1955-06-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the eleventh and twelfth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the twelfth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Fifth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.


Mr. Balcom:: Would a civil defence worker, or any other person participating in a civil defence scheme or trial be compensated if injured in the course of his or her duties?


Mr. Robertson:: Under agreements entered into by the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, a civil defence worker in those provinces, that is, any person duly enrolled and registered with the provincial director of civil defence for and while actually engaged in civil defence work, would be compensated for injury in the course of his or her civil defence duties. Persons not so registered would not receive compensation.
Negotiations directed toward execution of federal-provincial compensation agreements are at present under way with the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE
Mr. Macdonnell:: How much additional expenditure will the St. Lawrence seaway involve, (a) between lake Ontario and lake Erie; (b) between lake Erie and lake St. Clair; (c) between lake St. Clair and lake Huron; (d) between lake Huron and lake Superior, and who is responsible for the expenditure in each case?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: By the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act adopted in 1951, the St. Lawrence seaway
authority was incorporated for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining all such works as may be necessary to provide and maintain a deep waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie. Under present plans the authority expects to expend $2,000,000 between lake Ontario and lake Erie for further dredging in the Welland ship canal.
Though the channels between lake Erie and lake St. Clair, between lake St. Clair and lake Huron, and between lake Huron and lake Superior at present have controlling depths downbound of 25 feet and upbound of 21 feet the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act does not extend to those channels in which the dredging has in the past been done generally by the government of the United States. There is legislation pending before the congress of the United States to provide for deepening these channels to a depth of 27 feet.


RHEUMATIC AND ARTHRITIC RESEARCH
Mr. Goode:: What federal moneys were allocated for research on rheumatic and arthritic diseases in Canada (a) 1954; (b) 1955?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: (a)	1954-55, $76,953.25.
(b)	1955-56, $56,872.50.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: 1.	How many paintings have been purchased by or for the national art gallery of Canada in the last 20 years?
2.	Who were the artists, what were the names of the pictures and the price paid for same?
3.	How many of these paintings have not been shown to the public for a period longer than a few months since their purchase?
4.	What were the names of the artists, the names of the paintings and the price paid for these paintings?
5.	If paintings were stored in the vault and not shown to the public, what was the reason?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Because of the present state of the records of the national gallery it would be impossible to give a detailed answer to these questions, without additional clerical assistance, probably for several weeks. It is intended, as and when time permits, with the limited clerical staff of the gallery, to put the records in shape to answer questions similar to these.

Questions
5. The reason many of the paintings are in storage rather than on display is that the space available for the display of paintings is totally inadequate, and that is one reason why the government is taking urgent steps to provide a new building for the national gallery.


COUNTY HEALTH UNITS, ONTARIO
Mr. Henry:: 1.	Does the federal government assist in the cost of the operation of county health units in the province of Ontario?
2.	If so, what units have been assisted and in what amounts since the inauguration of the grants program?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Expenditures Approvals
1948-55	1955-56
(to May 18)
Name	$	$
Established under the grants:		
Carleton (a) 	41,427	-Fort William	40,575	-Huron 	177,065	42,777Kenora-Keewatin 	134,488	39,217Muskoka 	105,418	31,958Simcoe 	402,779	109,319Wellington	190,671	58,384York 	175,405	-Other:	Brant county	9,088	-Bruce county 	50,411	24,239Dufferin 	3,313	2,000Elgin-St. Thomas 	45,043	11,619Halton 	74,762	30,431Kent 	19,454	-Lambton 	36,148	9,790Leeds and Grenville ....	42,759	16,715Lennox and Addington .	44,203	21,363Northumberland and	Durham 	44,135	12,700Oxford-Ingersoll 	20,120	-Peel county 	61,788	10,157Porcupine 	42,216	12,748Prescott and Russell	9,920	5,510Prince Edward	41,024	8,919St. Catharines-Lincoln ..	104,711	30,738Temiskaming 	61,795	29,280United counties 	2,641	-Welland 	80,099	34,044East York and Leaside ..	12,136	8,555Total	$2,073,594 $550,463
(a) Discontinued in 1949, when the city of Ottawa annexed a large part of its suburban area served by this unit.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Did the national film board recently produce a film dealing with the religious life of the Eskimo?
2.	If so, what was the name of the film, and what was the total cost thereof?
3.	What use has been made of the said film since it was produced?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the Guaranty Trust Company acted as agent for any government department or crown corporation in connection with transactions affecting real estate in the last three years to date?
2.	If so, (a) in how many cases and for what department or corporations; (b) what was the value of the property in each case; (e) what was the commission paid in each case?
3.	Was the Hon. J. J. McCann a director of this trust company during this period?


Mr. Pinard:: May I answer this question orally?


Mr. Fulton:: Which question?


Roch Pinard: Question No. 30 on today's order paper in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops. The information asked for in parts 1 and 2 has just been given in a return I tabled to an order moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


SALK VACCINE
Tom Goode: Will the minister indicate to the house what steps the government is taking to ensure an adequate supply of monkeys for the production and testing of the Salk vaccine?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The federal government has taken steps to assure a continuing supply of monkeys required in the production and testing of the Salk polio vaccine. Discussions have been held between officers of the departments of national health and welfare, trade and commerce, external affairs, and agriculture, and of the crown company, the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Arrangements have now been worked out under which the Canadian Commercial Corporation will act as the purchasing agent for the government of Canada in obtaining monkeys under the terms of an export licence granted by the government of India. Monkeys required for the vaccine production programs

at the Connaught laboratories in Toronto and the institute of microbiology at Montreal, and for the safety testing of the vaccine at the federal laboratory of hygiene in Ottawa, will be bought in this way. The monkeys will, in turn, be purchased through the Canadian Commercial Corporation by the three laboratories concerned, with the cost per monkey pro-rated according to the total cost of the shipment.
This federal government action has been taken to ensure a continuing supply and to meet India's preference for dealing with one agency only. The government of India has been most co-operative in this whole matter.
Full precautions have been taken to safeguard the health of the animals while in transit and to ensure their humane treatment on arrival in Canada. All shipments will be met by veterinary inspectors. Monkeys procured under this arrangement will be used for no other purpose than in the production and testing of the Salk vaccine.
The first shipment of approximately 1,000 monkeys, purchased under the procedure described above, arrived at Malton airport on Monday, May 30.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Purdy:: What was the amount collected for the year ending March 31. 1955, at each port in Nova Scotia, apart from Halifax, by way of (a) side and top wharfage; (b) harbour dues?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Return tabled.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  MOTELS, ETC.
Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Has the federal government any regulations in effect respecting the construction and operation on the trans-Canada highway of (a) motels; (b) canteens; (c) billboards?
2.	If so, what regulations apply to each of the above?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Nesbitt:: For a copy of all correspondence, and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any department thereof, and any person or persons, relating to the purchase or acquisition of land and the construction of the post office at Tillsonburg, Ontario.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence,
Government Services
notice of which I have not been able to give him; perhaps he will take this as notice. Has the minister received protests concerning the transfer of H.M.C.S. Algonquin from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Lauzon, Quebec, for repairs and refitting? Does this represent a change in government practice whereby repairs and refittings which heretofore have been effected in the maritimes, to compensate in some degree for the amount of new construction at other points of ships for use in the maritime provinces, will now be awarded elsewhere? Why did the government divert to privately-owned shipyards work which could be and has been done in publicly-owned shipyards?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Obviously I shall have to take this question as notice.


POLIOMYELITIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent shipment of monkeys to Canada, can the minister state whether or not there will be sufficient vaccine for all Canadians this year?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think I have answered that question three or four times this session. There will not be enough vaccine this year to immunize all the people of Canada.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.


GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the debate yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said he could not support our amendment because he felt that if an independent commission were allowed to survey the operations of government and make recommendations for savings, it would in fact be an abdication by members of parliament of the responsibilities imposed upon us by those who sent us here. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said he felt this should be done by more thorough use of the committees of this house.
There is no doubt that a more thorough use could be made of house committees, and that

Government Services
expenditures proposed by the government should be thoroughly scrutinized by members of parliament. That is our primary responsibility; but I submit that unless an independent commission or an outside firm of recognized efficiency engineers is allowed to come in to survey the operations of this government and make recommendations for savings, then the operations of this government will not be streamlined and waste and extravagance will not be reduced.
I say that because of the way committees of this house operate. As we all know, every committee has a majority of government members. Take for example a committee examining the expenditures of a department, and they come to the item dealing with telephones and telegraphs. Quite naturally the members of the opposition object strongly to the outlandish expenditure on this account. The minister and the officials of the department defend their position; they say those expenditures are justified. The opposition asks more questions. The minister and the officials give answers of one kind or another. The opposition press their point that these expenditures are unwarranted. The minister and the departmental officials continue to defend their position. Then a motion to reduce the item is brought forward by the opposition; it is voted down by the government majority, the item is passed, and we go on to another item.
So every expenditure is passed by the government majority on the committee, not only for that department, but for every department of this government. I have been here for five years and I have known of only one reduction made in a vote in that time, and that was made only because the government admitted that there had been a bad calculation and agreed to change the vote on that account only.
The amount of taxes which the people of this country are paying unnecessarily every year on account of the inefficient operation of this government is very important indeed. I have risen on the second day of this debate to speak about it, because I feel very keenly about this matter. What we need is either an independent commission or a recognized firm of efficiency engineers to make a survey of the operations of this government and bring in recommendations for savings.
I should like to outline to the house how these efficiency engineers work. They come into a department and spend several weeks or several months, depending on the job to be tackled. They observe the operations of that department, and then discuss those operations with the personnel concerned. They find out why certain things are being

done, and how they are being done, and with their experience based on the training they have had in efficiency work, what they have seen of other industries and other similar operations, they do whatever they possibly can to figure out a better and cheaper method of carrying out the operation under scrutiny. At the end of the survey, they make recommendations on how they believe the operations of that department can be streamlined, and they outline specifically what savings could be effected.
Most successful businesses have periodic checks made on their operations by outside firms of efficiency engineers, because they know perfectly well that you cannot count on a department head to make a satisfactory efficiency check on his own department. It just is not human nature to expect a man to criticize his own department, because in effect he is then criticizing himself for allowing outworn systems to operate, and having inefficient personnel working for him.
These surveys usually produce very surprising results for the people who have them undertaken. Those engineers who come into a firm from the outside look on the operations of each department from a clear and unbiased point of view. They are often shocked by operations which appear to those who have worked in a department for a long time to be perfectly commonplace. In these surveys, savings of 10 per cent and more on operating expenses are the order of the day.
Now, let us realize that government is simply the biggest business in the country, and what applies to business with regard to improving efficiency of operation certainly applies to government. From what I have seen of the operations of this government, savings far in excess of 10 per cent of operating expenses could be effected. After all, this government has been operating for 20 years with unchecked inefficiency. Mr. Speaker, if this government had to operate as a business does, it would go bankrupt within six months. There is no doubt about that at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if an independent commission or a recognized firm of industrial engineers is permitted by this government to come in and to make a thorough survey of all its operations, savings of many millions of dollars a year can be effected. I say this government owes it to the people of Canada to allow such a survey to be made because in that way, and in that way only, the taxpayers of this country can be relieved of many millions of dollars of unnecessary taxes which they are paying

every year because of the inefficiency of this government, and the waste and extravagance that has been permitted to continue for the last 20 years.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the house this motion was moved:
this house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the appointment of a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act with powers to examine into and report upon the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government.
At the time my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), took issue with the scope of the suggested inquiry, and I agree with him. Despite all this talk about efficiency engineers I still think members of parliament would be abdicating their duties were they to hand over the task of examination to an outside group who, of course, would then be in receipt of information which up to the present time has been denied to members of parliament.
While I disagree with the contention of the whole resolution, I nevertheless believe it would be highly advisable to have such a commission of inquiry into one department of government, and the department of government I have in mind is the Department of National Revenue. That being so I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "organization" and substituting therefor the following words "and conduct of the Department of National Revenue".
It is most unfortunate that the servants of that branch of government who are capable, conscientious and efficient should today be lingering under a sort of stigma caused entirely by the political instincts of the minister in charge of that department. I refer, of course, to what is known in some-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has moved, seconded by an hon. member whose name I did not catch-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Speaker:: He has moved, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "organization" and substituting therefor the following words "and conduct of the Department of National Revenue".
As he was pursuing his subject I heard the hon. member mention the political instincts of the minister. I should like to indicate to the hon. member at this moment that he may not, by way of amendment or in the course of this debate, attack the minister
Government Services
personally by referring to his political instincts or otherwise. For his guidance I merely read citation 225 in Beauchesne, third edition, which is as follows:
Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which can be dealt with by amendment or by distinct vote of the house, such as the conduct of the Governor General, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, members of either house of parliament or judges. These questions cannot therefore be discussed by way of amendment nor upon a motion for adjournment by way of standing order 31. For the same reason, no charges of personal character can be raised save upon a distinct and substantive motion to that effect.
Now that the hon. member has the requirements of our rules in mind I shall be very pleased to listen to him.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to make any charges against the minister, because I simply do not know what the facts are. Such being the case I am not going to make charges, but I am concerned about the integrity of parliament. I am concerned when something happens that perhaps casts a reflection upon all members of the house, especially in view of the fact that the whole situation could be cleared up very easily.
As far as this one department is concerned, the situation is that there has been some lamentable confusion. We have had the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) acting as a director of the Guaranty Trust Company, and possibly finding himself at times in a most invidious position. As a director of the trust company it was obviously his duty to protect the interests of the clients of that company. As a director of the company it was his duty to see that those clients paid their legitimate and fair share of estate duties to the government, that and no more; and according to the annual statement of the corporation it was his duty to give advice to clients whenever necessary.
On the other hand the minister found himself in the unfortunate position that, as Minister of National Revenue, he was responsible to the people of Canada and to this house to see that in all cases-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but in discussing the dual personality, so to speak, of the present Minister of National Revenue, namely that which concerns whatever positions he may have held in a private capacity and that which concerns his position as Minister of National Revenue, I think the hon. member is dealing with matters of a personal character.
That is precisely the point I was trying to indicate to the hon. member a moment ago. If he wishes to deal with that particular

Government Services
phase of the matter he will have to do so not by way of an amendment to the amendment we now have before us, nor even by way of an amendment to a supply motion, but will have to do it by way of a substantive motion. A substantive motion is one made independently of any other and which is capable of being amended. It is a distinct motion after notice.
Therefore I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to matters relevant to the organization of the various departments. As far as he is concerned it would be the Department of National Revenue. But if the hon. member were to go beyond that and deal with the position of the Minister of National Revenue and the fact that he may have other positions, the minister would certainly get the attention of the Chair if he were to rise on a question of privilege. If his integrity or personal conduct are to be questioned he is entitled to have these matters debated by way of a distinct substantive motion, and not in this manner by way of an amendment to a supply motion.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, what I was going to say today was pinpointed at one certain department, and it is quite obvious that if I continue along the line which I have set out to follow I shall be out of order. I am not quarrelling with your decision, but in deference to your wishes I shall now resume my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
(Translation):


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delaying the business of the house, but I would like to support the amendment moved last night, which truly expresses the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
In my humble opinion, it is very important that the said royal commission of inquiry be set up, in order to give satisfaction to the Canadian people, who are getting more and more concerned over the present government's exaggerated, not to say extravagant, expenditures.
To those who contend that a royal commission of this type would deprive parliament of its rights and responsibilities, I say that their argument seems to me quite candid, to say the least. It would undoubtedly be to the advantage of the government in power to agree to set up a committee made up of members of this house; but such a committee would be inefficient, since it would have a majority of government members. Information would

be restricted and the door closed on many items which the government has no interest to reveal, as they might be incriminating for the future of the party.
This royal inquiry we are requesting has become not only necessary but indispensable. For the last twenty years, the same political party has managed the affairs of Canada and, owing to the size of its majority, no opposition has been strong enough to call it to account.
When elected by the people, a government is not given a blank cheque which it may use as it likes to the prejudice of the people by whom it was elected.
Some people like to talk about democracy and set great store by its definition. The motion before the house merely aims at forcing the government to act in a truly democratic way.
On the other side of the house, where the same political party has been sitting for twenty years, members have become so familiar with power that-and in this they are definitely wrong-they seem to identify parliament with their party and the taxpayers' money with their own.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You are thinking of
Quebec!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The people from Gaspe are of the same opinion.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You cannot frighten me with your threats.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member should watch his step.
This false conception of power must be done away with in favour of an administration based upon the fact that the people are not mere voting machines, but that they are also entitled to an accounting of the money paid in taxes. They want to know whether this hard-earned money which they pay over into the treasury will be spent wisely or extravagantly.
Abuses have been pointed out in several departments and I have no intention of repeating what has already been said.
Let me merely call the government's attention to certain scandals which are daily being brought to my attention in certain arsenals, notably those at Valcartier and Quebec city.
Not that I want to generalize. I believe in the integrity of our people and of those who work for the arsenals. However, I have here revealing documents which provide evidence of a situation that is at best disturbing and which imply that some people take advantage of the influence they enjoy. Goods of all kinds are disappearing from the arsenals and are being converted to the personal use of a few people in key positions.

For some time now, hundreds of workers have been laid off at the arsenals for lack of contracts. Several of them came to see me and wrote to me saying that certain officials are taking advantage of their position. They also made statements which lead me to believe in the dishonesty of some people and in the existence of a well organized network to divert goods belonging to the people of Canada.
Last year, I requested that a royal inquiry be held following a plot which, in fact, led to some convictions. I repeat that request today. That inquiry into the arsenals should be conducted not by people who are interested in shielding a political party or in covering up for certain big shots, but by men with a sense of honour and concern for the interests of the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: As in the inquiry on the Three Rivers bridge.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In inquiries of that type held so far, it is the small employee who, in most cases, has been caught and convicted, while quite often, once the inquiry is over, the parties really responsible go on with their dirty work.
Mr. Speaker, not long ago, in the vicinity of the arsenals a tragedy took place which was even mentioned in this house. I think it was a result of a notorious bad example. Indeed everybody in and around Quebec city knows, from having seen it with his own eyes, that a number of goods are taken out of the arsenals and that the really guilty parties have not yet been found.
I would like also to draw to the attention of this house other expenses which appear to me utterly out of hand.
At times the government has to inaugurate a new public building, erected here or there in Canada. For that purpose, they muster one of the cabinet ministers and several party members who take this opportunity to deliver full-fledged political speeches-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You certainly have in mind the provincial government, I say!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend wants to be patient, he will see that it happened in the federal field.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Do you imagine that people will read your speeches?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Very recently, Mr. Speaker, a train was heading for-
Government Services


Mr. Richard (Si. Maurice-Lafleche):: What time was it? Were you there?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: A train was heading for the Saguenay.


Mr. Villeneuve:: Sorry, for Lake St. John.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There was a special car attached to it, carrying a minister and several members of parliament, who were to attend the opening of a public building.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing odd in this. It's perfectly in order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Now wait, and you will see that the order soon changed to disorder.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The disorder was your election in Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: As I was saying, they were going to attend the opening of a public building put up by the Canadian government. Now, it appears that the brakes of this private car used by the minister suddenly failed, as often happens among our friends opposite.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: And as it is happening in your case right now.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I know it hurts, but this time I am not repeating it to praise my friends opposite.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We can do without your praise.


Georges Villeneuve: Or fulsome flattery.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Then the brakes of the car in which the minister was travelling failed and crashed into a big locomotive standing in its way, the result being that the private car of the minister, rolling down at high speed, damaged the locomotive to such an extent that it had to be scrapped.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Or else it was sabotage!


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As in the case of the Duplessis bridge.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And then the car in which the minister and the other members were travelling was also damaged.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Sabotage!


Mr. Habel:: In what shape was your own car after the accident?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The other day, I used a little word which was afterwards ruled to be parliamentary, the word "niaiseux" (ninny). That word was precisely meant to apply to the hon. member for Sudbury who just-

Government Services


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Are you an expert at handing out such certificates?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He has never spoken anything but nonsense.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I knew very well that the hon. member for Quebec West did not know his own country. He has just said he had been directing his remarks to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell). I would remind the hon. member for Quebec West that, instead of boring us with his platitudes, he should be studying-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: His geography.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: -the names of the constituencies which hon. members represent in this house.


Georges Villeneuve: He does r.ot know his geography.


Pierre Gauthier: He has gone dotty.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I knew I had said Sudbury when I wanted to say Cochrane. The two are situated in the same mining district. However, it hardly appears to be a matter of great moment. In fact if the hon. member spoke oftener, we would know where he comes from.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As for you, you do too much talking.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This amounts to saying, Mr. Speaker, that extravagances are taking place in various departments, of which the people should be made aware, since they are the ones who have to foot the bill. Besides, it seems to me that, whatever our political convictions, it is important that we support the motion now before the house so that, once and for all, the people will be informed of what is being done with their money.
I repeat what I said: let there be an end to considering the Canadian people as a voting machine and let them be given an accounting of the billions which they contribute every year to the treasury.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to set aright certain facts which have been stated in a rather fancy way by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Did it concern the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage)?


Jean Lesage: It did concern the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who, last April, owing to the illness of the


Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) represented him at the opening of the new federal building at Roberval, and he did so at the invitation of the chamber of commerce, the mayor and councillors of Roberval.
As has been the practice in the past under similar circumstances-as far as one can remember-the minister used one of the private cars placed at the disposal of members of the cabinet, to travel to Roberval. And, as the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Bourget) and to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kirk) had been invited to Roberval, they accompanied the minister.
I went, together with these gentlemen, to Roberval where a public building was inaugurated. Contrary to certain customs quite prevalent in the province of Quebec, customs which are observed by members of another political party for which the hon. member for Quebec West shows much sympathy-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is the best part of his speech.


Pierre Gauthier: It is surprising that you should realize it.


Jean Lesage: -I did not make a partisan political speech. Those who were with me did not make any such speech either because the occasion was not suitable. The parish priest of Roberval was there and the respect I have for the representatives of religious authority always prevents me-contrary to some other people-from talking politics in their presence.
In the evening, we came back by motor car from Roberval to Chambord. Immediately upon our arrival at Chambord, we learned that the private car, from which an engine had been uncoupled a few moments earlier, started moving down the sloping siding and was later struck by the train coming from Dolbeau. Obviously, the engine and the private car were damaged.
Mr. Speaker, I rose to set the record straight so that nobody might believe that "order had changed to disorder", as stated by the hon. member for Quebec West.
On the other hand, no wonder that the hon. member for Quebec West resorted to such language, because as soon as he has the opportunity to make insinuations calculated to smear members of the cabinet-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker-


Jean Lesage: -and the members on this side of the house, he does so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege.


Jean Lesage: This is a practice scarcely to be tolerated in silence.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources suggested just now that I made some insinuations with the intent to smear members of this house. As I never had such intentions, and never used any expression that could smear anyone, I would ask the hon. minister to have the courage to withdraw the unparliamentary expressions he just used.


Pierre Gauthier: How irresponsible!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Portneuf just saw himself in a looking-glass.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Quebec West made a speech a moment ago in which he made certain charges. The hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources replied to that speech and said that certain remarks made by the hon. member were insinuations-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -adding, according to the member for Quebec West, that they were being made "for the purpose of smearing"; however, I did not hear him accuse the hon. member of making insinuations "for the purpose of smearing". I heard the minister say that the hon. member for Quebec West had made insinuations the effect of which was to smear. Now I do not mean this as quibbling. Perhaps I should have referred the member for Quebec West to rule 41 of the standing orders, when he was making his speech. I did not. Nor am I now asking the hon. Minister - of Northern Affairs and National Resources, under the same rule, to make a withdrawal. When an hon. member makes a provocative speech, he must necessarily expect a provocative reply. I believe that, all told, the words spoken are about even and that the incident should be considered closed.


Pierre Gauthier: Put on the hat.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Does the hat fit you? (Text) :


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the subamendment which is before the house at the present
Government Services
time I should like to emphasize that the Department of National Revenue is one of the most important departments of government. With this department not being operated in a proper manner other departments of government, especially those concerned with spending, would find their source of revenue dried up. I think on the whole the Department of National Revenue has a good record, but there have been times in Canadian history, and I think the present is such a time, when the people have been annoyed with the veil of secrecy drawn around this department. For more than a month hon. members of this house have been denied legitimate information which they should have as the elected representatives of the people.
It should be noted that a great many individuals and firms perform services for the government in the collecting and remitting to Ottawa of income and corporation taxes, without any compensation for such work. This places a real burden on Canadian business organizations and individuals. If we are to have the continued co-operation of all those performing collection services for the government then the government of Canada, particularly the Minister of National Revenue, must come clean and give a full and frank accounting of the operations of the department.
It is over 20 years since this department was in the public eye to the extent that it is at the moment. On February 5, 1926, the House of Commons adopted unanimously a resolution that a special committee of the house consisting of nine members be appointed forthwith to investigate the administration of the department of customs and excise, as it was then known, and the alleged serious losses to the public treasury because of inefficiency and corruption on the part of officers of the department and others. Later that year, on June 29, 1926, the special committee reported as follows:
Since the inquiry indicates that the smuggling evils are so extensive and their ramifications so far-reaching that only a portion of the illegal practices have been brought to light, your committee recommends the appointment of a judicial commission with full power to continue and complete investigating the administration of the department of customs and excise and to prosecute all offenders, and that such judicial commission should consist of a judge to be named by the two judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada, said judge acting as a commission, to have all the powers conferred upon such commission under the Public Inquiries Act. The said commission to have powers to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament at the opening of the next session together with the evidence taken before the said commission.

Government Services
In answering a question of mine the Minister of National Revenue pointed out on Monday that the members of that commission were well known citizens. They were Hon. James Thomas Brown of Saskatchewan, who was the chairman; Hon. William Henry Wright, and Hon. Ernest Roy. Counsel were Hon. N. W. Rowell; Mr. R. L. Calder; Mr. R. B. Law and Mr. Gordon Lindsay. The cost of the commission was $375,716.65, but I think most Canadians will agree that the money was very well spent.
The commission reported certain information which certainly was disturbing, to say the least. At that time, as now, the government was insisting that there was nothing to worry about, that the department was above reproach. I find that there was a good deal of information regarding operations in my own part of the country. Apparently quite an extensive illegal liquor industry flourished. Reference was made to the Prairie Drug Company and Regina Wine and Spirit, Limited, which apparently did quite a sizeable business. They bottled, labelled and sold liquors on a wholesale scale without a licence, contrary to sections 187 and 196 of the Excise Act and in violation of the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. They applied false trade marks and false descriptions to such goods. Those two companies apparently had receipts from sales from July, 1920, to December, 1921, of over $2 million.
Then reference was made to another group of companies. I am not going to mention any names, as I do not know how many of these people are still living. I am sure their names would be familiar to many people in western Canada. They operated Canada Drugs Limited, Yorkton Distributors, Dominion Distributors, Gainsborough Liquors Limited, Gainsborough Liquor Company, Atlas Shipping Company and Atlantic Import Company Limited. I might mention that I am reading from interim reports Nos. 1 to 10, royal commission on customs and excise. This document is marked confidential, but since it is found in the library of parliament and was produced as a result of the expenditure of over $375,000 I hope I am not running any risk in referring to it.
Canada Drugs Limited did a really worthwhile business. They imported from the United States about 300,000 gallons of alcohol, brought it to Yorkton, had it compounded and bottled and labelled the compound as Scotch whisky with labels not approved by the department according to the Excise Act, thus giving a false description of the contents therein.

Gainsborough Liquors Limited and Gainsborough Liquor Company also did quite a business. Both these companies were located in the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) but he would not be aware that 20 years ago two such influential companies operated in this small town of Gainsborough, near the United States border. The report states that it was alleged by Inspector Knowles-not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-that on more than one occasion he had been offered a bribe to disregard his duties and desist from further interference with the operations of the firms or syndicates. This is to be found on page 54 of this report.
Then we have reference to Consolidated Distilleries Limited of Montreal and Wiser's Distillery Limited. The report states as follows:
The evidence shows that practically all of said goods were entered for export at customs and ostensibly shipped to points in Mexico and Central and South America but that the names of the consignees entered at customs were fictitious; that the liquors were not landed at the points designated in the export entries but, on the contrary, were largely disposed of off the coast of the United States to be smuggled into the United States and to some extent were apparently delivered off the coast of Canada and smuggled back into Canada.
The evidence also shows that false and fraudulent landing certificates were procured with reference to such goods and that such certificates were presented to customs and that on the strength of ruch certificates, the bonds of the respective distilleries were delivered up and cancelled.
I might mention that one of these two companies, Consolidated Distilleries Limited, owed $973,677.23, and Wiser's Distillery Limited owed $86,078.04.
I am sure that as a result of this royal commission the treasury of Canada benefited very substantially. I have no evidence whatever to indicate that these irregularities are being continued at the present time, but I submit that for the good of democracy and for the sake of the rights of this parliament the Prime Minister should ask for a free vote on this amendment which is before the house.
There are some things in connection with the operation of this department that certainly are not going to be produced to parliament but which would be produced to a commission such as we had in 1926. The questions asked by members on this side of the house since the 24th, 25th or 26th of April regarding the operations of this department of government, without having discussion, concern a matter which members of this house cannot accept without challenge.
I have a few clippings from newspapers. I am not going to mention them, but newspapers from coast to coast are disturbed

because the Prime Minister of Canada has refused to discuss the details which members of the opposition have insisted should be made public. The Minister of National Revenue remained silent when a few days ago the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked for photostatic copies of documents in the possession of the Department of National Revenue concerning advances or payments made or given by John T. Drohan, since deceased, to James Dempsey some time during the year 1951, which photostatic copies were shown by the Minister of National Revenue to the premier of Ontario on or about April 26 or 27 last.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no good reason why a department of government cannot comply with such a reasonable request. In one of the two morning newspapers which reach us in time for breakfast I find that Arthur Blakely, commenting in "Ottawa Day by Day" says, "Reports current on parliament hill-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is reflecting upon a vote that was taken in this house. A motion was moved for the production of papers and, as was of course the right of the minister, the motion was opposed and the house decided by a vote that the motion should be defeated. Now the hon. member should not comment upon a vote of the house which has already been taken.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I apologize for referring to it, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I might mention that in this morning's Globe and Mail Harvey Hickey has a dispatch referring to the questions being asked by the hon. member for Kamloops. These questions are on the order paper. He wants certain information which I believe could be given without violating any of the laws of the country.


Mr. Harris:: It has not been refused, has it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It has not been refused, but for all-


Mr. McCann:: As a matter of privilege, that question was answered today.


Mr. Speaker:: Besides the fact the minister has just mentioned, that the question was answered today, I believe by the Secretary of State, I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are dealing with an amendment that has to do not with the methods which may be employed by members to obtain information from the government, which are threefold, as he knows-that is, either by question, notice of motion for production of papers or a committee-but
Government Services
with an amendment to which he has seconded a subamendment having to do with an inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act. The investigation which by the amendment is proposed be conducted is that the commissioners shall have the authority to report upon the management and business or any part of the business of such department, either on the inside or outside services thereof, and the conduct of any person in such services in so far as it relates to his official duties. That is the character of the investigation contemplated in the amendment. I should like the hon. member to make his remarks relevant to that type of investigation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was in the process of concluding very shortly. It seems to me that it is not going to be possible for members of parliament to get the information regarding the operations of the Department of National Revenue that we believe we should have. I might refer to the question of income taxes. Those of us who come from Saskatchewan know that our people in Saskatchewan have been paying income taxes on a very generous scale. The last time I had occasion to refer-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how I can make myself clearer than I have. If I have not made myself clear, I am sorry; but did the hon. member understand what I said a moment ago, that he should deal with the type of investigation which is contemplated by the amendment, into the state and management of the business of a department which is mentioned in the subamendment?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was discussing, the operation of this department in connection with the practice of collecting income tax in different parts of Canada, so that people in aU sections of the country would be treated in exactly the same manner. I submit that the practice that has been followed by this department in collecting income tax from farmers is one of the fields that should be investigated. If I am not in order in discussing that I shall refrain from speaking further.


Mr. Speaker:: The method of collection is by virtue of an act of parliament. As I understand it, the investigation which is contemplated is not so much to change the methods which are being employed by the department under the act or the regulations under the act, but rather to see how savings could be made with respect to the administration of the department.
The hon. member, as he said, was just about to resume his seat; therefore I shall

Government Services
not press the point but will let him conclude. What I had in mind was that he should not go into the question as to whether or not it is fair for the department to collect in the way they are doing now, but whether they could save any amount of money by doing it differently.


Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house, which would amend the amendment of yesterday, would read as follows. I should like to quote it in order not to stray away from it, if at all possible.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, I think my hon. friend has already spoken in this debate.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not on this amendment. It is a new amendment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I spoke on the original amendment, not on the subamendment. I quote:
This house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the appointment of a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act with powers to examine into and report upon the organization and conduct of the Department of National Revenue.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that one of the reasons we have to resort to an amendment of this nature and a discussion of this kind is precisely because we have failed to obtain the information we have been seeking through various channels in the past few months. As recently as the 25th of May, in speaking to a motion for the production of papers, the Minister of National Revenue gave an explanation of why he would have to oppose the motion. These were the reasons given, and I quote from page 4093 of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand what the hon. member's purpose is, or what he has in mind. I fully sympathize with the hon. members who have moved the subamendment and those who have spoken to it. I sympathize with them because they have in mind a certain objective which perhaps they cannot reach by discussing this amendment.
The hon. member for Dauphin has just read the amendment and the subamendment. What he has read has indicated that the amendment has to do with an investigation under part II of the Inquiries Act, and that they do not want to investigate all the departments but want to inquire into the Department of National Revenue. When they say that, they want to discuss-no matter what kind of veil

they cover it with-the matter of the Drohan-Dempsey affair, which has been the subject matter of several questions and notices of motions for the production of papers in the past few weeks.
I tell the hon. gentleman that he cannot entertain these matters under the present amendment. He may say the amendment was moved for that purpose. It may have been done for that purpose, but I am sorry to say that he cannot do it. He will have to do it at some other time.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, if it is not in order to discuss the conduct of the Department of National Revenue with respect to the particular case you have just mentioned, then of course it is not possible to carry out the purpose of this motion. I do not wish to disagree with the Chair at any time, but I fail to see how it would be out of order to discuss something which has to do with the administration of the Department of National Revenue under a motion which calls for an investigation of the operations of that department.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may do that, but at the time I interrupted him he was about to read the reasons given by the minister for refusing to produce a document which was asked for in a notice of motion for the production of papers. At that moment he was not dealing with the motion before the house. He was dealing with one of the three methods that are employed by parliament to get information. That is a different matter.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That point is quite clear to me now. Without referring to the actual words used, I think I must refer to the fact that we have been seeking information. I think that is the basis of the present discussion. That information has been denied. We are now trying to place before the house a method by which not only the information about which we have been speaking but all other relevant information may be obtained.
One of the things this house has been trying to be informed upon is what did actually take place in relation to this now famous Dempsey case. Since there is no other method of obtaining the answers we want to get, this motion if carried would provide an opportunity not only for the members of this house and for the Canadian public to get the information but would also provide an opportunity for the Department of National Revenue to place before the public and the house all the facts.


James Joseph McCann: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, just as you are, that I am denied the right to discuss this matter because of the provisions of secrecy which obtain in the Income Tax Act and the Dominion Succession Duty Act. If I had the right I could unfold to you a story that would raise the hair on your head. But instead of that I am obliged to sit here and be pilloried by people like the hon. member for Dauphin and the hon. member for Moose Mountain, who take the mean advantage of putting on the record newspaper stories which say they are "informed" or "we have been told" and in which I told you upon my word of honour there was not a word of truth. In 20 years in this house I have never heard of anything more despicable than the method which you and your seatmate there took to put this matter on Hansard.


Mr. Knight:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the expression just used by the minister in qualifying the method used by the hon. member is too strong.


James Joseph McCann: I gladly withdraw that word.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I am glad
the minister has withdrawn that expression, because it certainly was uncalled for. I want to make it quite clear that at no time did I ever pillory the Minister of National Revenue. On the occasion to which he refers, when I placed before the house a quotation from a newspaper and the minister denied it, I accepted his denial immediately. I see no reason why he should use the rather intemperate language he has just used, when all we are trying to do is carry out our duties as members of this house.
While I am on that matter, may I say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a remark which I did not hear. In case it did not get on the record I would ask him to repeat it.


Mr. Gardiner:: I should like you to read
into the record the newspaper story of what happened in your office in Manitoba.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall be glad to do that
any time it is in order to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are reading into the
record now something that is not in order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I invite the Minister of
Agriculture, any time he wishes to do so, to come to my office and examine the records and get all the information. I am not going to hide anything behind any veil of secrecy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to say to the
hon. member that I have not been in the
Government Services
habit of bringing here and reading into the record newspaper stories about anybody. But when my hon. friend gets to his feet to read them about other people, I just say that he ought to read them about his own office.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know just what
the minister is trying to get at; but if he has any accusations to make he should get to his feet and make them.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may not be anything in them at all. I do not know whether there is or not. And you do not know whether there is anything at all in half of what you are reading.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Why can
we not get an answer? That is all we are asking.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have already said that
as to anything I have said in the house with regard to the Minister of National Revenue, when it has been denied in this house I have accepted the denial.


James Garfield Gardiner: And you go right on making another one.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have made no accusations whatever. I see no reason why the Minister of Agriculture is getting so touchy about this matter.


An hon. Member:: Because he has something to hide.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have nothing to hide, and I shall perhaps prove that to the satisfaction of my hon. friend who made the remark before the session is over.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the Minister of Agriculture is through making his speech, perhaps I can carry on with mine. We are simply asking for information that would clear up the confusion which has been created by newspaper stories.


James Joseph McCann: By newspaper stories! I challenge you to make one accusation now.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We do not
want to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member to reflect upon what he is asking at the moment. Does he believe that if there were an investigation under part II of the Inquiries Act he would get the information that he complains about not being able to obtain? He could not get it because the kind of information he is trying to get is information which he must get in one of three ways, namely by asking questions, and I think that has been done; or by moving notices of motions for the production of

Government Services
papers, and I think that has been done; or by the establishment of committees to investigate certain matters.
The provisions of standing order 51 have been used. There it is provided that motions thus moved are moved without debate, and it is the privilege of cabinet ministers to refuse the production of documents which are considered to be privileged, confidential, reserved or not in the public interest. What the hon. member is doing at the moment is complaining that, by the three methods traditionally afforded by parliament to obtain information from the executive, he has not been able to obtain that information. But if an inquiry were established as provided by the amendment he could not get any more information than he is getting now. Therefore I would ask him again to deal with the subject matter of the amendment and the subamendment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It seems very strange that if somebody breaks the law it is not possible to find who did it through any channels in this parliament. The Minister of National Revenue denies that he has contravened the law, and I accept his statement. Then in another statement he tells the house that he informed the premier of Ontario, subject to an agreement. That was according to his own statement in the house.


James Joseph McCann: According to what has been tabled. Why do you put words in my mouth? It is not according to my statement. The agreement has been tabled, and if the hon. member has not looked at it that is his fault.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said.


James Joseph McCann: It is not what you said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the minister would read his own words be would have no reason to be popping up like that. On the 25th of May the minister stated to the house that under the agreement which has been tabled he gave certain information to the premier of Ontario, who also happens to be the treasurer of that province. That is exactly what I said. I see no reason for the minister to complain.


James Joseph McCann: What you say now is correct. What you said before was not.


Mr. Speaker:: May I intervene again. I do not have Hansard before me, but the hon. member is referring now to the reply made by the minister to the motion for the production of papers which was voted down not very long ago. That matter came before the house. The minister opposed the motion, gave his reasons, as was his right, and the

house decided the question. The matter has already been decided. It is clear that the hon. member, by criticizing that vote at the moment, is violating standing order 41 which is to the effect that a member should not reflect upon a vote of the house. The standing order reads in part as follows:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
The hon. member cannot do that at the moment, as he is speaking on a subamendment to the motion to go into supply. I know what the hon. members have in mind, but it is through no fault of ours that they cannot do it. There is a motion to go into supply. There is an amendment requiring an investigation to be made under part II of the Inquiries Act. The hon. member is making a speech that is tantamount to criticizing the provisions in our rules for the obtaining of information by the house. It is a different proposition altogether. It is just as if the hon. member was talking about black when he should be talking about white. He is just that far away from the subject.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the house and the Chair I shall not go into the matter any further, because it appears that we simply cannot discuss the subamendment in the way we had intended. I will simply say that if an investigation is made, either as the result of this amendment or of some future motion, I hope it will be made clear at that time who was responsible for the information getting into the newspapers, to which the Minister of National Revenue objects, and which he states was given confidentially to the premier of Ontario as treasurer of that province. If the premier of Ontario was not authorized by law to make that information public, then he was the person who contravened the secrecy provisions of the act. That is something which should be cleared up.
Without going any further into the matter now we shall have to let our amendment stand on its own feet, and I hope the house will see its way clear to carry it.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of referring to the subamendment, which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "organization" and substituting therefor the following words:
"and conduct of the Department of National Revenue".
The amendment would then read:
This house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the appointment of a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act with powers to examine into and report upon the organization and conduct of the Department of National Revenue.

I find it difficult to understand the reasoning of my hon. friends in moving the amendment to the amendment, for yesterday the stand they took was that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, asking for an investigation of all departments of government and their organization, would constitute an infringement of the rights and prerogatives of parliament. Now my hon. friends turn around and move a subamendment, fatuous in its terms, designed to give reason and responsibility to an investigation in a smaller sense which they say would be contrary to parliamentary procedure if it were extended to the larger field.
I for one do not intend to participate in the controversy that has taken place between the Minister of National Revenue and the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. The great "whodunit" of parliament will remain a mystery, it appears, as to where these photostatic copies came from.
Having said that, I want to deal with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I thought in his speech yesterday he covered a field that demands and requires the fullest consideration on the part of the government. I should very much like to hear from the Minister of Finance what possible objection the government can have to setting up an investigation, as asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, whose only purpose will be to recommend economies consistent with government policy and in effect do that which the war expenditures committee did during the days of the war, when it investigated the various departments connected with defence and, having investigated them, arrived at recommendations as to savings that could thereby be effected.
Strangely enough, however, the attitude of the government seems to be that all is well. They seem to regard millions as trifles, to use the expression of Carlyle Allison of the Winnipeg Tribune. Certainly today parliament cannot discharge the responsibility of examining into the expenditures made by the various departments of government. I believe that a careful examination of expenditures would provide a fertile field for savings. As far as the house is concerned it has neither the time nor the facilities necessary to make the kind of meticulous examination that is required to bring about the savings that could apparently be made on every hand.
While in no way departing from the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood, may I say I have often thought that the services of members of the house could be used to a greater degree than they are used today. In my opinion if a committee of the House of Commons were 50433-273
Government Services
set up, representative of the businessmen in the house, and they sat down and examined one department each year, the savings that could be thereby effected could run into the tens of millions of dollars.
You ask what kind of committee do I have in mind, what members. I think of hon. members who are not members of the cabinet. I think of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), a man of great business experience. I think of the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), and so on. They are men of business knowledge and capacity who have the ability to make recommendations that would be consistent with government policy, while at the same time assuring a reduction in this vast load of expenditure that today continues to multiply and breed almost with the facility of rabbits. On and on this expenditure goes. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), after months of endeavour, has made but simple and few reductions in the colossal load of expenditures.


Walter Edward Harris: $150 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, $150 million- by cutting down defence and by cutting down defence production, because of the eased situation. But for the other departments of government the reduction of expenditures has been, to use a colloquialism, peanuts. It is meaningless. The expenditures of the defence department and the Department of Defence Production have been considerably reduced because of the changing situation in the world today. But, so far as other departments of government are concerned, almost in every case, and certainly in the majority of cases, there is an increase in expenditures this year, as revealed by the estimates placed before parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: And a net decrease.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, $4 million, I think it is.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, $4 million out of $2 billion of non-defence expenditures. What a saving! No examination consistent with the magnitude of the problem has been made.
The Hoover commission in the United States-and I am going to refer to it, not by traversing the ground covered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), but in a general way-achieved savings which resulted from a meticulous examination. A few weeks ago the Minister of Finance said, "Well, in the last few days of the session

Government Services
there is a rush; but it is not really serious. We voted $800 million in the last week of the last session."
Mr. Speaker, that type of examination is meaningless. I have before me the record of what happened at the last four sessions. It shows that on the last day of the 1954 session $60 million was passed.


Walter Edward Harris: Why did you not take longer, if you wanted to?


John George Diefenbaker: He says, "Why did you not take longer?" That, of course, is the usual answer.


Walter Edward Harris: And a good answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not bring it on earlier? You had the Governor General waiting outside-one does not usually in debate make reference to the Governor General, but you had him waiting outside-ready to prorogue parliament. That is why we did not take longer.


Walter Edward Harris: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: But this year we intend to cover these estimates as thoroughly as we can, realizing at the same time the deficiency in examination which results from two things. The first of these is failure on the part of the government to answer. There was an example this afternoon of a question asked and unanswered, and which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. That is the kind of attitude we see on the part of the government-a refusal to answer ordinary and simple questions. The question I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) was this: Where did you get the photostatic copy? No answer has been given. It is not an answer requiring any knowledge of law.
Then, I ask other questions of various ministers, and invariably a similar type of answer is received, when it suits the minister in question to give that kind of answer.
In 1953, on the last day of the session, $150 million was voted. In 1952, we see, $100 million was voted on the last day, and in 1951 the amount of $200 million. The minister says, "Why do you not stay longer?" I say to him that I hope there will be a reorganization by the government of the manner in which it presents these estimates to parliament, so as to enable a fuller and more complete examination.
What did the Hoover commission do? Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to some of its activities and some of the results of its work. We read in the New York Times of May 21 that Clarence Francis, chairman of the citizens' committee

for the Hoover report, a committee to which I intend to refer in a moment-
-predicted yesterday that if all its recommendations were promptly adopted the federal budget could be balanced overnight. He said also that its proposed elimination of waste and confusion in government could eventually reduce the national tax burden by 15 to 20 per cent.
Then he went on to deal with the first Hoover report of five years ago, and said:
The first Hoover report five years ago cost the government $2 million and has produced savings of at least $1,200 million a year in governmental economies.
That is not an estimate by some fly-bynight individual. That is the estimate of a man who is the chairman of this citizens' committee for the Hoover report. He sets out in detail the manner in which those savings had been effected.
Do not hon. members feel that an inquiry of the kind asked for here would have a good field in which to work, if it were to look into the printing bureau, this golden elephant that has been so many years in construction and, so far, has cost $12 million? Is that not a field for investigation, to determine the whys and the wherefors, the reasons why construction has taken so long, what work is being done, how much is being spent for machinery, and what the total cost will be, before the final completion? That is an example. Then there was another example in that massive building built by the mortgage corporation, the building with all the modern conveniences. Certainly the places that are to house institutions of parliament should be in keeping with the general surroundings. But luxuries such as that are unnecessary and unjustifiable at this time.
As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Hoover commission's aim was to promote economies, efficiency and improvement in the prosecution of the public business, and it recruited the task force to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, and which I shall not repeat at this time.
What did it find? It found in every department it examined that there were savings, great or small, that could be made. It found that there was waste, and that the waste was in the nature of Lilliputian threads that finally bound Gulliver, that destroyed efficiency in government. It found that there was red tape which undermined and overlapped departments, and that there was duplication which resulted in needless expense. All of this took place in the matter of a very few years.
So successful was this commission that was started during the time of the presidency of President Truman, a Democratic president,

that it was continued under President Eisenhower, and a second commission was set up.
Let me read some of the reports-and let me say I have read every one of them. There are a thousand pages of reports, and they are worth studying. It took a great deal of time to read them. In some instances, for one not trained in finance, they are difficult to understand. However, they do deal with subjects such as foreign affairs, national security organizations, labour, agriculture, finance, commerce, social security, public welfare, Indian affairs, the post office, independent regulatory commissions, transportation, and government in business. They point out the trend in the United States, one that is taking place here in Canada. They point out the ramifications of public enterprise to an extent that could never have been possible had it not been for two wars in one generation. They speak of it as creeping socialism. Having regard to the extent to which there has been an expansion in this country of public enterprise, in some cases in competition with private enterprise, we have achieved in this country galloping socialism, and within the last few years, through the establishment of government boards and public corporations.
The second commission which was set up in 1954 has given reports so far in 1955 on surplus property, food and clothing, lending agencies, federal medical services, personnel and civil service, legal procedure, business enterprises of government and natural resources. My hon. friends say that this would contradict the principles of parliamentary government. At the same time they say they intend to set up a commission that is to investigate Canada's economy 25 or 30 years from now. Let us have an inquiry such as is asked for by the hon. member for Greenwood in order to bring about savings. If they are even partially commensurate with those achieved by the Hoover commission in the United States they will run into hundreds of millions of dollars in the course of a year from now. But something more is needed than a Hoover commission, as they found in the United States. They set up the Hoover commission and it went to work on its task forces. Then, throughout the length and breadth of the United States, outstanding leaders in finance, in business, in agriculture, in the labour unions and in the fields of national research formed themselves into a non-profit organization in order to assist in the implementation of the Hoover report. In other words, what they said they wanted to do without regard to party or political considerations of any kind was to do away with the pork barrel 50433-273$
Government Services
pressure groups and substitute the cracker barrel pressure groups of thrift in every part of the nation.
These people joined together and met regularly, and in the various states in which they lived they did their part to help the federal government resist the inroads of those who forever are demanding extra expenditures, thereby piling up an ever-increasing load of expenditures in the land. The citizens' committee for the Hoover report really put the United States back to school to study citizenship. I do not know how many of my hon. friends have read these reports, but from time to time they issue a book entitled "Status of the Hoover Report". It is published by the citizens' committee for the Hoover report, an organization of public-spirited Americans, who, in many communities in which they live, set up organizations to recommend to the government reductions in expenditures. Three hundred of these organizations have been set up in the United States. Through books, pamphlets, speeches, meetings and television, they have aroused the people in the United States to the need of a great effort in a great crusade to reduce unnecessary government expenditures. They were thanked by Mr. Hoover. Their motto is to make citizenship effective. In March, 1952, when he met them, Mr. Hoover said this:
You have given the nation about the widest education in civil government that it has had smce the constitution was under debate.
All over the United States there are groups of individuals who are constantly on the alert vigilantly recommending savings to be effected. Their slogan is: "Better government at a better price." I can think of no better slogan for Canadians today in a similar organization. Better government at a better price by bringing into effect within this country, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), and of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), similar organizations everywhere, which would bring about a state of mind on the part of the public against waste and extravagance, which would assure reductions of unnecessary expenditures and consequent reductions in taxation as well.
When the organization started in the United States, people said: "Oh, you cannot do that. After all, how are you going to mobilize the heart of the citizenry in the United States in behalf of something positive like that?" But they did. The recommendations -and I have a list of them here which are pages in length-have been carried into effect throughout the nation. When they started in they found the same attitude of cynicism. After all, people say, you cannot do this kind

Government Services
of thing, but that committee, after operating for two years, was able to say: We have helped to reverse the trend of cynicism, frustration and indifference with which far too many people were coming to regard the unbridled growth of big government. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) used the expression "big government" yesterday. This group of citizens in the United States, backed by the will of the government in power that was prepared to take assistance in the setting up of the non-partisan commission under former president Hoover, achieved what was believed to be impossible.
They are able to say today: In the first five years we have saved at the rate of $1,200 million a year; and those savings will be increased in the days ahead, because they believe that every dollar that is wasted is a gift to the enemies of freedom. They believe that a crusade such as they are carrying out will in the end do away with extravagance and waste. The experience of the Hoover commission can be pointed to as an example of what can be done elsewhere.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned paper work. Well, we sometimes talk about red tape and governments having quadrupled work. Beyond that, I do not know what it is; it becomes governmental. But the fact remains that those investigators in the United States found that business was even worse in the keeping of unnecessary copies and the multiplication of duplications and triplications. As a result of the recommendations made in this one particular they found in 1954 that in the disposal of unnecessary documents the photostating of documents of government departments was sent to a central photostatic organization set up for the purpose. In 1954, $34,175,000 was saved on that one matter alone. I only hope that the experience of recent days indicates that this course is going to be followed by the government of Canada.
As far as letter writing is concerned, they found that it has multiplied per civil servant 9 times over what it was 43 years ago. They found that they could streamline correspondence. They found an effective saving in one office in Baltimore alone in that direction of $157,000 a year. They consolidated forms; they effected simplication. They did away with unnecessary records, and they say that when they are through with the organization they will in that one field save $250 million a year out of a total expenditure of some $4 billion.
Now, I suggest that on the basis of the experience in the United States this country
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
is entitled to something more than a cavalier brush-aside of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Greenwood.
Travelling expenses were mentioned. Well, we often talk about the money that we make on the Trans-Canada Air Lines. A year ago they had a surplus of $600,000. How many people realize that two years ago those who travelled from the armed forces on the T.C.A. had a larger expenditure than the surplus during the year? That is just one way of taking from one and handing to another. Certainly travelling expenses in the United States came down when travelling by those in authority in the armed forces, in the civil service, yes, in the government, found that that luxury was going to be examined and that unnecessary travelling, however interesting to the individual, was to be curtailed.
Then a word about paper work, and I am not going into the particulars in this connection. It was found that every filing cabinet of old documents that was retained cost $29 a year in office space. They were able to effect very large savings proportionately to the total expenditures by the means I mentioned a moment ago.
I do not intend to say more at this time. I rose to support the amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood and to ask the government whether it is not time to act and act effectively on a matter so necessary to the economic life of this nation. For as our taxes go up our industrial production finds itself unable to compete in the markets of the world. On that basis alone, aside from any other demands for economy, I ask the government to give consideration to the request that action be taken.
My hon. friend mentioned the publicity department. What should be done in the case of these publicity departments is to take an axe and just cut out most of what is being done. Instead of the torrents of adulation put out by publicity departments, it would save Canada millions if these bodies would simply say of the government: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in the space of a few minutes I want to say a few words on behalf of this group in connection with the request that has been made for an inquiry into the operation of one of the branches of this government. We do not believe that this is a proper approach to the question of the high cost of government. We do not feel that a single department should be made the target in an inquiry of this type.
On the other hand we believe that there is room for doubt as to whether or not the

business of this country is being handled efficiently. I think we all agree that the government of Canada is big business and in the operation of big business I submit that it is sound common sense and good business practice to examine periodically the conduct of such business for possible inefficiency.
We are not laying any charges against this government, but we do believe there is room for economy. We believe that this government is well aware of the fact that there is a growing feeling of alarm among the taxpayers of Canada that the costs of government are mounting so steadily. We would suggest that it would allay these fears if the conduct of the business of the government of Canada were investigated by a commission of experts. We believe that it would be a smart move on the part of this government to announce the appointment of such a commission and to lay before it the problem of bringing in a report on the conduct of the business of government and of crown companies and to make recommendations for economies that might be effected in government under good business practices.
If the government has nothing to hide it should welcome such an inquiry and if mis-practices are found by the commission they should be brought out in the open in the interests of Canadians.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because of something that appears in the press today which I think supports with still greater force the request that has been made for the setting up of a task force of the kind appointed in the United States and known as the Hoover commission. As the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has pointed out already, the absurdity of the subamendment is indicated by the position which is taken by the group bringing it forward that it is contrary to the principles of responsible government to inquire into departments by means of a commission of this kind and yet they find it quite acceptable to have the same kind of inquiry made into a single department.
Certainly we are not going to vote for the limitation of the inquiry. By their subamendment the members of the C.C.F. have indicated that the suggested inquiry is a perfectly proper course. There is another reason why we will vote against this subamendment. It is quite obvious that the intention is not to conduct a positive inquiry of the nature we have been proposing but rather to direct the attention of the house to something that can be dealt with more
1. 1955	4333
Government Services
satisfactorily when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue are before this house.
We have indicated that it is our intention to deal with matters which have been raised at that time, and we shall certainly do so. That can be done much more effectively when the minister is called upon to answer than can be done in the manner now proposed.
I would point out also that the subamendment would delay the very thing that hon. members to my left are suggesting they want done. We say that we want this done when the estimates come forward, but if this subamendment were carried we would be denied the opportunity when the estimates came forward to deal with this very subject. Therefore we shall oppose the subamendment.
Something has arisen which brings into even sharper focus the need for an objective examination of the way in which great agencies of government are operated. When the Canadian National Railways were being examined before the railway committee of the house that committee was informed that the Hilton corporation would only manage, not own or control, the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal when it was completed. The impression was left that the Queen Elizabeth hotel, built with the money of Canadian taxpayers, was simply going to be managed by some representative of the Hilton group. Here once again we have a lack of frankness which indicates the need for an examination of all the facts. Today the Canadian Good Roads Association-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) leaves me in some difficulty in that he has referred to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) which limits the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I feel that the remarks which the Leader of the Opposition has been making and which he evidently wishes to make at this time would be in order under the amendment but I am in some difficulty in that the subamendment uses these words "and the conduct of the Department of National Revenue".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to show that it would be unsatisfactory to have that limitation and therefore to dispose of the subamendment which would produce the wider result. What has happened is that the Canadian Good Roads Association have today made public the procedure that they found

Government Services
it necessary to follow in obtaining reservations for accommodation in the Queen Elizabeth hotel in October 1958. They explained that on January 18 of this year H. J. Nevin, the general manager of the Canadian National Railways hotels, tourist and convention department, wrote to say that the Queen Elizabeth would be very much in business for the 1958 date. Then on February 2 the good roads association, in replying to Mr. Nevin's suggestion that they should have their convention at the Queen Elizabeth hotel, asked that convention accommodation for 1,200 delegates be reserved for October 1, 2 and 3, 1958. On February 4 Mr. Nevin replied, and I am quoting from a report in this afternoon's Journal of the correspondence which was made public by the Canadian Good Roads Association today:
I am forwarding your request to the Hilton Hotels International, who, as you no doubt know, will be running the Queen Elizabeth. And as soon as I have been advised of their decision I will get in touch with you.
Then on February 10 Mr. Nevin relayed the reply from New York. Mr. Nevin wrote:
I am pleased to inform you that the accommodation has been set aside for your convention.
Mr. Speaker, is this not a humiliating position in which we find ourselves? An agency of government is constructing this big hotel with taxpayers' money, or rather with money raised by the agency with the backing and support of the government, and that hotel is then in the first place put under the management of the Hilton group. In effect we are told that we do not have any hotel managers in Canada good enough to run it, although United States hotels constantly come to Canada to get their managers from this country. When we tried to find out what the facts were, the veil of secrecy was thrown over us. Now the veil is moved slightly back, not by the government, not as the result of any opportunity that we are afforded here to obtain information, not because the government has decided that the opposition should have information of this nature, but because the Canadian Good Roads Association has made public correspondence in regard to this matter, and Canadians seeking accommodation in a Canadian hotel have to be told from New York whether we can hold conventions here in this country.
If there were no other single argument than this to demonstrate the need for an objective inquiry as to what is behind this veil of secrecy, this humiliating information that appears in the press today would suffice. We have handed over the control of our largest hotel, without any reason that holds

water being given, to a United States organization, which may be a very good organization in its own country but which certainly has nothing to do with Canadian standards or Canadian traditions or our desire to run Canadian hotels in a particular Canadian way. They are the people who not only provide the management but sit in judgment in New York on whether or not we can have accommodations. Of course, one cannot tell. Assume that the National Liberal Federation wanted to hold a convention in the Queen Elizabeth hotel. I wonder how they would like having to ask officials in New York whether the representatives of a party that they still regard as a great party could meet to carry on the ordinary functions of democracy in this country.
This is the kind of thing that will be brought out into the open and examined properly only when we have a task force of highly trained independent men and women who can perform in Canada the same kind of job that has been done so effectively in the United States. Exact figures cannot be given. We are told by such a responsible authority as the New York Times that savings to the extent of over $11 billion a year will be made as a result of the combined recommendations of the two Hoover commissions. I am not suggesting for one moment that on a proportionate basis we could effect a saving of over $1 billion a year, but I do say that, on the evidence and on all that we see, there is every reason to believe that the proposal we made for a saving of at least $500 million was indeed a very conservative estimate of what could be done. But there is more than the money saving involved. There is also the question of how these agencies carry on their business. There is also the question of how that fits into our private enterprise economy. There is also the question of whether we are going to sell out the Canadian agencies of government to those whose real interest is in another country, no matter how friendly that country may be.
I have placed this before the house to show why this inquiry should not be limited and why we will vote against the subamendment and why, when that subamendment is out of the way, I certainly hope that the amendment will be supported. If the government should take the rigid attitude that this should be dealt with only as a want of confidence motion, then may I express the hope that, dealing with this on a technical ground as a want of confidence motion, they will not close their ears, and above all their brains, to the compelling evidence we have before

us of the need for an efficient task force to examine the cost of government in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready
for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Gillis:: I wish to announce I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the question should be put and determined without the attention of the house and country being drawn to this further demonstration of the attitude of complete indifference on the part of the government to its responsibility toward parliament. I draw to your attention the fact that so far in this debate, which is now in its second day, not one spokesman for the government, not one government minister, has advanced any reason to the house or to his own colleagues, or indicated in any manner whatsoever, why the motion should not be accepted.
All we have had is a further indication of the attitude of the government that-"It is not necessary for us to say anything. All we have to do is to lay on the whip, and give no explanation to parliament. By the exercise of the whip, and by the dragooning of our party majority, we will defeat the motion, whatever its merits may be".
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from one or two irrelevant and trivial interruptions made by private members, mostly

Government Services
on the government side-there have been only one or two interruptions made by ministers-there has been no statement by any member of the government, with the exception of that which is found at page 4295 of yesterday's Hansard where the Minister of Finance said:
If I may expedite the business of the house, I would point out to Your Honour that under no circumstances would the government entertain a motion by way of amending the supply motion as other than one of want of confidence.
He was there stating explicitly and clearly to the house and country that the government does not regard it as necessary to give any reasons for rejecting any motion made by the opposition or by anyone else in the house. He is simply saying, "We regard it as a vote of want of confidence. We therefore have to vote against it, whether there is merit in the motion or not". It is an example of an arrogant, autocratic and irresponsible government. It is another example of the way in which the government denies the very principles of responsible government.
This government, whether it realizes it or not, is responsible to the House of Commons. Here is a serious suggestion placed before the house by the official opposition, moved by the financial critic of the official opposition, a motion which most certainly demands from the government some explanation. Because, whether the minister realizes it or not, the people of this country are concerned over the steady increase in expenditures which has been the pattern during the term of office of this government. The people are concerned with the year-by-year increase of expenditures. The people are concerned to see that, as expenditures increase, by the same measure the sense of responsibility of the government appears to decrease.
I do not intend to detain the house very long, because it is not necessary to say much to demonstrate the complete irresponsibility and arrogance of the government. But what does concern me is the ready acquiescence of private members opposite, and their ready submission to the party whip, without a word of explanation from the ministers.
We have in this instance the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister of Finance really believe that the people of this country are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George wish to ask a question?


Mr. Richardson:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall accept the question, but I would be much happier if the government itself showed the same sense of interest in parliament as the hon. member has shown.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I was about to ask only a simple question, because the hon. member has referred to private members. I believe his reference entitles me to ask the question. Is it not possible that, after all, we voted the way we did because hon. members on the other side had not made a very good case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was prepared to hear that sort of thing from government ministers. However, I would point out that the hon. member has not yet voted on the amendment offered by the official opposition. It appears that he has made up his mind how he is going to vote, without even listening carefully to the arguments. But of course that is typical of what we find; that is typical of the attitude of mind of hon. members supporting the government.
My concern is mainly with members of the government. If it believes in the principle of responsible government and if it believes that it owes a duty to parliament to justify its measures and to justify its attitude in connection with important questions which are raised here, then I submit that it should demonstrate that sense of responsibility by giving some reasons as to why this amendment should be rejected.
I was saying a moment ago that the Minister of Finance, on whose motion this amendment is moved, is asking the House of Commons to go into committee of supply to authorize expenditures for this year. Are we to take it, from the silence of the Minister of Finance, that he believes the people of Canada are willing to vote him this money without any explanation from the government as to the efforts they will make or are making to reduce these expenditures and to keep them to a minimum?
The Minister of Finance has said nothing in the course of this debate; he has merely applied the party whip; he has said, we are not going to give you any explanation or any answer to your criticism or any justification or reason as to why your suggestion should be rejected. The Prime Minister is here. The Prime Minister, as leader of the government, exercises in his person the collective responsibility of his cabinet. I submit in all seriousness that he is under an obligation, either through himself or through one of his cabinet colleagues, to give some reason to the house, not just to the opposition, but to parliament itself, as to why this method of approach, why this commission of inquiry, which has been found to work to such good advantage elsewhere, should not be accepted in Canada.
I do not want to go into too much detail on the merit of the amendment. That has been adequately set out by my colleagues

who have already spoken; but I do point out that the government is not averse to the principle of royal commissions. Notwithstanding the fact that we have in Canada, in the government departments, a civil service of which we can be justly proud which has made and is making a constant study of the economic situation in this country, the government has not felt that it is a denial of the rights of parliament or of responsible government to move to set up a royal commission to survey the economic field in Canada and presumably to bring in recommendations upon which the government will be prepared to act. Because the suggestion comes from themselves, they regard that kind of commission as a proper, a constitutional move to make. Because this suggestion comes from the opposition for this type of commission of inquiry, then, judging by their attitude and by some of the things that were said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) last night, which drew applause from the government benches, it is somehow irresponsible and not worthy of consideration.
I suggest through you, sir, to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Finance, the people of Canada are not satisfied with the efforts being made by this government, because they see expenditures constantly increasing. If the government is itself unable to do anything to keep expenditures from increasing, then the people would, in my judgment, welcome a commission such as has been suggested, or would at least like to be told through their representatives in parliament why the government feels that such a commission would not produce beneficial results.
The Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue are here. One can understand why the last mentioned hon. gentleman might be somewhat reluctant to advance any views at the present time, but nevertheless he is there exercising his share of responsibility. It is most unusual for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not to expound his views to the house as to why this suggestion should not be entertained. I can assure the minister that at this time we would be willing to hear from him if he entertains with respect to parliament that sense of responsibility which on other occasions elsewhere he has been so free to indicate he has.
Then, there is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). Has he nothing to say in regard to this matter? Certainly, the organization for which he answers to parliament, namely, the Canadian National Railways, spends a lot of the people's money. There 50433-274
Government Services
is the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard). They are all here, Mr. Speaker. There is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the great efficiency expert. Has he nothing to say as to why this amendment should not be accepted? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has just come back.


James Garfield Gardiner: Has the hon. member not read the budget speech?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Agriculture is not usually reluctant to give the house his views, nor is the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). If the Minister of Finance, whose responsibility it is, is so reluctant, will none of those other ministers help him out of the difficult situation? I can understand the reluctance of the Minister of Finance, because, of course, he has no adequate reason. When the Minister of Finance speaks he likes to speak sensibly. He knows that he could not oppose this motion and still be sensible.


Mr. Sinclair:: How can you judge?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not like to believe that the government has completely abandoned all sense of responsibility to parliament. Therefore, I can only conclude, and I submit that the house and the country, exercising their judgment, can only come to the conclusion that the reason for the governmental silence on this occasion is that they know there is no real substantial answer to the suggestion that has been made. If there is an answer, I challenge the government to give it now and to show some signs of responsibility to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-


James Sinclair: Rhodes scholar after Rhodes scholar.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member if he has not already spoken to this amendment, since he moved it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall have to wait for the main motion.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
Applewhaite
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Barnett
Batten
Benidickson
Blanchette
Boisvert
Bonnier
Boucher
Bourget
Bourque
Breton
Brown (Brantford)
Bruneau
Bryce
Bryson
Buchanan
Byrne
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Campney
Cannon
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Cloutier
Coldwell
Crestohl
Croll
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dumas
Eudes
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Fontaine
Forgie
Gardiner
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gillis
Gingues
Goode
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Habel
Hanna
Harris
Harrison
Henderson
Herridge
Hosking
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
Hunter
James
Johnson (Kindersley)
Jones
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Knight Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lavigne
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Legare Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacKenzie MacNaught McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Moose Mountain)
McDonald
McMillan
McWilliam
Mang
Marler
Matheson
Meunier
Michaud
Mitchell (Sudbury) Monette
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nicholson
Nixon
Picard
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Power (St. John's West) Proudfoot

286. General administration, $3,294,791.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
420. Departmental administration, $254,215.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
428. Departmental administration, $636,295.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act including provision for an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate at this point to raise a question in regard to a change that has been made in the act, about which I am sure there is a very real difference of opinion. That is the introduction into the act of a provision that nomination day would be three weeks ahead of election day. There are many very obvious reasons why two weeks is adequate. I would hope that the government would indicate that it would support the change to two weeks instead of three, because that has been our practice for some time.


Mr. St. Laurent:: The bill was introduced in the form in which it was reported from the committee, but we have ascertained that there was little consideration to that problem in the committee, and we did not want to

bring in a bill that differed from that recommended by the committee. If it is the desire of the house-I know it is the desire of a large number on this side of the house- that the delay remain at two weeks as it has been heretofore, the government will leave it to the free vote of all members of the house if the suggestion is made that the former delay of two weeks be continued in the amended bill.


George Alexander Drew: Then I would take it that the government would give favourable consideration to an amendment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Many members of the government will vote in favour of retaining the 14-day rule, but would not wish to impose a decision contrary to the recommendation of the committee unless it is the free expression of a majority in the house.


Mr. Low:: I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say what he has said, though I was prepared to speak in favour of the retention of the 14-day period as it was in the old act. I do not like section 8 in this amendment of the bill and I certainly give my support to the 14-day period rather than the 21-day period as it is in section 8 of the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is unfortunately not here; he is in Winnipeg in connection with some celebration. The last time this matter was before the house he had some interesting comments to make regarding the filing of election expenses required by law after the election is over. I wonder if the minister could make some comment at this stage, keeping in mind the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, indicating whether or not he will be prepared to include in the new act some amendments to the current legislation so that all the candidates in all constituencies of Canada would file returns and that these returns would be made available here, so that some department of government would be responsible for enforcing the law. I notice that among those who failed to report their expenses were several former members of parliament who should not have any excuse for not knowing the law. There were some barristers at law who should not have the excuse that they did not have the necessary education to complete these forms, which are not too complicated.


Roch Pinard: 
An hon. Member:: Lack of education, no doubt.


Roch Pinard: In so far as the suggestion made by my hon. friend is concerned, I would think that this matter should have been submitted to the committee itself, when the question of expenses of candidates came up for discussion. The only change suggested to the act was in section 17 of the act, to increase from $1,000 to $2,000 the amount of expenses allowed to a candidate to be spent by him. It would have been possible at the appropriate time to discuss also the problem to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave his attention the other day. In so far as the other suggestion is concerned, as to finding ways and means of forcing candidates, either defeated or elected, to file their returns, I should have thoughl that this matter also could have been studied better before a committee which is charged with revising the whole act. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the minister -who in this case is simply the spokesman of the chief electoral officer, and is not to direct his actions-to make a suggestion that the act be amended according to the views expressed. I would much prefer to see such a question fully discussed in committee and that suggestions be made by my hon. friend and by all those who, like him and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, hold strong views in that respect. A study by a committee of that question would possibly allow of a better way of putting into effect this suggestion to force candidates to file their election returns, and, if they did not do so, be subject to a penalty.
On the whole I would simply say this. I think it is not an appropriate function of the government to express strong views on matters that affect the conduct of elections. This is a matter that belongs not to a department of government but to every member of

Canada Elections Act
this house; and in my opinion it is more appropriate that questions of that nature be studied in committee so that representatives of all parties may express their views and, in doing so, may have the assistance of the chief electoral officer so as to allow the act to be amended in such a way as to serve ihe interests of all Canadians.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Pinard thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I know we have not announced any other business for the remainder of the time at our disposal this afternoon. If the house would not have any objection to our doing so, we could call third reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, continue with that item and then adjourn even if it goes through almost immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not any of our members wish to speak on that third reading. I understood that the minister was going to bring before us resolutions concerning the Canadian National Railways. We are prepared to go on with those if he desires to do so.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there has been a slight misunderstanding. I thought we would be ready to take them but I did not think it would be this afternoon. I thought it would be the first order of business next week, among other things. I think we have a somewhat involved statement about the two Canadian National Railways resolutions. If the house does not wish to go on with the third reading of the bill with respect to P.F.R.A., I move that we adjourn.


George Alexander Drew: I think that procedure would be more appropriate because I happen to know that there are some hon. members who wish to speak on this bill and who had no expectation that it was coming before the house this afternoon.


Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask leave of the house, on motions, to present four resolutions with respect to the Customs Tariff Act. I shall do that, I hope by leave, and make a short statement explaining the nature of the resolutions. I understand the practice in the past has been to do it in this manner. The resolutions are then printed in the same manner as are the resolutions on the night of the budget address and of course would not be called for discussion for some time until hon. members have an opportunity to look at them.
The first order of business will be in committee of ways and means, taking first the resolution with respect to income tax and the resolution following that with respect to excise.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

Thursday, June 2, 1955