1952-05-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Ismena Archange Labatt Chipman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Rose Larocque Crawford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Gladys Lucille Jane Annal Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Emily Amelia Ahern Manhire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Margaret Joyce Berryman Thomas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Lillian Deutsch Payne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Murdoch Graham Nicholson.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is a recognized civil service association?
2.	Does the civil service commission, the cabinet, the minister at the head of a department, or some official under the minister grant recognition? If not, who does grant such recognition?
3.	What conditions or requirements must be met by an organization before recognition is granted?
4.	What are the names of all recognized civil service associations?
5.	When was each such association recognized, and by whom?
6.	Does the government discourage or prohibit the formation of new associations of civil service employees?
7.	What is the policy of the government with respect to the formation of new associations of civil service employees?
8.	Has this policy ever been communicated to senior administrative officials in the civil service? If so, when, and to what officials?


Mr. Bradley:: 1, 2 and 3. There is no formal definition of "a recognized civil service association".
4 and 5. As indicated above, there are no "recognized civil service associations". There are known to be over one hundred staff associations or organizations and it is not possible to compile a complete and accurate list. The following eleven staff organizations have been named by order in council as entitled to direct and separate representation on the national joint council of the public service of Canada:
55704-133J
The Civil Service Federation of Canada, The Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, The Civil Service Association of Ottawa, The Federal Association of Letter Carriers, The Association of Canadian Postal Employees, The Canadian Railway Mail Clerks Federation, The Customs and Excise Officers Association, The Canadian Taxation Division Staff Association, The National Unemployment Insurance Commission Association, The Department of Veterans Affairs Employees National Association.
6. No.
7 and 8. The government does not interfere in the formation of new associations of civil service employees.


PICTURE OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Hees:: 1.	Were any copies of a picture of the Minister of Transport lecturing to students of Ottawa university sent out to schools, institutions and other organizations?
2.	If so, how many, and what was the purpose of sending out this picture?


Mr. Chevrier:: I would like to answer this question orally, if I may. I did receive a group of some eighty students of the University of Ottawa some weeks ago as my guests here in the House of Commons. While I did not lecture to them, I spoke of the manner in which parliament operated, and during the course of the talks someone suggested that I explain on a map the main features of the St. Lawrence seaway. I decided to do so. As I was talking, a picture was taken of the students and of myself, and the picture was sent out to six university student publications, six teacher publications and twelve newspapers, as part of the educational program on the St. Lawrence seaway.
I should tell the house that the national film board made a charge against the Department of Transport of sixty cents for each copy of the print, making a total of $14.40.



ARMED FORCES-FOOTWEAR

Mr. Lennard:: How many pairs of defence footwear were covered by sessional paper No. 18-A, tabled on the seventh day of April, 1952?


Mr. Dickey:: The total number of pairs of
footwear covered by sessional paper No. 18-A, tabled on the seventh day of April, 1952 was 1,304,407 pairs.

Questions



RADIO LICENCE FEES

Mr. Higgins:: What is the amount received in radio licence fees from each province, in 1951?


Mr. Benidickson:: Private receiving station licence revenue by provinces for the fiscal year 1951-52 (not completely finalized):
Province	Revenue
Newfoundland	$ 112,792.50
Prince Edward Island		25,886.50
Nova Scotia	 270,225.50
New Brunswick	 185,202.00
Quebec	 1,449,467.00
Ontario	 1,613,752.00
Manitoba	 338,389.50
Saskatchewan	 401,438.50
Alberta	 422,887.50
British Columbia	 484,077.00
Yukon and Northwest
Territories	 846.00
Total	$5,304,964.00



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts for kit bags for the defence forces were let between January 1, 1951 and May 1, 1952?
2.	What were the amounts of the contracts?
3.	How many kit bags were contracted for? Mr. Dickey:
1. 17 contracts.
2 and 3.
Number	Estimated value
6.000		$ 41,400
5.000		 34,250
1.000		 7,050
5.000		 31,500
35.000		 243,175
51.000		 320,790
12,500	 88,125
96,910	 669,687
1,940	 5,626
1.750		 6,860
15,750		 98,910
900	 2,970
900	 2,970
16.000		 46,400
1.750		 7,665
7,435	 21,562
1,500	 7,950



BOISSEVAIN, MAN., POST OFFICE

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	Was an addition built to or over the Boisse-valn post office during 1949 or 1950?
2.	If so, who was the contractor?
3.	What was the total cost of addition to the
building?	.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Wyatt Construction Company Limited, Winnipeg, Man.
3.	$36,441.50.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


DRYING OF DAMP GRAIN


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What was the total reduction of wheat by principal grades, oats, barley, rye, flax, shown in the records of each elevator company in its terminal elevators as a result of drying?
2.	Is such reduction in bushels of grain reflected as year-end shortages in the published records of each elevator company?
3.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Return tabled.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What was the total expenditure paid or incurred for (a) legal fees and disbursements; (b) travelling expenses; (c) other costs and expenses not included in legal fees and disbursements, in connection with all matters in Newfoundland for which solicitors were retained by federal departments, specifying each such matter?
2.	Are there any outstanding accounts for solicitors or counsel fees?
3.	Who were the solicitors or counsel retained for each such matter, and how much did each receive?



WELFARE SURVEY OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Was a welfare survey, including child welfare, made by Miss Bessie Touzel, assistant executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so (a) when was this survey made; (b) what was the cost; (c) has Miss Touzel submitted a report?
3.	If a report has been made, when will it be published and made available?



POULTRY


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	How many claims have been received by the government in the last year for compensation for losses sustained through Newcastle disease from owners of poultry hatcheries and flocks in Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the amount of such claims, stating (a) number of hens; (b) number of cockerels; (c) number of eggs; (d) value of buildings and equipment; (e) cost of disinfecting and clean-up; (f) loss of business; (g) other items; (h) total?
3.	How many birds (a) died; (b) were destroyed?
4.	What compensation has been paid under each heading?



GERM WARFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Endicott, the communist, has accused the United Nations of using germ warfare in Korea, and every member of the House of Commons has had inquiries from across the country demonstrating the concern

of the people regarding his statement and press reports on the subject. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is prepared at this time to make a statement on this matter.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thought it likely that someone would bring up this question, Mr. Speaker, and I am therefore in a better position to deal with it than I would normally be.
The charge that the United Nations forces in Korea have engaged in germ warfare is so false and so fantastic that it would normally be unwise to dignify it by official denials. Nevertheless, it has become such a central feature of soviet propaganda, and has been repeated so violently and so often for the transparent purpose of deceiving persons who may not be aware of the soviet purpose behind the charge, that I think some statement should be made about it. The hon. gentleman's question gives me an opportunity to make that statement on behalf of the government.
The accusation of germ warfare is usually aimed specifically at the United States. It has been emphatically and indignantly denied in Washington and by the unified command in Korea. Within the last few days Mr. Acheson has repeated that denial, emphasizing that the "trumped-up 'evidence' " to support-and I quote him-
-these utterly false charges constitutes another example of the incredible length to which communists will go to propagate the big lie.
Canadian members of the communist party, who, of course, follow automatically every twist and turn of soviet policy no matter where it leads them, and their fellow travellers, who do not always realize that they are travelling under orders from the Kremlin- these people prefer to accept this trumped-up evidence rather than the official denials of our friends in the United States. The charge, Mr. Speaker, has also been, categorically denied on behalf of the United Nations by its secretary general, Mr. Trygve Lie, as utterly false. I am sure that this house accepts those denials.
So far as our own position is concerned, it is, of course, a slanderous falsehood to say that Canada has participated in any way in any form of germ warfare. It is equally false and equally slanderous, but more cowardly and despicable, to imply without stating it in so many words that Canada is making any preparations in this field except for defence against such warfare. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that some of our best qualified scientists, though they would not of course be permitted to make on-the-spot examinations, have already examined the so-called evidence
Inquiries of the Ministry of Korean germ warfare that has been made public by the communists and have pronounced it, in an oral report to me, to be a transparent and clumsy hoax.
Possibly the best proof that the communist leaders themselves do not believe in these charges or in this evidence is the fact that for their so-called investigations they have used a communist body, called the international association of democratic lawyers, and other agencies which are under their direct control. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the other members of the United Nations with forces in Korea have, on the other hand, agreed that the charges should be investigated by men who would be bound-and of course this is unthinkable in communist countries-only by their professional consciences, and who would act on their scientific knowledge; by men-and this would also be impossible in communist countries-who would not be subject to any form of reprisal or punishment if their conclusions were embarrassing politically to the governments of which they were nationals. For this purpose it has been proposed that the investigation should be conducted by representatives of such impartial international organizations as the International Red Cross or the world health organization. Indeed, any international organization of this kind should be acceptable to the United Nations. The communists, obviously embarrassed by the possibility that this kind of investigation might take place, have retreated to the position of denying the impartiality and objectivity of the two international organizations in question, a denial which deceives no one except themselves but which very convincingly exposes their own bad faith and their realization that the charges could not be substantiated for a moment if a genuinely impartial investigation were permitted.
In spite of this there are some in this country, deluded but possibly sincere, who have been impressed by the shrill and continuous communist propaganda on germ warfare to which they are subjected. There are others, of course, members of the communist party and fellow travellers, who are neither deluded nor sincere but who will swallow any accusation and accept any statement, however absurd, if it comes from Moscow, and will ignore any evidence or statement in reply to such an accusation which comes from their own or from friendly governments. They will condemn in unmeasured terms the policies of their own and other free countries, while they will propagate any lie, however vicious, which is uttered against their own country and its friends on behalf of soviet communist imperialism. Communist travellers and their

Inquiries of the Ministry friends, for instance, will return from Moscow with nothing but praise for the sordid and cruel despotism which has been forced on the Russian people and on those other peoples whom they have enslaved. Or they will come back from China, without any word of criticism for the inhuman treatment of Christian missionaries there, -but with extravagant praise for the communist regime in that country which is responsible for such treatment.
Some of these persons have a passion for publicity, and I do not wish to minister to that passion by referring to them by name. As long as they are Canadians they have the rights, of course, of Canadian citizenship, but within the law. If they break the law they can be punished. However, we should, I suggest, be careful not to make martyrs of them in a way which would only make them more dangerous to us and more useful to the communists. It is, I think, a small price to pay for freedom and for the preservation of human rights to permit such persons to condemn and discredit themselves by their own malicious and false statements as long as they stay within the law. A few of these people, of course, may sincerely believe that they are, if I may put it this way, fishermen for peace. They are, in fact, merely bait on the end of a Red hook. They are helping the soviet government achieve certain imperialist objectives which have nothing to do with peace or freedom, but which require the weakening and eventually the destruction of the friendly co-operation which has been built up between free states in the face of the menace of soviet communist aggression.
No true or loyal Canadian, I know, will subscribe to or assist in any way this subversive campaign which employs as one of its most dangerous tactics the longing for peace which we all share and uses as one of its most destructive weapons what I have already described as ideological germ warfare.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The press has reported that a questionnaire has been directed by the Department of External Affairs to Dr. Endicott. The press also carries reports of the statement by Dr. Endicott that he does not propose to answer the questionnaire but intends to seek a discussion of this subject with the minister himself. Can the minister inform us what the situation is and whether any such questionnaire has been directed to Dr. Endicott?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Endicott addressed to me some days ago a telegram asking for an opportunity of making a per-

sonal report to me before he made a public statement on his return from communist China. In reply to that telegram a letter was sent to Dr. Endicott in the following terms:
I have been instructed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to forward to you the attached summaries of statements which you are reported to have made during your recent visit to Europe and to China. This is the most accurate report of these statements which we have been able to secure and I am directed to ask you whether you confirm or deny or wish to amend the statements contained in them which you are reported to have made.
This letter was signed, on my instructions, on behalf of the Acting Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to the point raised by the leader of the opposition may I say that to this communication I received an answer which possibly I might put on the record. It reached me last Friday, as I recall.


Mr. Coldwell:: Yes. Read it into the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is addressed to me, Mr. Speaker, and if the house desires me to do so, I will put it on the record. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
This will acknowledge receipt of a letter signed by an official of your department questioning me on certain press and radio statements attributed to me.
Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, all we did was to give him an opportunity to confirm, deny or amend those statements. He was not questioned in regard to them except in that respect. Dr. Endicott's letter continues:
Before commenting on these questions I should like to inform you that I am speaking in Toronto on Saturday morning at Massey Hall and on Sunday night at the Maple Leaf Gardens. In these speeches I will be discussing the use of germ warfare by the United States' forces against the Chinese people. I will be repeating what I said abroad. As you are aware, I can speak Chinese fluently and I was able to ask and see for myself on the spot what I feel to be undeniable evidence of the use of bacteriological warfare by the United States' forces.
The truth of this grave charge is a matter of the greatest importance to all Canadians and- I should hope that you would want to hear what I saw in China. You will recall that I cabled you from China as long ago as April 1, before I made any public statement.
Incidentally, that was a cable from Peking to me some weeks ago protesting against the alleged use of germs and bacteriological warfare in Korea and in northern China. Dr. Endicott's letter continues:
I would welcome a chance to present the facts to which I was a witness both to you and to the external affairs committee, as well as to the Canadian people.
To come back to the questions your official asks. I have been unable to trace any authority possessed by your department which gives the right to question Canadian citizens in such a way, nor is the purpose of the questions clear to me. Until I receive some clarification on this point I must decline to submit to cross-examination from your officials.

That is the end of the letter, Mr. Speaker. The cross-examination to which Dr. Endicott refers was the opportunity we gave him to explain, deny or amend what he is reported to have said when he was in communist territory; and he did not take advantage of that opportunity.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that all members of this house will be ready to approve of the strongest terms in describing what is being done by Dr. Endicott at this time. However, I raise one question which, it seems to me, has been in the minds of many people, if one may take the statements that have appeared in the press as an indication of what they are thinking. At the time the Criminal Code was amended, I think members of this house were under the impression that the effect of the amendments would be that those who were guilty of statements which might have the effect of injuring Canada's position and affecting our participation in the struggle in which we are engaged would be embraced within the wider terms of the code dealing with subversive activities. It can be no defence for anyone to suggest that it is the United States which is guilty of certain conduct. The United States is engaged in a common effort with Canada and the other nations now represented in Korea, and it would be impossible for us to divorce ourselves entirely from action of that kind, if, indeed, such action were being taken.
I do not think it is safe for us to say that no Canadian except one who happens to follow the line put forward by the Kremlin is going to accept statements of this kind. Unfortunately there seems to be some evidence that there are people who are affected by repeated statements of this nature on the part of a man who is accorded some measure of recognition even by the government itself, in the manner in which it deals with him in respect to this matter. If statements of this kind are believed by any Canadians who have sons, husbands or brothers in Korea, how can it be possible to say that they are not subversive and that they will not have a damaging effect upon the state of mind of many of our people? I most earnestly urge upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that he consider whether statements which can only be taken as suggesting a course of action by the United Nations forces, of which the Canadian forces are a part, do not bring the author of them clearly within the amendments to the Criminal Code which the minister introduced into this house.
I for one have expressed myself as being strongly opposed to arbitrary action or any methods which are inconsistent with our truly democratic processes. I believe the place in which any of these things should be
Inquiries of the Ministry dealt with is the courts. But I most certainly understood the Minister of Justice had indicated to us it was his belief that the amendments which had been introduced here, and which were adopted by the members of this house, were sufficiently wide to deal with activities or statements which could in any way undermine our participation in the present very real fighting in Korea, or at any other time, in the event of war, interfering with the war effort of the country. I would ask him to tell the house what the opinion of the department is as to the application of the amended section of the Criminal Code to words which can only be regarded as inclusive of the United Nations forces, having regard to the fact that Canadian men in Canadian uniforms are serving with those forces.


Hon. Siuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In response to a question earlier during the present session, I indicated that the statements attributed to Dr. Endicott in the press as having been made in Korea and China were being examined by members of the staff of the Department of Justice, with a view to reaching an opinion as to whether or not prosecutions could be laid against Dr. Endicott under either the amendment to which the leader of the opposition has referred as having been passed last year, or under other sections of the Criminal Code.
Since that time Dr. Endicott went to London, England and made there a statement repudiating those attributed to him in China. He has since come to Canada and had communications, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, with that department, and has also made speeches in Canada. All of these have a bearing upon the opinion which is in the course of preparation in the Department of Justice.
One of the difficulties under which, in contradistinction to the totalitarian countries, we labour in Canada in a matter of this kind is that under British justice a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If he merely, in the course of his trial, pleads not guilty and says nothing more, the onus is upon the crown of proving a prima facie case against him by witnesses who are available to the Canadian courts, which I do suggest would not include those in China to whom Dr. Endicott's original statements were alleged to have been made.
No matter what the wording of the offence may be, one of the matters of prime importance which the prosecution has to consider is whether it can produce sufficient evidence through competent witnesses which will discharge that first onus so that the onus will then shift to the defence to establish justification, or other matters of defence.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The amendment to which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has referred is one which was introduced last year. This is the subsection which was added to the section defining treason; it reads:
Treason is . . .
"(i) assisting, while in or out of Canada, any enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are, or . .
In other words, the prime purpose of tne amendment was to get away from the necessity, which otherwise would obtain, of having to prove that a state of war, according to international law, existed between Canada and, we will say, North Korea and China -a state of war being a condition usually recognized as that which follows an open declaration of war. I think there is no doubt that the amendment achieved that effect. But to go on, following the suggestion which the leader of the opposition has just made this afternoon, and say that it in any way eases the necessity of proving that the statement which was made was intended to assist or did assist any enemy at war with Canada is I think hardly in accord with the terms of the amendment.
In the present case this matter, as my remarks previously in the house indicates, has been under active consideration by a committee in our department consisting of the deputy minister, Mr. F. P. Varcoe, Q.C., Mr. A, A. Moffat, Q.C., who was the former deputy attorney general of the province of Manitoba; Mr. T. D. MacDonald, Q.C., the head of the combines branch, who was a former deputy attorney general of Nova Scotia, and Mr. A. J. MacLeod, who is one of our specialists in the field of criminal law. They have been giving very serious consideration to the various pieces of evidence to which I have referred, with a view to arriving at an opinion as to whether, in their judgment, it would be possible to secure a conviction from a Canadian jury under our British system of law if a prosecution were launched.
Unfortunately, Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister, was taken to Washington for a matter of nearly a week on the St. Lawrence deep waterways matter, and Mr. MacDonald has been in New York attending a committee of the economic and social council of the United Nations dealing with international cartels, and just returned over the week end. We will be producing an opinion in the matter shortly.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question? In view of Dr. Endicott's letter, did he have someone at the meeting in Massey
[Mr. GarsonJ
Hall last night to take down an accurate account of the charges that may have been made there?
While I am on my feet, may I also say that I think we should leave a good deal of this to the good sense of the Canadian people. They know that an impartial investigation has been urged by the United Nations, but it has been refused. As long as no impartial investigation is permitted by the other side, the Canadian people should be able to evaluate the charges for exactly what they are worth. I do not think we should continue to give publicity to matters of this description. The good sense of the Canadian people will arrive at a fairly sound judgment as to the charges that have been made.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, and in his absence to the parliamentary assistant. Does the Canada-Newfoundland herring commission exist at the present time? If not, has a herring commission been set up, and when has the commission reported to the hon. Minister of Fisheries?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: In
reply to the senior member for Queens, who was good enough to leave a notice of his intention to ask this question in my office this morning, may I say with respect to the first part of the question the answer is no.
With respect to the second part of his question the answer is also no. The hon. member, however, is probably referring to the Atlantic herring investigation committee, which was established in 1944, under joint arrangements between the federal government and the governments of Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. That committee was finally dissolved on March 31, 1950.
With respect to the third part of the hon. member's question, namely, when has the commission reported to the Minister of Fisheries, the reply is that reports of the Atlantic herring investigation committee were made annually to the minister through the fisheries research board.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the opportunity presented by this motion to bring before the house once again the suggestion that it is to the advantage of all Canadians that we should adopt the method that has been employed by every substantial business in Canada in an effort to improve the efficiency of those businesses in these extremely important years.
On an earlier occasion, on behalf of this party I introduced a motion in which I called for the appointment of a royal commission to examine the general organization of government from the administrative point of view, with the request that it report to the house and recommend any improvements which could be made from the point of view of either increased efficiency or government economy.
At that time, so far as I could discern the opinion expressed by hon. members, there was no serious disagreement with the suggestion that it would be desirable to improve the efficiency of government administration in every way we can, but rather that no evidence had been placed before us which suggested any real necessity for such examination. Therefore I return today to this subject, and again I shall present a motion in which I shall call for an expression of opinion by hon. members.
I present the motion in the hope that all hon. members may recognize the extent to which public confidence in the efficient and effective expenditure of their moneys by the government, in itself, is a most important part of the great economic struggle in which we are now engaged. As has been said in the house on a number of occasions, our struggle against communism is not merely to build up united military strength which will preserve peace by making it appear unwise for Russia to begin a war, but side by side with that is the equally important struggle to preserve our economy and to maintain our living standards while we shoulder the financial burdens imposed upon us by the necessity for military preparations.
Therefore I suggest in all earnestness to members on both sides of the house that the extent to which, by our conduct, we can convey confidence to the taxpayers of Canada that their dollars are being well and properly spent, to that extent we shall be making an
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry important contribution to ultimate success in our long struggle against communism and communist aggression.
Let us consider some of the reasons which suggest themselves as supporting a motion of this kind. First of all the question may arise as to the desirability of the appointment of a royal commission or of a committee of parliament. The motion which will be presented suggests the appointment of a royal commission, for reasons which I hope will commend themselves to the house. It would be possible to appoint to a royal commission men who have been specializing in business organization, outstanding accountants, men skilled in departmental work, as well as representatives; of the civil service itself whose knowledge would be invaluable in assessing evidence placed before such a commission.
While there are among hon. members many who have business and accounting experience, as well as other experience which would be useful in examining a subject of this kind, the appointment of a royal commission would make it possible for the government to choose men and women who have established recognition in this country as experts in their own fields. It would also make it possible to choose men and women whose expert knowledge would permit them to examine these problems of organization without any suggestion that they might be embarrassed in any way through their being members of the House of Commons.
I feel sure it is not necessary to stress the point that in recent years one thing has been emphasized over and over again by large corporations conducting business of one kind or another. Again and again we see the statement that there has been a reorganization in the administration of a business, after a careful examination has been made, and that new methods of cost accounting have been adopted so that day by day in every department of that business it has become possible for the efficiency of the operation to be checked by statistical information.
We have observed also that one of the things done by business generally to reduce costs and increase efficiency has been to watch the way in which various activities are carried on so that there will be a guarantee that the skill and efficiency of those working on any particular task may be employed to the utmost advantage. All that this motion suggests is that those of us who are supposed to be responsible for the largest and most important business in Canada, that of the people of Canada and of Canada itself, should adopt precisely the methods which have been found to be not only desirable but necessary if business efficiency is to be practised and in many cases solvency itself maintained.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
Surely some of the figures of expenditures which have been made available recently suggest many places where there might be some possibility of economy. Just recently the government statisticians prepared comparative figures of expenditures on certain typical items under various government departments. Let me place a few of those comparative figures before the members of this house, without suggesting for a moment that these are the only items which give a clear interpretation of what is happening. They are put forward simply as illustrating what has been happening; and these examples are repeated over and over again in the comparative figures presented by the government statisticians.
Let us take the Department of National Defence, which during the coming year will be called upon to spend nearly half of the enormous sum of money that is to be taken from the people of Canada by taxation as set forth in the estimates now under consideration. I take the figure for 1938-39 as the last figure before the war and because it is the year which is taken as the starting point by the government statisticians themselves.
Under the heading of professional and special services, the expenditure in 1938-39 was $198,000, the expenditure indicated for 195253 is $11,767,000. Surely when we see a figure as large as that we do not need to argue very strenuously that some examination would suggest places where savings could be made in an item which for similar services has jumped from $198,000 to $11,767,000.
For travelling and removal expenses in the year 1938-39 the expenditure was $1,101,000; for 1952-53 it is estimated to be $32,430,000. Let us admit that we are living in a time of higher prices; let us admit that Canada's general activities have expanded greatly; it still does not explain an increase by thirty-two times of the amount spent on that particular item in 1938-39.
For telegraphs, telegrams and other communications services in 1938-39 the figure was $57,000; for 1952-53 it is $5,239,000. That is an increase not of thirty times but of one hundred times what it was in 1938-39. Surely there must be expenditures there which would be worth examining to see if some savings could not be made. Whether the savings effected would be $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000, or $2,000,000 as long as savings can be made, the possibility should be explored. Certain it is that impartial examination will show that lots of long distance telephone calls could have been avoided by the use of air mail which probably would have obtained the same information in very little more time. The same applies to telegrams and
iMr. Drew.]
other communications such as wireless and things of that kind. A jump from $57,000 to $5,239,000 in itself would suggest reasons for an independent examination by skilled men and women to see if some improvement could not be made in the costs and efficiency of that operation.
Let us examine the item of films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity. Remember that this is the same government which proclaims itself as continuing efficiency. In 1938-39 it felt impelled to spend only $5,000 for films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity, whereas it now asks for $3,115,000 for the same item. There is an increase of six hundred times. Surely that would suggest reasons for exploring this item to seek possible economies and improved efficiency.
Let us look at office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings. Certainly the cost of these things has gone up, and undoubtedly more stationery and supplies are required; but let us look at the comparative figures and remember that while Canada has grown, it has not grown or expanded in anything like this percentage. In 1938-39 under this item $232,000 was spent. It is estimated that during 1952-53 the government will require under this item $6,164,000. Need I suggest that any ordinary business confronted with an increase of this kind in a single item would insist upon a most careful examination of the possibility of economies under that head.
Then let us look at one or two items under departments other than national defence. So there may be no suggestion that these figures have only gone up because of military preparation and activities, let us look at travelling and removal expenses in the nondefence categories. In 1938-39 the total under that heading for all departments other than defence and defence production was $3,504,000. For 1952-53 the amount estimated to be necessary is $13,991,000. Surely an increase by more than three times in that one item suggests reasons for examination. Then let us look at this interesting item covering telephones, telegrams and other communications. Let me remind hon. members that any argument which might be made that speed in modern methods of communication is essential for defence purposes would not apply, because the figures I am giving have no relation to defence activities. The figure for telephones, telegrams and other communication services for the non-defence departments for 1938-39 was $689,000. For 1952-53 the amount estimated as required by the government is $5,638,000, nearly ten times as much. Then under the item publication

of departmental reports and other material we find the interesting fact that not a single cent was included in 1938-39, but that for 1952-53 there is in the non-defence departments an item of $4,368,000.
I could go on giving item after item showing similar increases in expenditures between 1938-39 and the current year. May I also point out that it is not merely the comparison between 1938-39 and 1952-53 that is illuminating. Let us take the item of telephones, telegrams and other communication services under the departments of National Defence and Defence Production. For last year, which after all is fairly close to us, the amount spent was $3,477,000. The estimate for the current year is $5,239,000. Surely an increase of nearly $2 million this year under that single item suggests that we should have cost accounting methods applied to some of these figures.
So much for the figures put forward by the government itself. Other reasons have been suggested as to why there should be an examination of the administrative methods of various departments of government. These have been brought to our attention in connection with various activities of this government. For instance, the matter of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which has been under consideration both by parliament and by a committee of parliament, is examined impartially by a writer in Maclean's magazine of April 15 of this year under the heading, "Who is to blame for the foot-and-mouth epidemic?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has this matter not been referred to a committee?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; what I am about to read has no reference to the matter before the committee.


Mr. Howe:: The subject matter certainly has -been referred to a committee of this house where it is now under study.


Mr. Speaker:: I think so.


George Alexander Drew: Well, I will -not press the point. I feel sure what I was going to put forward was not before the committee, but if the ruling is that reference should not be made to it I do not propose to insist.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be some doubt about the point of order but the hon. member says he will not press it and I appreciate it.


George Alexander Drew: Then I wish to deal with other matters that have been under consideration and which at the moment have not been referred to any committee. For instance, I
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry would mention certain disclosures of the waste of public money as a result of thefts at certain military camps.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Once again I must object. This very subject is being examined at the present time by the committee on defence expenditures. It cannot be discussed in this house until there is a report by the committee.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that this subject was not referred to the committee on defence expenditures. If Your Honour will
examine the terms of reference to the committee you will find they deal with what has been spent on defence, and existing commitments. What I propose to discuss has nothing to do with those commitments; it has to do with the administrative conduct of the department in relation to certain matters which have a bearing on the efficiency of government administration. Not only is this matter not before the committee; I would point out that the committee has refused to deal with it. Therefore I suggest that far from the existence of that committee being an argument against dealing with the matter I had intended to mention here, the very attitude adopted by the committee suggests why this is the place to urge an appropriate examination of the matter which will -not be subject to any limitations such as those which have been suggested in the -committee on defence expenditures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, I would be quite happy to have the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) proceed with the understanding that any subject he now cares to discuss is barred from current discussion in the committee on defence expenditures.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, already there have been a number of ingenious methods of muzzling committees and muzzling discussion, but this is one of the most ingenious I have yet heard. Certainly I do not subscribe to any part of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see how any matter being discussed in that committee can also be discussed in the House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: It is not being discussed there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been reading the reports of the committee, and I have seen references to this subject. If you -assure me it has not been and will not be discussed-and I accept the word of the leader of the opposition that it has not been referred to the committee-we can proceed accordingly. If he wishes to carry on I will be quite happy, but I think Mr. Speaker will rule that this subject, which can -come under investigation by the committee, cannot be discussed in this house.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


George Alexander Drew: In an effort to co-operate with the minister, recognizing that he can speak on behalf of the government, I will offer an alternative proposal which would be much more effective. I would ask him on behalf of the government to assure the members of this house that tomorrow a wide-open inquiry will be started in the committee on defence expenditures in Petawawa, Farnham and other places where these thefts have taken place. If we can have that assurance it will dispose of the necessity for discussion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that certain
matters now before the courts are sub judice. The leader of the opposition knows very well I could not draw a distinction between those matters which are sub judice and those which are not; but as far as the government is concerned I can assure the hon. gentleman that no decision has been taken which in any way limits the discussion in the committee.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the places I referred to was Farnham. That is not sub judice to the extent that there are any legal proceedings. Those were disposed of long ago. Therefore the remarks of the minister would not apply to that camp. I still leave the matter open if he will give an undertaking the committee will be able to proceed with these matters. Certainly, I would have no occasion to mention the other at all.


Alphonse Fournier: On another point of order before you make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer you to pages 1797, 1798 and 1799 of Hansard for May 1, 1952. This subject was dealt with by the leader of the opposition at length. At that time he made the same request for this investigation, and after he had made that speech on the motion to go into ways and means, we voted. I know that members are entitled to repeat themselves sometimes, but I think the hon. gentleman would be wise if he did not repeat a speech which has been made. This is the second time the hon. gentleman has made it. I could read nearly the same words as he has used this afternoon from the pages which I mentioned.


George Alexander Drew: I have no thought of dealing with a matter that has been dealt with before. This motion has not previously been before the house during this session. I am speaking directly on the motion before the house.
I would point out to Your Honour that the terms of reference to the committee on defence expenditures are clear, and it could only be to the extent that any of these matters might relate to the subject actually under consideration by that committee that a discussion of these subjects could be precluded

here. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of reference set out in the appointment of the committee on defence expenditures simply authorize the committee to inquire into expenditures which have been made, and into commitments for defence expenditures. As for matters such as the failure of the government to protect public property, they are entirely different. What I am doing at the moment is merely to suggest to hon. members reasons why an examination of these matters would suggest ways in which public money could be saved by more efficient administrative organization of this and other departments of government.
Unless Your Honour rules against my reference to Farnham, which I thought had been dealt with some time ago, from the point of view of the committee on defence expenditures it would have no authority to deal with it. I would then propose to make a reference which simply supports my argument that we have had a very convincing demonstration of the necessity for an examination by experts of the ways in which public money could be saved, and public property protected, by ordinary business methods. I was only going to say this in connection with the camp at Farnham. We had some discussion of that earlier, and it was contended that what had happened at Farnham was exaggerated. I wish all members of this house could see Farnham and what happened to the camp there, and also see photographs of the excellent camp that was there before. Over the great area set aside for as fine a campsite as I have seen, there is nothing but lush green grass in places where there was a whole camp with wooden hutments, fitted out with wiring, electrical equipment and everything of that kind.
It is true that the administration building still stands and is being used as a drill hall; it is true that the powerhouse still stands; but as far as one can see everything else went. The suggestion that the loss was $3,500 is a severe strain on the credulity of anyone who can remember what the camp was, and who sees what has happened to it. Anyone who knows what miles of copper wiring would cost .today, what furniture, electrical equipment as well as the buildings themselves would cost, must find it extremely difficult to understand how $3,500 could be stretched to cover the loss of the property that was standing there. For a while the deed was being done in the hours of darkness, but then the thieves became so bold that they carried on in broad daylight. The best possible illustration of how little supervision was being exercised over public property owned by the people

of Canada is the fact that one of the policemen down there told me that the thing was being done so openly he thought that these were government trucks and he actually escorted some of them away from the property when they were carrying stolen property. Now, that is just how far this has gone. If any large business found things of that kind happening within its own organization, experts would be quickly put to work to find out how a repetition of that sort of thing could be prevented, and how they could protect their own property as well as maintain the efficiency of each unit of their organization.
I am not going to enlarge upon these other things. They are before the house as well as before the committee.	I feel
confident that there is not an hon. member in this house, including the members of the government, who does not believe that there were ways in which something could have been done to prevent such a wide-open loss of property as the theft of a railway siding or things of that kind. All I am suggesting is that those are things which ordinary common sense would suggest be subjected to the examination of competent experts, so that they could present a recommendation to us as to how the administration of this department -could be improved.
I only want to clear up one point in the event that it may come before this house at any time. The terms of reference to -the committee on defence expenditures did not deal with the problem to which I am referring, and which has been referred to by the Minister of Public Works. The motion to set up the select committee on defence expenditures, which was presented to this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and unanimously approved, read as follows:


Alphonse Fournier: On what date?


George Alexander Drew: That was on April 3, 1952, and it read:
That a select committee be appointed to examine all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and in particular what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses: and that notwithstanding standing order 65, the committee shall consist of twenty-six members to be designated by the house at a later date.
I suggest that consideration of ways in which the whole system of administration could be better carried out, that there could be a better integration of the activities of different departments, for instance the Department of Justice and the Department
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry of National Defence, the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence, which are so closely related in so many activities, and the activities of other departments, would not come within the terms of reference of that committee. It is for that reason I am suggesting the advisability of an inquiry which will permit an examination of ways in which the whole business of government, as one integrated responsibility, could be brought to the highest possible measure of efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, the motion that I will present is one that simply calls for an inquiry into the organization and general efficiency of government administration, as well as the possibility of co-ordinating all public services and departments, and also the assurance of the recognition of the responsibilities of civil servants and the recognition of their position within this administrative system.
I would point out that in this simple form a commission of -this kind can achieve great results. I again refer to the commission which was appointed in the United States, known as the Hoover commission, of which Mr. Hoover was the chairman. It simply was asked to deal with the general problems of organization and was described as-and I quote the words-"The commission on organization of the executive branch of the government". Those were the exact words in which that commission was officially described.
Whether the government and congress of the United States have or have not implemented all the recommendations which were made by that commission, the fact remains that a commission made up of businessmen and women of the highest standing, acting under the chairmanship of a great businessman who was also an ex-president of the United States, made recommendations which they estimated would save $5 billion a year. It is not for us to challenge the wisdom or otherwise of the government and congress of the United States in their adoption or not of every detail of those recommendations. But we can examine the recommendations which were made and see that in an examination of a somewhat similar form of government and a representative body-although their congress is different from our parliament-there were specific recommendations which dealt with the very kind of subjects that might be dealt with here.
When the Hoover commission was appointed there was no suggestion that this was a fishing expedition to find any wrongdoing or anything of that kind. On the contrary, it was clearly stated that the responsibility for anything of that kind rested

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry with congress or with the committees of congress. It was simply argued-and the argument was accepted by congress-that where there had been such a tremendous expansion of administrative activity it was inevitable that there would be duplicating services, that there would be branches of departments where similar activities would be carried on without anybody knowing about it, and that saving could be made by an over-all examination of this subject.
I have reason to recall some rather illuminating examples of the way in which these things can happen even under highly efficient units, whether of government or of public services. I recall a time when there was introduced in the Ontario legislature a measure to co-ordinate the research activities which came within the field of jurisdiction; and I would remind hon. members that in Ontario, as in other provinces, there is an excellent research organization maintained by the government. When that bill was before the house to provide a measure of supervision over research and to try to coordinate research, some extremely interesting things were ascertained. For instance, it was found that in three different places, each entirely unknown to the others, research was being conducted into the blood disease in partridge. That is not an unimportant thing because birdlife is, in itself, an important thing; and this blood disease was decimating the partridge population of the province. Any one research bureau supported by the skill available would have been able to do the job much better.
There were similar research activities being carried on. There was no thought of wrongdoing. There was no thought of any deliberate evasion of responsibility. On the contrary, many people were so anxious to do a good job that, without finding out whether anybody else was doing it, they were pressing forward in research of various kinds.
Here under the government we find, for instance, that there are economists under the various departments. There are economists under the Department of Finance. It was pointed out that there are many more economists in the Department of External Affairs than there are in the Department of Finance. Possibly an examination by experts might suggest that some co-ordination of the activities of some of these economists might bring to every department a wider knowledge of the economic factors and also avoid unintentional but costly duplication. That is the sort of thing which ordinary business would regard as absolutely necessary.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the question of the civil service. Here there is a situation

which calls for examination; and it is one in regard to which I should think the members of this house would welcome advice. At the present time we have a large payroll of men and women who are performing civil service duties but who are regarded as temporary civil servants. I think that it is to the advantage of the government and of the people of Canada that, except where work is obviously of a strictly temporary nature, everyone who is doing this kind of work and is in fact employed as a civil servant should be on the regular civil service payroll and should have the protection of the pension arrangements and other measures of security provided for regular civil servants.
I believe it is in the interests of the efficiency of government administration that, except where the employment is really temporary, those employed in services of this kind should be civil servants with the standing of civil servants, and that the ordinary promotional rights should be available to all of them so that the morale of our public employees may be maintained at the highest level. After all, personnel management, the examination of methods of employment, the plans which are made for the most effective use of every type of skill are all today an essential part of the administration of any business; and surely that statement applies with even greater force to the business of government.
When you see these figures indicating the immense expansion of the business of government from the years 1938-1939 to the present year; when you realize the enormous increase in the spending by this government of public money; when you realize that this expansion has taken place under pressure, and that in many cases the primary consideration, and the main consideration, was speed, rather than economy: then business common sense would suggest the desirability of an examination of this nature.
After all the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) is the first to realize that in many instances his primary concern was necessarily to see that some organization was set up which could do a job with speed, without, of necessity, waiting to find out whether some of the functions of that particular department were already being performed by some other branch of the administrative organization of government.
All these things suggest reasons for the appointment of such a commission. It does not need to be emphasized, surely, that the expenditure of public money has now reached proportions which could conceivably be very dangerous. After all, this fortunate land of
2U1

ours is not immune from those difficulties which other nations, as well as this nation, have encountered from time to time. We must be extremely careful that we always have some slack which can be taken up; that we have some reserve of economic strength to meet any storm which might conceivably not be under our control, as well as those storms which might be greatly accelerated by the action of the government itself.
When we see the level of taxation in this country, when we realize the burden that this imposes upon the people of Canada, then surely no one should argue against any step which would assure the utmost efficiency in the expenditure of these huge sums, and in the saving of every dollar that could be saved. Mr. Speaker, if all the assurances given from time to time by this government were to be taken at their face value, including the assurance by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), so lightly given, that no economies can be effected and are not being effected, even so, I do not think one needs to go beyond the reports of the daily press to see that there are many people in this country, regardless of politics, who do not share that conviction. That being so, it would be to the advantage of this government if they had a report from such a commission which in fact did substantiate the claim they are making. By chance they might get such a report, but I frankly say that the Minister of Finance himself would expect no such report. I think he would be the most surprised man in this house if such a report were made. But even if such a report were made, it would be worth the effort to reassure the public that our dollars are being properly spent, and most effectively spent, for the defence of our economy and for the defence of freedom itself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the government will not simply say, "We have dealt with this before; we have expressed our opinion." This has been argued before, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) suggests. I hope that they will recognize how helpful such an inquiry could be.
May I suggest another reason why it is essential that an examination of this nature should take place. Without entering into any arguments as to the motives or otherwise, the simple fact remains that, no matter what taxation powers are conferred upon the provincial governments, their ability to tax for the purpose of maintaining the services which they must give under our constitution is very largely measured by the number of dollars that remain in the pockets of Canadians after those dollars have been drawn away by the dominion government.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
There are only so many dollars in the pockets of all the taxpayers. Whether those dollars are withdrawn by the dominion government, the provincial government or the municipal government, they are the same taxpayers and they are the same kind of dollars. Therefore we must examine with some concern the fact that whereas in 1938-39, the base year employed by the government statisticians themselves in those comparative figures they have been preparing, the amount withdrawn by the dominion government in taxes of the total taxes collected in Canada was 49 cents in every total tax dollar paid by the people of Canada, leaving 51 cents out of every tax dollar available for the provincial governments and the municipal governments. This year, on the other hand, 73 cents of every total tax dollar paid by all the taxpayers of Canada will be taken by the dominion government, leaving only 27 cents of each total tax dollar available for both the provincial and the municipal governments.
When it is remembered that those provincial and municipal governments do many of the things that are most essential to the daily comfort and well-being of our people, and when it is remembered that the ability of those governments to carry out their responsibilities must depend upon the availability of financial resources, then I do suggest that the danger signs are already flying, and that the danger to the survival of our federal system should be in the minds of all hon. members when this subject is being considered. If there should be progressive invasion of the total tax field continuing at the same accelerating rate in the years ahead, it would not be long before the federal government would be so completely exhausting the available tax resources of Canada that no matter what the constitution said as to their responsibilities, duties and rights, the provincial governments and the municipal governments would find themselves mere annuitants of the dominion government. That is a situation which could be very much in the minds of all hon. members when the suggestion is made that on a businesslike basis, seeking nothing but increased administrative efficiency, there should be set up a commission which would have in its membership the very best brains available in Canada -and those are the very best brains available-so that they can examine this subject impartially, objectively and with no other purpose in mind than the improvement of the business methods of the business of the people of Canada.


Mr. Pouliol:: Who are the best brains of Canada?

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


Mr. Sinnoii:: On the Liberal side.


George Alexander Drew: I would be very happy if the hon. member for Temiscouata, in supporting the motion that I have to make, will suggest the names of those who should be on the commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not a mind reader.


George Alexander Drew: In any event, may I suggest that what is put forward is a principle, and if the principle were accepted then the responsibility of naming those who would constitute the commission would be on the government, and I feel sure that the government would welcome suggestions from the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore your speech is
purely academic.


George Alexander Drew: No, my speech is far from academic. My speech is a speech devoted to an attempt to improve the business administration of the government of Canada. My speech is also one which brings my remarks within the rules of the house, and it is for that reason the motion is presented in the form in which it will now be read.


Alphonse Fournier: It is closely political.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)-


Alphonse Fournier: But perhaps I am not a good judge.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, there is no better judge in the House of Commons than the Minister of Public Works, when it comes to doing something for political considerations. And I have no doubt the reason he interjected that remark is that probably in-well, shall I say, six constituencies-he has been subjected to certain very recent and vigorous demands.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh no; Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I must point out that I have not been subjected to any pressure, from one party or another, for any of those elections. I have not been in those ridings- although I may be in one where the hon. member spoke yesterday.


George Alexander Drew: I feel sure the minister would be welcomed there, because if he did go there some of those who are under the impression that requests have been made to him would be able to present their requests in person. Because most certainly the suggestion is being made not only that recommendations have been made but that promises have certainly been given.
'ATr. Pouliot.]


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. Again, on a point of order, the leader of the opposition will have to take my word that I have made no promises. I avoid making them while there are by-elections going on. I would not do that.


George Alexander Drew: Possibly that genial smile of the Minister of Public Works misled some of those who were in conversation with him.


Alphonse Fournier: They are not that naive.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Did I understand the minister to say that the leader of the opposition had spoken yesterday?


Alphonse Fournier: It may have been Saturday; perhaps I made a mistake.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
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.	Improving the organization and general efficiency of government administration.
2.	Co-ordinating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature.
3.	Assuring to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities.
The said commission to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I heard pretty much the same speech from him a few months ago, and I have enjoyed both of them.
The suggestion is that we employ the best brains in the country to examine into the work of government, and to set up a form of government that would be more efficient than the present. Well, I must say that if I know of any available good brains in the country I ask them to join the Department of Defence Production-as I asked them formerly to join the department of munitions and supply. I think many of the people recognized as leaders in industry in this country have served the government in one or other of those departments.
And I have not been alone in doing this; other departments have followed the same practice.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the treasury benches.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a feeling that we have had expert advice, most certainly in those sections of government that constitute the great spending departments; and I believe we

have taken full advantage of the expert advice we have been able to draw from outside the public service.
But I am not admitting for one moment that the heads of the civil service in Canada do not represent the best business brains in our country. I think that in the permanent service of Canada we have men who are the equals of men in private business, so far as the efficient operation of the business with which they are associated is concerned. And I venture to say that a great number of businessmen who at times have been in the service of the government would support me in that view. Now, today-


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; please do not interrupt. I did not interrupt you.


George Alexander Drew: I did not wish to interrupt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A most extraordinary comparison has been made today between the expenditures of government in the year 1938-39 and the year 1951-52. In the first place the gross national product of Canada in 1938-39 was between $5 billion and $5,500 million. The gross national product for the years 1951-52 was $21,400 million. I suggest we should take into consideration the fact that the productivity of Canada which, after all, is the responsibility of the government of this country, has more than quadrupled in that period of time.
Then, 1938 was the year before preparations for war were undertaken. It was a year of minimum expenditures for armed services, a year before there was any active preparation for war. Since that time we have been through a great war that has added tremendously to the debt of Canada, and we are now engaged in defence preparations which, while not on the scale of those of the great war, are still on a scale unthought of in the year 1938.
It is well to remember that since 1938 this or preceding parliaments have added expenditures amounting to more than a billion dollars a year for social services, which were not included in departmental estimates in 1938. It is also well to keep in mind that in the year 1951-52, the year used for purposes of comparison, in the neighbourhood of $2 billion is being spent for defence production and defence. Therefore I suggest that to compare the expenditures of 1938 with those of 1951-52 is a comparison which has no validity whatever.
There has been mention of professional services. In ordinary peacetime outside professional services employed by government are not extensive. Government departments
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry prepare plans for and supervise the construction of public buildings, and few outside services are required. However, at a time when defence production is at its maximum, extensive professional services are required. Practically all defence designing is carried out by architects retained by the government for that purpose. Designs for artillery projects and for many other special defence products, such as motor vehicles, are prepared by professional men brought in from industry for that purpose, because they have the special skills required. Therefore I think there can be no validity in the comparison that is made with regard to professional services retained by the government in 1938-39 and those retained in 1951-52.
With regard to travelling expenses, in 193839 we had no army in Korea which was travelling back and forth between Canada and that country; we had no army in Germany; we had no headquarters in England and we had but few travelling expenses associated with defence such as are included in the 1951-52 estimates.
I doubt if travelling, except for defence, is any more extensive now than it was in 1939. The cost of travelling has increased-we all know that it has for private individuals also. I suggest that if we eliminated all other travel that was not incidental to government in 1939 we would find that the travelling expenses of this period differ from the travelling expenses in 1938 only in relation to the increased cost of that travel.
Then in the matter of telephones and telegraphs, here again we have teletype service to the United Kingdom for defence purposes, as well as a teletype service to Washington where we have an extensive military personnel. There is a teletype service to Japan and all the other services in the way of communications that must be kept up when you have an army in the field and defence equipment spread pretty well around the world.
Then we talk about films. We had no film board in 1938-39. This was a service established in later years; whether it was wisely done or not I do not know. I must say that personally I am not a great advocate of an extensive excursion into films by the government of Canada. However, there are others in this house, probably the majority of the members, who are in favour of that excursion. If we want the government in the film business, we have to pay the bill. Why complain that we are spending more on films in 1951-52 than we did in 1938-39? Of course we are.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
Now we speak of temporary civil servants and the suggestion that all civil servants should be made permanent. I suggest that at the proper time they are made permanent. I am the head of a department that has no permanent civil servants; all are temporary unless they have been transferred from permanent positions in other departments. That is as it should be. We are not going to carry on defence production for ever and I regard the department as temporary. I hope I shall live long enough and be long enough in the public service to wind it up as I had the privilege of winding up the department of munitions and supply after the last war. Surely my hon. friend does not want the men and women in my department to be made permanent.
It is customary when a man comes into a department that he shall be considered temporary for a sufficient period to allow the civil service commission to judge whether he is qualified for a permanent place in the civil service. Surely it would not be a step in the direction of efficiency to eliminate that probationary period and say that whenever a man entered the service he must be permanent from the time he signed on the payroll.
We have in Canada a civil service commission which I believe is competent to deal with personnel matters. The commission makes periodic surveys of every department in Ottawa and recommends changes in personnel or in the size of the establishment in order to bring about greater efficiency in the use of personnel. I believe that that commission is competent and I do not think the best brains in Canada would do a much better job in a short length of time than the civil service commission can do by working year in and year out, month in and month out on that one particular problem of bringing about efficiency in the use of personnel in government departments.
Then we have the treasury board to scrutinize every expenditure of government. I do not know about the best brains in Canada, but I doubt if you will find a more competent or devoted civil servant than Mr. Bryce, the assistant deputy minister of finance who heads the permanent staff of the treasury board. Mr. Bryce does not function alone. He has a staff of expert accountants and financial men who deal with every expenditure made by the government. Possibly you might be able to get from the great brains of Canada men with a wider reputation but I doubt if you will get men who would take on the detailed day to day job and do it any better than it is being done

today by the treasury board under the supervision of a committee of cabinet headed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
We have had these great sweeping movements in Canada before. I am not very good on dates, but I think it was in the twenties that a move was made to bring in great brains from the outside to reorganize the government of Canada. A firm from Chicago was brought in, and here again I do not remember the name.


George James McIlraith: Griffenhagen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you remember the year?


George James McIlraith: 1919.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would be under Mr. Meighen's government. The report of Griffen-hagen's firm is available. I was not associated with the government service at the time, although I had been in the government service years before but I took great interest in the operations of the Griffenhagen firm. The tension within the civil service grew so great after the government had retained this firm that the problem of the government became to find a way of winding up the work in order to send the investigators back to Chicago. But that was not done until chaos had been created in every branch of the civil service. I suggest that any hon. member who wants to bring in a committee of great brains should consider the experience of the Meighen government in that connection and study the record of the Griffenhagen firm in doing that particular job.
We have a different system of government in Canada than that in the United States. It is true that the Hoover commission was appointed in the United States and recommended a reorganization of the government. However, it then devolved upon congress to carry out that reorganization and so far as I am aware congress has acted only to a very limited extent. It is my belief that the savings indicated in the Hoover report as being possible have not been made.
As I say, we have a different form of government in Canada than they have in the United States. It is the duty of this parliament to examine the organization of the departments of government and the expenditures made by those departments. You have before you, in the current estimates of the departments, a record of every expenditure that can be made in 1952-53; you have the name and salary of every civil servant in the government service, and the details of his duties. Any hon. member of the house has the right to criticize any department and to ask the minister any question that can be invented. It is the duty of the minister to be

here accompanied by his officials and ready to answer every question that can be asked.
I would be surprised if it were possible to make savings on the scale indicated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). In the seventeen years I have been in this house I have never found that an examination of the estimates has led to any very substantial reduction in the expenditures recommended by the government. I am not suggesting that these reductions have not been made because it is not practical to make them. It is practical to make reductions if a majority so wishes. I do suggest that the estimates, after they have been scrutinized by the responsible ministers and by treasury board, are in a form that does not permit of any obvious or substantial savings such as could be determined by any commission, even though made up of the best brains in Canada.
I have no objection to investigations. During two periods I have been the greatest spender in the government service. During the last war I was responsible for the expenditure of about $13 billion, and before this preparedness period is over I suppose I will be responsible for the expenditure of another $5 billion. I welcome any investigation of that *expenditure that parliament can arrange. As a matter of fact throughout the war years we had a committee on defence expenditures sitting continuously while the house was in session, examining those expenditures.


Major James William Coldwell: And it sat between sessions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and it sat between sessions, as my hon. friend has said. We facilitated any investigation the committee cared to undertake. If they wanted to investigate a particular plant we arranged a trip to the plant and made the plant officers available. That type of investigation was quite all right. It kept my officers on their toes. It was an indication to them that they had better have their facts and files in shape since they might have to face that committee at any time. I am glad indeed that another committee on defence expenditures is sitting, for here again I believe it will have a salutary effect on my department. By the same token, if I believed an outside commission composed of great brains, or a more competent body than was available within this House of Commons, could do a better job I would welcome any investigation such a commission might make.
As I say, however, we try to bring within the department men who are drawn from business, who have a record of success in business and a record of efficiency in operation. We make such men responsible for expenditures. Not long ago we brought the Gordon company in on a particular problem; they are efficiency experts in Toronto. A
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry report was prepared on the salaries and organization of the personnel of government departments. That report was submitted, and it has been implemented. Salaries were adjusted accordingly, and today the Gordon report forms the background of the scale of salaries in all government departments. That was a useful service; it took several months, but it was a limited job. That firm carried out its instructions and used a number of its personnel to examine the work of the senior officials of the service, and suggested improvements in the organization and appropriate salary scales commensurate with the responsibilities of each officer.


Mr. Fulton:: How long ago was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just after the war, when the departments were being reorganized back to a peacetime basis.
I do not know that I can usefully add any more to this discussion. I do suggest that there is no call for the adoption of the motion that has been moved by the leader of the opposition. In my opinion he has given no supporting facts which would help him establish his thesis that a royal commission could do a useful job in reorganizing the government service at a time when the services of our leading civil servants are largely engaged in defence preparations, and when that situation extends not only to the immediate departments concerned with such preparation but to most other departments of the government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely trust the motion of the leader of the opposition will not carry.


Major James William Coldwell: At first glance, Mr. Speaker, there is something quite attractive and quite plausible about a proposal of the sort contained in this resolution. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) has made a number of the criticisms I had in mind when listening to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Apart from the attraction it may have to the man on the street, apart from the fact that it is what I might call a plausible suggestion, nonetheless we have to bear in mind that the establishment of a royal commission for the purposes outlined in this amendment in effect would be an abrogation of the duties-not the rights but the duties-of this parliament. If we as members of parliament have any real function in this house it is that we must control the finances and the administration of this country; yet here it is proposed that we abrogate those responsibilities and place them in the hands of a royal commission. For that reason I would oppose the amendment.
As a matter of fact it has been possible to move this amendment this afternoon

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry because, under our system of government, when we are discussing the administration of the government and its financial responsibilities we as private members have the right to introduce any subject we wish and to move any amendment we feel is in the interests of this house and the country. I assume that is why the leader of the opposition has moved this amendment, because he feels it is in the interests of the country. Certainly he knows he has the right to do so. But I say the first obligation and indeed the first right of this house is to control those things that come under the heading of administration, particularly the provision of money to enable that administration to be carried on.
At times it is a good thing to hire efficiency experts. As the minister indicated a few minutes ago, the government hired such experts to advise it on some of the departmental questions in connection with civil service appointments and responsibilities. Other governments have done the same thing. At present I believe the government of British Columbia has a group of efficiency experts working along similar lines. The government of Saskatchewan went into their civil service through efficiency experts, just as the minister indicated the government of Canada did when it appointed the Gordon company to do that job. But I believe we have to be careful in this parliament lest we approve of government by order in council; and I think an equal evil would be government by royal commission. A royal commission under some circumstances can perform a very useful function. If the leader of the opposition were this afternoon moving for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into some particular alleged extravagance of the government or something of that sort, then I think the house would be well advised to consider such a proposal and to support it. Every one of us, at least on the opposition side of the house, should be anxious to promote the greatest measure of economy possible.
I am in agreement with some of the criticisms that have been made by the leader of the opposition. I have observed what I thought to be unnecessary travel, for example, in connection with the Department of National Defence. In my goings and comings across this country from Saskatchewan to Ottawa or from Ottawa to some other place,
I have observed a number of servicemen. In fact, one of the conductors on one of the trains said to me that if it were not for the constant movement of men going down east for sometimes as little as two or three days training or going west for the same purpose,

there would be very few passengers. This was true of the train on which I was at that time. That sort of economy is the responsibility of the government. We on the opposition side of the house, and indeed those on the government side of the house, must hold the government responsible when matters of that sort are criticized.
When there is a particular inquiry to be made, commissions may perform a useful function, but royal commissions with blanket terms of reference are not as useful. The one that was appointed in Canada in 1919 did nothing. Following world war I there was in the United Kingdom what was called the Geddes commission, sometimes called the Geddes axe, and all it did was to recommend that social services, which were in a very primitive condition, should be restricted. So far as the Hoover commission is concerned, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) was quite right when he pointed out that the forms of government in our two countries are not only substantially different but in many respects quite different. For example, from day to day we have the ministers who are responsible for the administration of the various departments sitting on the floor of this house. Any hon. member, whether he sits on the front bench or the back bench of any part of this house, whether he sits in the government party or in the opposition parties, may rise and question the minister responsible whenever he thinks he has an urgent matter upon which he wishes to question him.
Then, too, when the expenditures of the department are before the house in the form of estimates, any member can rise in his place and question the minister regarding any expenditure of that department. This cannot happen in congress because the members of the president's cabinet are not members of the congress or of the senate. They are persons who are chosen by the president as his advisers, and are not directly responsible as our ministers are responsible to our House of Commons. The president's advisers are responsible directly to him and indirectly, if you like, to congress through appearances before the committees of congress. The conditions are very different indeed. So far as a committee like the defence expenditures committee is concerned, when it was established we supported it and we will support it again. But we have two committees at least which, if they are doing their job as they should do it-and this house should insist that they should have the right to do it-make suggestions of this sort quite unnecessary. We have the defence expenditures committee and the public accounts

committee. If these two committees function properly, and members of parliament are doing their duties as members of parliament, these committees should do all that it is proposed a royal commission of this description could do.
If we cannot do the job, then we admit we are failing in the obligations that we have assumed as members of this house. I know how difficult it is in a situation such as we have at the moment, when the government has an overwhelming majority. The house always has the right to withdraw confidence from the government of the day. But even if we felt that they were not carrying out the administration as we thought it should be carried out, I imagine we would have a very difficult job to persuade a majority of the members of this house to express want of confidence in the administration. This is a weakness, but it cannot be remedied by a royal commission; it can only be remedied by the people of Canada. So long as the people of Canada elect governments with overwhelming majorities, so long will it be impossible for those of us who want to criticize the administration to withdraw the confidence of the house from the government of the day. However, that goes right back to the people of Canada who, wisely or unwisely, chose to elect a parliament with that composition. I think it was unwise, but of course that opinion is not shared by many other members of the house.
This is a parliamentary institution, and I think that whenever we remove from this parliament to a commission or committee something that is the proper function of this parliament, we weaken this institution in the eyes of the people. In these particular times with the threats to democratic governments and democratic institutions across the world, we should be doing everything we can to strengthen those institutions rather than to weaken them. I know that, as the leader of the opposition has said, probably if we went into all the details of the activities of the government we might find duplication. I know that there are certain duplications which are part of the constitutional set-up of this country. We have two houses of parliament where we have two official languages. An hon. member suggests that we have two post offices in this building, and that always appeared to me to be a duplication of effort. We have an independent House of Commons and an independent Senate. The Senate demands its rights, and the House of Commons demands its rights.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is pure British tradition.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course it is British tradition. The two houses, of course, involve that
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry kind of duplication. There are other duplications that we could find, but in this respect I agree with the minister, that the group of financial experts and economists who are giving day to day attention to these matters are men in whom many of us who know them have the utmost confidence. The Minister of Defence Production mentioned Mr. Bryce. I do not know if hon. members of the house know the background of Mr. Robert Bryce, but if they did they would realize that he is a public servant imbued with the idea of service to his country when he might have been making a tremendous amount of money for himself privately had he cared to do so.
Fortunately for Canada we have in our civil service a large group of that type of person. I am glad that we have been able to gather into our departments-external affairs, finance, the Bank of Canada, the social services and so on-men and women who, I am convinced, are anxious to serve their country to the best of their ability in the fields in which they think they can be of most service, not to themselves,- although I have no doubt that they get a great satisfaction out of it-but to their country at this time.
I am therefore of the opinion that this amendment should not be approved by the house. I have given the reasons for my opinion. The principal reasons I gave at the beginning, namely that it would be an abrogation of our duties as a parliament and it would tend further to undermine the confidence of the people in this institution which, with all its faults and defects, I think is yet the best kind of institution that man has been able to devise for his own self-government.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has brought before us this afternoon undoubtedly is a question with which the general public have been greatly concerned over the past several months. I think that the leader of the opposition has spoken of some of the fears and the doubts perhaps that may be in the minds of the people. I know that I have run across a great deal of uneasiness as I have travelled amongst the public and have talked with them. That uneasiness is easy to understand.
In the first place they see our country in peacetime, apparently-at least in what they have considered was peacetime- raising by taxation and spending over $4 billion a year. That is something which is unprecedented in Canadian history if not in the history of the world. That fact alone makes them feel uneasy. To bear the burden

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry of taxation they now bear in peacetime leads them to suppose that all is not well. Their minds naturally turn to parliament where their representatives meet, and they wonder why something is not being done by their representatives here.
The second cause for some uneasiness in their minds is, of course, the information that gets out to them with respect to the extremely large amount of money that is now being expended each year on social services. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance just the other day, I think it was, emphasized the fact that there were transfer payments by this government to provincial governments and through them to the public of something like $1J billion a year for social security alone. That is something that the public mind has not yet adjusted itself to; and for some time it is going to be a problem for the people to make that adjustment. They naturally turn to the members of parliament to investigate, to assure themselves that all things are above suspicion, and to report back to them.
There is also the suspicion that all is not well in government when the people see such things as those that have happened at Petawawa and in the Department of National Defence from one end of this country to the other. You cannot blame them for feeling suspicious.


Mr. Byrne:: Why connect that matter with social services?


Solon Earl Low: I did not hear what the hon. member said, but it must be inane; otherwise he would not have said it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I said: Why connect that matter with social services?


Solon Earl Low: The fact is that there is considerable misgiving on the part of the general public today, and something will have to be done to set their minds at ease.
A good deal has been said here this afternoon about the question of investigating the whole of the government's set-up and the leader of the opposition has moved, to the motion to go into supply, an amendment asking that consideration be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations on a number of things; I will not take the time to read them. But in the course of the debate thus far suggestions have been made to the effect that we have all the machinery necessary to make the investigation and to find out all these things that we need to know, as representatives of the people. We may have, Mr. Speaker, but up to this time we have depended largely upon 
the committee method of investigation. In my judgment and experience, there are some serious weaknesses to the committee method of investigation. In the past those investigations have left a great deal to be desired.
I have had some experience on both sides of this thing, Mr. Speaker. Since 1945,1 have had experience on the opposition side of parliament; and up to that time for a period of ten years I had experience on the government side elsewhere. I have therefore seen committees in action from both sides. I have come to the conclusion that committee investigations are not very useful when it comes to bringing out information in connection with such things as we now face in, let us say, the Department of National Defence. As a matter of fact, they do not resolve anything very definitely at any time. I am not speaking of the usefulness of a committee in examining estimates. I think that is a proper function of a committee; and our experience here in connection with the external affairs committee has shown that a committee of that kind can perform a useful function. In that committee I think we have done a good job. But we have not had under consideration such things as are named in the amendment that was moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition.
There are, of course, a good many weaknesses in the committee method of investigation or inquiry, but I am going to take time to mention only two which, in my judgment, stand out. In the first place, the membership of these committees is weighted to favour the government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Why should they not be?


Solon Earl Low: As a consequence, the party that is on the defensive is always able to out-vote the people who are making the accusations or who may make accusations. You cannot get anywhere in that way. No matter how bad the information may be, no matter how damning of the government it may become, the opposition has no power whatever in those committees and the reports that are brought back to this house simply mean nothing.


An hon. Member:: A whitewash.


Solon Earl Low: Surely it is a whitewash. That is the first thing. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) says: "Why should they not be?"


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would just draw to the hon, member's attention the fact that in Alberta the membership is heavily weighted on the government side, and questions have been evaded there much more seriously than they have been here in the House of Commons.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it just happens that we are not discussing the province of Alberta just now. In the second place, I said that I am going on my experience both there and here. It is just as serious there as it is here. It is just as serious in the hon. member's own province as it is here or in the province of Alberta. The important thing that I am trying to bring out is that the committee method is unsatisfactory first because those committees are appointed in such a way as to be heavily weighted in favour of the government. In those circumstances no possible findings of any consequence would ever get back or be reported back into the House of Commons.


Mr. Blue:: Who demanded that the committee be set up, the opposition forces or the government?


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, if that has any bearing I will say that if the ones on the opposition had not asked that it be set up, it never would have been; and secondly, even when their requests are granted, the government makes it impossible for the committees to be of any use.
The second reason, Mr. Speaker, why these house committees are practically useless is this: A committee inquiry all too frequently assumes the nature of a political campaign. I sat in on some of the meetings of the committee that is examining into the foot-and-mouth disease for just a few brief moments the other day. I am not going to say anything about that, sir, but when I came away I was under the impression that the Saskatchewan election was being fought there.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: From both sides.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I am not saying it was just the one side; but the point is the election was being fought there, and as a consequence I doubt very much whether, when the committee's findings are brought in, they will be worth anything to anybody. I will say that the report that comes back to this house will be watered down until it will be-well, it will not even be milk white.
I quite realize that it is the duty and the responsibility of the members of this House of Commons to be the watch dogs of everything that is being done, the watch dogs on behalf of the people. It is our duty to scrutinize expenditure, and to do everything that we possibly can to protect public property and to safeguard and to save the taxpayers' money. Otherwise we cannot justify our existence. I know that. But I want to say one other thing in that connection, Mr. Speaker, which I think every hon. member
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry has thought of at one time or another, whether he is on the government side of the house or on the opposition side. A number of practices and habits have grown up in our conduct of affairs in this parliament which make it almost impossible for the members to perform the function for which they were sent here. I refer, for instance, to the outmoded archaic rules of this house. They are outmoded, and as a consequence my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is getting a furrowed brow long before the time that he should.


Alphonse Fournier: Nobody agrees to change them.


Solon Earl Low: He is worried about getting things through the house.


Alphonse Fournier: How?


Solon Earl Low: Because of the outmoded rules we do not make the progress that he would like to see, and that many others would like to see. But because of the fact that so much time is given to other parts of our business we never get down to the consideration ot the estimates of the departments until about the time when there is a whole lot of effort on the government side of the house to hurry things on, to get us away home. There seems to be a desire to get us out of here so that other things can be done. I do not blame them; they have other work to do; but, Mr. Speaker, if this parliament is what it is supposed to be, it will sit here until the business of the house and of the business of the country is completed, and in a satisfactory manner, no matter how long it takes. But the haste to get through the estimates at the tail end of the session makes it impossible for the members to do the job which the government spokesman today said we ought to be doing, and which the leader of the C.C.F. party said this afternoon we ought to be doing.
I have tried to keep up with affairs in this house, and I have tried to get time to go into research and find out for myself exactly what is going on, and where it would be possible to save money, to avoid duplication, and to carry on the business of the country in a businesslike manner. But I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that it becomes at times intolerable for any hon. member; if he is in earnest and sincere he finds his time so divided, so rushed and so regimented that he cannot do the research that is necessary. We on the opposition side of the house are denied the adequate staffs to do our research for us. Some hon. members may have access to something that I do not know, but believe me it has been very difficult for me to get access to the kind of assistance that I require
2120	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry to make a comprehensive investigation into the things that I would like to see investigated.
Our time is all too limited. I know, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Denis:: Too much talk.


Solon Earl Low: Well, perhaps there is, but I will just say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member cannot blame me for too much talk. I do not speak too often in this house, even if I am the leader of a group. I try to speak only as frequently as I feel it is absolutely essential in the interests of the people.


Azellus Denis: I mean the opposition as a whole.


Solon Earl Low: Well, I will take up that challenge for just a moment. What are we here for? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been altogether too much of an attitude on the part of the government that the opposition is just a bunch of nuisances. I will tell you right now that if the opposition would just band themselves together, as I have suggested on a number of occasions, and organize themselves carefully, they would get back from this government powers that have been arrogated to themselves by a group who disregard the rights of parliament. We will never get them until we unify our efforts in this opposition for this purpose.
It seems to me that one of the important things that we have to do right now is to restore to parliament its rightful place, its sovereignty that has been stolen away gradually, step by step, by a government that disregards the sovereignty of the people.
I suggest, sir, that there are two things of course that we might do. Certainly I acknowledge them. The first thing I think we have to do is to change the rules and the practices of this house so that there can be time and opportunity for full investigation.
I have been advocating that for a long time, but somehow or other we have not got very far with it.


George James McIlraith: The opposition will not agree.


Solon Earl Low: There must be careful vigilance, extreme vigilance, on the part of the individual members of the house, as well as a desire to accept more individual responsibility. But at the same time I do feel that there is much in what the leader of the opposition has said; that there is need for some kind of investigation into the whole organization of government. The people are asking for it.
I think we owe it to the people to see to it that everything is made clear to them in the information that they require to understand and to know. It should be made clear to them.
As far as I am concerned I am not sure whether a royal commission would do the 

job sufficiently well or not. I do say that some judicial or semi-judicial investigation is necessary. It is essential. Perhaps that is exactly what the leader of the opposition had in his mind. I am acquainted with what the Hoover commission did in the United States, and while it has been argued here this afternoon that there is a great difference between the government organization in the United States and that in Canada, I cannot see that the difference is sufficient to turn down a suggestion of this kind. Whether it is a royal commission or some other sort of investigation I am all for it. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think we have all to resolve, and resolve very definitely, that we are going to see to it that the rights of the private members in this house are respected, and that the sovereignty of this house be returned to parliament from government members who have taken it away, and that it be accomplished before long.
In the next place, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the government will have to see to it that every means is made available to the private members of this house to enable them to get information, to enable them to assemble the information they do receive, and then to place it before this house on behalf of the people.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say, and I would refer first of all to the very able speech of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in which he mentioned a supposed disregard of the rights of private members. I have been sitting here for twenty-eight years, and I have never noticed that-except when I was discussing the conscription bill in committee, at which time I complained about the chairman and said he should be changed. I did not have any support on that occasion. However, with that exception I have never noticed any disregard of the rights of private members in the House of Commons. That is the first point.
Then the hon. member suggested a change in the rules, and said that all the rules are obsolete. That is an unfair statement. The rules are good, the hon. member would find, if he would take the trouble to read them.


Solon Earl Low: I have read them.


Jean-François Pouliot: A comparatively small number of them apply to the discussion of public matters, and they are not difficult to understand. I am not speaking of the heavy compendiums no one reads; I am referring only to the standing orders of the house.


Solon Earl Low: I have read them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know. Then I am sure the hon. member will agree that they are simple and easy to understand. They have governed discussion in committee and in the house since confederation because, with the exception of the rules applying to the length of speeches, there have been very few changes.


Solon Earl Low: I was not complaining so much about the standing orders. I had in mind the fact that a number of practices and habits have grown up in the conduct of the business of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to that I would say that we can rely upon the wisdom of the Chair, because we now have a Speaker who, according to my experience, has been without parallel. He is our safeguard and our protection. I feel safe when I speak under his shadow.
The hon. member said that there should be more vigilance, and a greater desire on the part of members of the opposition to assume more individual responsibilities. This is fine. I agree with him on that. I have the greatest respect for my colleagues in the house, and must say I was greatly surprised when I read the amendment offered this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
I wonder if it is necessary to put my glasses on in order to see those brilliant men who sit behind him. I think my glasses are not necessary, because I can see that some of those gentlemen are in the house, while others are engaged outside the house in important parliamentary business. But there they are, valuable assets to the House of Commons. I will not say they are nonentities; they are good members of parliament. I know and respect them, although I do not agree with them. But I wonder why the leader of the opposition is suggesting that a royal commission be substituted for them.


An hon. Member:: He wants better brains.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot understand it; it is far from being complimentary to them. I see the young and junior super-excellency over there, taking notes-and probably he will speak after me. Naturally he will say that his pride has been offended, because in his request for a royal commission his leader has forgotten him.
Then there is the national president of the Progressive Conservative party, a gentleman who sits in the house and is also a member of a learned faculty-and that is a term applied to both law and medicine.
In this instance however I refer to the law.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry He is a brilliant lawyer and a man of experience, but he has been disregarded by his leader.
There are many others-bright young men who were elected at the last by-elections, and are doing well in the house. But they are the forgotten men. Then there are others whom I have known for a long time. There is the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who is a frontbencher, and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who is also a frontbencher. These are men of experience, leaders in their party, wise men. And, besides that, there is the charming lady who could give advice about matters pertaining to the weaker sex.


Mr. Knowles:: Careful, now.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is complete. Yet all that has been disregarded by the leader of the opposition when he suggests that for his followers there should be a royal commission substituted, to do the work that otherwise they would do in the house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: A one-man party.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, a one-commission party. Perhaps this is an act of modesty on the part of the leader of the opposition, because he could say, "I can do it all alone." But he has suggested that he would like to have the assistance of a royal commission instead of relying, as he should, upon the faithful support of the members of his party.
A royal commission?-and the purpose of the commission would be to improve "the organization and general efficiency of government administration." What does he mean by that? Does he mean a changing of the constitution? Does he mean that he would send investigators of the civil service commission to inspect the treasury benches and to decide who should tell whom what to do?
And then the reference to "general efficiency"-oh, "efficiency"! I remember an occasion when one of his predecessors in the leadership of the party received a decoration. I warned Mr. Speaker to be careful and to hold the chair well, so that he would not fall from it. Because that former leader of the Progressive Conservative party had been given by the then minister of national defence-do you know what, sir? He had been given a medal of efficiency! Yes, he had been given a medal of efficiency, and it brought general laughter throughout the country. I suggest that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) ought not to give a medal of efficiency to the present leader of the opposition for the speech he made this afternoon.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry His second suggestion was to co-ordinate all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature. Well, this is centralization at its worst. The Tory party has been known to be the party of centralization, and we have proof of it in the pudding the leader of the opposition has been baking this afternoon.
Then, in his last suggestion the leader of the opposition wants to assure to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities. It is not members of the civil service who should be cognizant of their responsibilities. It is the leader of the opposition and his supporters who should take their responsibilities and, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said so wisely, ought not to compromise the future of parliamentary institutions.
I think the amendment of the hon. gentleman is untimely and uncalled for. If hon. members opposite have any ground for complaint against the government they have only to state them boldly in the house in a constructive manner. It is the duty of the opposition to offer constructive criticism. But when they complain about certain things, when the time comes to show that they are familiar with British parliamentary traditions, that they want to be true to the traditions of the great British leaders at Westminster, they fail lamentably.
I give them credit for their good will and good intentions, but they should reform. If parliamentary principles are to exist in this house the opposition should be stronger, not precisely in numbers but in action. I say to hon. members of the Conservative party that they should be rather humiliated by the fact that the two other groups, the C.C.F. group and the Social Credit, offer much more constructive criticism in the House of Commons of Canada.
Whether the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is in order is not material. If it is not in order I shall not have the satisfaction of voting against it. I am all for parliamentary institution. The leader of the opposition would do better by sharing his work with his own supporters in the House of Commons, all able men, than to try to do the work alone with the aid of a royal commission such as he has suggested this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that members of the house will have been touched, not to say edified, by the solicitude shown for their privileges and prerogatives, for their rights and duties by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), and more particularly by the hon. member 

for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The hon. member for Temiscouata and the Minister of Trade and Commerce of course are not best known for their qualities of consistency. They have qualities for which they are well known, but unfortunately that is not one of them.
When the hon. member for Temiscouata and the Minister of Trade and Commerce show on this occasion, when it happens to suit the particular argument that they wish to advance, this solicitude for the prerogatives of parliament; when particularly the hon. member for Temiscouata states that members of the opposition should be hurt by the suggestion put forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that a royal commission should be appointed to carry on functions which the hon. member says should be carried on by parliament, which disregards the functions of parliament and all its members, I think we might well ask these hon. gentlemen to look first at their own situation.
There is a well-known biblical saying which is repeated in many forms throughout the bible, the most apt being the short phrase, -physician, heal thyself. The other one, to paraphrase the bible, is that one short answer where we are admonished for being overconcerned with the conduct of our neighbours and fellow men, particularly if we are concerned with their faults. It is that if we would take out the beam from our brother's eye we should first remove the mote from our own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the other way around.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said I was paraphrasing the bible.


An hon. Member:: Why twist it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The sense remains the same.
I ask the hon. member and those who applauded him to answer me this: If it is a slur upon the rights and privileges and duties of members of parliament to appoint a royal commission or a commission of any kind to look into things which are also the concern of parliament, how then must Saskatchewan members feel at the tremendous slight which they have suffered because this government has appointed a commission to examine into the Saskatchewan river project?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does the hon. member who has just interrupted me feel in his innermost heart about his recommendations with regard to the South Saskatchewan river project being no better than those of a royal commission? I understand that this government has been receiving representations over

a long time from Saskatchewan members with respect to getting ahead with this project. How does the hon. member feel when the government has seen fit to disregard his viewpoint? How does he feel when the government says, "Before we will be in position to judge whether or not the views put forward by the hon. member are really sound we must take the advice of a royal commission."
How does the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) feel about it? How does the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) feel about it? How do all the other hon. members from Saskatchewan feel about it? I wonder how the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan, feels about it when he comes to apply the standards laid down by the member for Temiscouata and his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who sits just two places away in the front row of the cabinet benches? What does he think of the government appointing a commission?
Of course it is not the first time that these two ministers have expressed divergent opinions and probably it will not be the last. I wonder how the Minister of Agriculture will feel when he returns to the house and finds that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated that the views of the Minister of Agriculture on the Saskatchewan river project have been completely ignored and cast aside by the appointment of this royal commission?
At six o clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before the house rose at six o'clock I had pointed out to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the suggestion they had made that somehow or other there was a slight to the members of the opposition in this motion by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that a royal commission should be appointed to examine into and consider the question of increasing the efficiency of governmental administration, was visited at least a hundredfold on their own heads. If there is any improper suggestion, which I do not for a moment admit, that the rights of members would be somehow interfered with by the appointment of such a commission, then I suggest we are in the interesting position 55704-134J
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry of finding that all the Liberal members, particularly those from Saskatchewan, have been slighted by the fact that a commission has been appointed to inquire into the merits of the Saskatchewan river project, upon which a number of Liberal members from that province have expressed no uncertain views. I thought the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Dewar), who I remember interrupted me before dinner, and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie), who also expressed an interest in the matter, might take up the matter with the hon. member for Temiscouata and the minister before making comments of that sort.
I also said, and I still feel, it would be very interesting to know how the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who is the Saskatchewan leader of his party in this house, would feel with regard to the remark by his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce that to suggest the appointment of commissions to inquire into things which are at the same time of interest to the House of Commons was somehow or other to derogate from the responsibility of hon. members. But then those two ministers have shown themselves in the past well able on one occasion to express and on another to reconcile extremely divergent views; and although the country is left somewhat mystified as to just where it stands after hearing those conflicting views, nevertheless on the whole we are forced back to the conclusion from which we probably started, namely that however much other members of the government may talk and however much they may hold their own opinions, when it comes down to the issue it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce who really decides and runs this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I noticed that the applause came from private members, who were not joined by any members of the cabinet. So it is with the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, either in that role or as Minister of Defence Production, that I should like to deal for the next few moments.
The main subject of the minister's remarks was his contention that the appointment of a royal commission to consider ways and means of increasing the efficiency of government somehow or other would be a derogation from the rights and duties of parliament. In his speech this afternoon I must say the minister reminded me of nothing so much as an old and rather tired doctor who had a patient in a very serious condition, in fact on the point of death. This doctor, who had not taken a refresher course for some time,

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry was not quite certain what ailed the patient. But while he did not know what was the trouble, he was very definite that the opinions of the younger consultants who had been called in were absolutely wrong. While he did not know quite what to prescribe, at least he said he knew the suggestions of his younger associates were wide of the mark. Therefore those suggestions were not adopted; the older doctor continued in charge of the case, but unfortunately the patient died. That is very much the situation we find here in this discussion of how we may improve the efficiency of government.
The minister has said that all the things being done at the present time by the government are the right things. Their prescriptions are correct. They have the best brains. They know better than anyone else how to run the country. Unfortunately the fact is that inefficiency in government is inescapable, and the effects upon the taxpayers of Canada in the constant increase in the taxes they have to pay, the ever mounting sums they have to dig out and fork over to the government, are cumulative. Unless something is done shortly the plight of the taxpayers will be extremely serious indeed. I think probably they will be able to develop a resistance to disease which will carry them through these difficult times, but I do suggest very earnestly that the government should not dismiss out of hand suggestions that efficiency might be improved, but should listen rather more seriously than they have shown an inclination to do in the course of this debate.
I regret to have to say that the leader of the C.C.F. party appears to be in somewhat the same category as members of the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They were both quite certain that a commission is not the answer to this problem of how to increase efficiency in government service. They both took the position that to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this question somehow or other would be to derogate from the rights of parliament. Well, I know other hon. members will share my vivid recollection of the eager support the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave to the inquiries and considerations and indeed to the appointment of the Massey commission, which was a royal commission inquiring into the arts, letters and sciences. I would ask the hon. member and others of his party who support his views whether the subjects inquired into by that commission, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the national gallery of Canada and a number of others which could be mentioned, are not also under the jurisdiction of parliament. How does it happen then,
rMr. Fulton.l
if, as they now so fervently maintain, the appointment of a royal commission to investigate things which are also of interest to parliament is to derogate from the rights of parliament, that they supported the inquiries and recommendations of that royal commission?
Then, there was another one, the royal commission on transportation. Does the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), who is saying something over there, suggest that national transportation policy is not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of parliament?


Mr. Lesage:: I was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that I know the hon. member is too intelligent not to know the difference between the various commissions that he has mentioned, the difference in subject matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful to the hon. member for the compliment, and I wish I could return it in kind, but apparently the hon. member is not able to distinguish between them. I come back to this question. The royal commission on transportation dealt with matters which are the responsibility of parliament, and are clearly within the realm of subjects with which parliament is supposed to deal. On that occasion, when it happened to suit their own political convenience, not one hon. member was heard to suggest that the appointment of that royal commission, with the conclusions or report of that royal commission, was in any sense a derogation from the prerogatives and privileges of parliament.
There was another commission, the MacQuarrie committee, appointed to inquire into the combines legislation, and particularly into the subject of resale price maintenance. The Combines Investigation Act is a creature of this parliament. We enacted it, and it is entirely within the purview of this parliament as to what should be done with that legislation; how it should be strengthened, and whether it should be varied. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) fervently supported the recommendations of that committee and the whole set-up of the committee to inquire into that legislation. Now when it happens to be embarrassing to the government-hon. members opposite are so frequently able to forget the views which they formerly held and expressed-we are told that to suggest the appointment of a royal commission to see in what way the efficiency of the administration can be increased is somehow or other to detract from the prerogatives of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: None of those commissions were substitutes for Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is quite right. Indeed, in my view with respect particularly to one of those commissions, the MacQuarrie committee, their recommendations fell far short of the recommendations suggested by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, but I point out to the hon. member that on that occasion the recommendations of Her Majesty's loyal opposition were not the ones which were accepted by the government. What we are suggesting is that if on other occasions the government has ascribed such overriding advantages to royal commissions, their reports and recommendations, we find it difficult to understand why on this occasion there should be such a complete negation of the idea that a royal commission could do any good.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman permits-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to the problem which confronts us is to be found in the fact that this royal commission which the leader of the opposition has suggested would probably find things materially embarrassing to the government, and in its report it would be bound to bring in recommendations, with the evidence laid before it, that would certainly indicate the government has not been efficiently administering the affairs of this country. That is the only reason why, on this occasion, hon. members opposite show a complete reversal of the stand which they have taken in the past, and are now so anxious to suggest that this commission would derogate from the rights of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman permits, when he says I am quite right, I have nothing to add to his gracious speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce did deal with other aspects of this situation, apart from that aspect which I have just been discussing. He attempted to make light of and to ridicule the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, and he took particular objection to the fact that, in his remarks in support of his motion, the leader of the opposition had made a comparison between the level of government spending on various categories in the year 1938-39 and the level of spending on similar categories in the year 1951-52. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was at some pains to point out that this comparison did not hold water. I think those were his words. Unfortunately, here we have another illustration of the fact that on one occasion, when it suits its political convenience, the government will adopt a certain line of argument and reasoning, and on another occasion when it does not suit
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry its political convenience but will mean embarrassment for the government to follow the same line, then it rejects that line of reasoning.
I want to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to the members of the house, that the basis for the comparison between the years 1938-39 and the years 1951-52 was suggested by the government itself. Last year the Senate finance committee inquired into this very subject of government expenditures. They asked the department officials to prepare a table from which they might assess the trends which are now evident. The departmental officials prepared their table, _and the basis of their whole comparison was, firstly, the years 1938-39 and then, in comparable categories, the expenditures of the year then under review, 1951-52. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government are going to reject that as a valid basis of comparison, then I should like to take another branch of the minister's argument this afternoon.
He pointed out that four years ago one of the departments of government had retained the Gordon firm to make an inquiry into the administrative affairs of that department. The minister spoke in glowing terms, indeed-I should not say very glowing terms-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The assignment of the Gordon firm was to evaluate the salaries of the civil servants, and to work out a scale of salaries in conformity with the functions being performed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall accept that limitation gladly. Whatever the purpose of that limited inquiry into one aspect of the affairs of one department, the fact is the minister indicated that inquiry produced some very good results. The point that emerges from this is that the inquiry, which took place only four years ago, was limited to the affairs of one department, and admittedly limited to a particular aspect of that department. But the minister himself said that in order to properly evaluate how things were being conducted in that respect they retained the services of an outside firm. All we are suggesting here is that the scope of an inquiry of that sort should be broadened in order to evaluate the efficiency with which the administrative affairs of government are being conducted, and that the government should retain the services of a commission. After all, Mr. Speaker, if the points which the minister made this afternoon in the course of his reply

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry have any validity at all, and I am quite prepared to give them the full measure of validity, it is that an outside inquiry produced results which the government found helpful. Why then cannot the same principle be carried into effect on a broader basis? All we are suggesting here is not that a particular department should retain the services of a firm, because one department has no authority over another, but that a commission should investigate all the departments. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may think, and probably does think, that the departments of some of his colleagues are not being administered very efficiently. He has, however, much as he would like to have it, no direct authority to appoint a firm to inquire into the affairs of the other departments. It is quite open to the government to enlarge the scope of any such inquiry and by the appointment of a commission to have the administration of all departments in every aspect reported upon by a firm whose services might be found to be of some help.
In that connection the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is or was a businessman, suggests that somehow or other it would be an abrogation of the rights of parliament to appoint such a commission. Applying his own argument, I would ask the minister whether he would say that the board of directors of a company is abrogating its responsibilities and duties when it retains the services of a firm of efficiency experts to inquire into the internal administration of the company. The minister knows perfectly well that that is done on innumerable occasions throughout the whole business community of Canada.
In making that argument this afternoon the minister was, I suggest, making an argument which he knows perfectly well to be purely and simply a political argument divorced entirely from the merits of the subject under discussion. Indeed, when we suggest that a royal commission should be appointed to examine into this question, there is no suggestion whatsoever that, in their duties of scrutiny of the estimates and detailed scrutiny of every aspect of government expenditure, the members of parliament should in any way abate their energies or be less diligent in the discharge of that duty.
What we are suggesting-and hon. members opposite and members of the government know it perfectly well-is that the whole broad aspect and the many ramifications and details of government administration have multiplied so rapidly that, in the course of the type of discussion we have on the estimates, it is not possible to carry out the sort of inquiry that we have in mind.
rMr. Fulton.]
Therefore what we are suggesting is simply that, as is done in so many other cases when detailed aspects of government policy or administration are under review, a group of experts be retained to look into the question, to express their impartial and honest opinion as to whether or not any changes should be instituted, and to report accordingly. If it felt the proposals had any merit, it would still be the obligation of the government to put them into the form of legislative or other action. If they thought that the details of the report had any merit, it would still be the obligation of the opposition members and of every other member of parliament to scrutinize that report, and to discuss the details of it and to press for action in connection with the estimates or on any other occasion when the question might properly be raised.
To suggest that merely to ask a royal commission to examine into this situation and to report would be to abrogate the rights of parliament or to bring about a situation in which the responsibilities and duties of members would be lessened is to beg the whole question and to show that, in fact,, the merits of the question are extremely embarrassing to the government. What they are trying to do is drag as many red herrings as possible across the trail so that it is impossible to carry on a sensible and definitive discussion.
Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of this thing about which one might speak but, for the remaining few minutes of the remarks I have to make this evening, I want to discuss some of the financial implications of this subject which seem to me to indicate clearly and beyond dispute that it is time that a full-scale inquiry by a royal or other commission was made into this question of the efficiency of government administration.
The approach which I should like to make to that aspect of the subject is this. I should like to start with the oft-repeated statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that there is practically no room for economy in government spending because of the fact that, as he so often asserts, the large part of the government's spending at the present time is made up of what he calls uncontrollable expenditures. He therefore continually argues-and indeed he repeated it in the course of his budget speech this year-that the only room for adjustment, if we really want to make economies, is in those items of what are called special categories, namely such things as expenditures by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Defence Production, the civil defence items of the Department of

National Health and Welfare, and the social services provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
When you analyse the argument of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, you are regrettably forced to the conclusion that his arguments here are as loose and inaccurate as they are in the generality of the statements which he makes. When you examine the estimates which have been placed before parliament this year, you find that, in this fiscal year as compared with last year, there is to be a net increase in spending by government of $605 million. It is true that this increase is accounted for mainly by the fact that the defence department is asking for $392 million more, and the health and welfare department for $252 million more.
The total increase asked for by all departments and agencies of the government is over $720 million. This is accounted for by 31 spending agencies of government. Thirteen departments or agencies are decreasing their spending by a total of $115 million. But when you examine this decrease of $115 million, Mr. Speaker, you find that it is largely illusory, because it is mainly accounted for by the fact that the Department of Finance has shown a reduction of approximately $100 million this year as compared to last year. The occasion of that reduction is that the five-year financial agreement with the provinces expires this June, so that only one-sixth of the amount normally payable under the agreements has been included in this year's main estimates. But, Mr. Speaker, that sort of accounting and that sort of presentation to us in the form of the estimates is nothing more or less than misleading because the Minister of Finance knows perfectly -well that negotiations are now proceeding with regard to new financial agreements with the provinces and, in fact, at least one with my own province of British Columbia has already been concluded. Provision will certainly have to be made for these payments later on this year by means of supplementary estimates. But the Minister of Finance knows perfectly well now that he is going to have to make those provisions. For him to attempt to show a decline of $100 million in the estimates of his department is sheer nonsense.
Then when you look into this question further, Mr. Speaker, you find that there is already provision for increased payments to the province of British Columbia under the financial agreements. It therefore must surely be assumed that the agreements with the other provinces will not provide for any lesser scale of payment than was provided last year. If that is so. it follows that the
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry $100 million cut now shown by the Department of Finance will be restored and probably increased before the end of the year. Therefore the total reduction of $115 million in the estimates will be wiped out and the net increase in spending by the government this year will total not $604 million but something like $720 million. Even when you allow for the fact that, of this $720 million, $644 million is accounted for by defence and increased old age pensions, and $14 million by the veterans affairs department through the medium of increased pensions to veterans, you still find the fact that there is an estimated net increase in controllable expenditures-not those uncontrollable items the minister referred to, but an increase in controllable expenditures of the order of $60 million in this fiscal year. With this fact in mind, in the light of the Minister of Finance's repeated statements that the most rigid economies are being insisted upon, and in the face of the already tremendous burden of taxes and the demands for reductions which have been voiced on behalf of the Canadian people, I think you can see that the minister's statements that they are exercising the most rigid economy and control on expenditure, and the statement repeated this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce without bringing before us any factual basis for that statement, are nothing more than idle vapourings.
Analysing the situation more closely, Mr. Speaker, and looking at the table which has been furnished by the Minister of Finance, and which is broken down into standard categories and special categories, the standard categories being those in which the Minister of Finance claims it is not possible to make any further economies, one finds that the increases in the normal items of controllable expenditures this year are far in excess of the decreases. One finds that there are increases in freight and express and cartage, in postage, in the cost of telephones, telegrams and other communication services, films, displays and other government publicity, office stationery, supplies and other general materials and supplies. Decreases are shown only in the totals for professional and special services, travel and removal expenses and the publication of the annual departmental reports. There is one substantial reduction in the category, contributions, grants and subsidies, namely, $10 million, which is accounted for almost exclusively by the reduction in the freight assistance for the movement of western feed grains previously paid by the Department of Agriculture. But when you end up, even giving credit for this and all the other reductions, you are left with

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry the fact that outside any amount of defence spending, civil defence and national health and welfare, the total of the increases in standard categories exceeds the total of decreases by $48 million in the fiscal year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and hon. members, bearing in mind the repeated statement of the Minister of Finance that most rigid economies are being applied, to ask the government to account for the reason why in these categories such as freight and express and cartage-and that is not defence or civil defence or health and welfare-and in government films, displays and other government publicity, office stationery and supplies and other general materials and supplies, there should be an increase of spending by $48 million in this fiscal year.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that we have never suggested any ways in which savings might be made. He has said that it is the duty of the House of Commons, particularly the opposition, through the discussion of the estimates, to recommend and to bring about decreases. He says that he does not recall in all his time that any decrease has ever been effected through the discussion of the estimates. I will tell him one reason why. One reason is that any time that a reduction in expenditure is suggested the government regards it as a vote of want of confidence. I well recall the time when we did suggest a reduction in a particular vote. It was in the Department of Transport, and before there had been any discussion on the merits of the suggestion the Minister of Transport rose in his place and said that in effect he regarded this as a vote of want of confidence and the whole 181 majority of the government was enlisted behind him without any possibility of discussing the merits of the situation which, as I recall it, suggested a reduction in one item of travelling expenses of $25,000. The attitude of the government was that its life depended on this vote, and from the very outset there was not a chance of discussing any reduction being effected.
The crux of the whole matter is this. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows very well without any attempt on my part to belittle the work done by the committee of supply, which is the most important work of this parliament, that no committee of 262 members, under the pressure of business which goes on here, and in the way in which the estimates are presented by the government, has a ghost of a chance of really effecting substantial reductions in government expenditures. Just because he knows that,

and because he wants that situation to continue, the Minister of Trade and Commerce seeks to belittle this suggestion of the appointment of a royal commission. If he were serious, and if his colleague, the Minister of Finance, were serious, in their oft-repeated statements that they want to economize on spending, instead of belittling they would be supporting it.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I should like to take part in this debate for about ten minutes, because I have always felt rather strongly about the matter which is being discussed. What precisely does this resolution ask for? It asks for the setting up of a royal commission for the purpose of (1) "improving the organization and general efficiency of government administration"; and, (2), "co-ordinating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature". I may say quite frankly that I cannot find the wording of the resolution offensive. Speaking on April 24 last on the budget I took this position, and if I may I should like to quote one sentence from Hansard.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Now well known.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I said, as reported at page 1568 of Hansard:
Since coming to Ottawa I have been one of those who have always believed there was a good deal of merit in the suggestion that a commission be set up somewhat along the lines of the Hoover commission in the United States, to study waste and duplication in the government.
I have listened to the arguments today against the proposal, but I must say that I hav heard none which would lead me to change my mind in this connection. I think any method, any method whatever, which may lead to economies should be supported by every hon. member with a good deal of enthusiasm.
I think one of the paramount issues facing all members of parliament today is the fact that the government is going to take in this coming year $4,500 million from the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers. That is a lot of money. No one realizes better than members of parliament do that most of that money is going to have to be paid by the average Canadian, by the workingman, the farmer and the small businessman.
If these taxes are necessary, Mr. Speaker, if it can be shown that we have to have them for defence, or security, or something of that nature, I do not think any Canadian, any true Canadian, will object to them. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are wondering whether these high taxes really are necessary. They are wondering whether they could not be reduced, if

ordinary methods of economy were practised by the government. That is the crux of the matter.
This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce opposed the resolution which is before us. In effect he said, "I am opposed to this resolution, because it is the right, the duty, and the responsibility of members of parliament to examine expenditures which are made." I was surprised to hear such a weak argument put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. No one is going to deny that it is the duty and the right of members of parliament to examine expenditures. But every hon. member who is sitting in this chamber tonight knows that it is physically impossible for members to give to estimates and to public accounts the scrutiny which the taxpayers have a right to expect.
I know of no more futile task, or no more frustrating task, which a member of parliament can have, than to try to dig up some fact which has been buried in the estimates. This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that private members have every opportunity to examine expenditures efficiently. I am going to take issue with that statement, because I do not think it is correct. We have had one such opportunity this year, and that was to examine the supplementary estimates which were brought down last March 28, one parliamentary day before the end of the fiscal year. On that last day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) brought down estimates totalling $246 million. After we had examined them for four or five hours, he had the audacity to tell members of the opposition that they were responsible for the fact that civil servants might not get paid on time.
On that occasion, the only occasion this year when we have had estimates in front of us, we were asked to pass millions of dollars per minute. And yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tells us today that the members have every opportunity to examine expenditures.
I would point out that parliament has been sitting for two and a half months, and that not one single estimate for the current year has yet been before parliament. What opportunity is that?


An hon. Member:: Whose fault is that?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am trying to point out that it is physically impossible for members to give these estimates and the public accounts the scrutiny they deserve. The Minister of Trade and Commerce growled this afternoon that he was one of the biggest government spenders. He said indeed that, so far as he knows, there is little waste or duplication in 55704-135
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry the government. I respectfully must take issue with that assertion, because I contend that there is waste. There is unnecessary duplication. There is extravagance, right here in Ottawa, which is milking the Canadian taxpayer unnecessarily.
Tonight, at the risk of further unpopularity in certain quarters, I would ask hon. members to look at a few basic facts. I ask them to examine only one government department, one they know something about-the parliament buildings. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the heart of the Canadian government, the very nerve centre of our legislative system, is centred right in these buildings. Surely if economy is practised anywhere, in any government department, it should be practised right here under the noses of some 260 odd representatives and 70 or 80 senators.
But what are the facts? I think if any hon. member, regardless of party politics, will be fair and look around the buildings, he will see things which must cause him concern. Even a superficial glance cannot help but reveal duplications which I cannot understand.
For instance, when a member comes into this building each morning he enters by the door at the lower floor. The first thing he sees is the House of Commons post office, with fifteen employees. Twenty feet to the right he will see another post office, the Senate post office.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question? By whose authority are those two post offices established? I will answer the question: They are established, one by the Senate and the other by the House of Commons. The government has nothing to do with either of them.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you, Mr. Minister; I appreciate your comment. You are reputed to be an efficient minister; yet I think you would not, yourself, argue that there is not duplication in this instance. It may be necessary; but to me it does not seem sensible-two post offices in the one building.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may reply that I would not attempt to tell either the Senate or the House of Commons how they should carry on their affairs. That is a matter for house and senate members, for each of them to decide for themselves.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you; but it seems to me it might be sensible for the government to set up a committee of the House of Commons, and a committee of the Senate to see whether these duplications are necessary.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such a committee is functioning today.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They have not done much, then. If the minister would let me proceed, I can assure him I would take only two or three minutes more.
If you go along the corridor further you will find the House of Commons barber shop. There are some excellent men in there, doing a first class job. But I find it peculiar that a little to the right, you will find a Senate barber shop. It would seem to me that in one building one barber shop should suffice.
If one goes a little farther up the corridor we run into the House of Commons protective staff. I must say at once that I have heard many compliments from visitors, who have referred to the courtesy of those gentlemen, when they are performing their duties. But I must say, as a representative of the taxpayers, that I find it strange that we should have in one building, first, the House of Commons protective staff, then the Senate protective staff, and outside, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-three policing powers to police one building. It does seem to me that here is unnecessary duplication.
Then, we come up to the main floor where we have one of the finest reading rooms in the Dominion of Canada, the House of Commons reading room. One can find here all the newspapers and periodicals of this country-an excellent service. But I think it is not fair to the taxpayers of Canada that about a hundred feet down the corridor, the Senate should have exactly the same service-with the same newspapers and the same periodicals.
Why should they not be combined? Surely, for about 260 members and 70 senators, one reading room should be sufficient.
Then, in the House of Commons we find a House of Commons messenger staff with 59 messengers, one for every four members. We also have a Senate messenger staff. Both have separate quarters and both have similar organizations. I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not say that this is not duplication.
Then we have two stationery branches. I could go on and on and give other examples. We have two law branches; we have two stenographic pools.


Mr. Cleaver:: Have you more than one public school in Moose Jaw?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We have two journals
branches; we have two translation branches. The point I am making is this. It must be apparent to all hon. members, when they are looking at the situation, that there is duplication in parliament. And, because parliament
fiUr Thatcher.]
is the nerve centre of our legislative system, I wonder what confidence the taxpayer can have that this duplication does not go all through government departments.


An hon. Member:: How many hardware stores in Moose Jaw?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Taxes can be brought down by the elimination of waste and inefficiency. For years the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary assistant have been telling opposition members that one of their main tasks is to point out savings which can be made. I find it strange that they should take exception when some member tries to do precisely that.
It may be that opposition members are not always right; yet we are here, trying to do a job; and I do not see why government supporters should take objection to our endeavours. When I made a few specific suggestions several weeks ago, the only answer I received was derision, ridicule and even contempt. I simply cannot understand such an attitude. I will only say that this government does not appear to be interested in economy. It does not seem to wish to do anything about waste.
The motion which the leader of the opposition made this afternoon might or might not produce economies; but, to me, it is sensible to try any move which might bring the taxpayer relief; and therefore I will support it.
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) remain in his seat, because I shall speak only a few moments. I would have been sorry if he had not been in the chamber, because what I shall say will relate to the amendment he offered this afternoon.
The basis of his amendment was certain facts concerning specially the Department of National Defence. Then he did go over the expenditures of different departments, comparing those of the year 1938-39 with those of 1952-53. If he had compared the expenditures of two immediately succeeding years, perhaps his argument would have stood up more strongly in support of the amendment he has offered.
I want hon. members to believe that what I am saying is not motivated by any political consideration. In my opinion none of the speeches made on this question have been motivated by considerations concerning provincial elections or anything else. I believe that they have been made in the interests of the country. My respect for the members of the House of Commons is such that when an hon. member gets up to speak-I may not

always agree with what he says-I believe that he speaks in a sincere effort to help the people of Canada.
When the leader of the opposition requested a committee last year to inquire into defence expenditures I was one of those who approved of that move. During one year of the last war I was chairman of the committee on war expenditures. I know something of the work that was done by members of the opposition and members on the government side. It was good work. At the end of each session-we even sat between sessions-we made recommendations and to my knowledge most of those were implemented by the government of the day. I think hon. members who were on that committee will agree that we did a fine job in helping our country go through that war. As I say, when this proposal came up last year I was one hundred per cent in favour of it. The motion setting up the committee reads:
That a select committee be appointed to examine all expenditure of public moneys for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since March 31, 1950-
I cannot recall definitely, but I do not think the resolution moved during the last war contained the word "commitments." We were limited by the reference to examine expenditures only. This motion continues:
-and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and in particular, what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
This committee is to deal with expenditures totalling nearly $2,000 million, almost 50 per cent of our total expenditures. Members of that committee can decide on the way in which they will proceed. They can decide to call witnesses, hear experts, listen to evidence, read reports, give their own opinions or conduct any other form of useful work. That is where they can point out to the government economies that should be put into effect.


Mr. Green:: In connection with defence items only.


Alphonse Fournier: Covering $2,000 million. That is covering a lot of ground. I believe opposition members on that committee can do a good job because it was done before. They can examine these expenditures, give their opinions and report to the House of Commons. I think during the last war we had concurrence in our reports and there may have been some minority reports. But I want every hon. member to know that the recommendations made and the opinions expressed are noted by the government and implemented. We are covering half of our expenditures in this way.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
The leader of the opposition discussed how we have a breakdown of the estimates by functions and by primaries. No doubt there is a considerable difference between the amount being spent today and what was spent in normal peacetime. When I became Minister of Public Works the department was spending around $15 million a year. Today I cannot even maintain what we have with that amount. It takes nearly twice that amount to pay the staff, to purchase materials and keep the works in good repair.
I am astounded that the people of Canada through this House of Commons are ready to hand over to the Department of Public Works such a huge amount. I do not prepare these estimates. When they come to me for my consideration I call in the experts and I say, "Listen, these are exorbitant." I know they will have to be paid out of taxation imposed by the budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I tell my experts to cut them 15 or 20 per cent and then bring them back. Then I spend days and weeks trying to elbow away, not only members of parliament but different departments and people from all over the country. After about two weeks' study I bring them down again.
Do you know what happens to my estimates? They come before the experts in the Department of Finance. If you know those experts you know that they are not thinking of any political considerations. I have to spend two or three days with them. They know what they are talking about. They cut my estimates still further. Then I come before the house and the estimates are tabled. That evening I feel like going home right afterward because I always get too many visitors. These visitors are not always from the one side of the house. They are all convinced that the expenditures in which they are interested are needed.
A member may come to see me and I tell him, "this is not needed, let us postpone it." He will argue his case or may even bring delegations. That happens even in the case of British Columbia in connection with the Marpole bridge. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) may think that funny, but he knows about the Marpole bridge.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the minister does not.


Alphonse Fournier: That would mean
another three or four million dollars added to my estimates. I feel that I am rendering a service to the people of Canada and the members of the House of Commons by following the procedure I have outlined. Then when

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry I get approval in the House of Commons for these estimates I have to do the work or have revotes. At one time having revotes shamed me. Let me tell you why at times I cannot have these works done. If they were all carried through I would have to ask treasury board for another thousand people to be added to my staff, and that would build up expenditures.
There is no body which looks into estimates and expenditures more thoroughly than the ministers of the government. Believe it or not, that is what takes place. When you look at me you see one of those who try to keep down these expenditures. With the little experience I have had I know what the Minister of Finance and his officials are going to do. They will say: You want $4,100 million or $4,200 million; we will take the gross national product. And by taking the different sections they will be able to fit the expenditures with a balanced budget.
If they wanted a deficit administration they could bring down taxes and carry on with the expenditures. My experience has been that the people of Canada do not like deficits. They are proud of being able to help others and pay their own way in the world. Before I deal with the resolution I should like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). He said that nothing comes from these house committees because they are weighted on the side of the government. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that it is not the government that weights these committees; it is the people of Canada. Once the people of Canada say, "We want 190 Liberal members in the House of Commons", what can I do?


Mr. Harkness:: Only 49 per cent of the people said that.


Alphonse Fournier: Even with the large expenditures facing us people seem happy, even in the House of Commons. That is because of the way you think of it, and the way you have to look at these things. Suppose we put as many C.C.F. members on our committees as we did Liberal members. My goodness, they would be on only two committees. They have not enough people in their ranks for more than that; and that is not my fault. Take the Social Credit party. I know them well. In two elections I did not have a Conservative opponent, but I had Social Crediters and they were good fighters. They could not defeat me; the people thought I should stay here. That party has only a handful of members; yet they want a majority on committees. They would not be able to handle the work.
rMr. Fournier (Hull).]

Let me tell you one thing. Even when you have only a small number of members you can do useful work in the house. They should not agree with this resolution. I do not know English too well, but I have read the motion and tried to understand it. It urges that consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining-examining what? At least in our resolution we said, "to examine all expenditures." Then the resolution goes on "and make recommendations"-for what?-"to improve, to coordinate, to assure the civil service that they have responsibilities".


Howard Charles Green: Why don't you read the whole paragraph?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not found what the commission is to examine, unless it is the organization and general efficiency; but how do you get that from this language? Probably there is a word missing. At all events I am not here to give a lecture, and this is not a school or college or a university. That is why I always object when members repeat the same thing three or four times in this house. We are speaking to members who have finished their education. We are speaking to voters 21 years of age and more. I do not think we should give them lectures. We should tell them the facts and let them come to their own decisions.
Will anyone tell me that we have become so incompetent in this house that we cannot examine the organization and general efficiency of government administration? That is why we have been sent here. The people of our ridings think we can do that. Why admit that we cannot? The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) says we are not strong enough. Well, the people in the country want strong men in this parliament, even in the opposition. We have them on the government side; that is understood.
I do not believe we need a royal commission to make recommendations to improve the organization. In 1939 and 1940 I was chairman of a committee on the civil service. Look up the recommendations of that committee for the improvement of the organization; and the government carried those recommendations forward. Why admit we are so weak that we cannot even examine the organization of government activities? Can we not make some recommendations in connection with the public service and departmental activity, even though they may not be perfect? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said that we have highly paid advisers, really good men. I know them; I have known them for years. We

should not lose confidence in these men. If we do, they should not be in the service; we should find other big brain trusters that somebody else can recommend.
Hon. members opposite want us to see that members of the civil service recognize their responsibilities. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I have lived in this district for more than thirty years. If there is one citizen of this country who knows his responsibilities, it is the civil servant. You do not have to show him; he knows. If you can limit him to his own responsibilities it is all you can do, because from the lower down to the higher up they do their work properly, and they are proud to have certain responsibilities. We do not need to assure them; they have a lot of responsibility. I do not always agree with what my advisers say. I often consult others in the department to get different opinions, and then come to my own judgment.
If this motion were to carry we certainly would be admitting that members of parliament are falling down on the job. We would be saying, "We come here but we cannot do all the work." But hon. members knew that before they came here. Did they believe that being a member of parliament was a part-time job, or that they could come here and just rest? A member who wants to work can work fifteen hours a day, and he will not have time to even mend his political fences when the elections come, unless he is a very active man. Members of parliament can do all that is asked in this resolution. Why have a judicial inquiry into these matters? Do we need a judge to tell us how to improve the organization and general efficiency? Why, I know a good many members of parliament on the opposite side who could do as good a job as any expert I have met.
Now, please give the people a hand. Do the work. Make your examination intc I don't know what, and bring in whatever recommendations you see fit. When recommendations are made by the defence expenditures committee or any committee of this house, not many of them fall by the way. If they are not implemented in the first session, they are carried out in succeeding years. The government never implements everything that is suggested, but it does carry out important recommendations. I am not sorry the leader of the opposition brought this up. I agree that in our own organization some standing orders and regulations may be archaic; nevertheless we can still do a good job. If the hon. member for Peace River is on the committee to revise the standing orders, I would ask him to
12, 1952
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry help me in that committee so at least we can make a few unanimous recommendations. That committee sat last year. As you all know, I am not a fighting man-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: I pride myself on being very mild in all my arguments and in the way I expound them. Some of my best friends are on that committee, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), but I could not get them to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We all agreed on ten o'clock closing.


Alphonse Fournier: Don't get sleepy so early. We have to work in this parliament, so let us work to the bitter end. I read something in the newspapers not long ago that struck me. Hon members say, "Well, the government does not want us to take ourselves too seriously." I will tell you one thing. You have to take yourself seriously if you want to do something for the country; but don't overdo it. There is a limit even to taking yourselves seriously, because the people look at you and they will judge. If I were a young man nothing would please me more than to go out and tell the people how this house is run, how good these members are, what good work they do and how they tried to save money even though the Minister of Finance did not agree and had to get the money. I would remind them also that when they ask for expenditures to be made the money has to come from some place unless you can print money, and we cannot. So we must have taxes. I would say that this is the finest institution or organization a man could wish to belong to, and I am proud to be here to listen to the nice speeches from the opposition. You see, I know why they are made. I have been here long enough for that.
I hope no one will impute motives to me, because I have none. I wanted to tell the hon. gentleman that I was interested in his speech, and I hope I have interested him in mine. At least I made him smile, and with a smile he may continue doing good work for the country.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, a day or two ago I referred to the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) as a parlour socialist. In view of what he has said tonight, I believe I can extend that reference and say that he would like to be a parlour politician. He would like to sit in an armchair and have a commission doing the work

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry instead of doing the work which his constituents send him here to do. Up until tonight I believe everyone in this house regarded the hon. member for Moose Jaw as an intelligent young man. After tonight, it is doubtful whether they will agree with their former decision.
First of all, I should like to get a yes or no from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Oh, I am sorry, I do not see him here, but perhaps some member of his party will answer for him. In any event, I leave this with him to think over. Will he agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw that we should do away with the British tradition which, as was pointed out tonight, is in existence now, that members of parliament have nothing to do with appointments in the two post offices? This has been a British tradition over a long period of years.
I wish to congratulate the leader of the opposition on bringing forward this resolution. I am sure that when he did so he intended to bring to the attention of the people of Canada certain things. As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) pointed out tonight, there were some things missing from the resolution. When the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) spoke, he referred to the plight of the tired old doctor. By the time the doctor got to see the patient, the patient was dead. I gathered from his speech tonight that the leader of the opposition was like the doctor. He was getting old and tired, and the member for Kamloops was making a strong bid to be the leader of the opposition. The weakness of the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition was quite evident from the time he took, I believe it was about an hour and a half. As the Minister of Public Works pointed out, there was no meaning in the resolution, so I believe that hour and a half was wasted.
In bringing forward this resolution the leader of the opposition has shown a complete lack of confidence in himself. He has shown a complete lack of confidence in his party. He would rather pass on his responsibility to a commission. He has proven that he has been lax. He has shown his complete inability to carry on the duties of the opposition. He has shown his indifference in taking up the time of the house suggesting that a committee of this kind be appointed. He has shown an indifference to delving into matters which are of importance to the country. This is the duty of the opposition, and not the duty of a commission. Members of the opposition think this is a very good way to get away from their responsibility by passing the buck on to a commission. Possibly he would like to be the leader of the

opposition giving directions from an armchair to commissions, and therefore have no responsibility himself to the country.
When the member for Moose Jaw spoke tonight, he said that no good could come out of these committees. I believe hon. members can recall that one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced was recommended by a committee, and that was the old age pension scheme without a means test. This was the unanimous recommendation of a committee. If the hon. member thinks that piece of legislation was not important, then he does not agree with his leader; he does not agree with the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and he does not agree with his party at all. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we should lose no time in voting down this motion, and getting down to the business of the house.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I believe that this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is one that should concern every member of this house. Personally, I suspect a motive and I am going to give my reasons for saying that before I sit down. This afternoon the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) expressed the opinion of this group, with apparently one exception, in so far as the resolution is concerned. In moving this amendment, the leader of the opposition has made certain arguments. With some of those arguments, I agree.
For example, I agree that there is a necessity for an examination into the Petawawa incident. As stated in the press within the last few days, the Department of National Defence has written off about $2 [DOT] 5 million as a result of thefts and fires. I believe there is a cause for investigation into that matter, and a thorough investigation. So far as the public or the members of this house are concerned, as yet there has been no intimation as to whether anyone in the services is going to be taken to task for the loss of that amount of money. The army, navy and air force rigidly enforce discipline in the lower ranks. A private or non-commissioned officer is dealt with very strictly if he is absent for a couple of days or if he commits some slight misdemeanour. He may be thrown in the clink with a fine of ninety days' pay, and his wife's allowance is stopped. The regulations are enforced so far as the lower ranks are concerned. The kind of thing that happened in Petawawa is not the responsibility of the lower ranks, as was clearly indicated by press statements and the evidence we have had a chance to see. I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the government should

make an investigation into the fire and theft proposition, and whoever may be guilty, regardless of rank, should pay the full penalty. I agree with the observations of the leader of the opposition in that regard.
I do not agree with him when he asks for a royal commission to investigate the workings of government. I believe that is the responsibility of members of parliament; that is our job. In making his argument today, the leader of the opposition was quite inconsistent with arguments he has made in the past. For example, he has made many statements in the house with regard to order-in-council government. He and many of his supporters have made many accusations against the cabinet running the country without reference to parliament. On the other hand he and some of his supporters- a very few of them-have taken the stand in the house that they were opposed to the two sessions called by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government for the purpose of completing the business of the house. The leader of the opposition and his supporters cannot have it both ways. If he objects to the cabinet's running the country and if he objects to order-in-council government, he is completely illogical when he says that the members should not be brought back in order to direct the government on matters that may come before this house. You either have to have the members here or, in effect, have the country run by the cabinet. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the leader of the opposition have stated on a good many occasions that they are prepared for this house to sit from February until June. If that is so, it is obvious that the only people to run the country for the other eight months of the year are the cabinet. Members of the opposition will have to make up their minds which way they want it.
As indicated by the Minister of Public Works this job is a full-time one. If members of parliament do not accept it on that basis, they are certainly not going to be in a position to do the work that is necessary here.
A royal commission to regulate the policies and the expenditures of the government and so forth is certainly not analogous to the suggestion that was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. For example, he stated that the government set up a royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences. It is true that they did so. That is a special field with which most of the members of this house are certainly not familiar. It is a subject which required long and detailed study and contact with organizations across this country
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry who specialized in that field. A royal commission or a commission for the purpose of developing a report that could be studied by members of this house certainly was something that was necessary in that field.
Again, the hon. member for Kamloops tried to prove that a royal commission to examine the Saskatchewan river project is analogous to a commission to regulate government and government expenditures. It certainly is not analogous to a royal commission to study a project such as the Saskatchewan river project or the Canso project, for example. That is an engineering project. How many members of this house are in a position to sit down here and tell the government what is right and what is wrong with regard to harnessing the rivers, developing power and that kind of thing? Very few of them. Therefore in a practical proposition of that kind it is necessary to get men who are qualified to make a report and to guide the government in the matter. The hon. member for Kamloops certainly was not presenting an analogy to the present proposal of the leader of the opposition.
The hon. member for Kamloops says again: What about the commission on transportation? That is another proposition. I do not know whether or not he was on the committee that studied the findings of the royal commission on transportation but I was. Members of the House of Commons do not speak the language of the railroads when examining freight rates. I found out that fact. There were some 1,500 different rates as between one section of this country and another. It was a new language to me. To me it is certainly something that we never would have been able to finalize in this house without a detailed study on the part of the royal commission, putting the thing in such a way as we could understand it. I think that was necessary.
But this proposition put forward by the leader of the opposition this afternoon is completely different. As I said a few moments ago, the opposition will have to make up their minds whether they want the cabinet to run the country for eight months of the year and to leave the members home; whether they are satisfied to bring the members back here to run the country when it is necessary, as indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on two occasions, or whether they want to appoint a royal commission and let the commission do the job that we are supposed to do. That is why we are elected.
The great trouble with most of the members of this house, in my opinion, is that they are too busy thinking about their own businesses at home to pay attention to the business of the country. In my opinion that

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry is the trouble with them. They are trying to arrange every kind of device, no matter who runs the country, in order to get home and to get to their own businesses rather than sit here and give to the business of the country the examination that it should be given.
As a rule, royal commissions serve little purpose except in the technical fields. I have in mind the report of the price spreads commission. It went to the archives to gather dust, as did the reports of several other commissions that we could mention. The report of the royal commission on coal was quite a document but it served little useful purpose. It took a long time to compile and it cost a good deal of money, but, with few exceptions, none of the recommendations were implemented.
I am therefore completely opposed to the setting up of any kind of a commission that is going to usurp the powers of the members of parliament. I think it is our job to examine the estimates, to take the government to task, and to spend ten or twelve months of the year here, if it is necessary, to do its business. My advice to anybody who is not satisfied to spend the major portion of his time in this House of Commons doing that business is to have an examination of conscience and try to find out where he wants to work.
I was rather surprised a few moments ago to hear one of my colleagues get to his feet and agree with this proposition. I said a moment ago that I suspected motives. Well, I think that hon. gentleman has a motive. I believe he would rather be back home doing business than be sitting here in the House of Commons. I say that quite frankly.


An hon. Member:: I think you are out of order.


Clarence Gillis: I am expressing an opinion; I am not imputing motives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know to whom the hon. member refers. I do not know whether the hon. member is in the house.


Clarence Gillis: He should be.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should impute motives, especially if the hon. member is not in the chamber.


Clarence Gillis: I said a moment ago that I was not imputing motives, but that I was expressing an opinion. If the hon. gentleman is not in the house, that is not my fault. He should be here. But if you think these remarks are offensive, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman referred to is not here, I think the remarks should be withdrawn.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am merely setting out the facts as I see them; but I was rather surprised. If I was going to get to my feet in this house and make a speech telling the government that I thought their expenditures were out of line, I would do some digging and I would be able to put on record here some facts showing where they were out of line. No hon. gentleman who has taken part thus far in this debate has put on the record any facts in connection with what he considered were exorbitant expenditures which should be corrected.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) made a couple of observations with regard to what he considered to be overstaffing. I was rather surprised that he would go away downstairs in the basement of this building in order to effect economies. I am sure that the categories he picked are peanuts in comparison with total government expenditures. I should just like to say this as to the post offices in this building. They are giving us good service. There are 262 members in this house. I believe that the staff we have downstairs on the members' side is a fairly small one to handle the mail of 262 members and see that it is handled efficiently. As to the staff they have there, I believe there is no extraordinary expenditure as to which you might make a saving. I am reasonably sure that the first people to make a complaint, if their mail was not delivered expeditiously, and so forth, would be some of the gentlemen who are criticizing that particular section of the House of Commons downstairs. What about the barber shop? I think there are two barbers in the members' barber shop to handle the number of members that are in this building. I do not think there is any money wasted there. I think every member will agree that when he goes in there to get a haircut or a shave he will generally find a waiting list. The service is very good; the wages are not very high. The same thing applies to the protective staff on the inside of this building that looks after the needs of the members, locking their doors, as they do at night, and closing their windows, and in many other ways performing services for them. I think it is small potatoes for any member of this house to pick on the staff of the House of Commons in the categories that my hon. friend did for the purpose of saving a few dollars.
All these people are underpaid. They are just eking out an existence. Most of them are ex-service personnel either from this war or from the first war, and they wear a ribbon. Most of them are in a position where they could not go out and compete in the labour market. I, as one member of this house- and I think the great majority in this house

would agree with me-at no time would relegate somebody to the street just for the purpose of saving $3, $4, or $5 a month to pile up a surplus for the government. What is the opinion of hon. members who take that position that they want to save more money? They say they want to save the taxpayers' money. The tax rate is fixed for this year. There is going to be no change in it. They want another surplus of $300 million to be piled up. What for? So that the Minister of Finance can take that money and pay it to the chartered banks and the trusts across this country in interest on bonds. Pay it back to the banks in interest. Discharge ex-servicemen on the staff of the House of Commons who were fighting a war when these bonds were being sold to financial houses who were accumulating profits for the future. There is no saving there; there is no justice there and there is no common sense. I am prepared to pay it out in wages so that people may eat, wear clothes and live in a house rather than have it accumulated as a surplus for the Minister of Finance to pay it out to the chartered banks and the trusts and so forth in interest. In effect that is what the proposition means.
I do not want to delay the house too long, Mr. Speaker; but so far as I am concerned the motion moved by the leader of the opposition is just about as effective as a harpoon would be to a sardine fisherman, and I am opposing it.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I think after the words this afternoon of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), almost inviting someone to take part in this debate, I could not allow the opportunity to go by without making a few remarks with respect to this motion. There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter which I think is absolutely immaterial, and is not in keeping with the motion at all. It has been suggested that the leader of the opposition was very foolish to bring in such a motion to waste the time of the house. But I would point out to you, sir, that this debate has at least this accomplishment to its credit. We have had two cabinet ministers taking part in the debate. I do not think there has ever been anything else before the House of Commons during this session which has brought two cabinet ministers to their feet in one day. Therefore I think it has some merit from that standpoint as well. And I am sure that the contribution of my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) never reached the heights in the past that he did tonight, with his humour and that graceful Gallic touch of his. The only time that he approached it was when he tried to put
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry through a bill last year to amend the Public Works Act. We remember the remarkable job he did to try to get the house to accept it, but in the end he had to accept substantial changes in it. His effort tonight was in keeping with that.
It has been suggested by some that the passing of this resolution involves an abrogation of the rights of parliament. If it involved that, sir, I for one would not be supporting it, and I do not think anyone on this side of the house would be supporting it either.
I always enjoy, and I usually follow with some considerable appreciation, the arguments advanced by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I must say I could not follow him at all this afternoon when he suggested that by the passing of this resolution we would be doing something which would be reflecting upon the rights of parliament or abrogating them. The Minister of Public Works seemed, I think, to answer that very well himself when he spoke a few moments ago. When his estimates come before him, what does he do? He calls in his experts. He said that is the very first thing he does. I do not think he considers that an abrogation of his function as minister. Then he said he calls them in again; he calls them back the second, and the third time; and so effectively do they slash his estimates then he weeps tears after having called them in these different times, and could not sleep at night when he left here. He did not think he was abrogating his functions. He considered he was carrying them out.
Then he made this suggestion. He said that members of parliament should do this work and carry out the functions envisaged by this motion. He said, and quite simply and truly, that members of parliament who are doing a job here-and I think myself that they are all trying-are around here fifteen hours a day, and they do not get through the work that now confronts them. I think that is a reasonably fair statement; in fact, it is very fair. And if we spend all that time now trying to do the work with which we are confronted I would like to ask the minister, where would we get the time to assume these other responsibilities that are envisioned by this motion?
He said the function of the opposition was to investigate. He himself answered that, when he referred to his friends over here, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). He said they were his closest friends in that committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interjected that his friends were unanimous in wanting a

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry certain course of action carried out. Why was it not carried out? It was not carried out because the graceful, charming gentleman with the captivating smile, with the whole force of the government majority behind him, said No, and the wishes of his friends were nullified. It is the same situation with anything else that the opposition may desire, as was so ably pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I am not going to enlarge upon his arguments here.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) brought up the analogy of the civil service, and suggested that he had, and probably other departments had, as able businessmen as deputy ministers as could be found in this country. I am prepared, and I am quite sure we are all prepared, to accept the statement. I think we can all join with him in paying a tribute to our civil service. We realize that at least in the upper brackets the men whom we have attracted to the public service are of a calibre that is certainly second to none, and probably superior to that which is employed in the government service in other countries. We accept that; but the deputy minister to the right hon. gentleman I am sure is kept pretty busy looking after his department, because I am sure the minister sees that the deputy minister does his work-he would not have him there if he did not. The same is true of the deputy minister of public works who is back and forth at the many conferences which the minister told us about a little while ago in whittling down these estimates. If every deputy minister is here working efficiently they are doing a good job, but they cannot see the forest for the trees, sir, because they are busy in their own departments. That is the only difference.
As I see this resolution, it asks the government to appoint some independent body, some group, some person or persons, who are not attached to any one department, who are not working here fifteen or eighteen hours a day, who have wide experience and knowledge, the best you can find, whoever they may be. They may not be one bit better than some of the men the minister referred to this afternoon. But they have that independent position. They are divorced from departmental responsibility, and surely it cannot be argued that that is a wrong thing to do, that that is an abrogation of the rights of parliament, that that is an opposition refusing to carry out its function. That is an argument so specious that it should not even be considered. I am really amazed, sir, that it was uttered.
There have been many royal commissions. Was there not a royal commission once which brought in a report-and perhaps this is why
Mr. Nowlan.]

hon. members on the other side of the house are so opposed to the idea. It seems to me that there was a royal commission once that brought in a report which prompted someone to say that "he was walking through the valley of humiliation."
And so you have had abrogation-if it is an abrogation of parliamentary function- you have had it time and time again in the study of the various phases of government, which were pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). You have had commissions making studies since the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, after the change of government, away back in 1896, and they have come down through the years. They have had them in Great Britain; they have had them all over the world where the parliamentary system has existed.
All we are suggesting is that the same thing be done here. Now, the Minister of Public Works spoke about the way the government was operated, and suggested that no study need be given to the operation of departments. Well, there was a royal commission that met last year, one that was headed by a distinguished Canadian, and the report of which I hold in my hand.
Strange as it may seem, it deals to a certain extent with the Department of Public Works. It deals with the storage of the records of this country. I am not going to read what is contained in this report, but what I am referring to is to be found at pages 113 and 114. What it says is that according to the evidence produced before that commission the storage of documents, over half of which, it says, should be destroyed, occupies over 350,000 square feet of space. The commission finds that figure astonishing when it recalls that the Confederation building in Ottawa has only 190,000 square feet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At $3 a square foot.


George Clyde Nowlan: I say that 350,000 square feet, or a substantial part of it, was rented and, as the commissioner says, half of the material should be destroyed. Then the report refers back to another commission in 1912 which recommended the destruction of those records even at that time.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is, of course, so busy cutting estimates that he has not had time to dispose of the material which requires so much floor space. But surely if a commission looked over it they could work out some way so that he could get rid of some of this. After all, it was a cold winter in Ottawa, the winter just past, and the poor people might have used some of it for fuel.

That is just one example of the way in which co-ordination and inspection would result. Then this afternoon the right hon. gentleman made reference to professional services, and he said that professional services had increased over the years. He said that there were no professional services today which were not necessary, and that all of them could be justified.
Well, that may be so, but I would like to see the report of a commission on the point. I think the right hon. gentleman himself, if he had his way, would certainly deal with some of these expenditures for expert services. For instance, I find in the public accounts for this year some information at page N-21 which is of interest to me. There we find reference to the payment of fees to architects. We see fees of $134,800 for architectural and engineering services on a standard ordnance warehouse; that is, preparing plans for one standard ordnance warehouse, $134,000.
Then there is another one of $128,938 for services in connection with camp buildings. I have inquired into those services, and I find that this is being spent for all sorts of imaginary buildings-a 12-room guard house, a 24-room guard house, a platoon cook house-everything except a Chic Sale special.
Here we have expenditures for everything- engineering and plans-plans for these imaginary buildings. This architect charges commissions on imaginary supplies with which to build these imaginary buildings; and he charged a commission of 7J per cent on them. There we have a few of $128,938 for these plans for buildings which now are tucked away somewhere in a drawer, and for the imaginary supplies which went into these imaginary buildings.
And then, on the same page another gentleman received $63,864.98 for doing the same type of work-engineering work, and supplies -for imaginary buildings for which he had drawn the plans. This account refers to one company armoury. We have seen those in our small towns, and we know what a company armoury is. It is not much of a building. It also includes a 2-battalion armoury. Certainly that is not a gigantic building. But there are architects' fees and commissions in connection with these two buildings, and the work is still going on; it is not completed yet. Up to date, for architect's services and commissions on imaginary supplies for these imaginary two buildings his fees are $63,864.98.
We find consultants' fees, engineering fees and architects' fees running through practically every page of the expenditures for the Department of National Defence. And when we come to the Department of Public Works,
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry run by an efficient minister, we have there a huge sum for architects' fees, undoubtedly properly spent. I should think it possible that some investigating agency would find that it was not necessary to employ a technical man downtown or to go downtown to get someone to draw the plans for imaginary buildings of this kind. The matter could be turned over to the Minister of Public Works, and the architects of that department could do it. That is a suggestion which, I think, is worthy of consideration.
Those of us on this side of the house will remember last year when questions were asked regarding expenditures made in connection with certain legal fees for a certain individual. Something like 40 days went by, and then the Prime Minister himself finally intervened. He undertook that he would give his personal supervision to the matter, so that the return would be brought down. Forty days elapsed before it came down. The Prime Minister of course exercised every pressure possible to have it brought down earlier.
This was a legal bill. I suggest that the Canadian Pacific Railway, or perhaps the right hon. gentleman if he were the head of a corporation, would be able to tell inside of 24 hours how much he had paid in fees to any lawyer in Canada, if his bookkeeping system were in good shape. And if the bookkeeping system was so deficient and so inadequate and so complicated that it took 40 days to get a return down for legal fees, even with the Prime Minister's personal intervention, then I suggest there is a possibility of some study of that system being required.
I am bringing up these examples to show ways in which I think some improvement could be made. It has been suggested that this is an abrogation. It is not an abrogation. It is suggested that it is something which should not be done. I say there is not a businessman in Canada, there is not a firm in Canada, that has not done this very same thing.
The right hon. gentleman himself told about the efficiency which resulted from the investigations he had conducted in connection with the film board. Well, if it was a good thing to do in one department, it would be a good thing in all departments. We are engaged in the biggest business in this country, the most complicated business in this country, the most expensive business there is.
With all due respect to my colleagues in the House of Commons I say there are no members in the house-none-who have the ability and the experience and the judgment

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry required to survey this whole, tremendous organization, this whole tremendous system of government. And it must be done. It must be done if democracy is to function properly.
And I believe it can be done. Here is an approach; here is one rational approach to the proposition. I say that members of the House of Commons on all sides should give it their support; and it will be a good thing for this parliament, it will be a good thing for this government, and it will be a good thing for Canada if that is the result.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: There have been a number of comments tonight and at other times regarding the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Since the time he spoke on the budget debate comments have been made about him. I would like to say that, for my part, I believe if all members in the House of Commons had the political courage to speak their views according to the dictates of their conscience, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw has done, we would get much better government in this country. I am giving my own personal view.
We have heard the opinion expressed tonight, and on other occasions, that parliament should be a full-time job. In theory that may be all right, but in practice it is absolutely impossible. A young man with a young family may be elected and possibly re-elected for his second term. If he neglects his business, his profession or his occupation, and is defeated, as he must expect to be sooner or later, then how in the world is he going to be able to support his wife and young children? That is one thing that makes it impossible to consider this parliamentary business as a full-time job, even though in theory it is a good idea. It is necessary for every hon. member to keep his job going while he is here acting as a member of parliament.
Just in passing, I should like to repeat what I said last fall. If this parliament is to function, and if we are to get young men to come down here, then one contribution the government can make is to make free air transportation available to members who live farther than four hundred miles away from Ottawa. We who live closer than that do not need it, but hon. members farther away definitely need it because they must keep in touch with their business, their profession, their family and their constituents. You are only as good a member of parliament as the extent to which you keep in close contact with all the things I have mentioned.

I find it hard to understand the government's refusal to have the day to day operations of the various departments examined to see if they could be operated in a more efficient manner. There are few successful corporations today which do not call in efficiency engineers from time to time to look over the day to day operations of their departments, from a purely unbiased standpoint. Corporations do not expect their departmental managers to report on their inefficiencies; neither is it sensible for this government to expect deputy ministers to come forward to their ministers and report on the inefficiencies in their departments. That just would not be human nature. It will not be done, and it is not being done, and it never has been done.
An efficiency survey in business is not looked upon as indicating a lack of confidence in the management. It simply indicates a desire on the part of management to make sure that the most efficient methods possible are being used by the various departments in the company. The company with which I happen to be associated called in the Gordon company, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) referred to this afternoon. These people are efficiency engineers. We felt that we were doing pretty well, but we thought we would like to find out if anything could be done better.
We were simply amazed, as this government would be amazed, to find that the things that we thought were being done efficiently and smoothly were being done in a manner completely inefficient and were running in anything but a smooth way. We made the changes they recommended, with tremendous advantage to the company concerned.
If the government will call in people of that type and calibre, there is no reason why they cannot be told an infinite number of ways in which little things can be done more efficiently, thus saving the taxpayer a great deal of money. For the government to take the attitude that the day to day operations of the various departments cannot be made more efficient-and that is the attitude the government is definitely taking-displays a state of mind which would lead a commercial corporation into rapid bankruptcy.
That is no exaggeration, for it is the state of mind displayed by corporations just before they go to the wall. They figure everything is all right; they think they are in an entrenched position; the management does not want the affairs of the company looked into; they refuse to accept suggestions made by younger members of the staff; and the first thing they know they have gone to the wall.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
This government seems to feel that because they operate with the taxpayers' money, economy and efficiency are of no importance. That demonstrates a state of mind which would cause the shareholders of a commercial corporation to demand a new management. I have been around a couple of the ridings in which by-elections are to be held, and have talked to many voters. Judging by the expressions of opinion given by ordinary men on the street, I feel confident that the people are going to demand a change in the management of the affairs of this country in the very near future.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to deal with one point which has come up in the debate this afternoon. This was raised principally by the C.C.F. party. I take the most wholehearted objection to and am in complete disagreement with what they have said about the functions of this House of Commons. I am not a very old member of this house but I have been here for three parliaments and believe I have sufficient seniority to say the things I am about to say.
This House of Commons represents the people of the country, not only on a geographical basis, but on a professional, trade or calling basis. It represents them as individual members with particular skills and knowledge. Some hon. members are lawyers, some are doctors, some are farmers, some are businessmen and some are engineers. In my opinion the value of this house lies in the fact that it contains a great and varied assortment of different trades, callings, professions and lines of endeavour. When a particular question comes up there will be among us one, two, three or perhaps more who will be able to speak to the point with a great deal of professional or intimate knowledge of what is before the house. They will in fact know what they are talking about. I think that is of great value to any deliberative legislative assembly.
What are we doing? By the length of our sessions and the policy advocated by the C.C.F. we are endeavouring to make membership in this House of Commons the sole business and occupying the entire time of the elected member. I think that is wrong and dangerous. I think it is dangerous because if a member of parliament has nothing to do except to be a member his judgment on the questions coming before him will almost entirely be governed by political considerations. I repeat that that is wrong and dangerous. That is one danger arising from long sessions and the life we lead. We are making ourselves into professional politicians,
and our judgment on the subjects coming before us is likely to be based entirely upon the political reaction to what we say or do in this place.
I think that is wrong and dangerous. If a man who is an engineer becomes a member of this house he should be able to continue as an engineer; he should have sufficient time to maintain his knowledge of his profession on at least a reasonably high level, and so with a man in any profession or in business. Otherwise we run the danger of becoming a group of robots whose actions are dictated either by party discipline or by the belief that taking a certain course will be politically advantageous. To me that is the antithesis of representative government. I feel that to take away a man's individuality when he becomes a member of this house is perilous. I believe that to adopt the suggestion put forward by the C.C.F. that this is an exclusive and full-time job would destroy the efficiency of this house so that it would no longer be a truly representative assembly of the Canadian people. In addition I think it would be most destructive to the democratic principles in which we believe.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?



FLOOR PRICES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I rise to advance another matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, and that is the inadequacy of the government's floor prices under farm products and the failure, in many instances, to have those floor prices enforced. Towards the end of the war the government introduced the Agricultural Prices Support Act. At that time we were assured that there would be a fund of $200 million for the support of agricultural prices in the postwar period. The government assured us that when those prices were established for agricultural products they would be fair and reasonable, and would take into account the fact that farm prices were held down during the war years. We in this group have complained before that in the Agricultural Prices Support Act there is not a precise formula by which floor prices are established. We have, therefore, floor prices established from time to time that bear little or no relationship to the cost of production.

Worse still, after the floor prices are established those floor prices are not enforced, and the producer often receives very little advantage from them.
Let us consider the floor price under hogs. That floor price is $26 per hundredweight for grade A hogs at Toronto.
The price for hogs that are overweight and for sows, No. 1 and No. 2, is forced down a long way below the floor particularly with market conditions as they are in western Canada. I believe that even in other parts of Canada farmers are often unable to market their hogs at the time they are within the grade A or B weights, and when the hog is overweight the government floor price fails to operate. I have received frequent protests from farmers in western Canada that the prices they are receiving for overweight hogs are as low as 13 cents a pound rail grade. When the price goes down to such a low figure, it certainly means a severe loss to agricultural producers. I say, therefore, that when the government establish a floor price under hogs they should establish a floor under each and every grade. When that floor price is set, then it should be enforced.


Mr. Gardiner:: So it does.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister saying that the best floor price the government can give is $13 per hundredweight, rail grade, for No. 1 and No. 2 sows? As to the floor price under eggs, I do not know how it operates, I am sure. When the floor price was established back in the spring of 1950, the original announcement-and it has not been changed since then-was that the government would pay 38 cents per dozen for grade A large eggs coming out of storage in the fall; and that in addition to the 38 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs the government was prepared also to pay up to 5 cents per dozen as a storage fee. In other words, the packers could receive the basic 38-cent floor, plus 5 cents for storage, or a total of 43 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs. Today the quoted price in Saskatchewan of grade A large eggs is 27 cents a dozen. That is the quoted price, but I am afraid that most fat-' mers are receiving a great deal less than that.
The farm wife in my constituency-and a number of them have written to me-who takes a case of eggs to the local storekeeper is often paid by the local storekeeper who handles the eggs on an average grade basis of 10 cents a dozen. The price is 10 cents a dozen to the producer and up to 43 cents a dozen to the packing company. The policy the government is now following in relation

to eggs is one which has been of substantial benefit to the packing industry but is of precious little benefit to the farmers.
I say that whatever price is established for hogs, or for eggs or for any other farm product, should be a price payable to the producer and that the packing companies and the other buyers should be forced to pay those prices.


Donald Buchanan Blue: On a point of order, may I ask the hon. member this question. Do you sell your hogs rail grade or live grade?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is no point of order. The hon. member has been around here a long time-


Donald Buchanan Blue: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not intend to answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Buchanan Blue: I do not think you can.
Mr Speaker: Order.


Donald Buchanan Blue: The price you are quoting is not the top price but the bottom price.


Hazen Robert Argue: The prices I have quoted are for sows, rail grade, and not live hogs.


Donald Buchanan Blue: In Toronto?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, not in Toronto. I do not
expect the rate is much better there, but my hon. friend can check it. I did not however quote Toronto prices.
I say that the floor price under hogs, as it affects the hog producers in western Canada, and Saskatchewan hog producers in particular, is of little advantage because the farmers have difficulty in marketing their hogs when they are out of the right weights for grade A and grade B, and therefore have to take a much smaller price when the hogs are overweight.
Then the government announced a floor price for beef. Was it the floor price asked by the agricultural producers of Canada? The agricultural producers from one end of Canada to the other had asked for a floor price of $28.50 a hundredweight. I am getting, as I am sure are other hon. members, a great many resolutions from local rural municipal councils in western Canada. This one was a resolution passed by a particular rural municipal council in Saskatchewan, namely the rural municipality of Hazel Dell, No. 335, circulated to other municipal councils, a great many of whom passed the resolution and sent it to members of parliament and to the government. The resolution I now quote from was passed by the rural municipality of Key West, No. 70, and is a copy
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices of the resolution sent to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The resolution is as follows:
It was moved by councillor John Prentice that whereas at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities in Saskatoon on March 14, 1952, no amendment was moved, as was anticipated, to have the 25-cent floor price on cattle changed to 281 cents, and also that a fair floor price on sheep and lambs be implemented;
And whereas the federal government suggested floor price of 25 cents based at Toronto is not sufficient in comparison with the high costs the livestock producer has to pay;
And whereas it is regrettable that cattle in Saskatchewan have to be sold at about half the price they are worth;
Therefore be it resolved that we ask the federal government to immediately implement a floor price of 281 cents for cattle and a fair floor price for sheep and lambs.
That is the resolution that is being circulated amongst the rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and is being passed by these municipalities. It informs the government that the 25-cent floor price is too low, that the floor price should have been $28.50 per hundredweight. That is one important aspect of the government's floor price for beef.
Another important aspect is the fact that, even though a floor price is established, in a great many instances that floor price is not being received by the producer. In announcing the floor price on April 22, the Minister of Agriculture said that on good steers there would be a floor price, basis $23.35 a hundredweight at Winnipeg. I have before me the Winnipeg Free Press for Saturday last. It quotes the prices for good steers, over 1,000 pounds, on the Winnipeg market at from $21 a hundredweight to $22.50 a hundredweight. Therefore the price quoted by the packers at Winnipeg is from $1 to $2 per hundredweight less than the government's floor price. Whenever a floor price is set, I think it should be an equitable floor price. But even if it is a floor price which is less than that which I should like to see established, nevertheless I feel it is the duty of the government to enforce that floor price once it is established. Although the minister announced in parliament that at Winnipeg the floor price for good steers would be $23.35 a hundredweight, we find a few weeks later that the farmers are receiving from $1 to $2 a hundredweight less than the floor price.
The situation at Saskatoon is even worse than the situation at Winnipeg. It was announced by the minister that the floor price on good steers at Saskatoon was to be $22.80 per hundredweight. I have the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix for Wednesday, May 7, the most recent issue of Star-Phoenix available in the reading room. It quotes good steers at Saskatoon at from $18.75 to $19.50 a hundredweight. In other words, the price the producer is

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices receiving at Saskatoon is from $3 to $4 a hundredweight less than the government's announced floor price.
Of what value is the floor price if, after it is announced, it is not paid to the producer? The producers in Canada want adequate floor prices. The beef producers say the present floor price is $3.50 a hundredweight less than an adequate floor price. But the floor price that is set is not being paid, so instead of the farmers receiving $28.50 per hundredweight, as they rightly believe they should receive, at Saskatoon, they are receiving $17, $18 or $19 a hundredweight.
In the same issue of the Star-Phoenix there is on the front page a report quoting the text of two telegrams sent by Hon. I. C. Nollet, Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. The first telegram reads as follows:
Relative to very serious livestock situation that has grown worse as result of restrictions on outward movement of Saskatchewan cattle. The livestock marketing situation now desperate in Saskatchewan. With no outlet available to this province, good steers at Saskatchewan selling from 16 cents to 17 cents. Saskatoon market four to five cents lower than any other market on prairies. Again urge federal government to use emergency power if necessary to take complete control and guarantee at least that floor prices be observed.
A further telegram was sent after the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture had been in contact with Saskatchewan wheat pool officials, and that further telegram to the Minister of Agriculture reads as follows:
Have discussed livestock marketing situation further with wheat pool officials. Saskatchewan government prepared to co-operate fully relative to provincial jurisdiction to facilitate orderly marketing and maintenance of floor prices on livestock when restrictions, interprovincial trade, removed. Authorized to say pool officials offer full co-operation.
There, Mr. Speaker, in a brief way is outlined the situation that agricultural producers are facing, particularly the beef producers, a market of 16 cents to 17 cents a pound at Saskatoon, interprovincial restrictions-


James Garfield Gardiner: Why don't you read my replies to the wires?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not believe the reply is in the Star-Phoenix, sir. I will send the paper over to the minister, and if he can find the replies there I shall be very pleased to read them, but I did not come across them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know they are not there, just his wires.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps the Right Hon. Minister of Agriculture did not reply-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I did.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to the minister at that time. It says that these telegrams were given to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix by telephone.
TMr. Argue.]


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, he gave the wires to the papers before I had them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I did not say that. If the minister wants to make that statement on his own initiative he may. I did not say anything of the kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am saying it.


Hazen Robert Argue: All I am saying is that in this issue of the Star-Phoenix there is no telegram from the Minister of Agriculture in reply to that message. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the prices that the producers are now receiving are wholly unsatisfactory. I am bringing this situation to the attention of the minister-


Donald Buchanan Blue: May I ask the speaker a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: -in the hope that the minister can take action to see that these floor prices are in fact paid. We had hoped-


Donald Buchanan Blue: No question?


Hazen Robert Argue: -that something tangible would be done to help the beef industry.


Donald Buchanan Blue: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: All right; let's have it.


Donald Buchanan Blue: Well, sit down while I am asking it, please. I do not ask as many questions as you do, but I am going to ask you one.


Hazen Robert Argue: Make it sensible.


Donald Buchanan Blue: Just a minute; did the hon. member for Assiniboia or his family ever go into a retail store and offer the retailer any more than the retailer asked to help out the industry that produced the goods he was selling?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a very silly question, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Buchanan Blue: Wait a minute.


Hazen Robert Argue: And is a measure of the intelligence of my hon. friend.


Donald Buchanan Blue: I am asking a question-


Hazen Robert Argue: I am discussing, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Buchanan Blue: You have not answered the question I asked you.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was a ridiculous question.


Donald Buchanan Blue: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member has not answered my question. I do not ask many questions and I ask him for a point-blank answer.


Mr. Noseworthy:: He does not have to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was not a question of
privilege at all. It is just another blue interruption from my hon. friend.
I was about to quote from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture of April 22 in regard to the government's floor prices, as found on page 1471 of Hansard:
If the market is oversupplied, it means the price to producers will remain at the floor.
With too many steers coming on the market the price will remain at the floor. It has not done so.
With the fixing of a floor price, it will be possible for the producer to market his cattle in an orderly manner with only finished cattle reaching the market, and if this is done the producer may expect to continue to sell all his cattle without undue market gluts, and may from time to time receive prices higher than the floor.
The minister said that the farmers would get at least the floor price, and perhaps more. Therefore that statement is certainly not being carried out. The statement goes on to say:
There are various reasons why it will be in the best interests of the cattle industry to delay the marketing of cattle while the United States embargo is still in effect, and attention is drawn specifically to the following:
I want hon. members to note this very brilliant statement:
1.	When the American embargo is lifted, that market will again be available.
Well I suppose it would be equally true that when the market is again available the American embargo will have been lifted. But in any case we know that the, United States is not willing to let Mexican beef into the United States for a full twelve-month period after the last case of foot-and-mouth disease has been cleaned up. If we get no better treatment-and I hope we get better treatment-


James Garfield Gardiner: How do you know that?


Hazen Robert Argue: If we get the same treatment that the United States has given to Mexico then we are facing a serious marketing situation for a good many months to come. I continue with the minister's statement:
2.	Orderly marketing will relieve market congestion and undue pressure on prices received by farmers.
Well, the pressure is there, and the floor has not stopped the pressure because the prices are going right down through the floor.
The Minister of Agriculture continues:
3.	The establishment of a floor price means the producer will always be in a position to obtain a minimum price for the particular grade of animals which he has to market until such time as the United States embargo is lifted.
Well, the floor price was set on good steers. I believe that floor price should have been
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices set on each and every grade. After the floor price is set on the various grades, then the government should make sure that the packing companies pay to the producers the government's floor price.
The floor price under wheat, if I may use that as an example, is a floor price that is established for the producer. It is set on the basis of a certain grade at Fort William. The freight and handling charges are deducted, and the producer knows exactly what he will get at any given marketing point for a certain grade of wheat. That is the type of floor price that farmers demand in relation to beef, in relation to eggs, in relation to hogs or in relation to any other floors the government may establish. The floor price should be established payable to the producers and that floor price should be enforced.
When I questioned the minister on May 1 in regard to the floor price on eggs, and pointed out that producers at many points were receiving as little as 10 cents a dozen, he replied as reported at page 1758 of Hansard:
That is, if buyers of eggs who are putting eggs in storage are, over a period of time, buying eggs at, say, 10 cents a dozen, when the price at which we agree to take them over is 38 cents, they have been notified that it will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect from the government.
That is little assurance to the egg producers in Canada. The best they can hope for, and the only action the government will take, is to say to the packers, "Well, if you will not pay the floor price perhaps it will be difficult for you to collect from the government." What we need is a law in the country that sets the floor price, makes it mandatory that packers pay those floor prices, and then if they break the law, the packing firms should be penalized. No grain company dare pay less than the established prices for grain because, if they did, they would be penalized. And so I say that the law should be established setting a floor price, and that if the law is broken by a packing company, or by anybody else, the offenders should be penalized for having purchased farm products at less than the floor prices.
The minister again at a later date, on May 8, had this to say in regard to the general situation:


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I stated yesterday-if I did not, I will state it now-that we have a definite understanding with all the provinces that we shall be permitted to exercise even the authority which the provinces think is their responsibility with respect to the marketing of meat as long as the United States embargo remains in effect. This arrangement has been functioning fairly satisfactorily.

Agricultural Products-Floor Prices
The minister says that the arrangement is functioning fairly satisfactorily. Yet, at the same time, beef producers in Saskatchewan are receiving $3, $4 or $5 per hundredweight less than the floor price. How can we expect to get a better floor price when the minister says that the arrangement has been functioning fairly satisfactorily?
He did give us a ray of hope on Friday, May 2, when he referred to the excellent job his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin), had done when he made a trip to Calgary and corrected the prices that were being paid, prices that had been lower than the floor. I am glad the parliamentary assistant made that trip, and I am glad it was successful. I suggest the Minister of Agriculture should send his parliamentary assistant to Saskatoon and, on the basis of his very. successful trip to Calgary, perhaps he will be able to get the floor prices actually operating, and have them paid to the producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is already arranged; he is going Wednesday.


Hazen Robert Argue: My suggestion, then, was very timely. The minister says he is going; I wish him good luck. There is a real problem out there that must be solved.
I have mentioned the floor price under hogs and the floor price under beef. I believe the cheese producers in central Canada are facing very difficult times, and that they too should be given an adequate floor price. When that price is established, it should be enforced.
I see that according to the Ottawa Journal of May 9 the Ontario cheese producers refused a price of 23 cents a pound for 9,000 cheeses, when they were offered at auction. That in my opinion is a pretty low price, and I do not blame the cheese producers for doing their best to get a higher price. With the United Kingdom market lost, and with the American embargo on the shipment of cheese to the United States, it is no wonder that the price has gone down to the low point of 23 *cents. I suggest the government should establish an adequate floor on cheese, a floor of at least 30 or 31 cents a pound, and that the government should negotiate an agreement with the United Kingdom for the sale of our cheese. Further protests should be made against the practice of the United States of placing embargoes on cheese and other Canadian agricultural products in contravention of the Geneva trade agreements.
I was not in the house last Friday at the time the minister made his announcement in regard to the arrangements that have been made for the sale of beef and pork to the


United Kingdom. It was apparently a threeway deal. I read carefully the minister's statement in Hansard, and I noted that in his statement there was no reference to the quantity involved.
Since that time I have seen it stated in the press that the quantity involved was 30 million pounds of beef and 10 million pounds of pork. I do not know whether or not that is the correct quantity, but that was the quantity mentioned in the press. I do not know the price the Canadian government will receive for that quantity of meat; but on looking over the figures for beef and pork products, and live cattle shipped to the United States in 1951, I see that we shipped over 100 million pounds of beef and pork, and that in the same year we also shipped 200,218 head of beef cattle as well as 37,447 head of dairy cattle.
The announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, as reported in the press, is that we now have an export market for 40 million pounds of meat products. Last year we shipped not 40 million but 100 million pounds to the United States in the form of meat. We shipped perhaps almost another 100 million pounds in the form of live cattle. And so the quantity the minister announced is only a small proportion of our meat exports last year.
I would take it that the arrangement provides for the normal export of Canadian meat for a period of about three months. So that it will be necessary for the government to continue to watch our export markets, and to see that immediately the 40 million pounds is supplied other arrangements are made for a continuing export market.
We in this group have said frequently that we believe the British market should be the best permanent Canadian market for bacon and dairy products. We believe, further, that by barter and other trade arrangements the government could have maintained more successfully than it has our market in Great Britain. I hope the market we now establish over there, although a temporary one according to the announcement, may lead to a recapturing of the British market for Canadian bacon and, I would also hope, for Canadian dairy products.
I have said already that the floor prices the government has established are in most instances inadequate, and in many more instances are not being enforced. They are on a temporary and unsatisfactory basis. The floor price for beef is on a month-to-month basis. On June 1 the Minister of Agriculture will announce the floor price on beef for July. On July 1 the announcement will be made for August. So if there

is a downward trend in the market there is no assurance that the market will not be allowed to continue to go down.
All the government says is, "From one month to the next we shall provide a very minor cushion, or some small restraint on the rapidity of the fall of the market." It is not enough to say to the livestock producers, "We will give you a month by month guarantee for beef." The very least the government should do is to give the beef producers of Canada a two-year guarantee in advance. We cannot expect stability in the beef industry when the floor price is up for revision every thirty days.
I suggest not only that the floor price under beef should be raised to $28.50 a hundredweight, but that it should be enforced. I suggest also that the floor price should be more permanent and projected over at least a two-year period. I hope the government will take whatever action is necessary to see that the disgraceful prices that are being paid for eggs in western Canada are corrected. The packers are making an absolute sham and farce of the government's floor prices.
The government either should establish floor prices and enforce them on eggs, hogs, beef and other products or should admit that its floor prices are not to be enforced. Then the agricultural producers would at least know where they stand. Once again I plead with the government to provide more adequate floor prices, to enforce their floor prices, and to establish them for a reasonable period of time.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house who were here in 1944 will remember that the floor prices legislation was brought into effect just prior to the 1945 election.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is just before the Saskatchewan election.


Percy Ellis Wright: Many promises were made at that time with regard to what the effects of the floor prices legislation would be. We in this group endeavoured to have a formula placed in the act which would indicate to the producers of this country approximately what the floors would be under various agricultural products. In arguing at that time against that suggestion the minister stated that the government did not want to place any formula in the act as there were several factors which had to be taken into consideration in giving reasonable compensation to farmers for their cost of production and reasonable reimbursement for losses which had been suffered during the first two years of the war.
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices
I think any fair-minded person who looks over the floor prices which the minister has established under this legislation during the past six years will say that neither of those factors has been taken into consideration. Invariably the endeavour has been to set prices which would in effect discourage farmers from producing further supplies of the products under which floors were being placed. I do not think that is a good enough way in which to implement legislation in connection with which such promises were made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has pointed out the way in which the packing houses of this country have played ball with the government in regard to these floor prices. I am quite sure that the farmers are not satisfied with the interpretation which the packers have placed on the floor prices legislation and the prices which the government have established. The packing houses have insisted on getting the benefit of both the rise and the fall in the market.
In 1946 when the ceiling prices were removed we found the packing houses of this country raising their prices immediately to the extent that they made something over $4 million in profits on the stocks which they had in storage at that time. The explanation which they gave later on to the price spreads committee was that it was necessary for them to do that as later on when agricultural prices dropped they would have to take a loss.
What happened last year when prices dropped? Prices to the consumer did not go down immediately. They lagged anywhere from six weeks to three months, and in the case of bacon it was some six months before the price to the consumer dropped. If the packing houses were entitled to the benefit of a rise in the market then they should be in position to take some losses when the market drops. If the government was carrying out the promises it had made in connection with this floor prices legislation they would not allow the packing houses to carry on in the manner they are at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: If what the hon. member says is true, how does he account for the fact that the prices of hogs in Canada have been higher for several months than prices in the United States?


Percy Ellis Wright: We are not talking about the United States market; we are talking about the market in Canada and the floor prices
2148	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Floor Prices which have been guaranteed to the packers on pork products. The government has guaranteed a price, if I remember correctly, of 65 cents per pound for several million pounds of canned pork. For that the packers were supposed to pay the same price for heavy hogs as they were paying for bacon hogs, but the minister knows that they have not done that. The minister should not keep interrupting. If he would do something about these things instead of interrupting it would be much more to his credit.
The only way in which agriculture in this country is going to be able to function successfully is to have some long-term agricultural policy introduced which will give some security for the future. If we are to meet the demands and needs for food, not only in Canada but throughout the world, agriculture must be assured some stability. It certainly is no stability to have floor prices placed under agricultural products from year to year. We have now got down to a month to month basis. You just cannot have a successful agricultural industry in this country with a policy such as that. That is something which the agricultural industry cannot understand, nor can our farmers understand. They know that in agriculture you have to plan, not just for one year but in the case of livestock and dairying for at least five years ahead. If agriculture is to be effective there must be some forward pricing or some assurance from the government that under this floor prices legislation reasonable consideration will be given to finding markets. One of the grave mistakes made in 1947 was to allow the British market for bacon and dairy products to slip out of our hands because we were not prepared to make any concessions or to take their goods or accept their currency. The time is coming when we are going to have to do that. The time is coming when, if we

are going to maintain the agricultural industry of this country, we will have to develop permanent markets for our products in Great Britain.
On motion of Mr. Wright the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue with the motion to go into supply and I will call the four departments I mentioned on Friday evening. Then the Minister of National Defence will proceed with the resolution to amend the National Defence Act. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will proceed with his resolution respecting the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We will then take up Bill No. 210, to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan. We may not proceed with that if the hon. member for Peel is not in the house. We will then take up the resolution to approve the ratification of the convention concerning genocide; Bill No. 63, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act; Bill No. 93, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; Bill No. 196, to amend the Supreme Court Act; Bill No. 197, to amend the Interpretation Act; and Bill No. 195, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act. I understand most of these measures are not controversial and should not take very long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we be assured that neither of the motions listed under government notices of motion will be proceeded with without notice the night before?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no; I would not do that to the house. When we decide to proceed with those notices of motion I shall mention them the day before.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 13, 1952