, it has not been the practice of the opposition to ask the minister of the particular department concerned to give details of, let us say, the number of persons who are engaged in so-called informational activities, and to ask him for a break-down of them, ask him what these people are doing. That is what should be done. But in fact hon. members are, perhaps understandably, more interested in making speeches on general topics. That is a general statement. It does not apply to
28, 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry every hon. member. There are a good many instances that I have seen in this House of Commons. Again I will not single out individuals, but I know of two or three in the opposition who are extremely persistent, and rightly so, in getting information as to particular functions of government, whether it be the film board, the C.B.C. or whatever it may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Health and welfare.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will be glad to elaborate on the excellent work which is being done by the information service in his department when his estimates are under discussion. The point I am making is that members of parliament-and members of the opposition in particular-should see that they get that information.
We talk about failure to be able to examine officials of the departments directly. Let me point out to the house that the public accounts committee is a standing committee of this house. It is true that it examines past and not future expenditures; but surely if one is looking for evidences of extravagance, they are not starting in the coming year. If they exist, they existed last year, and there is opportunity in the public accounts committee for any hon. member, and in particular for hon. members of the opposition, to ask that any deputy minister, or any official of any department, be brought before that committee, and to examine him to their heart's content as to the details of the particular services of the department.
It seems to me that before we talk about setting up outside bodies to do the job we should get down to the dreary, tiresome, politically unrewarding job of digging into the details of expenditures instead of making sententious speeches in the house on general questions.
There is not a complete analogy by any means between our system and the United States system of government. I am not too familiar with the details of the report of the Hoover commission. I understand that it conducted its investigations for some considerable time stretching over two or three years, spent a good deal of money, and made certain recommendations. So far as I have been able to ascertain, up to the present time nothing has been done about them. But the point I want to make is that under the United States system, as the house knows, the executive is not responsible to the legislative body. The cabinet system is very much less highly developed than it is in Canada under the British system. I understand that in the

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry course of its two-year investigation tiie Hoover commission found over 1,800 separate and distinct federal government agencies, many of them with overlapping functions, and so on, none of them directly responsible to any department of government.
Historically, of course, under our system every government agency is responsible to parliament through a responsible minister, and, as I said a moment ago, my colleagues and I believe that the public of Canada have the right to expect parliament itself, the members of parliament itself, to exercise a constant and vigilant scrutiny over the conduct of administration, to search for waste and duplication; in other words, to do the job that they sent hon. members here to do. And if I may say so, I think that the members of the opposition, and of the official opposition in particular, have fallen down on that job. They have done a lot of talking about waste and extravagance; they have done a lot of talking about their being unable to get information as to the details of the public service, and they have made a lot of general speeches; but they have not got down to brass tacks in the public accounts committee, or in this house, to scrutinize the details of expenditures in any single government department. Until that is done I do not think that the government, or this parliament, would be justified in hiring some outside body of people, who would not be responsible to anyone but themselves, however capable, however competent they might be, to discharge a function which is historically, and properly so, the function of this House of Commons.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They did it in the film board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was coming to that. In certain cases where the government itself felt that it could get usefully the benefit of outside opinions as to particular functions, commissions have been set up, and commissions of that sort were created in the case of the film board and in the Mainguy report.


George Alexander Drew: And the radio.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the radio. I think it is probably fair to say that in both the film board and the Mainguy report no very serious instances of waste, duplication or inefficiency were disclosed. There were suggestions for improvement. That was what the commission was asked to report. But there were no disclosures of serious inefficiency, waste or extravagance. In fact, in the case of the Mainguy report, there were disclosures of some shortcomings in disciplinary conditions and the like, but again no serious evidences of waste or extravagance. So far as the form

of the presentation of the estimates is concerned, I have a perfectly open mind. We attempted to make some improvements this year by, for instance, consolidating the items, as was suggested by the Auditor General. But let me point out to the house that I have been reluctant to carry that practice too far, because it takes away from parliament a considerable measure of control and gives a very much wider measure of discretion to the executive.
However, as to the form in which the estimates are presented, or as to the detail the house may wish to have, I have a completely open mind. If they wish to have the estimates presented in ten volumes, it is all right with me. When we come to consider the details in treasury board, which is a long operation extending over several months, there is a tremendous mass of detail presented. Personally, I believe very little use would be made of it by most of the members if that detail were printed in extenso in the estimates, and it would run to considerable expense. But it is open to any member, either in committee of supply or elsewhere, to ask for the fullest detail about any particular item.
As I say, I have no preconceived ideas about the form of the estimates. It may be that they can be improved upon. It may be that it would be desirable to set up a special committee of the house-a small committee perhaps-to consider the form of the estimates, and to see whether they could be presented in a way through which it would be easier for members to ascertain just what the details are. But, so far as setting up any outside commission is concerned, to make a general survey of government practice and administration, I state, and I state it frankly that until we have demonstrated that we are completely unable to do the job we were sent here to do, I do npt think we are justified in making any such move.
I do not think there is anything more I need to add. I am glad the question has been raised, because I have been waiting for an opportunity to deal with it. However, I have expressed the considered view of the government, and it is the considered view of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much time, but I do feel that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is important enough to warrant my saying something on the subject. I have listened to his case with a good deal of interest. To some extent he aroused my concern over the whole question of efficiency-in government.

I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and I think perhaps there was a good deal to be said for the attitude he took. I do believe however that the minister is overlooking a number of very-important facts. In the first place, even if we were to agree that he was right in saying that the function of the opposition is to do exactly what is envisioned in this amendment, it would be physically impossible for them to do it in present circumstances.
I believe the Minister of Finance must be well aware of the tremendous number of responsibilities placed upon every member of the house-and particularly members of the opposition. We serve on committees, and if we are to discharge our responsibilities properly we must do a great deal of work on those committees. We have not staffs, as they have in the United States. As individual members of the house we are not given any allowance to retain staffs. We know that in the United States staffs granted to members can carry on research work and provide material so that members of the congress are not necessarily made slaves in the preparation of that kind of material, and have the time to do something more important.
We have not a great number of members on the opposition side of the house. Even if we were to unite all three parties and organize most carefully the division of responsible business, we still would not have sufficient to deal with the details of investigational work as envisioned in the amendment. I know if I were to get down to what I consider my duty in respect of those things mentioned by the leader of the opposition I would simply have to neglect a great many other things that are most important to the business of government, and leave out entirely political considerations which it seems must follow almost every member in the house.
I cannot see how the minister's contention is tenable at all. I would have to have a great deal more evidence than he has been able to give me that we could do it, even if it were laid down as a definite principle that the responsibility of the opposition is to do exactly what is indicated in this amendment.
I have always favoured any proposal which would enable the people's representatives anywhere and in any party to get at the truth.
It is only when we are in possession of all the truth we can possibly muster that we are able to discharge the responsibility devolving upon us as responsible representatives of the people. As things are carried on in parliament at the present time we cannot, as individual members or as members of party groups, discover all the things we need to
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry know, if we are to do the effective work that the people have every right to expect us to do.
For instance, in my budget contribution made some time ago I proposed the setting up of a commission to investigate those factors operating within our economy which cause the gap between national income on the one hand and gross national production of Canada on the other to persist. In other words this would be a commission to find out exactly what it is and why it is that the total of money supplied all the people is not sufficient to move or to distribute the national production. That in itself is a matter of tremendous importance. I say that until the facts of that situation are fully brought to light we shall not in any way be able to take such action as will put Canada in a position whereby she would be effectively cushioned against depression.
The amendment offered by the leader of the opposition calls for a much more comprehensive investigation than I have proposed. I consider however that his amendment could be broadened sufficiently to include the sort of thing I had in mind. As a matter of fact it was during President Hoover's administration that a commission was set up in the United States to do exactly the thing I have proposed. I do not believe it is in any respect a reflection on the honesty and integrity of members of the government when I say that a great many people in this country feel uneasy about the way in which their money is being spent, and how efficiently or otherwise the mechanisms of government are functioning.
I believe most people are aware of a mushroom growth in government during the war. I know I am. I know I have talked to many hundreds of people who had expressed concern about that mushroom growth. They expected, and had every reason to expect, a considerable reduction in the bureaux, departmental layers, employees and expenditures after the war was over, and during the early post-war period. They have not been made aware of any such reductions as they expected. They hear stories today of overloaded branches of government where employees are supposed to be spending much of their time trying to keep happy with nothing better to do than to knit or write letters home or compose odes to a very dull life or something of the sort.
I have heard such stories myself from employees of departments right here in Ottawa. They may have been just pulling my leg, I do not know; but even if they were the stories are persistent. I do not think I am saying anything other than the absolute truth when I say that the taxpayers, the

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry electors of the country, are entitled to know whether there is any truth in these rumours. What is more important, they are entitled to know what measures have been taken to ensure efficiency in every department of government.
I am quite sure the government want to feel secure in the knowledge that they have an efficient mechanism in every branch of government. I pay them the compliment of saying that I believe they are concerned about it. Because I know they are concerned, then I say that they certainly should welcome such a suggestion as we have put forward. The amendment calls for the reduction of public expenditures to the lowest point consistent with efficiency. That does not mean measly cheese-paring. I would not want that sort of thing myself and I would not support any amendment that would hold the government down to a cheese-paring position. I do not think that is what is envisioned, but I certainly do feel that even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would want to know that in every single department of government there is that type of efficient organization he can depend upon, that there will not be a building up of cushions to fall back on.
I would like to see curves prepared showing expenditures by departments according to the months of the year. I guarantee that if experts were to draw a curve for each department it would reveal to members of this house an increase in expenditures just prior to the end of the fiscal year. Such an upcurve in expenditures in the months just prior to the end of the fiscal year I suggest indicates that the department is doing its level best to spend the maximum amount in order that it can make out a good case for as heavy or heavier appropriations for the following year.
I have seen that done, and sometimes it is done quite cleverly in spite of the fine work of the treasury board. I am satisfied that the treasury board is much too busy and cannot possibly do this work efficiently.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend, having been a provincial treasurer, knows why that is done. Work may have been done but if the bills are not cleaned up by the end of the year you have to have a revote, which indicates a duplication.


Solon Earl Low: I make allowance for that. What I am referring to is the possibility of the hasty expenditure of funds on things the department does not need. I have seen that happen in a great many instances. The curve or graph that I mention showing the expenditures by months in the department would reveal this sort of thing. I am satisfied that it would reveal that the department is spending money on things it does not need merely

as a means of ensuring that the appropriation for the forthcoming year will not be pared down.
I think that in itself would be a useful function of a group of business experts. I am not making a charge of any kind. I submit that it would be most useful for me as a member of this house to have that information so that I might do my duty as I want to do it. There are a great many other things I could say in support of this amendment, but I must stop now as I have another engagement that calls me away. However, I want to say that I am going to support it.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only three or four minutes to deal with this amendment. I must say frankly that I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said this afternoon. I find it hard to believe that with a budget of $2-4 billion there is not considerable overlapping or inefficiency. The minister has repeatedly emphasized that the government intended to bring down expenditures and practise economy. I remember that in his 1949 budget speech, he stated "the government is practising the most careful economy and efficiency in all departments" and moreover that "it has decided on a general policy of curtailing expenditures."
Many Canadians, and I am one of them, wish the minister would reveal specifically where he has practised the economies he mentioned in the past year. He said that the opposition is responsible for pointing out cases where economy can be practised. As I understand parliamentary procedure, the Minister of Finance is primarily responsible to see that expenditures are not excessive and that requests from other departments for expenditures are cut down if they are not necessary.
When I look at the estimates, I see that in department after department expenditures are being increased-not decreased. According to these estimates in about twenty-three departments the expenditures are up considerably. The decrease of $66 million in the Department of Finance is, I presume, chiefly due to interest savings, and a large part of the decrease in veterans' affairs is due to the fact that not so much needs to be done for our veterans now as just after the war. In most departments, expenditures are still going up, even though' the war has been over for five years. It looks to me as though spending is going on unabated.
The minister has asked hon. members repeatedly to give specific instances of where savings might be made. I see the Minister

of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat. I have in my hand a report on the operations of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which shows that there are about 1,500 or 1,600 men employed. They are listed on page after page. Some are paid $20, some are paid $50 and others are paid as high as $5,000. In my opinion the P.F.R.A. is accomplishing much in the prairie provinces, yet I wonder how at every election these P.F.R.A. trucks can run around working for Liberal candidates. I am not casting any reflections, but I suggest that here might be a place where some economy could be practised.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Always qualifying these suggestions for savings.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am also a little concerned about the defence estimates. I admit candidly I do not know too much about defence matters; but. I remember that when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was discussing his estimates last year, on the same day I read in a Toronto paper that Marshal Tedder of the R.A.F. had said that one of the jet planes which we were producing in Canada for the R.C.A.F. was obsolete. That statement may not have been correct, but it was said, and I am concerned about it. I am one of those who wish that the minister would let us query defence expenditures a little more carefully before a special committee of the house.
I do not know whether we can support this amendment. Frankly I am not too keen about the wording, though I approve the principle. The leader of the opposition pointed out that the Hoover commission in the United States indicated where several billion dollars could be saved without impairing the efficiency of the public service. If that could be done here it might be worth setting up a similar committee. From what I have seen of them, I am not too keen about royal commissions, because immediately they are set up you have another expenditure. Even though some savings might be achieved, the nation would start out with an immediate cost of $200,000 or $300,000 to set up such a body. Then, too, we find far too often that these commissions bring in their 'reports and nothing is done about them.
I do not like the first clause of this motion, which calls for "the reduction of public expenditures to the lowest point consistent with efficiency." If that were changed to "the reduction of administration costs to the lowest point consistent with efficiency"
I could support it, but I am afraid I could not do so as it reads at present. There are many public expenditures which may be
28. 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry needed to maintain full employment, for irrigation and the like. Thus I believe there might be some contention on clause one.
Mr. Speaker, I believe something should be done about our estimates. I think the C.C.F. group would prefer to see a committee of the house set up, as the minister offered a moment ago, rather than a royal commission. For myself, at least, I would favour such a proposal.


John George Diefenbaker: desire to make a few observations, Mr. Speaker, arising particularly out of the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who I believe should have given more consideration to the seriousness of the situation with respect to the present levels of expenditure and taxation in this country. It was not as though he were not fully aware that this matter would be brought up. Indeed, he advised the house that he knew it was to come up, and was in a position yesterday to reply to the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in his radio speech; but because a vote was desired he chose not to deal with the matter on that occasion.
The Canadian people are not conditioned to a continuance of taxation at the present level. They are asking for the maintenance of necessary public expenditures; but as the only prelude and road to the reduction of taxation is to reduce unjustifiable expenditures they are also asking that unnecessary and unjustifiable expenditures shall be done away with. In the course of his budget speech the minister pointed out, with what I thought was almost an attitude of hopelessness, that Canadians could not hope for any reduction in the present expenditures in future, which was tantamount to saying that the present level of taxation will be maintained.
I cannot understand the reason for the reference to the Auditor General made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today; and I only hope that the Auditor General, responsible as he is to parliament, in the discharge of his functions will not find himself in the position in which Mr. McGregor found himself when carrying out his responsibilities. No man in this country occupies a position equal in political neutrality to that of Mr. Sellar, as Auditor General. His purpose is to audit and to contribute, by suggestion and recommendation, to securing for the Canadian people the best possible return for the money collected from them.
The minister stated that, no direct allegations of wasteful extravagance having been

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry made, therefore there is no reason for action or investigation by any outside body, as suggested by the leader of the opposition. In connection with the film board, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), I suggest that an outside body was set up, and that it found inefficiency. I shall refer to two examples that appear in that report. The first is at page 25, where it states:
At the present time more than five thousand individual accounts are kept to cover work orders and expenditures. This in itself adds tremendously to the work of the accounting staff and also to others who must approve expenditures or review and interpret the accounts. Some of the accounting analysis has been provided in order to supply information which was requested by or considered necessary for the management of the board . . . The chief treasury officer at the national film board has considered such an analysis necessary but, as far as the board is concerned, it appears to serve no useful purpose. In our opinion the number of individual accounts could be reduced1 by not less than seventy-five per cent without loss of control over expenditures.
Then on page 27 I find this, referring to costs in the year ending March 31, 1949, totalling $860,000:
The total costs which should have been apportioned were therefore some $300,000 in excess of $860,000 apportioned to individual film productions. In other words, such costs were understated by 26 per cent. In future the costing methods should be changed to reflect in the cost of individual films all production costs incurred by the board.
I have referred only to two of the findings of the independent board that looked into the matter. In an editorial on April 6, 1950, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said in reference to the report made:
An investigation into the operations of the national film board, for example, revealed a state of financial chaos. The board, it seems, has been making commitments with a fine disregard for the availability of funds. At the end of its last financial year it was discovered to have understated its film production costs by 26 per cent.
Then come these pertinent words, which I commend to the attention of the Minister of Finance:
The conditions which this report reveals are of more than casual interest. As contributors to the public purse, the Canadian taxpayers deserve to know how their dollars are being spent. And when they discover disorder in one department's house, they are immediately suspicious that the same conditions may be found elsewhere.
Surely the examination of one minor department, spending as the film board does a comparatively small amount, which brought to light these two examples of inefficiency and, as mentioned in this editorial, financial chaos, bears out the necessity of assuring that in other and greater departments like conditions shall not be permitted to exist.


Mr. Gillis:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has read into the record a statement from a newspaper, prepared outside this house. What verification has he for the figures he has put on record from that editorial?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the house when I commenced my remarks, but I first read from the report of the investigation of the national film board, which revealed the facts that form the basis of the editorial to which I have made reference.


Clarence Gillis: No, that is not the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, it is the point.


Clarence Gillis: My hon. friend, as a very learned lawyer, realizes that the clinching argument he put over was an editorial that he read from a newspaper citing certain figures for which there was no authority. I want the authority.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read the authority, and if my hon. friend has not read the report it is the National Film Board Survey, (Organization and Business Administration), 1950.


Clarence Gillis: I have read that report, but it certainly does not bear out the editorial you have just read.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend read it he did not understand it, if his conclusions be as he now states. I read first from that report, and then I read the attitude of a Liberal newspaper, based on that information. It went on to say this:
Our budget for this year-


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I resent the attack by a member of this house on a publicly owned body that should be supported and looked after by this house. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it permissible for an hon. member to read into the records of this house a statement prepared outside this house? Look up your little book.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I do
not think I need to look up the little book about this matter. The member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is quoting from a newspaper editorial, he quoted the source of the article from which he was reading; that is all in Hansard. If there is anything in the article which in the opinion of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is not accurate, that is for him to judge. The member for Lake Centre is taking the responsibility for what he says when he quotes the

newspaper article in support of the arguments which he is putting forward. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 262.
As to the question put by the member for Cape Breton South, I should like to point out to him that it is not the practice for any hon. member to ask questions of the Speaker from the floor.


Clarence Gillis: My question was on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I continue reading from the editorial to show the attitude of this newspaper, and many others across the country, following the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition in that radio speech. It says:
Our budget for this year is $2,400 million. The time has come for an efficient examination to discover whether these dollars have been spent with as much effect as dispatch. A commission would at least succeed in focusing public attention on glaring waste or extravagance, even if it left the correction to fallible politicians. Mr. Drew's suggestion of a royal commission it seems to us is the first step in discovering means to control government expenditures. We expect the government to study this suggestion immediately after the parliamentary recess.
I suggest this to the minister through you, sir, that the fact that there was an independent examination in connection with the national film board, and that glaring irregularities were thereby ascertained, in consequence of which the minister in charge of that department made changes as a result of those recommendations, supports the request of the leader of the opposition. Having regard to what was found during that investigation into that department, an investigation into other departments might easily reveal circumstances which would save the Canadian people a large amount of money.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance mentions that the opposition does not discharge its responsibility in asking for a royal commission. I would point out to him that in the province of British Columbia a body was set up within the last few months for the purpose of ascertaining what economies in government could be effected. A group of trained men were asked to examine the accounts. I read from the Free Press as to the results:
Evidently appalled at its own budget of $105 million the British Columbia government has decided, rather late, to find out where all the money is going. During the next year a firm of efficiency experts, having already effected large economies in one minor branch of government, will explore the other departments.
There is an example of what is being done in British Columbia through scientific examination by trained experts, whose purpose was
55946-127i
28, 1950	1997
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry to ascertain where duplications can be eliminated while assuring general efficiency of government.
My hon. friend says that the opposition does not discharge its responsibilities. If it does not discharge its responsibilities, and that is something I am not admitting, its failure is due to the complexities of modern government. If it were to examine details of expenditure as they would be examined by a group of efficiency experts in the matter indicated by the leader of the opposition, were that searching vigilance which should characterize an opposition and did characterize all oppositions until after the first war, a great deal of time would be consumed. As a result of the complexity of government and the mushrooming of departments and agencies, one reading Hansard can only conclude that, whether the opposition belonged to the Liberal party as it did during the years 1930-35, or to the Conservative party as it did during the years from 1921-30, it has become impossible for members of parliament to scrutinize expenditures as they should be scrutinized.
Dr. Beauchesne, who was for many years the clerk of this house, and the outstanding expert on parliamentary procedure, wrote an article recently in Canadian Business dealing with the procedure in parliament. He says this:
What concerns most Canadians is how parliament can be made a more effective instrument to serve the interests of Canada and>
democracy.
Then he states:
When the estimates are brought down by the government the house goes into committee of supply, which is a committee of the whole house. The handling of the estimates in this committee is, I fear, many times nothing but a farce. When the estimates of a certain government department are up for debate the minister heading the department gathers his experts around him (civil servants) and they are supposed to feed him the answers to all and every question which may be put.
It must be obvious to anyone that the size and ramifications of government make it impossible for any minister or his experts to answer adequately all the questions arising from the estimates for his department. We are today dealing with millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds. But the estimates for these public expenditures are passed with only the most perfunctory examination,-
In that quotation I have set forth the suggestions of a man who knows parliament. It might be argued that estimates should be considered in a committee. A committee could be set up for the several departments of government, and the estimates could be examined in that way. In the United Kingdom, the public accounts committee is the committee that investigates expenditures. It
1998	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry has as its chairman a member of the opposition party.. Ithas as its membership a majority of the opposition. In what I am about to say I shall not be speaking of the present public accounts committee composed as it is of outstanding members of this house. I am speaking of other committees that I have been on in previous parliaments. Whenever any member of the government was present in that committee, and a matter arose that might be difficult to answer or embarrassing if answered, objections were immediately raised that it was not a proper question. On every occasion on which such an objection was raised, for some reason it was sustained and the questioning on the part of opposition members was squelched and denied. I think of the committee on agriculture-


Mr. Isnor:: Which committee was that?


James Arthur Ross: Several.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of the committee on agriculture. I am not speaking of the committee on war expenditures presided over by my hon. friend the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). On his behalf I can say this. As chairman of that committee, he endeavoured, at all costs, to secure information; and I pay him that tribute.


James Arthur Ross: That happened on public accounts too.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking about the committee on agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not there often.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that. But whether present in person or not, the minister was always there in spirit and the influence was equally great. I remember one occasion when a certain matter came up. I am not sure of the year, but I think it was 1943.


James Arthur Ross: 1942.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, 1942. The grain exchange had been closed. Trading had been ended. As a result of an examination of the accounts it was found that $520,000 had been paid to various individuals who formerly operated on the exchange, in return for services which they had previously performed but were no longer performing. We asked, "Who are these favoured persons? Give us the list. There are 108 members connected with the grain exchange. Who are they?" It was strange, Mr. Speaker. Some of them received $7,000 a year and one received $8,000. Then others who were not in the king row received $50 a month. They all got paid. We asked for the information: Who are these people? After all, that expenditure


came out of the Canadian people. But that information was denied as not being in the public interest.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not suggesting that I was the minister responsible, are you?


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. The minister brought himself into it, as a matter of fact. I did not suggest that.


James Arthur Ross: His was just the guiding hand.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I had nothing to do with it.


James Arthur Ross: In those days it was different.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister brought
himself into it. [DOT]
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin): Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Next I think of the Canadian National Railways. The minister says in effect, "Ask and you shall find out," when I asked the question as to how much was paid as an honorarium to the retiring president of the C.N.R. Some say it was $100,000; others say it is less than $100,000. The answer in effect is that parliament dare not know that. It is not in the public interest because competitors might have an advantage. What competitor of the Canadian National Railways would have an advantage in finding out that the president on retirement-after staying on a year and a half after sixty-five, as he ought not to have done according to the regulations of the C.N.R.-received in addition to retirement allowance a gift that comes out of the Canadian people. The answer is:
It is not the practice for the Canadian National Railways to grant retiring allowances to any officers in addition to pensions, as provided under the regulations of the C.N.R. pension fund. The only exceptions have been an allowance, authorized by the beard of directors, to the chairman or president upon retirement.
We asked how much, and the Canadian National Railways, which comes back to parliament to make up any deficiency, believes it is not in the public interest to give to parliament such information, and that the Canadian people should not know where their money is going.
There are other examples that one could give. I give a recent one. I think of Mr. Justice "C". His identity will remain anonymous except that his name does not begin with the letter "C"; and so speculation as to his identity continues. He received $15,000 from a royal commission in one of the provinces of Canada. Who he was, we do not know. But he made an arrangement with the deputy minister of national revenue whereby

that $15,000 would not be charged to him as his income in one year but would be subdivided over a period of three years. How often does that happen? How many other Canadians find themselves in a like position?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not familiar with the facts. Is my hon. friend certain of the facts? I thought he had claimed complete exemption for it and that it had been disallowed.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I will go on from there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am asking for information.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister asks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just as a matter of interest. It was not federal money that was being spent, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: It is an interesting case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not federal money that was being spent.


John George Diefenbaker: No; but the federal treasury, in consequence of the changing of the allotment as to when the payment was made, was in fact losing part of the income tax that would otherwise be collectible. An arrangement was made-and I see no authority for it-with the deputy minister that $15,000 would be apportioned over three years. Then after the appeal board was set up, two or three years later-Mr. "C", for Mr. "C" he must remain, then appealed to the appeal board on the ground that it was an honorarium; and argued that he was not liable for anything. The appeal board said, "Oh, yes, you were." One of the commissioners said, in effect "Not only were you liable, but the deputy minister of national revenue had no authority, three years ago, to trifurcate your income; and you are now liable on $15,000 as though earned in the year in which it was in fact earned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder how the income tax people will treat Mr. Vaughan's retiring allowance?


John George Diefenbaker: That is another matter we have no information about.


James Arthur Ross: Not in the public interest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows that it has never been considered sound public policy to make public the private affairs of individual taxpayers.


John George Diefenbaker: That is perfectly true.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants that done. I know that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


Clarence Gillis: What happened with regard to Mr. Thornton?


John George Diefenbaker: In the case of Mr. "C", the matter did become public because the judgment was handed down; and the only thing that did not become public was the identity of Mr. Justice "C".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is not
"C"?


John George Diefenbaker: When we try to get the
information with regard to that, or the evidence, the answer is that it cannot be given.
Some suggestion was made that it would cost a great deal of money. Royal commissions ordinarily do cost much money. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) said that the cost worried him. When Mr. Hoover took over the chairmanship of this commission in the United States, the only members of the "task forces" who were paid were the research staff. Three hundred public-spirited Americans, learned and trained in various departments of government or of business, accepted the job as their contribution to the assurance of full and complete businesslike economy in the government.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has mentioned the fact that parliament cannot get information, or any detailed information, regarding defence expenditures. In effect the answer given in every case is that it is not in the public interest. I am going to read from the United States News and World Report, which contains in detail the answers to questions that were asked Mr. Hoover regarding the Hoover commission. As soon as these reports came out last year I took it upon myself to read them. I have not the technical knowledge to understand some of the recommendations made. They were not final until adopted by congress, or by the department concerned. In connection with defence Mr. Hoover said:
All investigations hitherto have been made by hiring mostly research people. We added strength to research by groups of citizens of judgment. They were objective-minded men. One reason why I believe the armed services' organization bill will be enacted is because of the strength of that task force in their evidences to the congress.
He was asked if they took men from outside the armed services and the answer is:
That's right. Ferdinand Eberstadt was the chairman. and that task force included fourteen of the ablest citizens you could find in the United States, every one of whom had had contact with war activities of the government. They were all independent men. none of them in the government, and they had the best of military advice.
He said that this committee, the task forces investigating the several departments of government, did so without regard to any political considerations whatsoever. Their
2000	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry whole purpose was to assure to the people of the United States, as I believe the Canadian people are entitled to be assured, that so long as taxation is imposed, in the expenditure of that taxation there shall not be waste, extravagance or overexpenditure.
Mention was made by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, of the constant flood of propaganda that comes out from publicity departments of government. I think the high mark in that direction was the one issued by the Department of Resources and Development, editorial and information division, on April 20, 1950. They meant to announce that the trans-Canada highway agreement would be signed on the following Monday. It is on the official stationery of the department. But they did not announce it in that way. They announced it in this way:
The trans-Canada highway agreement will be signed in Ottawa, Monday, April 24, it was learned today from official sources in the Department of Resources and Development.
One set of officials in the department told the other set of officials that they in turn should tell the Canadian public that on a certain day certain things would be done. It became a merry-go-round in the department, in the giving of simple information which was simply this: the trans-Canada agreement will be signed in Ottawa on April 24. Suffice it to say that the people of Canada want parliament to ensure a 100-cent return on every dollar expended.
No minister of a department can hope to have the knowledge of his department that will enable him to answer all the questions. He has to depend on his research specialists and civil servants. I repeat what I have said on previous occasions. No one who did not serve in the opposition during the days of the last war, and since, can have any conception of the amount of work that a member of parliament must do if he endeavours to discharge his responsibilities.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The degree of research, the amount of reading-and one can only concentrate on one or two items-becomes so overwhelming that finally many hon. members find themselves in a position where in frustration they adopt an attitude of resignation, and I mean, of mental resignation.
I feel that the opposition could increase its effectiveness if given research assistants. The minister has stated that he has an open mind as to whether or not there should be an increase in the estimates in the degree of information furnished therein. As I said this morning, to the public accounts committee of 1890 I find the smallest expen-


ditures made were set out in detail. I am not going to repeat the expenditures to which I made reference in the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Give us some of them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was reading them in the evening paper. They are very interesting.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Finance says that he was reading them. I have a summary of them here. Under the heading of contingencies, the Canadian House of Commons that year needed two crib quilts.


Mr. Sinclair:: Oh happy days!


John George Diefenbaker: In one item, food for the cabinet. A later one was refreshments for the cabinet. A little further down there were goblets, Mr. Speaker, and finally there was an item for a corkscrew. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the grouping of items such as that may very well be considered as more than coincidence. What of the public accounts of today? Only details in the expenditures to the individuals named that are over $10,000. In lower amounts one does not even have the identity of the individual who has received them. One of my colleagues suggests to me they might find their way under the heading of sundries. They do not even find themselves in that.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that he is of open mind as to whether greater details should be given. Then he indicated that the volume would be about a foot and half in depth.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A big one.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it would be a big one. Well, if we did away with a lot of this propaganda being handed out by some of these departments I believe the saving thereby could very well be translated into greater detail in the statement of expenditures.
The budget indicates that the taxation, both direct and indirect, in 1949-50 is greater by $12 million than it was in 1945-46, the year immediately following the war. Realizing that large "cold war" expenditures must be made, I feel that the people of Canada are asking parliament to do something to remove at least a portion of their load of taxation arising from unjustifiable expenditures.
In 1945-46 direct taxation amounted to $1,453,373,000 and indirect taxation to $821,485,000. I believe it was after that date that the dominion dropped the special taxes on gasoline, amusements and parimutuels. In 1949-50 direct taxation amounts to $1,269,500,000 and indirect taxation to $1,016,500,000. In other words, while Canadians are paying less in direct taxation,

which they feel, they are paying a great deal more in indirect taxation which they do not feel when making the payments.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Their national income is very much higher, too.


John George Diefenbaker: The national income is higher. I realize that perfectly well. But the fact remains that Canadians are now paying much more in indirect taxation than they were in 1945-46 immediately after the war, and during the period of rehabilitation incidental to the termination of hostilities.
Canadians know what taxation is. They realize the need to meet the challenge of the cold war. Our expenditures in connection with defence and the preservation of our freedom amount this year to $425 million, with an additional amount of $144 million to cover ships and munitions to be delivered in future years. When one brings such an expenditure down to the family level and realizes that they mean $700 for every average Canadian family and 80 cents out of every dollar paid in income taxation, we must realize that we have a responsibility to reduce unnecessary governmental expenditures, not by doing away with social services but through the application of business principles as they have been applied in British Columbia in the past year, and will be applied in the next year. If we could save even a portion of the percentage of savings that the Hoover commission has been able to recommend in the United States, then such a commission would be a worth-while investment.
Such a commission would not be political, and would do no political harm to anyone. It would recommend where needed the application of business principles. It would not be the assumption by a royal commission of the functions of the opposition or parliament. That was not the result in the United States when the Hoover commission was set up; it has not been the result in British Columbia. It is a simple process of 'bringing up to date the machinery of organization in all departments of government to meet a changing world and to cope with the intricacies and difficulties incident to the complexities of modern government.
I feel that in the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition there is a challenge to the imagination of the Canadian people. I found a most favourable reaction to that suggestion after he had made it. Men and women on the farms and in the factories- and in all walks of life-in view of the minister's statement in the budget speech that there is little hope of any reduction in taxation, are greatly concerned about
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry this matter. In view of the gravity of the minister's statement, and in the light of the experience of the Hoover commission in the United States, it is their hope that Canada will fall in line with what has been done by the Hoover commission, altering some of its terms to meet our conditions and bring them in line with our British traditions of government.
Such a commission in Canada would be no abnegation of our parliamentary responsibilities. It would be a realization, not of impotence on the part of members of parliament, but of a desire by parliament to do something to modernize our system of administration to the end that savings may be achieved without a denial of those things that make for the better life.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would you suggest "Mr. C." as chairman of the royal commission?


John George Diefenbaker: He must have been a trained chairman of a commission.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. McCulloch.


Mr. McCulloch:: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in both English and French; and I move:
That the recommendation contained in the fourth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, respecting a capital stock charge on Bill No. 9, an act to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, he concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.


Mr. Howe:: Is the hon. member going to speak to his bill?


Percy Ellis Wright: Not if I can get a vote on it without speaking. This is a fairly simple bill.

Canadian Wheat Board Act All it does is to add the word "Churchill" to two sections of the present wheat board act, in those parts of the act where the words "Port Arthur, Fort William and Vancouver" appear. The legislative effect of the amendment will be to make Churchill a basing point under the wheat board act the same as Port Arthur, Fort William and Vancouver, but the operative or practical effect of the amendment will be to place the growers of wheat in the area adjacent to Churchill in the same position as the growers of wheat who live close to the Vancouver area or to Port Arthur and Fort William and who have the advantage of cheaper freight rates to those ports while the wheat producer in the area adjacent to Churchill has to pay freight rates based on Port Arthur and Fort William.
As I proceed I shall show that this means a considerable difference in the net return to the grower in this area. When a similar bill was before the house last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated that if a better price were received for wheat grown in that area as the result of Churchill being made a basing point under the world wheat agreement, he would agree with me that the benefits derived from that better price should be passed on to the growers in that area. I should like to quote from Hansard of October 6, 1949, where I am reported as follows:
The minister did not answer my inquiry as to what the possible price might be at Churchill under the world wheat contract. Possibly he cannot do so at the present time, but if a favourable price is obtained for wheat at the port of Churchill under the world contract, a price in excess of the price at Port Arthur or Fort William, then I think it is doubly necessary that the people adjacent to that port should get some advantage from that price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would agree.
I should like to quote from page 1088 of Hansard of March 24, 1950, where the minister is replying to a question which I had asked the previous day with respect to the price of wheat at Churchill under the world wheat agreement. The minister is reported as having said:
In accordance with this resolution Canada may negotiate and complete sales under the international wheat agreement for Churchill shipment at prices in line with c.i.f. prices at destination as compared with St. Lawrence shipment. If such sales can be made, Canada would secure the advantage of cheaper over-all forwarding costs as the result of using this port. However, if Canada is called upon for wheat at the international wheat agreement maximum price or desires to put wheat at the international wheat agreement minimum price, we can only deliver wheat from Churchill at the Fort W illiam-Port Arthur basic maximum or minimum prices as set out in the agreement.
Canada has not been obliged to put wheat at either the maximum or minimum price under the world wheat agreement. Wheat sold under that agreement has been on the basis

of agreement as between the purchaser and seller, without having to make a demand on the consuming nation or on the selling nation. If this favourable price has been established for wheat at Churchill then in view of his statement last year I think the minister should agree that the price should be passed on to the growers in the area adjacent to Churchill.
I know of no other way in which that can be done than by an amendment to the wheat board act such as I have suggested. If the minister could show me that the advantage obtained through selling wheat through Churchill can be passed on to the growers in that area in any other manner, I would be prepared to withdraw my bill. But unless he can do that I think this amendment is necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of giving the growers in the area adjacent to Churchill the advantage of rates to that port.
When a similar bill was before the house last year one of the objections raised by the minister was that there were approximately 40 million bushels of wheat produced in this favourable freight area, but that in the past there had been only a little over 5 million bushels of wheat actually shipped through Churchill. He said that if the bill passed it would mean that the wheat grown in that area would be paid for at the favourable freight rate to Churchill which would result in the growers in other parts of the western provinces subsidizing the growers in the Churchill freight area.
As a matter of fact that has taken place for years with respect to Vancouver. In a return tabled on October 31, 1949, it is shown that during the years 1939 to 1944 the growers in the area adjacent to Vancouver received a subsidy of a little over $10 million because much of the wheat grown in that area was shipped through Port Arthur and Fort William. Largely because of the war, shipments through Vancouver were curtailed. I never heard any complaint by the wheat growers in other parts of western Canada with respect to that subsidization of grain grown in that particular area. I think we all considered it reasonably fair. Again from 1945 to 1948 growers in the area adjacent to Vancouver were subsidized, though not to the same extent. In 1945 the additional freight paid amounted in round figures to $150,000; in 1946 to $361,000; in 1947 to $686,000 and in 1948 to $396,000.
The wheat board received some compensation in return for this additional freight paid on grain from the Vancouver freight rate area shipped through Port Arthur and Fort William. It did not completely cover

the additional cost, but it did meet a considerable portion of it. My contention is that if today we shipped a certain amount of our wheat through Churchill at a favourable price, that money could be used by the wheat board to make up any deficit that might result from the payment to the growers on the basis of the Churchill freight rates. If this were done it would not place a burden on the growers in any other part of western Canada, but would give the growers in that area the advantage of freight rates to that port. I think that only fair, and a very good reason why at this time we should amend the act as I have suggested.
One other matter with respect to grain going to Churchill, about which something * should be done, is the diversion charge which is at present levied by the grain handling companies on grain going through that port. That charge amounts to one and a half cents per bushel. A good many hon. members may not know what diversion charges are, though I believe that yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), in speaking of the port of Churchill, gave some information on that subject. This is a charge made on grain which an elevator company ships through a port where it has not a terminal elevator of its own and, as a result, has to turn that grain over to another company or place it in a government elevator. As the only elevators at Churchill are government elevators this means that every bushel of grain shipped to that port must pay that diversion charge of one and a half cents a bushel. Practically every elevator company in western Canada has terminal elevators of its own or leases elevators at Vancouver and Port Arthur-Fort William, and ninety-five per cent of the grain they handle goes into their own terminal elevators so no diversion charges are levied on that grain. It seems very unfair that Churchill should be penalized because of this practice. As a matter of fact the On-to-the-Bay association, in making its representations to the cabinet just a few days ago, had this to say:
We would request that government instructions be issued to the Canadian wheat board for the cancellation of unwarranted diversion charges being made by western grain elevators of 1J to 2 cents per bushel on grain when same is shipped to the port of Churchill.
I should like to give some figures to show the difference in cost between Churchill and other ports. The brief of the Hudson bay route association gives certain figures showing the cost of marketing grain from Saskatoon to Great Britain through various Canadian ports. I shall give the total amounts, and then will ask permission to have the complete figures placed on Hansard.
Canadian Wheat Board Act These are official figures of the Canadian wheat board, and show the cost of moving wheat to Great Britain over various routes. From Saskatoon via Churchill the cost per bushel is 45-949 cents. Via Vancouver it is 59-659 cents. Via lake and rail ex bay ports to f.o.b. St. Lawrence ports the cost is 58-037 cents per bushel. Via all-water to transfer points to f.o.b. St. Lawrence ports the rate is 56-671 cents. That is the cheapest rate on grain coming east. Via lake and rail ex bay ports to Halifax and Saint John the rate is 59-605 cents. So it will be seen that on grain shipped to Great Britain through Churchill from points such as Vancouver the saving is from 12 to 14 cents a bushel. If I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the full details of these charges be placed on Hansard, since I believe they would be of interest to all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon member leave to place these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Percy Ellis Wright: The tables are as follows:
Cost of moving wheat from Saskatoon, Sask. to United Kingdom via Churchill
Cents per bushel
Freight, Saskatoon to Churchill	 12-600
Diversion charge	 1-500
Elevation	 1-875
Outward inspection and weighing	 -200
Warehouse receipts cancellation	 -004
Superintendence	 -040
Bank charges	 -130
Ocean freight	 29-600
Total	 45-949
Via Vancouver
Freight, Saskatoon	to	Vancouver	 14-400
Elevation	 1-875
Inspection and weighing	 -200
Registration	 -004
Wharfage	 -180
Ocean freight	 43-000
Total	 59-659
Via lake and rail ex bay ports to f.o.b. St. Lawrence ports
Cents per bushel
Rail freight, Saskatoon to Fort William ...	13-200
Lakehead fobbing	 2-109
Lake freight	 4-500
Lake freight, brokerage	 -125
Insurance,	lake marine	1outturn	I	[DOT]	279lake war strike	and riot	jRail freight	
10-002Rail shrinkage	
-263Wharfage	
[DOT] 180Superintendence, St. Lawrence	
-040Forwarding brokerage	
-125Bank charges	
-138Ocean freight	
27-076Total	
58-0372004	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act Via all-water to transfer points to f.o.b.
St. Lawrence ports
Rail freight, Saskatoon to Fort William .. 13-200
Lakehead; fobbing	 2-109
Lake freight	 13-000
Lake freight brokerage	 -250
Insurance, lake	marine	1lake	outturn	1	-554lake	war strike	and riot ...jWharfage	
[DOT] 180Superintendence, St. Lawrence	
-040Forwarding brokerage	
-125Bank charges	
-137Ocean freight	
27-076Total	
56-671
Via lake and rail ex bay ports to Halifax and Saint John
Rail freight, Saskatoon to Fort William ..	13-200
Lakehead fobbing	 2-109
Lake freight	 4-500
Lake freight brokerage	 -125
Insurance, lake	marine	1lake	outturn	1	-279lake	war strike	and riot ....JRail freight	
10-500Rail shrinkage	
-263Elevation, seaboard	
1-325Superintendence, Canadian	
-040Forwarding brokerage	
125Bank charges	
-139Ocean freight (average)	
27-000Total	
59 [DOT] 605
I want to make one other point. Last year the minister stated that approximately forty million bushels of wheat were grown in the area adjacent to the port of Churchill. I disagreed with him, but now I find that he was more nearly correct than I was. Some forty million bushels of wheat, or a little more, were grown in the freight rate area favourable to Churchill; but I would point out that this favourable freight rate area is in the shape of a fan, spreading out from Hudson Bay junction or The Pas. On the outskirts of that area there is a large area where the difference would be only one-half cent or one cent per hundred, so in that area it would make very little difference to the growers which way their wheat went. My argument is that the wheat grown in the area where the freight rate to Churchill would be a real benefit amounts to only twenty-five million bushels or less. This is the area which would be principally affected. The other fringe area, if I might call it that, would not be nearly so concerned, because the difference in cost to the growers would be very little, whichever way their wheat went.
Last year the wheat board had to get wheat to Churchill in a hurry. They were not able to get all they needed in the favourable freight rate area adjacent to that port,


because much of the wheat had gone to Port Arthur and Fort William. The result was that they had to haul wheat, I am told, from as far away as Maple Creek in Saskatchewan to Churchill in order to load the boats coming there in the early part of the season. So I believe that with a little planning the port of Churchill could be used to a far greater extent than at the present time. There is no need to increase the facilities; at present Churchill has facilities to handle twenty to twenty-five million bushels of wheat, if they were used for the full season of eight weeks during which the port is open. If that time were extended by another two weeks in the early part of the season and another two weeks in the latter part, certainly from twenty to twenty-five million bushels of wheat could be shipped through that port.
In my estimation there is only one reason why it is not shipped, and that is simply the fact that the wheat board and the other agencies which handle wheat have not become accustomed to using that port. The shipping companies have never been in the habit of sending their boats into Churchill, but have always used Montreal, Saint John, or Vancouver. Until the wheat board or the Canadian government encourage shipment through Churchill, that condition is likely to remain. The shipment of grain through that port is not likely to grow. It is for that reason I have moved this amendment to the act. I feel that, if Churchill were named as a basing point, the wheat board then would have a greater incentive to find sales for wheat through Churchill. We would then get a greater use of that port, and I am sure that when the port was first built it was intended to give to that part of western Canada adjacent to it another outlet to the sea. There is no use having it there if we are not going to make use of it. I am urging the government to accept this amendment as the first step towards making greater use of the port of Churchill.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and he has said some true things about Churchill. If at the end of his remarks about the Churchill route he had said that in the future this will be for the benefit of western Canada, and had withdrawn his bill, I would have been entirely in agreement with him.
As the hon. member pointed out, there are forty million bushels of wheat involved. If we assume that this bill were adopted, it would mean that those farmers could haul their forty million bushels of grain to the elevator and receive the price at Churchill, in spite of the fact that Churchill could not take that

wheat. The elevators would not hold it; not even the Saskatoon elevator would hold all of it. The wheat would have to be pulled around and shipped through Fort William and Vancouver, as it has been in the past.
Then the hon. member spoke of the dividing line. I had some experience with that in Alberta at one time when I had some of my wheat there. The breaking point between Fort William and Vancouver at that time was somewhere between Claresholm and Car-mangay, Alberta. The farmers hauled their wheat a considerable distance to get the Vancouver price, because it was more than the Fort William price. If this bill were passed, the same thing would occur.


Percy Ellis Wright: Today wheat is not delivered to any point; you have to name your delivery point.


George Dyer Weaver: Supposing that the member for Melfort's suggestions were adopted, and he amended the bill to take effect only during the shipping season. At that time there would be too much wheat in the elevators in this particular area and the farmers would tend to hold wheat back to try to get the extra price. If that happened in a year such as this when the carry-over is not great, it would react as a detriment to the money the western farmers as a whole would receive because the wheat would not be available to get the going world price. Wheat would not be available for shipment at this time of the year, so you would have to wait for the shipping season to open in mid-August.
This advantage for which the member for Melfort asks is already available, according to a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on March 24. The wheat board will get the advantage of that short route, but that advantage will not go to the specific farmer in that area; it will be spread amongst all the western farmers. It works out quite well now under the wheat board. They can use that twelve-cent advantage they have over the Churchill route. This may seem a rather long statement, but if it is carefully examined you will see the truth of it. At the present time there are approximately five and a half million bushels of wheat going over that route, and I hope that volume will rapidly expand. Today the Churchill route is paying, but it does not appear in black in the accounting ledgers. The member for Melfort mentioned the twelve-cent per bushel advantage there is in shipping over that route. Someone is getting the advantage of that short route. It may be the insurance companies, the shipping companies or the buyer, but it does go to somebody. Under the arrangement that will be put into effect this year, they will be able 55946-128a
Canadian Wheat Board Act to cut into the twelve cents gradually so that shipping companies will not stop coming to that port. In that way shipping companies will get used to using that route. Time is an important factor in these cases. Then, the western farmers will be receiving the full advantage of that route. The member for Melfort has introduced this bill tonight, but it has not a chance of being passed.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


George Dyer Weaver: Well, because-


Mr. Argue:: Too many Liberals.


Mr. Ferrie:: Too many foolish heads brought it.


George Dyer Weaver: I should tell my hon. friends that that is probably the reason. The Liberals are a little bit smarter when it comes to figuring than the gentleman who is interrupting. The only purpose served by bringing in this bill at this time is to confuse the issue in the mind of the western farmer, because we cannot go to each one and explain all these things. The hon. member is doing the route a disservice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this bill is practically the same as a bill that was debated in this house last year. On that occasion I had to oppose the amendment, and I find myself in the same position tonight. I am sorry that is the case, because I have a sentimental interest in Churchill. The building of that port helped to provide shoes for the Howe children for a period of time. I have always had the success of the Hudson bay route very much at heart.
The experts who advise me, however, tell me that this amendment is impractical. It is not an amendment that affects the government purse under the present system of marketing. If the route causes the over-all cost of marketing grain to be more expensive, then that expense is charged against the growers of western Canada, and the contributions would come not from the government but from the growers in other areas. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the government to make sure that marketing is done fairly, and that each grower receives the price for his wheat that represents an equitable division of the total proceeds of a crop. To pass this amendment would, in the opinion of the government and in the opinion of my advisers, upset that equitable distribution of the crop proceeds.
My hon. friend suggested that members of the wheat board are not doing their best to bring about a large movement of wheat through Churchill. I should like to discuss that for a
2006	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act moment. That movement is particularly difficult under the conditions that have obtained for the last two or three years when the crop has been sold during the crop period except for a very small carry-over. My hon. friend will appreciate the fact that the port opens at the end of the crop year. It is usually about the end of July before Churchill is open. For part of the Churchill season it is too early to get deliveries from the current crop, so that for such part of the season the movement must depend upon the carry-over from the old crop. For the latter part of the season the movement through Churchill depends upon the early marketings of the new crop. If there were substantial carry-overs such as we often had in pre-war days, there was no great difficulty. We could move grain into the Saskatoon elevator and have it available for the Churchill movement in any quantities that were required. Arrangements are particularly difficult this year because this year marks the ending of the five-year pool. We all know that the price at which wheat is being marketed this year is the highest permissible under the international wheat agreement. There is every reason why all the wheat possible should be , marketed within the pool period.
We know that all the farmers of western Canada are anxious to have this pool completed promptly so that final distribution of pool funds can be made to the growers. There is therefore great pressure on the wheat board to get all pooled grain to market. To hold wheat simply for the privilege of moving it out through Churchill, when that means an inability to sell under conditions that maintain in the present crop year, is a difficult decision to make. The fact that the wheat board, in spite of these difficult conditions, has moved a record quantity of wheat from the 1948 crop through Churchill and has made a still better record in the crop year 1949, indicates I think that the wheat board has the interests of the port of Churchill at heart.
At the present time wheat is being moved out of the country and into' terminals as rapidly as possible in order to fill overseas commitments. Nevertheless instructions have been issued that any wheat that is tributary to Churchill will not be moved at this time. The board will make an endeavour to hold that wheat for movement through Churchill, but nevertheless if wheat continues to be sold at the present rate and if that wheat is required to fulfil commitments prior to the end of the pool year, that wheat must move by another route in order to get that wheat to market on time. I simply mention the current situation having in mind the remarks


of my hon. friend to the effect that the wheat board is not doing its best to make use of the port of Churchill.
To get back to the purpose of the bill, it is to provide that all the growers having a favourable rate to Churchill will get the Churchill rate, whether the wheat is shipped that way or not. My hon. friend uses the argument that certain wheat in the Vancouver area has been shipped out via the lakehead and that certain wheat in the lake-head area has been shipped out via Vancouver. That has happened in the past, owing to war conditions for a time, and since then owing to marketing conditions. Sometimes there is a demand for wheat from Vancouver that cannot be supplied from wheat marketed within the Vancouver territory, and in such circumstances it pays the board to reach over into the lakehead territory, and vice versa. As I say, that has happened. But when such a movement is made, it is made because the wheat board believes it is in the best interests of marketing the crop that the movement should be made.
The point is that both the eastern route or the western route is accessible for all the wheat offering and shipment by either route can be made during twelve months in the year. Any grower of wheat can ship his wheat to Vancouver at any time of the year, and the wheat can be put in store and moved to market from that point. The same is true of the eastern route. There is at Fort William over 80 million bushels of storage capacity that has been built just to make sure that that eastern route can be available to shippers at any week in the year.


Mr. Wrighi:: Fort William and Port Arthur are closed for five or six months of the year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I know] but the storage capacity there will take all the wheat that the western growers wish to ship into those ports. That is not the case with Churchill. Of the 40 million bushels of wheat that are tributary to the port of Churchill, the best amount we have been able to move through that port to date is about five and a half million bushels. Suppose that amount could be doubled through what to me would be a superhuman effort on the part of the shippers and growers. Even then the possibility would be to move through Churchill only 25 per cent of the wheat that is tributary to the port. The fact of the matter is that because 15 per cent, we will say, of the tributary wheat can physically be moved through Churchill, my hon. friend would ask that the 40 million bushels tributary to that port should receive a premium even though the great part of that wheat has to be transported by another route.


Percy Ellis Wright: But that could be paid for out of the more favourable price that was received for the wheat out of Churchill, and would not be a charge against the rest of the wheat growers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that might be difficult to arrange; and whether the people who actually got that wheat through the Churchill elevator would agree that the higher price that sellers may get for that wheat should be distributed among the 40 million bushels that are tributary to the port is another question.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is all handled by the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I know. But in any event, the practical test of the capacity of a route, is whether it can take all the wheat offering and whether shipments can be made in any month of the twelve. These conditions do not apply to the port of Churchill as they apply to the port of Fort William-Port Arthur.
My hon. friend has reminded me that I announced in the house that Churchill promises to be a pricing point under the international wheat agreement. I have had a calculation made to see what that might mean as regards price at Churchill and price at Fort William. It might mean as much as nine cents a bushel. My hon. friend mentioned twelve cents, but the actual figure is about nine cents. That, however, is not all payable to the grower. Transportation rates out of Churchill are higher than transportation rates out of Montreal. Probably the nine cents would be divided about equally between the grower and the shipping line that transports the wheat. I am advised that that would probably be the outcome. That still leaves a premium for the wheat that goes out through Churchill.
I have discussed with the board the practicability of distributing that premium to the growers of wheat in that area. The board have not given me a report on the possibility, but if that can be done, I will certainly urge the board to do their best to see that that premium applies against the wheat that moves through Churchill. I think that is as far as the situation would warrant any special treatment for the area tributary to Churchill. To go beyond that would be to create a wholly fictitious situation and to divert to the growers in that area funds which are not earned by the actual physical movement. Therefore I find it necessary to oppose this amendment. I question the wisdom-if my hon. friend really considers the matter I think he will question the wisdom-of amending an act
Canadian Wheat Board Act having the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board Act by a private bill passed in a very thin House of Commons. Such a procedure would be hardly giving the consideration to important legislation that its subject matter deserves. I would suggest to my hon. friend that after this debate is finished he withdraw the bill. He has again called attention to the situation at Churchill. I can assure him, if he wishes to do as I suggest, that the Canadian wheat board will consider the situation with a view to making sure that further adequate compensation goes to the growers who ship wheat through that port.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Melfort speaks now he will close the debate.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one word first with respect to some of the comments of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver). I find it very hard to follow his arguments. He said that he agreed with the bill if I would withdraw it. I do not see much sense in agreeing with something if you are going to ask someone to withdraw it. He also made certain remarks with respect to the crop period, and said that the payments would only be made on freight during the crop period at Churchill, which is entirely wrong.
As far as the bill is concerned, I agree with the minister in some of his arguments, especially with respect to the price under the present British agreement, and getting enough wheat out there at the best price possible during the coming year. However, I point out that I do not think his argument is altogether sound there because there is a 20 million bushel carry-over which could be delivered in the next crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, twelve and a half million bushels.


Percy Ellis Wright: Twelve and a half million bushels, which were used this year by Britain for the purchasing of pork and other Canadian products. Therefore any wheat that would be moved this year from Churchill could be moved at the old price. That is hardly a sound argument against the use of the port this year.
I am glad the minister has indicated that the board is considering the matter of trying to find some way of bringing back to the area adjacent to the port the extra money that is obtained for wheat shipped through Churchill. When I was speaking I suggested that if the minister could indicate to me any other way than the way I have suggested in this bill I would certainly withdraw my bill. The minister has not indicated any other

Industrial Relations
way. He has indicated that the board is studying the question, and if it could find some other way of doing it, the minister would be prepared to accept its recommendations. On the strength of that, I am going to withdraw my bill and not ask for a vote on it at this time; but I can assure the minister that if the board is not making a study of this matter and if it does not forward some recommendations to give to wheat producers in the area adjacent to Churchill the benefit of the better price and lower freights I will again introduce the bill at another session and press it to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Thatcher for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment.)
Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I point out that this is not an order that calls for an hon. member to be here to move it. It is an adjourned debate, and if anybody wishes to continue the debate he has the right to do so.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The only reason, and the best reason, I can give is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Lapointe) who was to speak on this-and it comes under his jurisdiction -is away. He would like to make a speech on it; it is all prepared. May I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Mitchell:: Are you going to close the debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I would like to do.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will not object to my saying a few words on this bill. Notwithstanding what he said to my hon. friend from one of the western ridings, I think I am still a Liberal in the true sense of the word. I notice that when this bill was up for discussion last time the hon. member was anxious to get a vote on it. I can quite understand that. I think he will agree with me that it is a fair thing to say that probably he does more talking than any other man in this House of Commons. We simple souls should be given the opportunity occasionally to express a word or two on legislation of this kind.
I am frank to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the question of negotiating agreements by law on the floor of this house is a matter of opinion. I think I know something about the history of labour legislation in this country. I have a vivid recollection of the early days of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which was introduced by the Liberal party of that day, and fashioned by the previous prime minister. Labour organizations generally opposed labour legislation in the form of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Questions of this kind, of course, have been discussed by the British trade union congress and by the leaders of the British labour movement. That labour movement, I think it is fair to say, is so far as the commonwealth is concerned the cradle of free trade unions. Up to this date they have never adopted this form of legislation, which is found on the North American continent where legislative bodies, in their wisdom or otherwise, have set in motion this kind of legislation for the settlement of disputes between organizations of workers and employers.
I have always felt that perhaps we are the pioneers in this kind of legislation. Only recently I read in the press statements by some of the younger leaders in labour organizations who expressed the opinion that boards of conciliation should be abolished. I believe that the form of legislation we have in Canada has done more to foster sound trade union practices than any other legislation of its kind anywhere. I am referring now of course to legislation. I believe the strength in labour legislation is to permit the people of a province or of a nation to become informed as to the facts in dispute.. The inborn common sense of the Canadian people places them in the position where it does not take them long in any labour dispute to find out who is right

and who is wrong, notwithstanding the occasional extreme opinions expressed by either side to the dispute.
If one will look over the present records of democratic countries I think he will find that the time lost last year in Canada through labour disputes was lower than that of any other country. I am speaking of course about democratic countries, and I am not including those sections which are predominantly agricultural.
I appreciate the fact, of course, that in Saskatchewan they claim to have advanced labour legislation. But there is no industry there, and their claim is pure eyewash-that is all, just pure eyewash. We are dealing with a practical thing. I believe it is fair to say that under the federal labour code the railway brotherhoods and other railway organizations, as well as other organizations coming within our jurisdiction, have functioned fairly well. And they have done so without the assistance-and I say this in a kindly way-of any governmental organization. Because it must be kept in mind that we may not always have a government like this one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here's hoping.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, my hon. friend says, "Here's hoping". I hope to goodness we never get in this country a government ready to push everybody around, whether it be employers or employees. I hope we never live to see the day in Canada where we would have a governmnt which would bring everyone down to the lowest level, rather than bring them up to the highest. It is only fair to say that those of us who live on the North American continent, north of Mexico, have proven conclusively that we have the highest standard of living of any nation on earth-and that did not fall as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It was brought about by the ingenuity, the courage and the resourcefulness of our people.


James Arthur Ross: What about the United States?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about the North American continent. The philosophy in the United States is the same as it is here, when it comes to this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you take credit for prosperity in the United States, too?


Humphrey Mitchell: Like other hon. members, I have been to Europe recently, and I do not think I would like to exchange the living conditions of any country I saw in Europe for those on the North American continent.
These are facts. We have gone through this middle way. And we will remember
Industrial Relations
another way which has been taken by another country, and some other way in another country. I remember the day when I was sentimentally inclined toward the Russian experiment-that is, until I went to Russia. Then I changed my mind-and I had courage enough to say so, or the good sense to say so, if I may put it that way. But other people who went there came back to this country and did not have that good sense to give the leadership to the working people of this nation to which they are entitled.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Nothing like giving yourself a character.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is that?


Angus MacInnis: I said there is nothing like giving yourself a character.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am patting us all on the
back. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is a very old friend of mine, one I have known many years and whose opinion I respect. But let me say this to him, that while he is a Marxian socialist and proud of it, and while I will give him credit for it, he must know that when Karl was kicked out of every country in Europe he settled down in Great Britain where it was possible for him to write "Das Kapital", which very few people have read-they usually read the first volume, but when they get beyond that it gets too tough for them, and they do not read the last two.
The point I am trying to impress upon my hon. friend is that while he holds an honest difference of opinion-and I am frank to admit that that is so-I believe that this is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees. I believe if we take the long view-


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a moment. If we take the long view, then it must be admitted that if we let employers do those things the trade unions should do for themselves we develop what I call lazy trade unions. I remember the day when we were fined if we did not attend trade union meetings. Today they do not go to the union hall to pay dues; the employer does that for them. And, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, in my judgment, for what it is worth-and I know my hon. friend is laughing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I was laughing about the minister's reference to the weather.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought he was looking at himself in a glass.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nine o'clock.
2010	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


Humphrey Mitchell: One thing more: there is an old Russian saying: When you know someone is stupid, for goodness' sake take a look in the glass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business under consideration before recess.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations, very brief, on the debate which took place this afternoon. At that time the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) moved an amendment that consideration be given to the appointment of a royal commission for the purpose of-and I condense the effect of it-assisting in the improvement of government. The amendment is worded in terms which I suggest should not give offence to the most delicate temperament. It was put forward in a most cogent manner. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to a similar commission, the Hoover commission, which had been appointed in the United States. He gave a good deal of evidence as to the useful work that commission had done. He referred to the fact that in the United States they had been able to command the gratuitous services of a great many citizens of standing and ability who were prepared to spend time-I presume many months-in trying to study and make observations as to how the business of government could be improved.
There are perhaps two reasons which could have been alleged as reasons for refusing to accept this amendment. The first might be that things in Canada were so good that there is no need to try to improve them at all. Anyone who heard the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and is compos mentis, I am sure will not give that as the reason. I am sure the minister would not give it as the reason. He gave us a grave statement of our position, and I do not think "grave" is too strong a word to use. I shall not take up the time of the house in dwelling on what he said, as I think we all remember the salient features.
He told us that our expenditures had reached the colossal sum of $2,400 million and could not be reduced. Secondly, he told us that we had a surplus which really is no surplus, which really might disappear in the twinkling of an eye. Thirdly, he reminded


us that we were still riding the crest of a five-year boom, or at any rate had not come down off it. Therefore I think the first reason for not accepting the amendment of the leader of the opposition can be dismissed. I do not think anyone will suggest seriously that that reason should be accepted.
The second reason that might have been given is that nothing could be done, that no outside body could help. I think that reason is out too. It is out, first of all, on the ground of common sense. No sensible man, least of all a man like the Minister of Finance, who I think is a modest man- politics sometimes places people in the position where they have to assume an omniscience which I am sure they do not always feel-will take the position that things are so good that they cannot be improved. At any rate it is not competent, for the government to take that position because in the case of the film board they have done the very thing we are proposing. This afternoon the minister sought to distinguish between that case and what we are suggesting, but I do not think he made a very sound job of it. In fact, I think he made a very poor job. We may remind ourselves that this is no new thing. As far back as 1918 a business organization was brought in to help sort out some of the difficulties under the Civil Service Act. Some three years ago we had an eminent business organization come in. Indeed I think it is only common sense that we should be able to get help from outside.
What in fact did the minister say by way of reply? His reply disappointed me a good deal. There was an item carried in the Gazette just after he made his broadcast a couple of weeks ago which depicted the minister as being in quite a reasonable mood. But I am afraid that he has since fallen in with evil companions. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us this afternoon that the minister had been consorting with the cabinet and it was their view that he expressed this afternoon.
It seems to me that instead of dealing with this matter, as I think it should be dealt with, as a matter of public interest, he chose to deal with it as being entirely a matter of party. He suggested that we were not justified in setting up an outside body. He said that that was the function of the opposition. Then he went on to say that we should get down to brass tacks in the public accounts committee. Considering that that committee began to meet only yesterday, I think he was a little precipitate. Then he said, "We have the right to expect parliament to do the job that the public sends the members here to do."

Let me say to the minister, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) would say, in a kindly way, that for him to suggest that that could be done by members of parliament, even if we had all the brains of a Churchill or the patience of an Attlee or whatever other man you think is most patient, is unrealistic. We could not possibly give the continuous, organized attention which would be necessary.
At any rate the suggestion made in the amendment of the leader of the opposition is an entirely different thing. I propose to concentrate on this one point and not get involved in criticism of the government. The minister chose to consider this as being a critical matter, but I do not think it was intended that way. I think it was intended to be a constructive suggestion which could be taken up in a non-partisan manner. I say in passing, referring to what the minister said this afternoon, that certainly the means of giving information could be improved, but even with all the information that could be given, even with all the work that could be done, even with all the capacity that could be put into it, the best opposition in the world could not do what it is suggested in this amendment should be done. That can be done only by people with technical training, by people qualified in various ways, and above all by people who would spend a long time on the job.
Let us consider what would happen in the business world if a situation of this kind arose. Has anyone any doubt what would happen in a business concern if the general manager came to the annual meeting and said, "Our expenses are such and such and we cannot lower them; our earnings are such and such and they show a margin which is really no margin at all. We have been travelling in especially good times, but it will be the greatest of good fortune if they continue." What would happen if it were left at that? The Minister of Finance left us at that point because he gave us no lead, he gave us no suggestion of an alert and vigorous development which will provide extra income that we need.
I come back to the illustration of the company. What would the directors say to a general manager who came to them and faced them with such a forbidding prospect of deficits, and perhaps worse than deficits, unless they had unbelievable good fortune in the years immediately facing them? I suggest that what they would do would be to say, "Let us get the best brains we can to come in and look at this business. They may not be any better minds than our own,
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry but they will be fresh minds and will be able to look at things in a way we have not been able to ourselves."
If that is true of business, how much more true should it be of government, which combines many businesses and which I suppose is more intricate and difficult than any other business in the world. Why should not it be done that way? That is practically all I have to say, but before I take my seat I wish to make it very clear that I would like to think the press would make it clear to the people of this country that this amendment which is to be voted on is not to be regarded as a party or partisan amendment.
It is couched in such terms that any member of the government party could vote for it. I put it this way: Anyone who votes against it is not voting in the interests of the people of Canada which no one can deny would be served by this amendment. He will be voting against it purely because he conceives it to be in the interests of his party to do so. I should like to emphasize that. I hope earnestly that that can be brought across to the people of this country and that they will realize that if this amendment is turned down it is turned down for that reason and no other.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, theoretically I would be in favour of the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) if he had not suggested that we should have a royal commission to study some business that is our own. I do' not see why the House of Commons should call upon any judge, active or retired, to tell us what we ought to do. I have more confidence in the 261 members of parliament -excluding myself-who are my colleagues than I have in any judge, when it comes to examining our own business and deciding what we should do.
On this point I want to express my appreciation to the leader of the opposition, who understands his duties better than any of his illustrious predecessors. Those gentlemen used to agree to everything. Their business seemed to be to nod to the government every time anything came up. They were yes men, and they practised only shadow-boxing. The leader of the opposition is different. I have listened with great interest to some speeches that have been made by my colleagues of the other side to promote reform. We need reform; I am all for it.
I have had to complain many times about some civil servants, but I did my share to improve conditions. Long before the war, when Mr. Bennett was in power, he instituted a so-called economic council, which I

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry opposed. I was alone in my opposition. One of the leaders of my party stopped me when
I was arguing against that legislation, because it was a fine day and he wanted to play golf. I was really disappointed; I was carrying on my fight alone, as hon. members who were reading the newspapers at that time may remember. That legislation was piloted through by Sir George Perley, who was acting prime minister while Mr. Bennett was receiving his friends at the Chateau and was not well enough to come here. On March 18, 1935, at page 1797 of Hansard, Mr. King had this to say about the economic council: ... it was first of all proposed to be in the nature of an advisory body which would be able to assist the Prime Minister in the discharge of his onerous duties, and that it would come under the direction of the Prime Minister himself. There seemed to be the other purpose, which is that of research-a body that would be concerned primarily with research into social and economic questions- and as such would be made up of or avail itself of the services of members of the public service whose efforts and work would be supplemented by experts from outside.
Both purposes X think are not only worthy but necessary ones at the present time.
The idea was to take deputy ministers from every department and form an underground government, a kind of subgovernment that would advise the real government about everything. I waited patiently, and finally in 1936 I introduced a very short bill, 1 Edward VIII, chapter 5, which provided: Chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1935, an act to establish an economic council, is hereby repealed.
I glory in the fact that at that time I had the support of Mr. King. Before an attack there must be a bombardment; and the bill was passed on a Wednesday, after a stormy caucus in the morning. I spoke to the cabinet about the urgency of abolishing the economic council. I do not intend to read Hansard, though I have brought my personal files; and on the front page of the Ottawa Journal of February 28, 1936, at the beginning of that session, I find this:
Bill to Abolish Economic Council Passes in House
Pouliot measure is approved after Prime Minister says cabinet council satisfies him.
I remember that I was opposed by the leader of the C.C.F., who could not understand that a private member could bring in legislation to abolish something that was sacred, a conglomeration of intelligentsia. I was pretty bitter in my reply, though I had high regard for Mr. Woodsworth. He was a great man; but I wanted to pass my bill. And the Journal went on to say:
The economic council was superfluous, said Prime Minister Mackenzie King when the repealing bill was in committee.

I succeeded in changing his mind about the bureaucrats. It did not last long, but I succeeded that time.
The council was supposed to advise the Prime Minister, but as far as he was concerned he was quite satisfied with the cabinet as a council.
Mr. King's comment followed a demand from J. S Woodsworth, C.C.F. leader, for a statement from the government. He said it was unusual for a private member's bill on an important matter of policy to go through without a word from the government. Mr. Woodsworth said he believed an economic council could serve a useful purpose in Canada. There was no division.
The bill passed like that, in two or three minutes. It has been one of the glories of my parliamentary life that I have tried to curb bureaucracy; but that was only what we call a moral victory, because not long afterwards the war came. So I read in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, February 5, 1943, the heading "Wide functions given to economic committee", with a picture of W. C. Clark, the deputy minister of finance. So the government went back to Bennett's practice of having an economic committee. It was not an economic council, because there was a law repealing the economic council. It came back under another name, an economic committee. Now we have scores and hundreds of these economic committees. The trouble with them is that when a man is appointed to an important position in the public service he does not do the work he is assigned to do. He tries to get together with others to do something he knows nothing about, and to travel and see the world. That is the idea. If we have people from five different departments to decide five different things,, they may be experts in their own departments but none of the five is an expert in any other department. But when they are together, they are five instead of one. They have five times more learning. We have to bow to them and say, "Oh, he is an expert; he is a civil servant". When it comes to a member of parliament he is nothing; he is a nonentity. It is extraordinary.
The leader of the opposition's motion reminds me of the motion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), recommending that a judge or a royal commission should study our business. He has more confidence in those people than he has in members of parliament. He does not seem to realize that when he makes such a suggestion he is discrediting himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member will make it clear that my motion was in reference to redistribution. I do not mind the member disagreeing with me, but let it be clear what he is speaking about.


Jean-François Pouliot: In principle it was the same suggestion as was made here today by the leader of the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is where we differ.


Jean-François Pouliot: The principle was the same, but the occasion was different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is our business, but redistribution should not be in our hands.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is my hon. friend's opinion. In these days when we hear so much about human rights and fundamental freedoms, I leave him with his opinion. I respect his opinion, and let him do the same for me. Nevertheless his principle was the same as that of the leader of the opposition. They are two birds of the same feather.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; I regret it.


Mr. Coldwell:: Not two feathers on the same bird.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman does not realize it, but I put them together in the same bag. I hope they will be comfortable.
Something occurred in 1937 that I should like to mention. After Mr. Bennett's defeat in the election, I spoke to Mr. Finlayson, who is now one of the officials of the Conservative party, and suggested that Mr. Bennett should take a vacation. I said to him, "He is a man of means, why does he not travel around the world? Why does he not see this planet and get away from Ottawa?" He had had a strenuous election, and I thought it would be good for him to go down to the Antipodes. Mr. Finlayson asked me whether he should tell him, and I said, "Sure, tell him; it is sincere advice from someone who has a certain degree of admiration for him."
Mr. Bennett thought it was not good for a man to be alone, and he wanted a companion to travel with him around the world. He called for Brooks from the Bank of Canada. He was well attired, well groomed, and I think he is still there. Whenever someone looks at him, they think he is a duke. They think he is the governor of the Bank of . Canada. He is a fine man. You will see, sir, that there is a relationship between what I am saying and the amendment before you. So Bennett left with Brooks, and Brooks was carrying the satchel. People were surprised. They said, "How is it that Bennett does not carry a satchel too?" They seemed to be two gentlemen. Brooks went along carrying the satchel, and in the meantime the Bank of Canada had been established. Brooks was there as the doorman. He left his important
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry duties as doorman at the Bank of Canada to travel with a millionaire; it was about the same thing.
When they returned, I was bold enough to ask a question as to whether Brooks had been paid by Bennett or by the Bank of Canada. Oh, that was most improper. In Hansard of February 8, 1937, there is a record of a question I asked about this matter, to which Mr. Dunning replied as follows:
. . . questions as to matters of internal management were not usually answered in the house unless in the judgment of the management they could be answered without affecting the day to day management of the business.
. . . The government is giving consideration to the advisability of referring the annual report of the Bank of Canada to, say, the committee on banking and commerce, in order that members of the house may have the same general opportunity with respect to the affairs of the Bank of Canada as they have today with respect to the affairs of the Canadian National Railways.
I was told that I should never ask questions like that. Mr. King rose to the occasion, and on this same page of Hansard we find the following:


Mr. Mackenzie King:: The right hon. gentleman has referred to myself, when leader of the opposition, having taken with me a messenger, who was attached to the office of the leader of the opposition, when I was absent from Ottawa on one or two occasions. My right hon. friend did not say, though I imagine the omission was an inadvertent one on his part, that I personally paid all the travelling and other expenses of the messenger.


Mr. Bennett:: There was no question about that, but not his salary.


James Horace King: I paid the expenses of that messenger when I went away, and the messenger himself is a permanent official. .1 may say to my right hon. friend that he did not pay the salary of his messenger when he was absent, but the salary was paid just the same.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Quite so, when he was here.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if I could not have gone in his stead.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon.
member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am enjoying his speech very much, but will the hon. member tell me what it is about?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member right now. I wanted to excite his curiosity. It is that Mr. Dunning told me it was none of my business to know anything about the amount paid to Brooks during his trip; that I was not entitled to any information about the Bank of Canada. I went further than that, and I asked him what the personnel of the Bank of Canada was in each of its branches. He said, "Improper, you should not know that." I should not know anything. I sincerely believe we should know more about these matters.
2014	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry If a constituent of any member of parliament asks what Graham Towers has been paid from the start; what has been paid to Mr. Mansur from the start; what expenses and salary have been paid to Mr. Clark, the deputy minister of finance; what has been paid to this one or that one, he should know. We have to vote the money. I have a chart indicating the personnel of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but there is no mention of salary on that chart. I want the salary of everyone, because it is only when we know the amounts that are paid that we can protect the public against extravagance. Is my friend the member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) satisfied? I will go further than that and tell the hon. gentleman that during the war, when all minds were blurred by the war, here in this house I demanded reform of the public accounts. At the time the public accounts were ridiculous. Most of the items were not in the public accounts.
I think items under $25,000 were not in the public accounts. I see present here some gentlemen who sat with me during the war. They will recall my protest to the then minister of finance. I wanted reform of the public accounts. I wanted every cent of expenditure entered in the public accounts. A measure of reform was brought about. One day one of the members for Wellington asked Mr. Ilsley df he was going to do something about that, and if he had done it upon his request. Mr. Ilsley said, "I have done so at the request of the hon. member for Temiscouata." I do not come here with large volumes of Hansard and quote excerpts from it. Hon. members who were here during the war, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who was assistant to the then minister of finance, must remember that I demanded reform; and I am sure that I have the support of the present Minister of Finance who was assistant to the then minister whom I have quoted.
I carried on the fight to protect the Canadian people, because when there is mystery, when there is darkness, anything can be done. Crimes are not committed in the daylight; most of the time they are committed at night. I therefore wanted some light on the public accounts. I admit that the accounts are much better kept now than they were then, with regard to the officials under the jurisdiction of the minister. But when it comes to those who belong to crown companies, it is a different story. All those who belong to crown companies, to any one of them, should bow to parliament. They should be curbed. They should be told to respect parliament. That was my intention
[Mr. Pouliot.l

and it was the intention of the civil service committee in 1938 and 1939. We wanted to know what was the usefulness to the state of each civil servant. The matter was considered not from the point of view of salary, as had always been done before and as it is the intention to do in the future. The usefulness of each man was to be considered. That was our point of view. After some difficulty we succeeded in presenting a unanimous report. Unfortunately, it was of no use because the prime minister of the time did not realize that the civil service committee was offering him, on a silver platter, the full control of the civil service of Ottawa. It was offered twice, the first time by me on behalf of the committee, and the second time by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), also on behalf of the committee; and both times it was left on the shelf to gather dust. We wanted reform. I want reform.
I am not going to take the time of the house to read what I quoted in the house in Hansard of May 26, 1939, on the Central Mortgage bank bill; but it is there. I mentioned some interesting historical Canadian papers, especially the 92 resolutions about the management and control of public affairs.
I disagree wholeheartedly with my friends of the C.C.F. group when they speak of control. They speak of control outside parliament. All control should be vested in parliament and parliament has not the right to delegate it to anyone. When any hon. member is elected, he is elected in the first place to look after the interests of the Canadian people. He is elected to look after not only the people of his constituency but the Canadian people at large, by enacting legislation that may affect every man, woman and child in this country.
I may add that we also have an important duty and that is to check the expenditure of the public money voted in the house. Both duties are most important. In fact, they are the main duties of members of parliament.
It is our duty to pass legislation and to check the expenditure of money. I do not see what business a judge has in it.
I will bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to that of hon. members of the house, . an important paper passed at Westminster with regard to the control of expenditure.
It was passed at the request of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's treasury. There is a council of financial officers, and it is the interim report on the position of accounting officers. It is dated March 12, 1920. At the time I distributed a copy of this paper to all my colleagues in the house, and this is the last copy I have. It reads as follows:

Council of financial officers
Interim report on the position of accounting officers
At their first meeting the council proceeded to discuss the general position of accounting officers and the possibility of effecting reform in the present financial procedure of departments. On the 10th November, 1919, the Chancellor of the Exchequer requested the council to consider, together with other proposals for strengthening the hands of accounting officers, the suggestion contained in paragraph 9 of the first report of the select committee on national expenditure (1919), that the accounting officer of each spending department should be a treasury official appointed by and solely responsible to the treasury.
9. The proposal that the accounting officer shall be a treasury official does not commend itself to us.
(i.) In the first place, it offends against the cardinal principle of ministerial responsibility. A minister could not be properly responsible to parliament for the conduct of his department if a large part of the responsibility falls actually on the servant of another department to whom he *is unable to give orders.
(ii.) In the second place, the tendency to evade financial control alluded to above should, in our view, become more marked if the officer to be evaded were an emissary of another department.
At the present the financial officer is the servant of the same minister as the administrative officers, and is entitled to the same access to official papers and confidential information as they are; these are advantages of great value in financial control which might be lost if he became an officer of the treasury.
(iii.) Thirdly, the treasury officer could not work single-handed. He would require staff. This would presumably have to be treasury staff, too. There would thus be an elaborate interviewing of the staff of two departments under one roof, under conditions which would almost inevitably give rise to friction and discontent.
(iv.) The position obtaining in the ministry of transport does not afford a precedent for the proposal that the accounting officer should be a treasury official. The accounting officer of the ministry of transport is responsible to the minister, but works in close association with a treasury officer specially attached to the ministry in view of peculiar circumstances arising out of the ministry of transport act.
Those principles were enunciated with regard to one department, but they apply to all, and this is true British doctrine.
This afternoon I listened with a great deal of interest to the splendid speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He mentioned to us the example of the United States. We may learn a lot from any country, but I still stand on the British parliamentary practice, on the British parliamentary tradition, which is the best in the world. I do not mean some silly rulings of Speakers of past centuries. Naturally an understanding of British traditions should be in accordance with our time; but there in that treasury of British parliamentary traditions we can find principles that may serve for the guidance of all parliaments.
I cannot speak too highly of those who have been acting in accordance with that tradition, and my hope in this parliament is that it
Public Service-Proposed 'Inquiry should be considered like the beam the aeroplanes have to follow on their route; follow the beam of the British parliamentary tradition and no mistake will be made.
Coming to the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I will tell him once more that in some respects I agree with him, because I suffer a great deal from having to telephone to this gentleman, to telephone to that other gentleman, to be sent back to a third gentleman, and by that gentleman to be sent to a fourth lady. There is no need for it; and there is no answer. My files pile up. If I am not always in the house listening to speeches and making an occasional one, it is just because my time is taken up with that correspondence. I have not been elected to be a scribe. I have been elected to read legislation and to try my best to understand it; to discuss it with my colleagues; and to attend to committees. I have never been a public stenographer. At the present time I have to spend my time on the telephone, writing letters and most of the time getting no satisfactory answers. Things are delayed from one day to the other. We have to look after that. It is not sensible at all. I say nothing of myself, because I am full of modesty, when I telephone to those great of the world. It is a pretty tough life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is tough to be modest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me read the amendment, sir, and afterward I shall read a clipping from the Ottawa Journal. It reads:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
If that commission is appointed it will be just as well for us to resign as members of parliament, because our usefulness as members of parliament will come to an end. This insults me, in spite of my modesty. The recommendations are as follows:
1.	Reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency.
If there is some useless expenditure no one could have any objection to reducing it to that point. I continue:
2.	Eliminating duplication of overlapping services.
This is a good suggestion, but I do not see what a judge would know. We would have to teach the judge what is the business of a member of parliament, and we should imbue him with the experience, pleasant or otherwise, that we have acquired as members of parliament, and make him understand the thing as it really is.
3.	Consolidating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature.
2016	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
This may lead to centralization. The last recommendation is:
4.	Improving the general efficiency of government and assuring to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities. And without limiting the generality of the foregoing to make such further recommendations as may contribute to the general efficiency of the organization of government.
To discuss a matter of this kind in the House of Commons serves a very good purpose, because it impresses the fact upon the major and minor civil servants that somebody is trying to get some information about them, and it gives them a salutary fear. I regret that sometimes I have to shout and curse over the telephone. If I do that I have results at once. If I use the language of ordinary conversation nothing happens; but if I curse, if I use some improper language, it comes faster. I regret it very much, but we have reached the point where nothing is gained from any civil servant-no, there are some good ones; I must make an exception of some of them-until we suggest a capitis deminutio.
I appreciate the fact that the leader of the opposition has moved an amendment. It has been discussed, and it is a good thing. But I am a Liberal and supporter of the present government, and especially of my leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I have confidence in him, and I sincerely believe that in the next three or four years he can do a better job in matters of reform than the leader of the opposition can do, although the latter made many useful suggestions. Therefore I will vote against the amendment, although I have been challenged by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I will vote against it for two reasons. The main reason is that I do not want a judge to be appointed to do what we should do ourselves, and what I have started to do in my humble and minor capacity. It is evident that all the members together could do a better job than I have done alone. Hon. members could do that. The leader of the opposition might be surprised at the sympathy and support that he would get even from Liberals in that connection.
In the first place, I am opposed to a judge looking after our own business; and in the second place, I rely on my leader to carry out all the possible reforms that he believes should be carried out while he himself is in office. The difficulty in reforms is that all temporary employees want to be permanent. The leader of the opposition, who has been premier of his province, must know that better than any one of us. It is most difficult to abolish any position, because then people come along and say that the position is


essential, that there has been no better incumbent, that the man is qualified, and so on. I have heard that many times; everybody has heard it. I am reminded of the case of the girl who was in the civil service at the time of the civil service probe twelve years ago. Her first name was Dorothy, and I shall not give her family name. Dorothy had missed her examination nine times. I said to Mr. Nelson, the civil service commissioner, who was a very fine man, "Mr. Nelson, you should fire her." He said, "I will." Two days after that he called me by telephone and said, "Do you know who has protested on behalf of Miss Dorothy?" I said, "No." He said, "Her chief. He found that she was doing essential work in the office." I do not know what her work was, nor do I know her qualifications, because I never met her. But as soon as she was fired her chief protested to the civil service commission and said she was indispensable.
That is one illustration of what I have been saying. I do not wish to be unfair to the leader of the opposition or to anyone else. But this is the time to read to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew) and other hon. members an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: He
may proceed, with unanimous consent.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, this is not a newspaper article referring to debates in the house. It makes reference to a statement made outside the house. And when I remember that the leader of the opposition has spent a good deal of time, two days in succession, reading and re-reading letters-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was not the point made.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was in the press.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that was not the point made by Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: May I
repeat to the hon. member that my reason for interrupting him was to tell him that he had exhausted his time. His forty minutes have expired. I added however that with unanimous consent he might continue. And I understand he has that unanimous consent.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you very much, and I shall make no comment. I speak by tolerance.

The Ottawa Journal of Friday, October 15, 1948, carries an editorial which bears the heading, "Mr. Drew and the Bureaucrats". It states:
What is all this silly talk about Mr. Drew planning, when he takes office, to fire Graham Towers, Donald Gordon, Dr. Clifford Clark, Louis Rasminsky, and Dr. Kenneth Taylor?
Mr. Drew, in the speech which has given rise to such nonsense, said nothing about firing anybody.
Nothing about Dorothy!
What he said, and quite properly, was that if he became prime minister he would make an end of ruch things as taxes imposed by radio, and that policies would be decided not by a few officials but by the cabinet and parliament. Mr. Drew, saying this, was paraphrasing a plank in his party's platform:
"The Progressive Conservative party reiterates its belief in the supremacy of parliament and is opposed to the increasing use of ministerial proclamation and government by order in council and departmental regulations."
Nothing revolutionary in that. Indeed, we imagine that Messrs. Towers, Gordon and Clark would be among the first to subscribe to it. For it is our belief that these gentlemen, to the extent that they have been running this country, have been the products and victims of a weak cabinet and parliament. They have not been asked to work out policies decided by the cabinet and parliament; they have been asked to tell the cabinet and parliament what policies should be adopted. That happens when parliament and the cabinet are incompetent.
We ourselves think that Messrs. Towers, Gordon and Clark are the sort of officials who would get on famously with Mr. Drew; that they are the sort of able officials he would like to have at his elbow, and he the sort of decisive prime minister they would like to serve.
Incidentally, the Bank of Canada, with its Governor Towers and Deputy Governor Gordon, is not the creature of Mr. King nor of a Liberal government. The Bank of Canada was set up by Mr. Bennett, with Mr. Graham Towers his choice for its first governor.
I wonder if the leader of the opposition could make any one of the reforms he has suggested?
I thank you, sir, and I thank the house for having permitted me to read this fine editorial.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house. I can also assure hon. members that I will not take up any time with matters that are not relevant to the subject under discussion. At the conclusion of his speech the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said that anyone that would not support this motion was motivated by interests of party rather than by interests of the country. I do not think that that was quite fair of the hon. member because, although he may not be able to see them, there may be, and in my opinion are, reasons why a member could be opposed to this motion, and still not be a supporter of the government, and not be against the
28, 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry principle of what the leader of the opposition had in mind when he moved the amendment.
As a matter of fact I found myself agreeing with much of what he said in his speech before moving the amendment. However, I find I cannot support the amendment, and I shall give my reasons. The amendment is in four parts, with a short preamble. It states:
Consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
1. Reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency.
It is my understanding that in appointing a royal commission the terms of reference must be well defined. They must be sharp, and cover some definite subject. This term of reference is extremely broad, that of reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency. Who is going to decide whether or not expenditures are consistent with efficiency? Is it to be this parliament or the one-man, two-man, or three-man royal commission? That seems to me to be a fatal flaw in the amendment which would prevent any person who considers it free from party considerations supporting it.
We come now to the next two proposals, which read:
Eliminating duplication of overlapping services.
Consolidating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature.
It seems to me that that is not the function of a royal commission. In my opinion that would be the function of expert business managers. My knowledge of royal commissions is that they usually engage in eliciting facts and on the basis of those facts make recommendations, but they are not recommendations such as would be required in the circumstances set out in the two terms of reference in the amendment. Then we come to the last proposal, which reads:
Improving the general efficiency of government and assuring to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities.
Can anyone tell me how a royal commission could perform that function or could make recommendations by which those things could be carried out? These are the reasons why in my opinion no one who examines carefully the terms of this amendment can vote for it. I quite agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and some other members who have spoken on this amendment that what is being asked here to be done by a royal commission is something that should be and must be done by parliament itself if hon. members are to take their responsibilities seriously.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
That applies just as much to members on the government side as it does to members of the opposition. True it is that the function of an opposition is to watch government administration, to draw attention to weaknesses in it, to draw attention to unnecessary or unwise expenditures; but because of the operations of chance the government majority at the present time is so large that a tremendous responsibility rests, not only upon the ministers but upon the private members on the government side. A minister should be the first to be pleased when an hon. member of his party examines carefully what that government is doing.
The hon. member for Greenwood says that those of us who vote against this amendment will be doing so because we are voting in the interests of our parties. I would put it the other way and say that anyone who votes for this amendment in the terms in which it is stated is forgetting the interests of the country and perhaps the functions of parliament and is thinking in terms of the interests of his party.
For these reasons we shall have to vote against the amendment although, as I have said before, we agree with much of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and other members of the official opposition have said when speaking to the amendment.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). However, I think if we disrobe his declarations of their glamorous vestments we will find that the bare subject is quite lean. His proposal for a royal commission rests on two assumptions. First, that the executive machinery of the government must be geared perfectly to the expanded functions it is called upon to perform. Second, that parliament may need new and better methods of controlling the advisability of voting certain estimates and of scrutinizing the way in which appropriations have been spent.
It may very well be that all is not perfect in all departments of government. It may very well be that the Hoover commission performed a valuable work in the United States. But I doubt if anyone will suggest that the functions of government in Canada have been enlarged in any comparable way in the last ten years with those in the United States. True there has been a considerable change since the days when we operated the government services on $200 million a year, but it still is possible for the government machinery to be surveyed and checked by the means we have at hand without having recourse to outsiders.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
The treasury board, the comptroller of the treasury, the civil service commission and the auditor general's office keep a constant eye on the evolution of our services and.serve as a salutary check on undue expansion of expenditures and avoidable duplications.
As far as the house is concerned, there is no limitation to its right of inquiry. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) stated, hon. members have used that right with ability and should not suddenly turn into humble violets or suffer from an inferiority complex and ask that their powers be turned over to others. Parliamentary machinery exists whereby members of this house may scrutinize the estimates and the way in which appropriations have been spent.
I do not say that there could not be a better use made of this machinery, but I know of no impediment that would prevent hon. members from grilling one or all of the ministers on any item in their estimates which the opposition might suspect was extravagant or unjustified. I know of no impediment in the way of members of the opposition or of any other group or of the government bringing to the attention of the public accounts committee any irregularity or any abuse that they think might exist. I shall deal with the work of that committee further on in my remarks.
The examples given this afternoon by the leader of the opposition to substantiate his charges that inefficiency or duplication of services exists were certainly very poorly chosen. To hinge the urgency for a royal commission on the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had fifty-six persons on his publicity staff and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) thirty-eight, and to invoke the alleged photographic war between those departments, hardly substantiates the urgency that exists, according to the leader of the opposition, of summoning a body of experts to decide whether twenty people would not suffice to draft the illustrated information which the two departments feel it advisable to distribute.
I do not intend, nor have I a brief, to speak for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of National Defence; but anyone acquainted with the publications of the Department of National Health and Welfare will realize their high standards and their considerable value to the people of Canada. I do not think any sarcastic remarks can take away from the merit of the minister in having given an impetus and vitality to all the services of his department for the benefit of our people and the benefit of the national health. When I consider the

conditions in the world today and the necessarily high cost of military protection, 1 do not find the publicity estimates of that department extravagant, either. I have no doubt the Minister of National Defence will be able to answer any questions the opposition may have to ask on the matter when his estimates are before the house.
So I say that if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) could not find anything better to which to devote a considerable portion of his time, or if he could not bring before us facts more startling or arguments more striking, there is very little justification for the motion. We sit here for months every year. We are in constant contact with departmental activities. Surely if things were so bad members of the opposition would have discovered that fact and acquainted the house with their discoveries. That there may be room for improvement in departmental administration I would be the last to deny. This is the case with every great enterprise; and when that enterprise has to be run on democratic principles many elements enter into it which may necessitate a constant survey lest the machinery become cumbersome and inefficient. Yet I know of few organizations more open to scrutiny and control than our federal administration. The departmental administrators live in glass houses, and it is not hard for members of this house to peep in.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made certain statements which did not seem to me consistent with the facts. I am sure he never intended to give the house a wrong impression; but he said-and I took note of his exact words-that the public accounts of Canada reported only expenditures of $10,000 or more. I think that is a misleading statement, though as I say I do not believe the hon. member did it on purpose to misrepresent the situation. If you look at the public accounts, at the end of the report of each department there is a list of the amounts that have been paid to certain suppliers. That is almost always the way these lists are headed, "Suppliers receiving $10,000 or more from this department." Look at the public accounts; look at the Department of Agriculture, at page A-61. There you see a list of suppliers receiving $10,000 or more from that department, but that is not all. Immediately under that long list, in small print you see, "Payments to contractors on public works contracts, including payments for rental of equipment, of $5,000 or over are described in detail under the relevant votes and are therefore not included in the following list." In other words each amount that needs
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry governmental approval is listed elsewhere in the report, just as each salary, no matter how small, is listed.
I could say the 'same about nearly every department. At page F-24 the same information is given with respect to the wheat board, and it is indicated that these lists are exclusive of amounts of $5,000 and over. At page F-25 you find a whole list of wheat board payments totalling $5,000 or more, in respect of their activities. I am sure the house would not want this volume to contain such items as those read this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre from the public accounts of 1890, covering a corkscrew and a few glasses. I do not imagine even the hon. member would want that sort of thing carried forward into the public accounts today; his statement is somewhat misleading taken in its context.
I could take a great deal of the time of this house going into every department; but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the situation I have mentioned applies in all departments. There is a list of accounts of $10,000 or more, and in addition those for more than $5,000 are reported under the heading of the vote itself. I thought that statement by the hon. member needed to be corrected, because if it were read by someone who did not know the practice of the house he might be led to believe that we considered any amount under $10,000 too small to be recorded, while actually we go down as low as $5,000. Personally, with the cost of everything a department may need as high as it is, I think $5,000 is too small an amount, and that governmental authority should be required only for projects costing $10,000 or more. However, it is the practice to report everything from $5,000 up, and each small item of salary is also shown in the public accounts.
Now I come to the statement that has been made on many occasions that the public accounts committee could do more to check the way votes approved by the house have been used by the executive branch of the administration. I am all the more interested because I have been chairman of the public accounts committee since 1945. That greater or better use of the committee could be made to scrutinize public expenditures I readily admit; but the machinery exists, and it has brought results and can bring more if the house desires. There is no rule of this house governing the time during which standing committees shall sit. The onl. provision is in connection with the special committee to draw up the membership of the other committees, and in that connection section (1) of standing order 63 provides:
At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of five members, shall be

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following committees of the house-
Then follows a list of those standing committees. Standing orders 64 to 67 also deal with committees; but nowhere is there mention of any period during the session when these committees should assemble or should be asked to sit. A committee sits when certain duties have been entrusted to it by the house. The committee on banking, for instance, sits when a bill is referred to it. As for the public accounts committee, it has been the custom to refer to it, some time after the address is voted, the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General. This is not done automatically or on any given date, however. For many years the practice has been to refer the public accounts when a request to that effect has been made in the house. Once the public accounts are referred to the committee there is no special time when it must sit. The tradition has developed that the committee assembles when an hon. member signifies to the chairman-elect his desire that it should do so. In the last twenty-one years the committee has sat six times, of which four were under my chairmanship. This means that during fifteen sessions no member has availed himself of the privilege of asking that the public accounts be referred to the committee.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the hon. member permit a question? He said six times, when I think he meant six sessions.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I meant six sessions out of twenty-one sessions. I think that was understood by the members.
Of the four sessions during which I have presided over the committee, I must say that the utmost liberty has been given to the members to bring any subject to the attention of the committee. Yet the committee has never been asked by the opposition to examine any one item in particular in the public accounts. We have usually dealt with general considerations, and an over-all review of the Auditor General's report, as well as the work the committee might be called upon to perform. The only exception to this was in 1947, when the house referred specific questions to the committee, namely, the advisability of investigating the claims made by the Japanese evacuees. As a result of our consideration of that subject a commissioner was appointed to advise the government on those claims.
The committee was also asked to review the administration of the custodian of enemy property, and the administration of the building program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. A moment ago I stated the result of

our deliberations so far as the Japanese question was concerned, and our investigations into the veterans affairs department resulted in the removal and transfer from office of an officer about whom the committee had expressed dissatisfaction. That was the work accomplished by the committee during one parliamentary session. However, the fact that the opposition has not found cause to ask the committee to look into any item of public accounts does not necessarily mean th'at all is well. But it certainly means that there are no such unsatisfactory conditions as some members opposite pretend exist, because I have no doubt that any important irregularities would have to come to the ear of members opposite, or at least some suspicion of them would have been brought to their attention. Then they would have been brought by them to the attention of the committee. I would not for one moment think that, such being the case, the fact that they were not brought up reflected upon the ability of opposition members; far from that.
That consideration should be given to the use of the public accounts committee to scrutinize and investigate public expenditures in a more consistent manner, I agree. I do not see any objection to it. The first task of the opposition is to watch the administration, and serve as a check on any irregularity which might occur. It remains the duty of the whole house to scrutinize public expenditure. This year the committee has already had three meetings. It has before it for consideration all the public accounts and the Auditor General's report, yet its deliberations have centred more on that question of redefining its task, or of remodelling its machinery in order to better perform its functions. Some members have remarked to me that the committee was not charged with the study of the whole question of the control of public money; that is true, but the duty of that committee is to consider public accounts, and I assume it is therefore in order for it to consider how best it can perform its task. That other points may be brought in evidence given before the committee, and that they may be discussed in the committee when they are related to the study of public accounts, is unavoidable.
It will rest upon the committee to arrive at conclusions as to how it can best perform its duties this year, and in future years, and to so report to the house within the limits of its reference. Be that as it may, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we lack at present the machinery for surveying public expenditures by this house, and I am satisfied that precautionary measures taken by the Auditor General's office, by the treasury board and the comptroller of the treasury, as well as by the

civil service commission, are such that, coupled with the vigilance of this house, they are sufficient for protection against abuse. I think it would be an unwarranted admission of inferiority on the part of parliament to call in the so-called experts, when we have within our own rules the facilities to perform these duties.
Without desiring to be offensive, I must say the attitude of the leader of the opposition appears to be a reversal of the attitude he has adopted on more occasions than one. I still have in my ears the echo of his declaration about the supremacy of parliament. Yet today he comes here asking parliament to proclaim that it cannot perform its tasks, and that it must seek help from outsiders. The people of Canada will have a hard time reconciling the two attitudes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this house is not justified in adopting the motion under consideration. If this house was to approve a proposal of that kind, I think the leader of the opposition and his lieutenants would have had to build their case more strongly, and base their conclusions on safer ground. Parliament has all the machinery it needs to perform its tasks. It has done so over the past fifteen years without the help of the so-called experts from outside, and the country has never been better administered.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I am
interested in the concern of the last speaker over royal commissions, especially when one remembers that this government has not only the Massey commission, but the two other royal commissions which have recently been sitting, including the transportation commission. I think perhaps the objection to this suggestion is in the nature either of a straw man or of wishing not to have the facts of the case fully disclosed to the house. The criticism of the motion, Mr. Speaker, has been based almost entirely on ignorance of the facts.
First of all, a royal commission such as is envisaged by this resolution does not, and cannot, usurp the executive functions or powers of government. With regard to the expenditure of money, the responsibility is not the government's, it is the responsibility of this parliament. Such is the overwhelming feeling of omnipotence in the government benches that they almost invariably forget this fundamental fact of our British democratic system of parliamentary government. The adoption of this motion, Mr. Speaker, does not mean that we are taking away anything, nor is there any suggestion that we intend to take away any of the executive responsibilities of the members of the cabinet;
28, 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry that is far from the purpose of the resolution. The resolution merely does this. It testifies and shows that parliament is supreme. Any suggestion that it does not do that is entirely in error. What the resolution tends to do is merely to show that the expenditure of money voted by parliament for the essential services of the country is efficient and expedient. That is the sum total of the import of the resolution. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is an important thing. With the growth of all democratic governments throughout the world, the machinery to check and to go into expenditures which was evolved in the old days, when the cost of government ran at a figure of about 5 per cent, or certainly less than 10 per cent, of the gross national income of the country, was probably satisfactory. Now, however, with the gross expenditure of government in Canada probably in excess of 25 per cent of the gross national income, new and more scientific and efficient methods must be taken to check and to go into the methods of that expenditure. This was the intent of the Hoover commission. This is the identical intent of the resolution which is today before the house. Instead of taking away from the responsibility of members of the cabinet and of this parliament, it increases the responsibility of this parliament; it tends to make the functioning of government more efficient. That is the purport of this resolution.
In his budget speech the minister said that the minimum expenditure of Canada in the foreseeable future was, let us say in round figures, two and a half billion dollars. With the increased responsibility which we may have for national defence; with the increase of pressure for expansion of the social services; with the continual pressure for increasing government services all along the line; with the added deficits of the Canadian National Railways, of Trans-Canada Air Lines and of the Canadian National Steamships; with all the other multitudinous expenditures or expenses of government, it means one thing, Mr. Speaker. Taxes can do only one thing and that is go up.
There are two ways in which we can prevent this occurrence. We can deny our responsibilities for national defence. We can retrench in the essential services. We could possibly decrease the essential services. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that none of these things is in keeping either with our responsibilities as an international power or with our responsibilities as a free and democratic country.
There is only one other way in which taxes may be reduced, and that is by the efficient

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry expenditure of the money voted by this parliament. The resolution before this parliament today dims at bringing about just that thing. I suggest that it is the only method by which we may ever expect to see taxes reduced from their present level. The. report of the Hoover commission, which was-trying to do exactly the same thing, showed that a reduction of $4 billion in the United States was entirely possible without any reduction in the efficiency of the government services. In fact, it showed case after case where the efficiency could be increased. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two quotations from this report. They are of a general nature, and I am satisfied that if a similar commission investigated the Canadian expenditures, a similar situation would be found. This is the sort of thing that the Hoover commission discovered in the general administration of the United States. I will just quote a few of them. There are hundreds liere that I could give examples of but I will just quote a few. According to the report this is what happened. The bureau of Indian affairs employs one person for each thirty-two of the 393,000 Indians under its care. The veterans administration takes five times as long to settle insurance claims as private companies do, and uses four times the manpower per policy. The government owns three and one-half typewriters for each employee using its machines. After dismantling a $16 million camp in Alaska the army shipped the lumber to Seattle. The Department of the Interior took over the lumber and shipped it back to a point ten miles from where it originally stood.
There is so much duplication in the Department of Agriculture that a farmer received conflicting advice about fertilizers from five different units of that department. To prevent the flooding of Cherry creek, a small stream east of Denver, the army engineers tore down a dam which local engineers considered adequate and built a $15 million dam three miles long and 140 feet high. Some government bureaux are stocked with supplies fifty years in advance. The government owns $27 million of supplies and materials. There is no central inventory of this vast property. Federal jobs are so frustrating that 50,000 persons quit the government each year; yet it takes months to secure the resignation of unsatisfactory employees. Hence the Dorothy story.
Let us take an example of the Canadian administration, about which I know a little bit. Let me refer to the old department of mines and resources. For years the leading spokesmen in the mining industry have pleaded with the government to reorganize the department. They have pleaded with


the government to take out immigration and other non-mining subjects. Today the government has split that department into three, but as yet we have no minister of mines specifically responsible to that great industry. I understand today that the ministry and the department are still in 26 different buildings around Ottawa, and I presume the filing system is such that a boy on a bicycle is still the means of drawing files from a number of different central registers. When I make that criticism of the department of mines I do it, Mr. Speaker, from occasional visits and complaints of mining engineers, friends of mine, who have been frustrated despite the very excellent work being done by the engineers, the scientists and the other personnel in that department. Mind you, it is no criticism of the personnel in the department of mines; for when I make that criticism I, as a member of the opposition, make the criticism, and it is put down as political criticism; but if somebody like Dr. Camsell, with an intimate knowledge of this country and an intimate knowledge of that department, as a member of a royal commission such as is suggested, made criticism and made suggestions nobody could accuse him of any political bias. In my opinion he would be one man at least who would be extremely competent and able to suggest the reforms which I believe, and which associates of mine believe, and which many members of the mining industry believe are necessary in that one department.
We go along to all the other departments of government. I may make criticisms; I may ask questions in the public accounts committee, Mr. Speaker. I have just come 'from a committee that sat four hours on Monday, six hours I think it was on Tuesday, four hours on Wednesday, seven hours on Thursday and very nearly eight hours on Friday dealing with the unmentionable subject of pipe lines. We are told that bloody Mary, the Queen of England, said that when she died she would have "Calais" written on her heart. If I am found dead in my bunk tonight on the train to Toronto I shall have "pipe lines" written around my viscera.


Mr, Sinclair:: Mary, Queen of Scots.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No, bloody Mary; not Mary, Queen of Scots: she had her head cut off. I am right in my queen. With all due respect, the question of investigating parliamentary expenditures through the committee system is archaic at the present time. Anybody who will take the trouble to read the reports of the committee going into the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways will see that. Before that committee we had as witness Mr. Donald Gordon and his experts, who

gave a very able presentation of their problem. The plain fact is that today government has got beyond the committee stage. We have got beyond the public accounts committee stage. This parliament is by far the biggest spender of money in the country. No business, no private individual, could possibly remain solvent using the" methods this parliament uses to control expenditures.
I want to say one thing about pressure groups. Today in all democratic countries every member, every freely elected member, is subject to pressure groups. There was one here recently. The recent mail that hon. members have been getting with regard to the means test, the various groups in the country who are organized for special interests, are all capable of exerting political pressure at times of election on members of this House of Commons and to any freely elected legislature.
It is human for a candidate to want to be elected; it is human for a candidate, by promise or by the soft answer, to, shall we say, not turn away wrath but to take perhaps a less direct line than the facts cf the case indicate. And that pressure is evidenced in the debates in this house, it is evidenced in discussions in committee, and it is evidenced generally through the behaviour of all freely elected parliaments.
Now, were a royal commission, a nonpolitical royal commission such as the group under Mr. Hoover in the United States, to bring down a report such as has been brought down in the United States, a very different attitude might be taken, and a much more realistic attitude, for the welfare of the entire country.
I say this to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), that one of the most striking bits of evidence at the present time in the United States is that members of the congress returning to Washington almost unanimously report that the question uppermost in the minds of their constituents at home is the expenditure by the federal government. The
28, 1950
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry Hoover report has taken the place of the cold war, has taken the place of the Taft-Hartley Act, has taken the place of all the other contentious items, in the opinions of members of the congress who are returning to Washington.
That is a most salutary thing to happen. Unless and until the full implication of the total mass government expenditure and its effect on the lives of every citizen of the country is fully realized, we are heading for increased expenditures and increased taxation until such time-and that time will come-that the total national expenditures of government reach a percentage point of the total national income from which a recovery to individual freedom will be impossible. What that point is may be debatable. It is certainly less than 35 per cent, and it is possibly more than 25 per cent. But today the expenditures of government in Canada are above the 25 per cent mark. This transcends, I believe, every economic and security issue in Canada today.
Efficiency must be restored and must be brought to big government. We have seen that the methods we already have at our disposal cannot and do not bring about that efficiency. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew). It is a case of whether we are going to be defeated by bankruptcy or whether we are prepared to fight for our own individual freedom as free men in this country.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Souris) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday, private members' day, we will follow the procedure set out in standing order 15.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 1, 1950