1955-07-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz.:
Of James Alexander Smith, Esquire, for the electoral district of Battle River-Cam-rose.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Mr. St. Laurent:: I should like to lay on the table return, reference No. 161, mover Mr. Diefenbaker, correspondence since January 1, 1954, containing complaints of alleged unfairness and discrimination by federal government to the province of Newfoundland. As I expected when the order was made, there is no such correspondence.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He does not complain openly.



SMALL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister care to comment on the suggestion in last night's Citizen that at the next session of parliament a parliamentary committee would inquire into the operations of the Small Loans Act?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the suggestion in the newspaper. Of course we shall take everything into account. Does the hon. member himself speak in the same sense?


Hazen Robert Argue: What does the minister mean? If the minister wishes to know whether I would like such an inquiry to be made, the answer is yes.


Walter Edward Harris: I may tell the house that I have been consulting with many people who
are interested in the Small Loans Act and it is hoped that during the summer we will have a look at it to see if it should be revised.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, just to clear up the matter of motions, I believe that there is outstanding a motion asking for the production of correspondence between the provincial and federal governments in relation to the federal-provincial conference. The Prime Minister said that a letter had been written to the premier of Ontario, I believe on April 1. Has a reply been received and, if so, can that correspondence be tabled to clear up the order paper?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unless a reply came in this morning, a reply has not been received. A letter was written on April 1 and then some time in June another letter was written calling attention to the fact that the April letter had not yet been answered. The return is ready and we are just waiting for word from the Ontario government that it does not object to the correspondence being produced.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the Prime Minister has extended quite prolonged courtesy to the premier of Ontario. I think if a reply is not forthcoming the correspondence should be tabled, as courtesy should work both ways.


Mr. St. Laurenl:: There have been many matters engaging the attention of the premier of Ontario since April 1.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of recent reports in certain western newspapers. Can the Prime Minister say whether the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects will inquire into the desirability of the South Saskatchewan river project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would be surprised if it did.

Inquiries of the Ministry PIPE LINES



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES LIMITED    REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited have given an undertaking, provided they receive the go-ahead from the government, to build a pipe line through Canada within five years, and also what is the present position of the propositions now before the government with reference to this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there have been no developments since I answered a somewhat similar question a few days ago in the house. The company is endeavouring to get commitments from other interests which are required to create a situation which would facilitate the financing of its undertaking, and there have been no developments since I last mentioned the matter in the house.
With respect to the specific time limit that has been discussed with the company, it is probable that instead of there being an undertaking with a limit fixed in months or years it would be an undertaking that would mature when markets had developed to a certain percentage. It is felt that it would not be helpful to make any stipulation that would not be apt to be realized if the financial houses were not satisfied with the conditions that had developed with respect to the economic prospects of the undertaking. This is an undertaking the cost of which will run into hundreds of millions of dollars wdiich would have to be provided through financing by the public generally. We have to be realistic and recognize that it would not be useful to have an undertaking if the factual situation does not develop to make it an undertaking based on sound economics. I think the officers of the company are doing their best at this moment to get the kind of commitments that will make the prospects reasonably secure.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Has there been any change in the government policy announced in 1953 that the needs of the Canadian people for natural gas must be assured before there is any permission to export?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no change in the general policy. Consideration is being given to the kind of situation that had to be met with respect to providing gas for Vancouver. There, there had to be a pipe line that will have a capacity greater than the quantity of gas Vancouver can consume at


this time, and so there has been an arrangement to allow the surplus that would be carried in the pipe line to be exported. Similar considerations may apply to a pipe line that would bring gas eastward. It may be that at this time it would have to have a greater capacity than the Canadian market in eastern Canada would now absorb. The question that is being discussed and about which negotiations are proceeding is to find what could be done with that surplus over and above eastern requirements at this time without making commitments that would not leave the gas available when the eastern Canadian market will have further developed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask just one other supplementary question, if I may. I cannot refer in detail to the article by Victor Mackie in the Free Press, but I ask the Prime Minister this. Did the government demand and receive a firm undertaking from the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines that, should it receive the approval of the government to proceed, that company would proceed within the five-year period? When may it be expected that a decision will be made on this question and, in particular, in reference to the alternative suggestions or offers that have been made?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot fix any specific date. I am satisfied that they are proceeding just as expeditiously as they can to secure the commitments that would be required to make the proposal one that financial houses would look upon with favour. As I said a moment ago, it may be difficult to get a commitment that such and such will be done on such a date. We may have to be satisfied with a commitment that all efforts will be made to develop the market and that, when it reaches a certain quota, the commitment will then become an absolute obligation.



SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE-CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on the second report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: Standing order No. 2. Shall
this amendment carry?


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion of the rules on July 1 was on a very high plane. I have just a few remarks to make about the proposals that are before us at the present time.

Eighteen years ago I was a member of the empire parliamentary conference. At a sitting of that conference, which took place at Westminster hall on May 6, 1937, the coronation year of the late King and the Queen Mother, I mentioned the rules of the house. Hon. members know that for centuries the British rules were few in number. The first one dates from 1707. It was standing order No. 63. Then there were two others, one in 1713, No. 6 and one in 1715, No. 65. The next one is 1821, No. 66. Therefore between 1707 and 1821 there were only four standing orders in force at Westminster and they referred to public money. In 1835 another standing order was passed, namely No. 81, to the effect that seats were not to be taken by members before prayers. In 1842 five standing orders were passed by the House of Commons, namely Nos. 75 to 79, relating to public petitions. Therefore at the time when May published the first edition of his valuable treatise only 10 standing orders were in force in the house at Westminster.
I thought that it might be of some interest to write a book on the rules of the various legislatures of the commonwealth. As one always does before writing a textbook, I made my own library. I obtained the rules up to date in 1937 from each legislature of the empire and I started my work on the standing orders of Australia. They were much more numerous than ours. I made my tabulations with great care in order to show what rules were the same in the larger number of the legislatures of the British Empire.
Then I went to Longmans, Green and Company in the shadow of St. Paul's cathedral and a reader gave me an interview. He was a very bright gentleman. He was a mind reader who could finish my sentences. It was an easy conversation. I showed him my notes or my tabulation and I asked him whether it was worth while writing a book on those lines. He said: Leave it with me and I will answer you in two or three days. When I returned to see him, he was friendly and he told me this: "Young man, if you want to write a book like this you may do so, but do not undertake such a work unless you have a foundation behind you because nobody will read it; nobody reads the rules."
What he said is true. I had proof of that fact when, after my speech, a gentleman by the name of Mr. F. W. Schramm, M.P. from New Zealand, said that he was delighted to have travelled 10,000 miles to listen to a great man like Sir John Simon; then he said: "What is the use of speaking of such a large number of rules when nobody pays any attention to them?" That was my experience. I destroyed my manuscript, which represented
12, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure some work, but it gave me the opportunity to realize what the rules of the house are.
The book of standing orders is divided into two parts. One part relates to the discussion of public bills and the other to the discussion of private bills. There should be another distinction made with respect to the duties of the clerk and assistant clerk of the house and the chief of orders because there are many rules that do not interest members. They are those that relate to the compilation of the orders of the day and Votes and Proceedings. When we come here we have two booklets in front of us. Votes and Proceedings relates to what has been done on the previous day and the orders of the day are the agenda for the present day. No member of the house, except possibly the leader of the house with the advice of the leaders of the other groups, has anything to do with them. It is done mostly by the chief of orders and notices and the clerk and assistant clerk of the house.
Therefore there are many rules that concern the members but which they are not interested in reading, and most of the time they take for granted that the work done by the officers of the house is satisfactory. In my personal knowledge extending over 31 years I do not recall a complaint being made by any member about the priority of one matter over another. Perhaps it has been suggested once or twice. Therefore, leaving aside those rules that concern the officers of the house gives us the opportunity to read the rules that are the shield and armour of members when they are engaged in debate or discussion. They are very few. Of course there are the rules of good education. One shall not be covered when he addresses the chair. We learned that in our families. It is nothing extraordinary.
There is a practice that members can wear their hats when they sit in the house. It came about because of the drafts at Westminster. They had to protect their skulls against the drafts coming across the hall. There is another practice that when members rise to speak during a division they must be covered. Not very long ago a member of parliament had to borrow a hat from a lady member to cover his head when he was addressing the chair during a division. But that is exceptional and it is rather ridiculous. It is outdated and out of fashion, and nobody would think of following tradition to that extent.
Now, what is the rule about sittings? Is it necessary to learn it by heart? I do not think so because the bells are there to summon the members. Sometimes they do not

Special Committee on Procedure ring long enough and we happen to arrive during the prayers. We miss the prayers because the ringing of the bells has been too short, but the bells are heard by all members of the house. Then there is another rule concerning the quorum, which is 20 members. If some members wish to object to what is said when there is a lack of a quorum they may do so. It happens very seldom, and the chair is always indulgent and waits until more members come to give a decision.
Then there is a rule to the effect that Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum. There is standing order No. 15 concerning the business of the house and the orders of the day which are prepared by the chief of orders and notices and the clerks of the house.
Standing order No. 16 is a very important one and makes provision for the immediate consideration of any matter of privilege. This is fair because when there is an argument between two members, and a member objects to anything offensive which has been said, he may rise in the house. A member may exercise his right to rise on a question of privilege if any insults have been published in the press for speeches given outside of parliament. If some newspaper attacks a member of parliament, he has a right to defend himself and to defend his honour as a member of parliament in the very chamber where he is sitting. There is no question about it, because if the offensive language is used against the member in his capacity as a member of parliament, he has a right to defend himself in the House of Commons; that is clear.
Naturally, there is abuse of the privilege at times. There are some members who rise to say that their hockey team or rugby team has won something, and that is of no interest to the lawmakers of the country. It is very good publicity, and we must be tolerant in cases like that because they make members so happy in the thought that the best sportsmen in Canada live in their constituency and have accomplished a remarkable success.
To continue my line of argument, sir, standing orders Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 refer to the clerk of the house. Then, standing order No. 37 concerns the limitation of speeches. I feel that 20 minutes is long enough for a speech, provided that one is not interrupted and provided that no sermon is made during the speech. Then, one can go on and express what he has to say in 20 minutes. This rule is not fair because there are exceptions for some cabinet members and some members of the opposition. I do not see why these gentlemen could not answer any charge in 20 minutes, except


when they have to reply to specific accusations and they have to read some papers which form part of the evidence.
Then, there is the rule concerning debatable motions, and there is a list of them. There are many members who rise to speak to motions, but it is for the Chair to decide whether or not a motion is debatable.
Standing order No. 40 says that members have a right to explain their point of view, and it refers also to irrelevance or repetition. I am never so happy as when one of my colleagues says the thing I would have liked to say before I speak. This is in accordance with the law of the least effort, and it is a great joy to hear what I wanted to say said by another member.
Under standing order No. 41 no member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, and offensive language against any member of parliament is forbidden. There is something that surprises me about this rule. It extends not only to Her Majesty but also to the governor or person administering the government of Canada. The order reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family: nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
If it applies to the royal family, it should apply also to the whole family of the governor general and the person administering the government of Canada in his absence. Nobody attacks them, but it would be fair to put them on the same standing as the royal family. The order continues:	\
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Standing order 41 goes with standing order 16, which reads:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
We can ask a colleague to withdraw when he uses offensive language, but not when he has made an erroneous statement which contains nothing offensive. For instance, if a member says that a minister has not consulted his colleagues, it is a statement of fact. The minister rises and says: "I have consulted my colleagues." The matter is closed. If a member uses offensive language against any one of his colleagues, the member concerned may rise and ask for a withdrawal, but the member is bound to withdraw only offensive language, not a statement of fact which might be erroneous, but which contains nothing offensive in itself. Well, that is about all.
Questions are given to the clerk. A few years ago it was not necessary to sign them. Now they have decided the members should

sign the questions. If we give two copies of the questions it helps the officers of the house downstairs, and it is a very simple matter. The questions shall contain no statement of fact; that is all.
I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Schramm of New Zealand was right when he said that nobody paid any attention to the rules of the house and the discussion was nevertheless carried on satisfactorily. You remember, sir, that I complained not so long ago that a big concern like the Canadian National Railways had no regulation with respect to discussion. It is provided for in the new act that they are to have bylaws concerning the discussions at their meetings. That is new. I asked the Canadian Bankers Association whether they had any rules governing the annual meetings of the shareholders or the meetings of the board of directors and they said, "We never heard about it", but the discussion is carried on very well because, as the Minister of Finance, the leader of the house, mentioned the other day, it must always be carried on in a spirit of fairness.
One should not be too punctilious and too dogmatic about the rules. I remember that one of the predecessors of the present leader of the house referred at one time to rule 510, and I told him there was no such rule. Afterwards the word "citation" instead of the word "quotation" was used. What is that citation? That citation is a quotation from a ruling that may have been made 200 or 300 years ago, before the standing orders existed at Westminster, by a gentleman who happened to be Speaker, who made a decision under circumstances and conditions entirely different from those in which we live. Are we bound by that? What was the case before that Speaker? We do not know. That is why I said that most of the books which have been manufactured by Pepper, scissors and glue, the dicta of Redlich and all the other illustrious men, Anson, Bourinot, Sir Courtenay Ilbert and Beauchesne, were very easily manufactured. One had only to have the excerpts copied and then put them in disorder, in complete disorder. Cut them out with scissors and have them glued by Pepper, who was messenger to His Grace, and it was the rules of the house. Nobody understood anything in them, but there was one expert who could tell the government and the opposition, who wrote the rules of the house, and finally the books came out as an anthology of learning. I do not believe in it; I never did. I believe that the discussion should be according to the unwritten rules of fair discussion and debate, and then everybody would be satisfied. It would be in order; everybody would be satisfied. The less regard
Special Committee on Procedure we pay to the obsolete precedents the better we are, because these British precedents are completely ignored in Westminster at the present time. The Chair must have a broad outlook and be fair to members of parliament, as you are, sir, in order that they may fulfil their painstaking duties with the greatest ease and without any discrimination.
It is very easy for hon. members to understand the rules that concern them, because they are very few. They are clear enough to be understood by members who are not experts.
With regard to legislation, it is very seldom that members sponsor public bills, and when they do those bills do not go very far. I remember that I succeeded in having a bill passed in a few minutes to abolish one of the boards that had been created some years ago. I sponsored legislation to repeal the economic council act, and it was passed. It went out like that, but there was a barrage in the caucus the same day. I also sponsored bills to repeal the social legislation of the Conservative government which had been declared void by the privy council, but the prime minister of the time, Mr. Mackenzie King, adjourned the debate on each bill and it was never resumed.
The time is late and members have made concessions to each other in order to expedite the business of the house and I shall not insist upon this any further. What I want to say is that for 31 years in the House of Commons I have been more or less active. On looking up the index I find that I have made more speeches than any member of parliament. I have never bothered about the rules because I believed in the fairness of the Speakers when there was any difficulty.
I was glad that the prime minister and the government recognized the merits of Speaker Black and Speaker Bowman in appointing them members of the privy council. Other Speakers were appointed to the privy council upon leaving office but it took a Liberal government to give this deserved reward to these Conservative Speakers.


Mr. Fulton:: No one else could do it because there has been a Liberal government in office.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was done for others and it could have been done at the time, but they had so many other things to pack up that they did not have time to look after their friends. I think hon. gentlemen should give credit to the Liberal government for rewarding those two gentlemen who left many fond memories among those who knew them. My dealings with the members of the house have been most pleasant and I think one of

Special Committee on Procedure the finest rewards of a member of parliament in fulfilling his arduous duties is the many lasting friendships he makes among members on all sides of the house. I am known as a die-hard Liberal but I have many friends across the house and I shall remember them with emotion. I thank hon. members for having listened to these remarks on the rules.
Before concluding may I say what I have said to hon. members who have asked me to explain the rules to them. I said that it was easy to know the rules, it was easy to abide by the rules, provided the members are dealt with fairly in all circumstances.
Mr. Cold well: Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to a most interesting and characteristic speech by the hon. member for Temis-couata. He gave us the background of many of the rules of the House of Commons. I was most interested in his explanation of some of the old customs that have died out. When I first came to the house there were probably half a dozen members who used to insist on wearing their hats during the sittings, but I cannot recall any time in the last several years when an hon. member has followed that old custom. For example, 1 remember the Hon. Mr. Motherwell sitting in the chamber with his hat on, and I remember a former senator who used to represent a Quebec constituency in this house invariably wearing his hat in the chamber.
The historic background given this morning by the hon. member is rather different from what I learned when I was at school. I was told that the custom arose because in ancient times when the knights entered the House of Commons they wore their helmets in order to protect themselves should anything occur during a turmoil in the House of Commons. Similarly, in the house at Westminster the distance between the opposition and the government side of the house is exactly two swords' length, so that they cannot poke each other across the way. When I look at the mace I am reminded that it was once a club in the hands of the gentleman who occupied a position analogous to that of the Sergeant-at-Arms so that he could maintain order in the assembly.
Reference to these customs brings back worth-while historic references to the workings of this remarkable institution we call parliament. May I say in the house what I have often said outside, that I do not think that in the long history of mankind an institution has yet been devised which is as efficient and useful for the self-government of nations as is the parliamentary institution which we possess and under which we live


in this country. I think it is the duty of all members of the House of Commons to maintain respect for this institution.
With regard to the rules, I agree with the hon. member that the fewer rules we have the better it is for debate. When I came to the House of Commons some 20 years ago I expected to find the parliamentary rules being most carefully observed. I had taken part in debating clubs and societies and had belonged to organizations, including a city council, that had constitutions and bylaws, and when I came here I was amazed to find that strict parliamentary rules were more often disregarded than followed. I find that as a rule in smaller organizations that have constitutions and bylaws you are more apt to find the chairman enforcing the constitution and the rules with great vigour. As the hon. gentleman said, in this parliament of Canada there is across the floor of the house and from the Chair usually a breadth of tolerance which enables us to invoke the rules very rarely indeed.
With regard to the revision of the rules now before us, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said when the rules were introduced for consideration a short time ago, we carefully considered these amendments and accepted the package policy. That does not mean to say that we are entirely satisfied with all the proposed changes. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will not misunderstand what I am about to say because I do not intend to cast any reflection upon him. In the recent debate I began to have some qualms about the 40-minute rule and about the new rule in connection with committees under which hon. members would be limited to 30 minutes.
I am not objecting to the 30-minute rule, which I think is a good rule, as I believe hon. members, except in exceptional circumstances, could condense their remarks and confine themselves to 20-minute speeches. Apparently they have no time limit in the British house, but I notice on reading their Hansard when there is an interesting debate that in the main most speeches run from 20 to 25 minutes. They seem to get along very well.
I think that if members of parliament are going to be limited to 40 minutes there should be some understanding regarding the length of time for which a member of the government or the Leader of the Opposition may speak. As I say, I am not reflecting upon anyone, but we did listen to a speech which taken in pieces extended for 4 hours and 20 minutes. Under the rules now laid before us the debate on particular topics is to be limited and the motions on going into

supply are to be limited also. If a member on the government side, a minister, say, occupies two to three hours in bringing something in and talking on a particular measure, and on our side of the house we have a speech of two to three hours or more, it means that private members of the house who are neither members of the government or leader of the opposition are going to be denied the right to enter the discussion in a particular debate. Consequently I would say this. We are going to accept the amendments as they are now before us because we have already pledged ourselves to that, but there will undoubtedly be a move in this house to amend these rules further, limiting, we shall say, a member of the government introducing a measure to one hour and a reply from our side to one hour, if restraint is not exercised by those who have the privilege that the rules are going to give them in this house.
I want to say that very forthrightly, because I think somebody has to say it. I say it, not in any disrespect to anyone. Please do not misunderstand me. I say it because I think that otherwise there will grow up in this house something of an ill feeling, and I do not want to see that. We have always had, as the hon. member for Temiscouata has said, a pretty good feeling in all parts of the house. That was the main point that I really wanted to make in connection with the rules.
These amendments are new and we are going to see how they work. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Temiscouata in another sense too, when he speaks of the citations. I know that those who have written the books of rules and procedures for us -Beauchesne, Bourinot, May and so on-have gone through the precedents of the past and have gathered all the decisions of the various Speakers or the decisions of the house together in these books. I have often found since I have been here that it is quite easy to find one citation that will support the government in one respect and another citation that will show that the first citation is wrong. It seems to me that the citations need to be looked over and many of them swept out of the rule books used in the house. Some of them are in conflict. As the hon. member said, some of them are entirely out of date. I think we need a committee to go into the rule books and see what can be eliminated from them.
In the same way, we have Speakers' decisions quoted as precedents. It seems to me that a Speaker's decision is the decision of the Speaker of the house at the time and that it should not be used to govern the house in all
Special Committee on Procedure subsequent sessions, as is sometimes the case. One of the reservations I always have when a decision of Mr. Speaker is challenged, in voting for or against the Speaker's ruling, is that once the house makes a decision in support of a Speaker's ruling it can be quoted as a very convenient precedent, even though the ruling may appear subsequently to have been wrong and not in the interests of the house itself.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I want to follow my own particular advice, which is to speak within 20 minutes or so on a matter. As a matter of fact, in the 20 years I have been here I do not think I have exceeded the 40-minute rule more than half a dozen times, because I think we should all try to live within the confines of the rules of debate. The 30-minute rule in committee is to be commended, and I would like to have seen that 30-minute rule put into effect in the major debates in the house, because the 30-minute rule would give more members an opportunity of expressing themselves. If everybody takes 40 minutes, you are going to deny some of the members the right to express themselves.
I think a good job has been done by the committee. While, as I say, I have some qualms about some of the proposals, none the less I think it is in the interests of parliament to try them out. When we have tried them out, we can set up a committee again and perhaps make some further revisions in the interests of facilitating the business of the house and at the same time preserving the rights of all members of the house.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes to speak on the matter which is now before the house. I am very glad that, as the result of two years of work, the special committee in this house was able to come to an agreement. It has been called a package deal but it is acceptable to all parties in this house, although everyone may not agree with everything that is in it.
There is, however, just one point on which I should like to speak. That is not so much as a criticism of the recommendations that have been made, but as a warning on a matter which I think we have to watch very carefully when we are changing any of the rules of this house and in the administration and the operation of the rules as they are adopted. I believe most sincerely that it is the duty of all the members so to watch the making of rules and the administration of the rules that we do not have a tendency to add to the powers of cabinet government.
I believe that in the past there has been, both in the legislatures and in the House of
5988	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure Commons, too great a tendency to increase the powers of cabinet government. Every time that is done we are getting away from the supremacy of parliament. I have always been interested in this matter, and a few weeks ago I had the opportunity of reading a book written by a man named MacKay, entitled "The Unreformed Senate of Canada-Constitutional and Political Limits". I should like to quote from one paragraph of that book, which reads as follows:
Canada is governed by two legislatures, one real, the other sham. The sham legislature is composed of the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Commons. The real legislature consists of a despotic ruler-the Premier; an Upper House-the Cabinet; and a Lower House-the caucus of the government members of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They do not have that any more.


Harold Edward Winch: There is a great deal of truth in that paragraph, although it may not have applied in a recent decision of the government. In general it is true, and we have to be very careful to see that this cabinet power is not extended or their existing powers abused. I am interested in one particular phase of parliamentary procedure, and that is the powers and rights of the private members of the House of Commons. It is expressed in better words than I myself can bring to mind, in an article which I was reading the other day and which goes back quite a long time. The article is entitled "The Power of the Premier", and is contained in a publication called The News, published in the city of Toronto. The date of the publication is 28th November, 1905. I find it most interesting. This is what it says:
The supremacy of the cabinet has revolutionized the character of parliament. Not the least of the changes it has wrought has been the usurpation by the government of the time at the disposal of the private member for the initiation of legislation. It has been a maxim since the beginning of cabinet government that the cabinet is solely responsible for all administrative acts and all public expenditure. No other committee of parliament, no private member can be held politically responsible for either; t . decline of the power of the private member to put through such legislation is the result;
I was most interested in that quotation, Mr. Chairman, or in that statement made in 1905. I therefore went to the trouble of trying to find out just what has taken place in this House of Commons. I have here what I consider to be a most interesting chart. It is a list of all the acts initiated by the House of Commons from the session in 1924 until the session of 1953 inclusive. I find that from 1924 until 1953 the House of Commons has initiated and passed 1,799 bills. Of those 1,799 bills that were initiated in the House of Commons, only 33 were public bills introduced by private members. Of those 33,


three were amended by the Senate, 10 were rejected by the Senate and two were either withdrawn or action was not concluded. What that actually means is that out of 1,799 bills that were initiated in the House of Commons from 1924 to 1953 inclusive, only 21 bills of a public nature, introduced by private members, became the law of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Fleming:: That figure of 1,799 could not have included private bills.


Harold Edward Winch: That figure of 1,799 includes, government bills and private bills or public bills introduced by private members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It could not include divorce bills.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Divorce bills must have
greatly exceeded that number.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, yes. I am speaking of public bills introduced in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: The other is private business.


Harold Edward Winch: I personally think that 21 is a rather low figure in that period of time out of that number of bills. There are others who think that it is rather heavy. However, my point is this, Mr. Chairman. Whether the government like it or not, in the main the bills which finally become law are the result of the speaking of private members on the principle of bills or on the need for bills; and even although they are perhaps defeated year after year after year, the fact that they are introduced in principle or as public bills in the hands of private members ultimately results in government action. The introduction of new and progressive ideas and the demonstration of the need for new laws nearly always-not always but in the majority of cases-I think you will find, comes from the initiative of private members and also, to a great extent, comes from the ranks of the opposition whose job it is to criticize the government in a constructive manner and to put forward new ideas. I think it is most important that the attitude of the government toward the administration of the rules of this house should be such as not to put too great a limitation on the speaking rights of private members with regard to initiation of their ideas and putting forward public bills introduced by private members.
Of course I am going to support the motion which is now before the committee, but I wanted to point out the importance of private members and the importance of restraining

the power of cabinet government of which we have too much at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this report affords an opportunity for parliament to speak of itself. Only recently I was reading Quintin Hogg's book on parliament which sets forth something of the tradition, the ancient glory, and the modern power of parliament to maintain and to preserve freedom. 1 am going to quote just a few lines from that book:
Parliament is not like a building designed and constructed by a single architect, such as the Parthenon, St. Paul's cathedral and the Empire State building. Parliament resembles rather an ancient family mansion which has been lived in continuously for a period of centuries, and has served the needs of those who have dwelt therein by constantly modifying and adding to its conveniences from generation to generation.
Then a little bit later on:
To those who live in it, it is a priceless possession not to be exchanged for anything more meretricious and unified but those who are unfamiliar with its history are sometimes apt to lose themselves in its winding corridors and to be surprised and trapped by floors built at different times and on separate levels.
As I listened to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar as he reviewed some of those ancient traditions and usages, it occurred to me how necessary it is for those of us in parliament to know something of the traditions, the history and the glory of the past in order to appreciate the responsibilities and the opportunities of parliament in the present.
I am one of those who looked askance when this committee was set up, for press reports were to the effect that it was the intention of the members supporting the government to force through, by the engine of their majority, amendments to the rules. Those fears have not been maintained in the results that have been effected. To the committee must go the congratulations of parliament on the work it has done.
In some amendments I fear that there is a danger that the functions of the opposition will be restrained and restricted by the rules that are being brought in. I refer in particular to the time limit on motions on going into supply and also to the time limit on the reply to the speech from the throne. If in the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne the government chose to throw in its members alternately with opposition members, it would mean that the opposition would indeed be denied its right to speak and to advance its ideas.
After all, oppositions have their functions. What happened yesterday was an outstanding example of what an opposition can do in parliament. An opposition is restricted to its
12, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure right to speak and to protest, and to public opinion being created. Governments, however powerful, must bend to public opinion as represented by those who speak in opposition with authority and with responsibility. However, taking the recommendations in general, my opinion is that the committee has laid the foundations for a better and more efficient House of Commons, and it is our responsibility to make parliament efficient. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the decline in the power of private members. That is all too true. Read Hansard of 50 and 60 years ago and see there the degree to which the leaders of parliament-I refer not to those in authority but to those leaders in debate-moved the people by their erudition, their wisdom and their statesmanship with responsibility. No one wants to go back to the days of 70 years ago when debate was unlimited. An example of that is to be found in Hansard in 1885 when the Saskatchewan Riel rebellion was being discussed. Speaking now from recollection, I think the first three speakers spoke from five to seven hours. One spoke for eight hours. Sir John A. Macdonald felt he could cover the situation and answer the arguments of the then opposition in a speech which he confined and repressed to five hours and 16 minutes. Those were the days when lengthy speeches were of the essence of debate.


Major James William Coldwell: Sermons were the same length.


John George Diefenbaker: The sermons, of course, sometimes had a text. However, the right to speak at length must be inherent in parliament. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned the British parliament. There there is no limitation except that required and demanded by the exigencies of the debate. In the congress of the United States the reading of speeches became so general that the inevitable followed and speakers simply filed and tabled their speeches. That is one of the things we have to guard against in this house, for if the tendency of members to read speeches continues then sooner or later we are going to be placed in the position where we must inevitably follow the United States system. When that is followed parliamentary debate ceases and parliament will no longer be the institution that parliament should be.
I think one of the reasons for lengthy speeches today in those parliaments that are modelled after the British parliamentary system but do not follow it exactly is to be found in the presence of desks. In the British House of Commons there are no desks. No longer can one suggest abolishing desks, but

Special Committee on Procedure it is interesting to note that all over the commonwealth wherever desks are to be found in parliamentary institutions debates do not have that succinctness, clarity and distinction which exists under the British parliamentary system. It would be the heresy of all time for me to suggest the removal of desks today, but I do think that the removal of the desks would improve the quality of debate in the House of Commons and parliament beyond the imagination of any of us.
Wherever one goes in the commonwealth one finds the same arguments advanced that we hear here. It is said that parliament is speaking at too great length. There is not the study of the subjects upon which speeches are made that there should be. Remove the desks and the result is a vast increase in diligence of preparation and in the study of the subject. Debates in the British parliament are not lengthy with the exception of the historic debates of 1910 and 1911 when Lloyd George was anathema throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Those debates were lengthy debates because there was an abiding principle at stake.
The same thing took place in our own country during the naval debates. As a youngster I sat in the gallery of the House of Commons and listened to those debates. I often recall the greatness of those days. One thinks of the Lauriers and the Bordens, and one could name other great speakers of that time who carried on debate for weeks on end, as a debate was recently carried on, for whenever the privileges and traditions of parliament are invaded parliament should be vocal.
As I said a moment ago, the new rules do not change to any great extent the rights of the opposition and of parliament in general. They represent a compromise. A compromise is never perfect but compromise is of the essence of parliamentary discussion and deliberation. Mention was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I think also by the hon. member for Temiscouata about the application of the rule of stare decisis to Speakers' decisions. I am opposed to that. I think nothing will emasculate parliament more than for it to be imprisoned by decisions made by Speakers without that consideration that cannot always be given. In any event, such decisions apply only to the events of the moment and should not become authoritative and binding on subsequent Speakers, for after all the rules are made for the purpose of ensuring orderly debate. We do not want to turn parliament into an afternoon society meeting. If we have strong opinions we want to express them. We do not want to engage in personalities as such, but if we allow our rules or Speakers' decisions to place members of parliament in the position where if they
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
use a strong expression they have to withdraw it parliament will become nothing but a mere debating society.
After all, strong men have strong opinions. I think our trend in the last 15 or 20 years has been to reduce the standard of debate in parliament by the insistence on the letter of decorum. We do not carry our ill feelings outside of the House of Commons, and the things that we say, as long as they do not impute personal wrongdoing or lack of integrity, should be permitted in the House of Commons.
If we come to the point where every little expression of criticism results in a request for withdrawal, then indeed will parliament cease to maintain the traditions of the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, D'Arcy McGee, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Blake. They spoke strongly. Yes, in the days of Borden, Mackenzie King and Arthur Meighen, they spoke strongly. I often wonder, if they came back to parliament today and were to see the restrictions that the accumulation of rules has made on debate, whether they would recognize it as the place where they achieved their glories and where freedom was maintained.
I believe that in essence, Mr. Chairman, the rules as amended will be effectual in that the anachronisms and paradoxes of past rules have been removed. While there has been a diminution in the speaking time in committee, in reality that diminution is not going to reduce the time for debate or render ineffectual the opportunities for criticism. I welcome the changes that have brought about the removal of unnecessary, inapplicable and paradoxical rules of the past. I think that the committee, in what it has done, will at least have achieved a modicum of advance in parliamentary debate.


Mr. Hansell:: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the house will welcome the report that is before us. For several sessions now, the house has been attempting to arrive at some satisfactory and unanimous agreement to bring up to date the rules governing the procedure of this house. We have had committees working on this in previous sessions, but evidently at this session we have arrived somewhere. I wish to say now that we in this group appreciate the work of this committee. I think I should hand my colleague a little bouquet. Our party whip, as our representative on that committee, I believe did some substantial work. Every week, he would report to us as a group concerning the progress that had been made, thus keeping us well informed. Each week we made our

suggestions to him and eventually arrived at a unanimous decision that our party would support this report.
There are, however, some things upon which perhaps we, as individuals, would like to express ourselves, even though not in opposition to the report. As I say, we appreciate the report and have adopted it unanimously. The problem that seemed to be facing us was that there was a general desire to streamline the procedure of parliament. There was a feeling here, and a feeling in the country too because I have received this impression from other people apart from parliament but people who are vitally interested in the activities of parliament, that our present rules of procedure were somewhat antiquated. There was a feeling we had not quite kept pace with the advanced age and were still running parliament on the basis of what might be termed a more or less antiquated system of procedure.
The problem the committee had to meet was how to streamline parliamentary procedure to make parliament more efficient, while at the same time retaining what we believed to be a very important heritage, that is our democratic processes. I feel we have made progress in that respect. I do not think we have denied, to any great extent, the democratic rights of members of parliament, and yet have made some progress with regard to the streamlining of our procedure; although I will say that we have not gone too far. Progress along the lines of parliamentary procedure must be attained over a long period of time, and must be attained step by step. We cannot rush into something and then find we have made the mistake of going too far. Rules should be revised from time to time gradually, without interfering with our democratic processes.
I would suggest this, Mr. Chairman, that we must always recognize that we sit here as members of parliament representing the people of Canada and as individuals representing the people of a certain area. We call them constituencies. When we come here, we come here to speak on behalf of the people. I like to think of parliament as a place where we are all equal. It is for that reason I agree with one of the previous speakers that we must oppose cabinet administration and its power over parliament. It has no place in our democratic way of life. We are not elected in reality on the basis of parties. I know we go to the electors as parties because we believe in certain tenets of political doctrine, and because we believe in those we band ourselves together to make proposals to the people and present ourselves for election. I suppose to that extent
12, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure we are aligned with a party which believes certain political doctrines.
But we are not in reality elected as party members. We are elected as individuals representing the people of the areas from which we come or where we stand for election. I feel I can say that is so by reason of the fact that not so long ago-I do not want to become confused in this matter-one of our members presented a private bill to amend the elections act so that the name on the ballot would contain also the party for which the person is running. We think that is a good idea, but the house turned that down. They may have had a particular reason for turning that one down, but I think basically the reason that it has not been done over the years is that members run as representatives of the people.
Not so long ago a rather distinguished gentleman of the press gallery wrote a book, the title of which was "The People's Mouths". Of course, it was a book on members of parliament. Many members of parliament were mentioned by name. Of course, the title carries with it a very strong significance; that is, that we are here as the people's mouths. The people as a whole have no possible practical way of coming before the throne and making a complaint. What do they do? They elect somebody as a member of a constituted body known as parliament in which they can speak and lay their complaints at the foot of the throne. Therefore, when we come and speak we speak on behalf of the people whom we represent. We are their mouths before the throne. That traditionally and basically is the reason for parliament. Therefore, what I would say in that respect is that all members are equal here, and there should be no curtailing of their rights to speak, because if there is any curtailment of the rights of a member to speak, then what are we doing? We are curtailing the right of the people to express themselves through the person whom they have elected to speak for them. That is very basic and very fundamental, and therefore in all the streamlining of parliament we must preserve and protect the traditional rights of the people as expressed through their members.
Take the matter of the curtailment of time. I wondered at first whether it was a good idea to cut the length of the debate on the speech from the throne and the budget to so many days, because I felt that abuses could be made in that respect, even though there may be a sort of gentleman's agreement that the government side of the house will not take undue time. We are relying on that gentleman's agreement. I do not think I would have approved of that suggestion had

Special Committee on Procedure it not been for the fact that the same rule does not apply to bills or estimates. I could see a way by which, if the government side of the house took advantage of that ruling and filled the program for those days with their own speakers, thus limiting the time of the house for other groups in the house, we would reasonably say, all right, we shall catch up with you when our time comes, and when the estimates or some bills come up we can catch up and take all the time we wish to take.
There is another thing, too, in that respect. I do not know where independent members would fit into this picture. Remember, they, as independents, represent their people just as much as the prime minister or a cabinet minister or some distinguished member of one of the major parties. They have just as much right here and just as much right to speak as anyone else. I do not like to imply that the Speakers, those gentlemen of honour who occupy the Speaker's chair, would take any advantage. I am sure they would not. I can say this to Your Honour, the Deputy Speaker of this house, and to Mr. Speaker himself. Every hon. member would agree that you are among the fairest gentlemen who have occupied those positions. In fact, on some occasions, I can say that you have tried to help us out if we reached a little bit of an impasse, and have gone the extra mile to accommodate us. I am sure we appreciate that. While I am saying that, I should like to say the same thing about the deputy chairman of committees, our good friend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), who also sometimes occupies the chair as Acting Speaker. He is most generous. I am sure we appreciate your actions. But I do not know that I can say that of every Speaker who has occupied the chair. In my experience in this house over the last 20 years I do not know that I can say that. I am not going to mention any names, but I have often been tempted to rise in my place and ask whether Mr. Speaker's left eye was a glass eye, because it seemed to me on some occasions that the only people he could see were those he could see with his right eye. Of course, I did not do that. Perhaps there was a mote in it. Anyway, there is a possibility that an unfair Speaker could take advantage of a ruling of that kind and cut off the privileges and rights of members who sit on the opposition side of the house. I hope that never happens.
We do extend some courtesies to the prime minister; we extend courtesies to cabinet ministers and to the leader of the opposition when they want extended time for their speeches. I do believe that the leader of the
(Mr. Hansell.]
C.C.F. party, and the leader of this party, the Social Credit party, should also be given extended time if they are making a policy speech in some important debate. I am sure that the socialists feel that they have a philosophy that might be an alternative to the matters debated, and I am quite certain-and I do not think I would sit here tomorrow if I did not believe this-that the Social Credit party has an alternative to offer to the status quo and in fact to every other group. When it comes to presenting that alternative, with all its doctrinaire applications, the leader of the group should be given extended time as well as the opposition leader, the prime minister and those of cabinet rank.
I have one or two other things to say, Mr Chairman. In the first place we must remember that parliament after all is a place where people talk. I remember on one occasion, when the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was talking, someone shouted "Let's get on with the business; too mucu talk." The hon. member for Lethbridge said. "Well, what are we here for if it is not to talk?" That is a very pertinent question. What are we here for if it is not to talk? After all, the very word "parliament" comes from "parley," a gathering together in a place to talk. That is what it means.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: To say something.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; it is a place in which to say something as well as to talk. Of course, there may be variations as to what is meant by talk. It is a place to talk and furthermore when we talk it is recorded by these gentlemen who work so hard and who are called Hansard reporters. They do a marvellous job of reporting what is said, a better job sometimes than by other types of reporters. I know the press wants to be fair, but sometimes when you read the papers it is hard to detect whether the reports were made up from what was said here or from what somebody told them was said here. I have no criticism in that respect, but I do say that Hansard is the only official document setting out what has been said in the highest court of the land.
It is the only document of an authoritative nature which reports what has been said in a place where men are free to speak. We are more free to say things here than they are any place else in the world. It is one place which cannot be touched by any other court. It is one place where the people's mouths are free to say what they want to say, and Hansard is the official record of what has been said. It is kept in the library of parliament over the centuries of time and is the official document. If we want proof

of what we have said we do not go to some magazine or newspaper, we go to the source of that authority.
I am saying these things only to indicate that when the people speak there should be no curtailment as to what they want to say or as to how long they want to take to say it. I agree that we have to enter into a gentleman's agreement, that we have to have some reasonable rules and therefore we have the rule that we shall speak for 40 minutes only. I often kick myself for taking more time than I need but I know I am long-winded. My leader has said that no one is ever convinced after the first 20 minutes anyway. I admit all that and I am quite certain that if I really disciplined myself I could say in 30 minutes what I usually take 40 minutes to say.
I am quite willing that speeches should be limited in time. I am not contradicting my own argument when I say that, I simply believe that most of us could confine ourselves to 30 minutes. However, we are allowed 40 minutes in the house and 30 minutes in committee where we can speak as often as we want to speak. I think that rule is a good one.
I have one or two trivial matters I want to refer to and I shall not take too much time in doing so. The first is the rule governing the reading of speeches. I know that that rule is most difficult to enforce and I know that you, Mr. Chairman, have had some experience along those lines and our sympathies are with you. I urge hon. members to discipline themselves in respect to the reading of speeches. After all, if this is a place of parley, if this is a place of talk, I do not see why a member should let his name stand for election if he cannot come down here and talk without reading from a manuscript.
Some very distinguished members of this house, men with a string of degrees, men connected with distinguished law firms never make speeches in this house without reading them. I do not think that that is right and it is something about which we should be checked up a little more. If an hon. member has a speech all typed out and is going to read it, why take up the time of the house in doing so. Why should not that hon. member be asked if he is reading his speech? Mr. Speaker could ask to see his notes and if it were clear that the member was using a manuscript Mr. Speaker could rule that it be placed on Hansard and the floor could be given to those who wanted to speak instead of reading speeches. It would all be in Hansard just the same.


Mr. Knight:: No.
Special Committee on Procedure


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Saskatoon says, "No". They do that in the United States.
An hon. Membar:	Unfortunately.


Ernest George Hansell: Maybe unfortunately, but it
would save time in the house. It does not make any difference to the argument, but what I am saying is that if there is a rule that hon. members should not read their speeches then hon. members of the house should adhere to that rule and not read their speeches.
There is another trivial matter I want to bring up for your consideration although it is not in the rules. Sometimes many of us do not get down to the chamber in time for prayers and I am one of those offenders. We get into the habit of waiting for the bells to ring, then we pick up some books or letters or something else we may want to take with us or we chat with our secretaries or someone else and the first thing we know when we get down here we have to stand behind the curtain until the prayers are finished.


Mr. Martin:: The hon. member for Lethbridge never misses.


Ernest George Hansell: There are some hon. members who never miss; they have disciplined themselves much more carefully than I have. I want to make a little suggestion. I suggest that about five minutes before the time for Your Honour to enter the chamber there should be a short ring of the bells for about three or four seconds. Then when Mr. Speaker enters the chamber about five minutes later the bells would ring in the regular way. That might encourage some laziness on the part of hon. members, but it might be well to try that for a while in order to have more hon. members here for prayers.
The prayers we hear at the opening of our sessions offer great encouragement in our democratic way of life and the carrying on of our duties in this parliament. I have sent copies of our prayers to many people. I believe the prayers that are read here, one day in English and one day in French, are classics of literature and of Christian doctrine. I do not know their history but I understand that a committee met many years ago and designed the prayer. The members of that committee must have been inspired. I certainly would not want to see that prayer changed.
I think I have taken up enough time and I close with saying that we are in support of this report.


Mr. Caslleden:: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure of the house is one of the most serious responsibilities we have. In revising

Special Committee on Procedure our rules it is most important that we keep in mind the rights of the individual, the purposes of members of parliament, and the purposes of the opposition. I hope that in revising our rules we are never guilty of curtailing or in any way curbing the democratic rights of the people and their representatives in the house. I think we can all agree that revision of the house rules in this case was necessary and what the committee has done meets generally with the approval of most parties. The representatives of each of the various parties in the house who were chosen to act on the committee in the house have in general done a very good job. As the representative from this group said on the 1st of July:
As the hon. member for Kamloops has said, this does not mean that every individual in each of the four parties has to support every item in the report.
There may be objections to some of the rules because it may be felt that there is some curtailment of the democratic rights of an individual. There is one feature of the amendment to which I wish as an individual to raise some objection. That is the curtailment of the time being given to the debate on the speech from the throne. Therefore every individual in this house elected by the people in his constituency could say he had the undeniable right to stand up at some time during that debate and place before the throne the situation with regard to his constituency. It is my contention that by limiting the debate to 10 days, you might possibly be curtailing that right. Heretofore the government back-bench members have largely refrained from the debate. They have taken up very little time in the debate. Most of the time in the throne speech debate has been occupied by members of the various opposition groups.
The opposition has a very important function to perform in parliament and there should be nothing that could curtail the right of the opposition to speak. I maintain that, by limiting that to 10 days as has been done in these rules, you might curtail the right of an individual member-perhaps not of the official opposition, perhaps not of our group, perhaps not of the Social Credit group, perhaps a member of the independent group. If a large number of government members spoke for their 40 minutes within the 10 days, the time might be used up for members speaking, and then the debate would be closed. I say it is possible. A member might then say, "I am denied that opportunity now;
I shall have an opportunity on the budget debate." But again in the revision of standing order No. 57C it says:
The proceedings on the order of the day for resuming debate on the motion "That Mr. Speaker


do now leave the chair" for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means (budget) and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not exceed eight sitting days.
Again, in one of the main omnibus debates in which a member is allowed to bring in any matter of difficulty in his constituency, he is curtailed. That is limited to eight days. I am not saying that that will happen, but I do say that under the amended rules that can happen. If that can happen, then I think we are losing something. That is the one objection I wish to register against these amendments. The opposition has a purpose to perform. In Robert MacGregor Dawson's book "The Government of Canada", he quotes W. S. Moncrieff favourably, on page 447:
The house meets, and in march the opposition, and sit there ready to attack ministers and their measures; never, if possible, to make a concession, by word or vote, to official shrewdness or skill. For the time being they are Her Majesty's loyal sappers and miners, not to be very particular if only they can hack and hew their way to the treasury benches. They are waiters upon Providence-all animated with the most exalted, never-say-die, patriotism. If they only had a bandage on their brow inscribed, "organized fault-finders," and a symbolical grid-iron, to be transferable, like the seals of office, the equipment would be complete. Broiling is a part of their special functions; and woe to the minister when a chief, with the spirit of an untamed Indian, is at the head of his foes. For party aims, he is understood to be clothed with forked-lightning invectives; and in debate, wonder not if he substitutes epithets for arguments, and deals more with the motives than the logic of ministers. In brief, he and his lieutenants must be quick to detect the joints in the armour of those in power; and, above everything, they are bound to cultivate the most wakeful and morbid suspiciousness."
The duty of the opposition to carry that out must not be curtailed. I maintain that in the amendment to the rules proposed here the possibility of that denial exists in the limitation of the debate. There is no limitation today in the speeches on the throne speech debate. There is no particular curtailment in committee. There is no curtailment in the speeches on estimates. But there is curtailment proposed in those omnibus debates which, I maintain, could be a denial of opportunity to a member to speak.
In general, with the rules as they exist today and with the alertness that I see in this house today, I think the members of this house would be conscious of the fact that a member's right might be curtailed. I am personally of the belief that, so long as we have in parliament men who are alert and alive to the rights of democracy and the rights of individual members to speak and to carry out their functions as an opposition, and the realization that the opposition is here to find fault with the government and to keep the government alert, democracy is safe. The fact that the opposition is doing

that tends to make good government. We would be wise to keep that purpose in mind in amending the rules.
I would say that parliament as it exists today in Canada is an institution of which Canadians can be proud. It is important that it be maintained as such. I think the one weakness in these amendments is that there is the possibility of denial of the right of a member representing the people to speak, through the double curtailment. I would support wholeheartedly the limitation of eight days of the debate on the budget, but I believe it is weakening this house as a democratic institution to curtail both of those debates. I would support one or the other, but I cannot support the curtailment of both.
I would suggest that the first amendment, the one to the throne speech debate, is the one where we have erred. That is the new standing order 38A. Every member should be able to say to the people of his constituency, who have elected him, "I went to the House of Commons and I was never denied the right to present the situation of my constituents, at the foot of the throne".
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, prior to the lunch hour I was outlining some of the reasons why I could not agree with the changes that are being proposed in the report of the special committee on the procedure of the House of Commons. The house committee which drafted the report had on it able representatives and there apparently was towards the end fairly general agreement. My objection is to the fact that there is to be a curtailment of one of the debates, something which is new to Canadian parliamentary procedure. I refer to the fact that the debate on the speech from the throne has been curtailed to a 10-day period.
During the lunch hour someone asked me how it was that I maintained that this rule is going to prevent members from speaking. It gives them 10 days. The days are being made longer. We are going to have morning sittings and therefore, they say, it is going to amount to the same thing, probably about 14 or 15 days anyway. I said: Oh yes, but this is the difference. If the government with its overwhelming majority permits the backbenchers to speak in any large number, instead of using about 20 per cent of the time as they do at the present time, they will be 50433-379J
Special Committee on Procedure taking up 60 per cent or even 80 per cent of the time, which will leave about 20 per cent to the opposition. If that 20 per cent of the time is all that the opposition has out of those 10 days, and if you split that up among the various groups, the three or four parties, you can easily see what could happen. If we try to ration that time there will be disagreement between the official opposition-the Progressive Conservatives-the Co-operative Commonwealth group, the Social Credit group and the independent members at the end of the chamber here. With the difference in the numbers, I do not know how we are possibly going to come to an agreement. Does that mean that this will cause friction between these parties? Perhaps the government would like that but I doubt whether it is good for parliament. If the time which the opposition at present uses is 80 per cent of those 12 days, and that time is cut down to only 20 per cent of the 12 days, I maintain that the opportunity for members of the opposition to speak will be curtailed or will be cut into one-quarter of that which they are using at the present time. The possibility of that event happening is the thing to which we should object.
The right of a minority group or of an individual to speak in this house should not be a matter of struggle. His right to speak for his constituents should be an undenied right which, when he comes here representing the people of any constituency, he knows is inherent in the fact that he was elected. We should make doubly sure that that right should never be denied him. It is to the possibility of that right being denied him that we raise objection.
The rules of the house are the bulwarks of that right or the very basis upon which that right is protected. It is behind these rules that the right of democracy exists. I maintain that in this matter we are weakening those bulwarks. The duty of members of parliament is to protect democracy. Rather than weakening these bulwarks we should be strengthening them.


Mr. Dickey:: What about Westminster? They are not weakening the bulwarks over there, are they?


George Hugh Castleden: I did not catch my hon.
friend's question.


John Horace Dickey: What about Westminster?


George Hugh Castleden: Westminster is a fine example. A large number of members sit in their house. Their house sits continuously all the year round. They have their recesses or holidays. The business of the whole of the 55 million people of that country-and a great country it is-constituting an important

Special Committee on Procedure part of the picture of the world, with a great deal of business to do-is conducted there. They sit continuously. Unfortunately there are only 365 days in the year. Their motion to adjourn at night is quite frequently wiped away and they sit all night. Quite frequently they sit until six o'clock or seven o'clock in the morning.


An hon. Member:: And use closure twice a week.


George Hugh Castleden: Conditions are quite different. As has been outlined here today, there are differences in the situation here from that in the house at Westminster. Somebody spoke about the United States and said that members of congress are allowed to speak for any length of time. I believe the record in the United States senate is something like 23 hours and 20 minutes. I believe that one man held the floor for that period of time. Here we have our rules curtailing speakers to 30 minutes or 40 minutes.
Let us not in Canada deny to members of parliament the right to speak. We have the time in which to do the business of the house. We have the time in which to do the business of the country. Members of parliament are well paid to do that job. They should be here and they should be doing it. Ask the people of Canada whether they want the rights of members of parliament curtailed, and find out what they want.
I can realize that members of the cabinet are men who want to get business done. I can understand that desire in men coming from successful walks of life in the business world. I can understand it, for instance, in a man who has made a success in the engineering line, whose whole training from his youth up has been a matter of getting a job done well and getting it done within certain limitations of time. That is the way he makes his money. There is a deadline. He has to meet it. If the thing cannot be done within that specified time, then move things out of the way in order to get it done.
In these days it is important that the business of government be done on time. For that reason we give to these ministers special powers. In wartime or time of emergency we grant them special powers because such powers allow them to do important business within the time in which it is required to be done for the safety of the nation. But that should not be a basis or a reason for the government to deny to members of parliament the democratic right of speaking for their constituencies. I believe that we are weakening that democratic right if we accept this proposal.

The consideration of efficiency in getting important business of government done on time should not interfere with the democratic process. Otherwise we are weakening it. It is because of the possible curtailment of the right of a representative chosen by the people in any constituency in any part of Canada to express the opinions which he was elected to express, and to express them clearly in this house, that I raise this objection. It is to prevent the possibility of that change that I oppose this amendment or what is proposed in the amendment. I still maintain-and will continue to do so-that the right, at least once in Canada's parliament, should be maintained for an individual member to rise and speak in an omnibus debate and to say those things which his constituents elected him to say. Canada's parliament should never deny that right to any person whom Canadians have elected and sent to this house.
(Translation) :


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted a few remarks on the question we are now debating? Needless to say, I would not presume in the least to give advice to the committee on parliamentary procedure. Before lunch I had the pleasure of being seated next to a worthy member of the Liberal party and I appreciated very much the things he whispered into my ear. However I was thereby prevented from hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I wanted to follow his speech for the very reason that his remarks and those I intend to make are largely related.
There is something in that report which I cannot accept. Of course I shall give my consent to its adoption since it is the wish of the majority, but I believe that one of the clauses should be removed, namely that which would limit to ten days the debate on the speech from the throne.
Everybody knows that the four independent members sit in a far corner of the house. As a matter of fact, we are so independent from the political standpoint that we are even independent from each other. That means nobody speaks on our behalf. So I presume that, should the debate be curtailed to a specific number of days, well-organized parties could make out their case, assert their rights of speech and so monopolize a certain number of days devoted to that debate. And, despite all the good will and the impartiality-for that matter, it is a pleasure to recognize it-of the hon. Speaker of the house (Mr. Beaudoin) and of the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Robinson), those hon. gentlemen might

be faced with situations which despite their good will, as I say, would prevent them from providing us, the humble independents, with an opportunity to submit not so much our personal views as those of our constituents.
I would have preferred to see a time limit set on speeches. I know that several members here are complaining about the 40-minute limit being too short. Of course, everything is somehow relative, particularly since Einstein passed through this world, even this question of a time limit on speeches. Everything depends entirely on the point of view. I realize that, to the exponent, his time always will be short, whereas the listener will always find it long. At any rate, this is what happens to me, when I rise.
I think that if speeches could be limited to 30 and even to 25 minutes, while no restriction were placed on the number of days of discussion, the debate might be more interesting, though it might possibly not last so long as with a set time limit of 10 days, as suggested in the report.
I did not count the number of hours that this would represent every day but assuming that the house would sit in the morning on certain days of the week and that there would be six hours of debate during 10 days, this would amount to sixty hours of debate. I am not very good at mathematics but if I am mistaken I am sure my good friends opposite will gladly correct me. Sixty hours of sixty minutes each would give 3,600 minutes of debate. Evidently this is only an assumption, an approximate figure. If we divide 3,600 minutes by forty, we arrive at 90, which would represent the number of speakers called upon to speak, assuming each would speak for forty minutes during those ten days of debate. If, however, we were to limit the speeches to thirty minutes, we would get 120 speakers.
If debates were limited to twenty-five instead of thirty minutes this would mean that there would be about 144 members of this house who would have the privilege of participating in this highly important and interesting debate and of expounding the views of those whom they have the honour of representing.
Once again I repeat that this would be more interesting and practical. It is possible to say a great many things in twenty-five or 30 minutes, and to say them in a generally very interesting and brilliant manner, as hon. members are well able to.
Special Committee on Procedure
This brings me to another subject, with which I would like to deal for just a minute or so, that is the matter raised by the hon. member for Macleod, according to whom the rule against the reading of speeches should be more stringently applied. These remarks are probably founded on very serious reasons since experienced parliamentarians have thought it wise to include this rule in the standing orders of this house. Frankly, though, I believe that there are no obvious important reasons for a rule such as this. On the contrary, I believe that, if we were free to read our speeches, we might say more sensible things. For those who speak longer and make excellent speeches, I gladly admit that some members speak for half an hour, an hour and even four hours-as there is no limit in some cases-and make very interesting and excellent speeches, but I wonder whether, if those speeches were read, they would not be better speeches, because, as in all human activity, there is always room for some kind of improvement. As for myself, although I have had some experience in the art of public speaking, I do not hesitate to say that in this house I like to confine myself to my text because I think that is the only way to talk the least possible nonsense. The hon. member for Macleod suggested that, instead of merely reading a text, it was just as well perhaps to table it. Besides, that is what is being done in Washington, we are told, and that is not so bad.
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to a member reading a speech he has prepared himself or to that speech being taken as read. However there would be a drawback in my case for, as it happens with any self-respecting doctor-I see several of my colleagues who are in that position, among them the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier)-nobody would be able to make out my handwriting, and I would have to get my speeches typewritten, but that is not a major drawback.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that in suggesting that the length of speeches be limited I have not gone beyond my allotted time.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it was not expected this unanimous report would provoke extended discussion in the house but, having listened to the debate, there are several matters I should like to recall to the memory of the house and there are several things that have been said in the course of the discussion to which I should like to make brief reference.
The committee to assist Mr. Speaker in the study of the rules actually has sat now

rule has not been strictly observed and it might create some hardship if an attempt is made by the Speaker to enforce the rule strictly. If we wish to save the time of the house there is one way in which we could do it, if all hon. members would strictly observe the rule that prohibits the reading of speeches.
There is one thing I should like to say about the committee in general. I do not suppose hon. members who did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee can adequately appreciate the debt this house owes to Mr. Speaker. The manner in which the first commoner presided over the meetings of this committee and exercised a judicial, moderating and fair influence on the committee, it seems to me, has laid this house under a very serious debt to him. It is a fact, sir, that the report would not have taken the form it has-I do not think there is one chance in fifty that the report would have been unanimous-but for the fair-minded and moderating influence exercised by Mr. Speaker in the committee. Time and again when differences were sharp Mr. Speaker intervened to put in the first place in the consideration of all hon. members, regardless of whether they possessed the majority on that committee or not, the necessity for fairness and recognition of the principle that the curtailment of the rights of members of the house should not be undertaken unless on a basis of unanimous agreement.
In several of the earlier speeches I thought I detected a note indicating a certain impatience with the rules of the house or with the body of decisions which do govern the interpretation of the standing orders of the house. This house cannot function without rules. The rules should be broad and fair. Their purpose should be to safeguard particularly the rights of minorities in the house. I do not know where the idea originated that a knowledge of the rules of the house or a knowledge of the jurisprudence that has attached itself to the interpretation of these rules is something of no value, and indeed, on the part of some members of the house, something to be scorned. Those members who have addressed their efforts to mastering the rules, so far as any human being can do that, it seems to me have not only rendered high service as members but have earned the respect of the house. There are some members we all recognize as having devoted a special effort to the study of the rules. For my part, regardless of the party from which they come, I hold their efforts and their erudition in high respect.
12, 1955
Special Committee on Procedure
Indeed, a sound knowledge of the rules of the house should be one of the most prized possessions of any member. One of the highest compliments ever paid to the late Sir Robert Borden was paid by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who sat in Sir Robert Borden's cabinet and succeeded him as prime minister of this country, and that was the admiration he expressed for Sir Robert Borden's complete mastery of the rules, a mastery achieved after long years of patient study. He said he had never known Sir Robert Borden to falter or err in the house on a question pertaining to order. That was indeed a high compliment.
Sir, with a knowledge of the rules of the house we will not have such expressions as "filibuster" bandied about as in recent days. Under the rules of this house there cannot be a filibuster, sir. That is a United States expression applicable to the delaying tactics that can be resorted to in the United States Senate because there they have no rule of relevancy. There cannot be any such thing under the rules of this house because we have a rule of strict relevancy of debate.
Sir, we do hear complaints about the trend of debate. There are two schools of thought, and we see them reflected in the proceedings of this house. There is the one that calls for emphasis on dignity and decorum. The other harks back to the days when debates were carried on in much more vigorous terms than is the practice today. Well, no doubt, sir, there has been a change in the tone of debate in the last 50 years. One can see it if one looks back on the debates in the early days after confederation. For my part, sir, I just offer this comment in passing. A great deal will be lost if there is any further trend toward making debates of a namby-pamby nature in this house. Vigorous disagreements should characterize a vigorous House of Commons. There is no reason why, within proper limitations, vigorous disagreement should not be expressed in vigorous terms. For my part, Mr. Chairman, much will be done to revive the vigour of the House of Commons, as it has been revived in recent days, by vigorous cut and thrust of debate.
Sir, there is one proposal on which I wish to make brief comment that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Macleod this morning. As I understood him, he suggested that some further rights should be attached to the leader of the C.C.F. group and to the leader of the Social Credit group in the house because they happened to be leaders of their respective groups. I do not know how far the hon. member was carrying his suggestion; but I wish to affirm and recognize the historic principle, sir, that there is in the House of Commons only one leader of the opposition.

Special Committee on Procedure Regardless of how many parties may be represented in the opposition, there is only one leader of the opposition. His is an historic office. It goes back a long time in parliamentary tradition. At Westminster, even when there were three parties there and the third party had a greater number of members than it has today, there never was any deviation from the rule that there is one leader of the opposition and one only. Now, sir, rights are attached to that office, and properly so. While I am sure that at all times the house will extend every reasonable courtesy to the leader of the C.C.F. and the leader of the Social Credit groups, I am quite certain that there will be no wish in this house to depart from that historic principle.
Actually, the suggestion is not new. In referring to the debate in this house in 1927 when the committee revising the rules in that year made its report, one finds that not only was the same suggestion put forward, but an amendment was introduced at that time to carry the suggestion into effect. One will see, on page 1426 of Hansard of March 22, 1927, reference to an amendment introduced by Mr. Bird, the then hon. member for Nelson, in these words:
That the words "the leader of the opposition" in the first and second lines be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "leaders of opposition groups".
That amendment to the new rules was voted down, and so far as I know it has not been raised by way of amendment since; and I question very much whether any hon. member is going to raise it now.
There are some interesting things on the same page of Hansard, sir. I let my eye run down lower on the page and I found to my surprise and interest that the hon. member for Temiscouata took part in the discussion on the report of the committee on the rules that year, just as he did today, and I And that he introduced a rather unusual amendment. It is referred to by the chairman, and I shall read what the chairman said at page 1426:


William Alfred Robinson: On Friday evening Mr. Pouliot moved:
"That the new rule to be added after rule 21 as amended be replaced by the paragraph:
'No speech delivered in the House of Commons shall be recorded in Hansard.'"
The chairman, commenting on this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Temiscouata, said:
I do not think this can be accepted as an amendment.


Mr. Lapointe:: It has no reference to this rule.


Mr. Garland (Bow River):: Would it be proper to suggest as an amendment that the hon. member's speeches be not recorded in Hansard?
The new rule was then agreed to on division.
Sir, I shall not detain the house further. We have here in Ottawa a rather different kind of chamber in many respects from that to be found in the mother of parliaments at Westminster. We could put two of their chambers in this one in the sense of area. We are different in the fact that we have our own chairs and our own desks, and they are reserved, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes not so good. We lose in this house, I suppose, something of the intimacy, certainly something of the quiet that pertains to debates in the mother of parliaments. However, this is the type of chamber we have chosen and within the rules, I suppose, we shall continue with this type of chamber and with this type of seating arrangement. But there is much to be said, indeed, sir, as was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Prince Albert this morning, for a chamber in which there are no desks, a chamber which is spared the noise of desk-banging and which is also spared much of the discursiveness that goes with the ability to bring in armfuls of books-and here I am speaking of a practice to which I am subject as much as any member in this house-and great files of papers; but as long as we have the type of chamber we have I expect that we shall have to continue to have, and properly so, debates characterized by references and by statistics.
But, sir, so far as the useful work done by this committee is concerned-and those who are members of the committee I think have some satisfaction in feeling that they have contributed to a useful work-let us hope that with all its imperfections-and no one pretends that it is perfect-it will nevertheless make a contribution to the better dispatch of public business in this house; With all its shortcomings, nevertheless this house is and must continue to be the embodiment of the highest function of the democratic system.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, some people think the House of Commons is a frustrated chorus of voices unable to choose their own songs, and I have sometimes thought that myself; but in this report that is not the case. The house has appointed this committee and I think it is one occasion when by unanimous agreement it has chosen its own song, in its report.
I think there is a debt of gratitude due to the members of the committee for the lengthy study they gave to this question, which is of great concern to all members of the house. I expect that all of us would be glad to have some alterations in the report, some additions or some subtractions, but I submit that the

report is an intelligent compromise, and intelligent compromise is increasingly necessary in a civilized society.
We owe a particular debt of gratitude to what I would term the major members of the committee. Mr. Speaker certainly lent dignity and substance to the committee. I think the Minister of Finance, with his traditional Ontario stability and his tortoiselike approach to change, made a substantial contribution to the work of the committee. The hon. member for Kamloops brought to the committee the freshness of youth and the spirit of fair play for which he is so well known. Then we had the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with his vast grasp of parliamentary procedure and his knowledge of parliamentary forms. There was also the hon. member for Acadia, who made a sound contribution to the final conclusions of the committee because of his long experience in this house and his understanding in dealing with complicated questions requiring all party agreement.
The lengthy labours of this committee should be recognized by the house and the country and the presentation of this report as a service to parliament as a whole. I suggest that it should receive unanimous approval. The report, of course, is to no particular party advantage. It is a report purely to assist the more efficient working of parliament which naturally is to the advantage of the country as a whole.
I am fully conscious of the work of the committee because of the discussions our whip had with us during the period the report was being considered and since it was tabled. I have felt that possibly the work of the committee might not be as fully recognized as it should be by members of parliament unless that work was particularly stressed.
I have two suggestions to make and in making them, I feel like a novitiate rising to speak on a subject about which I know very little, especially after listening to the erudite hon. member for Eglinton. I think that modern circumstances and changing conditions require that members voice their opinions with a certain limitation of language and with precision. In former times members could satisfy and massage their own egos by indulging in a lot of unnecessary rhetoric and repetition. Therefore I think there is one thing which will assist in making this report more useful to parliament, that is for us to use more precision of language and avoid repetition.
After reading British history I have come to the conclusion that at the present time our 50433-380
Special Committee on Procedure Canadian parliamentary debates seem to show a tendency toward being run along Sunday school lines. I think debates should be robust. I do not think a robust thrust and counter-thrust in debate violates the rules of this house or of any parliament. I believe that robustness improves the quality of the debate.
Those are my two suggestions. I submit that there should be more precision of language, a greater consideration of what one is going to say when one has the opportunity to say it, in order not to delay the house longer than necessary. Let us have our debates in the truly British tradition where they are robust and carried on in good spirit. We should be able to bring forward our arguments and present counter-arguments with vigour without breaking the rules of parliament.


Mr. Girard:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say only a couple of words in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Beauce. As he has said, if a debate is to continue for 10 days with a limitation of 40 minutes on speeches that will mean that about 90 members will be able to speak. If I were a member of a party I might find that arrangement fair because even if I was not able to speak I could find some other member in my group to say what I wanted to say. However, as an independent I do not know just how I can be worked into that arrangement.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, before he is elected as a member of a party, as a Liberal, or a Conservative, or a member of the C.C.F., or a member of the Social Credit party, every member of this house is, first and foremost, a representative of the people. How could we maintain respect for the rights of everybody, how could we express the feelings of our constituents if only one out of three members of this house are to be provided with an opportunity to take part in the debate on the address in reply?
It is quite obvious, as I have just pointed out in English, that any member of any party always finds some way of expressing his opinion since, generally speaking, he shares the views of the other members of his group. But what is to become of the independent member in a debate with a set time limit? Independents have no particular party affiliation, but they enjoy the same rights as party representatives since they are the representatives of their own personal point of view. How then could they express it if there are only to be a small number of favourites?
6002	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure
I do believe that it is fair to set a limit of about 10 days to the debate on the address in reply, but it seems to me that it could be done otherwise. For instance, a time limit could be imposed on speeches, which would allow more members to speak without extending the debate. When a man has to divide a small piece of cheese, it seems to me that it is much fairer to give everyone a small piece than to give a large piece to a privileged few.
Let us assume that the house, in its wisdom, realizing that the group of independent members do not by themselves represent a political party, and that each independent member expresses only his personal opinion, would decide-obviously that would constitute an exception-that all independent members could take part in the debate. The members of the other parties in the house would then feel that their rights are being encroached upon, since all groups have the right to speak. Let us suppose now that, at the next general election, about 20 independent members are elected, which is quite possible-


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Oh, no.


Fernand Girard: -would not the situation be unbearable? While abiding by the spirit of the rules on the matter, I think that we should amend them so that any elected representative of the people could be heard.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard also a discussion as to whether we should put a stop to the practice of reading speeches, which is contrary to our rules but is done quite often. I would agree with the statement of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) and point out that a well prepared speech makes it possible for the member who delivers it to say more sensible things than the member who utters generalities and speaks without any preparation. If I have a prepared speech, it is easier for me to remain within the limits of the matter being discussed, and I express my opinion in less time. If members were given the opportunity to prepare a written speech, they would avoid those countless repetitions for which they are so often criticized, and that would result in a considerable saving of the time of the house.
I shall close my remarks by commending the committee for the work it has accomplished. It is a really sensible compromise, as an hon. member said. However, I insist that the position of independents be considered. We are not a political party; but we should properly be allowed the same rights and privileges as the other groups in this house. If time were divided proportionally to party representation, it would 

affect the sacred rights of every representative of the people.
(Text) :


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to be very long. It is really assuming a good deal if a new member of the House of Commons is supposed to have any ideas at all on the rules. However, even those of us who are new to this house have had some attitude toward the parliament of Canada, and I should like to give expression to some of my ideas.
In the first place, I maintain that we have here 265 elected representatives of the people of Canada. We are not, in the first place, here as representatives of either the Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or Social Credit parties. I do my utmost to represent all the people in my constituency and I hope that we shall never change our rules in the House of Commons to the extent that we shall ever give official recognition to the existence of political parties.
It is a valuable feature in the whole British parliamentary system that political parties as such are not recognized. If they are not recognized and if, in the first place, I owe loyalty to this house as a member of the House of Commons and not as a member of the C.C.F., then it also is very important that we do not strengthen the hands of political organizations in Canada as such. We in this party particularly have often gone up and down the country condemning Liberal members of the House of Commons for being merely rubber stamps for the Liberal machine. I make no apology for that. I think there was a good measure of substance to that charge. However, I maintain that in some respects the proposed changes may make all of us rubber stamps for the political parties whose labels we bear.
I am not saying that it will be so, but the possibility exists. When we limit the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to a fixed number of days, we are very directly placing in the hands of the four party whips the allocation of who will and who will not participate in the debate. In my opinion, that violates the basic parliamentary precedent we have had since the first days of parliament. Whilst I regard myself as a most loyal member of the C.C.F. and hope always to remain a most loyal member of that party, I maintain that in this house my first loyalty is not to the C.C.F. party but to the people of Canada as a whole, and more particularly to the people in the constituency which sent me here.
If at any time I should happen to be in minority opinion in my particular political

group, I should not by any rules of this house be prevented from expressing my sincere conviction for what I feel may be the wishes of the people in my riding. I regret this move to eliminate, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the opportunity to each and every member to rise in his place and express his opinions should we so desire. I am not saying that he will be denied the opportunity, but the possibility and the danger now exist with the adoption of this report.
Another principle to which I should like to give expression at this time is that I see nothing in the proposed changes that will in any shape or form strengthen the role of the opposition in the House of Commons. This is not the government of Canada; this is the parliament of Canada, to which the government of Canada is directly responsible. There is far too great a tendency throughout Canada, and even in this house, to my mind, for us to accept the idea that this house is the government of Canada. The government of Canada is only responsible to this house, and even that is not by statute; even that is only by precedent. If the Liberal party of Canada which now forms the government were to lose an election, there is no law that can force that government to resign, even after it has lost the election. We are governed very much in this country by precedent. I am not saying that it would not resign; I know it would.
However, there is much to be said for some of the great traditions that have been handed down to us from generation to generation. There is emerging in Canada a one-party system of government. We see it in the provincial legislatures, and we also see it in the composition of this federal house. I am not intending to blame the Liberal government for that. I think the opposition parties-in this I include my own political party-are as much to blame as anyone else. The role of the opposition could have been strengthened by the proposed new rules, and the opposition parties' function assume its proper responsibility.
We are often appealed to on the basis that we are supposed to help the government to govern. That is not the function of the opposition. The function of the opposition is to hold up to the light of day the actions of the government, bad or good as they may be. I endorse the report as a whole. I merely wish to give expression to some of the dangers that I see may emerge from its adoption. I hope that precedents will determine that these dangers will not occur.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
50433-380i
Proposed Senate Reform SUPPLY
The house resumed, from Monday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.



SENATE REFORM

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned this debate at one o'clock yesterday, I had sketched briefly the history of the Senate. The subject matter of the amendment before this house is that a committee of both houses of parliament should be appointed to study and report on the possible changes which might be made in that other place.
I had indicated some of the accomplishments of that body throughout the years. I had suggested something of the changed conditions which had taken place which warranted an investigation at this time. I had referred to the tremendous increase in the government services, the increased life of governments or the length of life of governments, as compared with the short lives which prevailed at the time of confederation in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. I had also referred to the enhanced prerogatives of the Prime Minister in so far as appointments are concerned.
I think there is another change which has also taken place, and which perhaps militates against perhaps not the usefulness but the value which many people attach to that organization, and that is this. As I pointed out, originally the primary purpose of the Senate was to guard against sectional differences and also to act as a protector for racial and religious groups and minorities. I think throughout the years a change has taken place so that in so far as sections, at any rate, are concerned-and I refer to geographical sections-there is now no feeling that they might be oppressed or might suffer injustice at the hand of a strong central parliament here.
I think it is a good thing that has happened. Any injury a section might suffer today- and I am thinking particularly of the mari-times-would not result from any warranted or predetermined action of this parliament. It is something like the fear we express with respect to communism; that is, it is a matter of the infiltration and the indirect approach rather than open attack. They suffer today perhaps from the changes of centralization in industry and other matters such as that rather than any fear that the parliament of Canada or any part of Canada would do anything which would deliberately prejudice their position. Because of that, these areas

Proposed Senate Reform which at one time attached a great deal of importance to the Senate probably do not have that same strong feeling which at one time they had.
Of course in so far as groups are concerned, racial and religious, there is no question that the Senate is today and always will be looked upon as the bulwark; though I am sure nothing ever would be done to interfere with them at any time by any conceivable government. And if a government should attempt to do anything to interfere with them, I am sure the majority of the members of this house would intervene. As has already been said in another debate, we are members first. It would be inconceivable that anything would be done which would affect the situation.
But even so, the Senate is there and to that extent-and probably only to that extent-today it does serve the historic function for which it was created. I therefore think the time has come when study should be given to these changed conditions in order to see what new functions and new duties that body could perform.
I have just been glancing through the report of a dominion-provincial conference in 1927, and I see that Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the representative of the Canadian government at that time, lists a number of proposals for changes:
Among these proposals were, first, abolition; second, the adoption of the elective principle direct or indirect; third, a combination of both the appointive and elective principles; fourth, a fixed and limited term of office; fifth, an age limit with possible superannuation; and sixth, a bringing of relations between Canadian upper and lower chambers into accord with the relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Great Britain.
In other words there have always been numerous proposals, such as some of those which were made yesterday during this debate, as to what might be accomplished. This afternoon I am not going to discuss any of those specific proposals. Personally I can say that I have given some thought to the possibility of a certain number of appointments being made by the provinces. If the committee is set up I think that is one matter which undoubtedly it would consider.
We are faced with the problem of constitutional change in this country. We have sooner or later to evolve a pattern whereby we can amend our own constitution. We have not made a great deal of progress in the solution of that problem, and we shall not make progress in that direction until we get the accord of the provinces and can work out a system whereby the provinces and the dominion can co-operate to that end. It has sometimes occurred to me that if, for instance,
[Mr. Nowlan.l

the provincial governments were responsible for the appointment of, we will say, one-third of the senators so there would be at least one-third there presumably representing the provincial viewpoint, then possibly the provinces would be willing to agree to some system of constitutional amendment whereby on a two-thirds vote of both houses the Canadian constitution might be amended. At least that is a thought in that direction which I think is worthy of study as, if and when the committee is set up.
Of course that suggestion does give opportunity for the appointment of various groups and for different political parties coming into the Senate, something which is impossible now. Although that is true, certainly if this were made a term office rather than a life office, I think there would be a good chance indeed of some of this group disappearing within the next few years. We would not want appointments there from a dead and distant past representing a party which had ceased to exist. But I think the greatest criticism which can be levelled at that other place today-if a criticism is to be levelled against it

is the imbalance or lack of balance between the political parties represented in the Senate.
I noticed in the press this morning that, according to the figures given there, there are 7 representing the Progressive Conservative party, 73 representing the Liberal party, and 22 vacancies. Up until 1945 there were never more than 65 at any time-that was the greatest	number-representing	one
political party. I do not think there ever were the number of vacancies that exist today. In a statement made the other day by a distinguished and prominent Liberal senator-I refer to Senator Farris of Vancouver-I notice that he said:
But I predict with great seriousness that if the Liberal party remains in office, and the policy with respect to appointments that has prevailed since confederation is maintained, so that the house consists of a solid body of Liberals, nobody on earth will ever convince the public that the best interests of the public are being served.
As I said, that is the statement of a Liberal senator and I think it is a perfectly rational one. If there is criticism of this body, apart from its protective functions and perhaps the lessening necessity for that, it is largely because of this matter of balance as between the parties. I think it puts a great challenge up to the Prime Minister in this matter.
As I said, under our constitutional system, as it functions, the prerogative has increased, and properly so. I am not criticizing that aspect of it. One of the unquestioned prerogatives of the Prime Minister is that of the making of appointments to the Senate. We

have seen reports in the papers-in fact, we heard speeches not so long ago in this place -which might indicate that appointments will be made there in the very near future.
Certain appointments which are made or which have been suggested as being made from this place I am sure would add strength to the Senate and maintain the tradition of service of the Liberal party. But as I said, I think there is a challenge here to the Prime Minister for two reasons.
In the first place his party, the Liberal party, has been the great exponent of Senate reform throughout the years. His predecessor spoke often and at great length on what would be done in reforming the Senate, and talked of that body as it was then constituted in language which I am quite sure you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit us to use at this time. I notice that the other day in a debate the government leader in the Senate referred to a private conversation with Mr. Mackenzie King, in which he said he had hoped to be able to do something about the Senate but he had been too busy to deal with it.
The Prime Minister is now at the peak of his career and has a long record of public service. Although he intimated the other day that he has no immediate intention of retiring, obviously the day comes to all of us when we do retire, and his retirement will come in the not too distant future. I suggest that he has an opportunity to do something now and in the immediate future toward the strengthening and rectification of the Senate. His present situation is such that he is in a position to do it.
I think the situation has changed from what it was a few years ago. Certainly one has always recognized the fact that political appointments are made. One recognizes political loyalty. One recognizes that there comes a time when the man who has served his party long and faithfully in this place and, as happens to most members of parliament, has become very poor and hard up, looks for some reward in the form of an appointment, and in the past it has been perhaps the natural thing to consider that appointments should be made elsewhere.
I think the inauguration of our pension system has changed that principle to a substantial extent. True, a pension of $3,000 a year is perhaps not on the same plane and would not be so appealing as an appointment to an office which pays substantially more. But I am saying the Prime Minister is facing a different position from that which has confronted any previous prime minister. He has a greater opportunity than has been given
Proposed Senate Reform to any previous prime minister. He has a tremendous number of vacancies with which to deal, and I think he can greatly enhance his reputation by making the type of appointment which will please the public, redress the lack of balance existing in the other place today, and altogether strengthen our parliamentary system.
It is high time it was done. It does not reflect credit upon our parliament-and the Senate is a part of our parliament-that there should be such a number of vacancies existing there. It does not make for public support, as Senator Farris says, if you have the tremendous lack of proportion that exists today.
From the point of view of the short-term rectification of the problem, I suggest the challenge and the opportunity is there for the Prime Minister. I suggest he should intervene in this debate. I do not know anything more important, even at this late hour of the session, than consideration of the fundamental functioning of our parliamentary system.
For the long-term problem the solution obviously lies in the appointment of this committee. I grant you they could not study the matter at this time, but if we recognize the principle now, if the government is prepared to accept the fact that a committee should be set up, then at another session of parliament a conscientious and comprehensive study can be made of the problem. I am sure if that were done we would go a long way toward improving our parliamentary system and adding to the respect which I am afraid the public do not feel toward it at the moment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak at this time in support of the amendment now before us.- I admit I am not in complete agreement with all of the amendment, but it is the best that can be moved at this time.
If I will not be out of order I should like to make a very brief suggestion. I suggest that while our procedure in the House of Commons can be of use in the provincial legislatures, the procedure in those legislatures can also be of use in the House of Commons. At this time I should like to make a suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, which I hope you will put into effect. I suggest that Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day should not only contain the motions before the house but also amendments moved to those motions. As it is now, a member has to look back through Hansard covering a period of a month or two months, sometimes, to find out the actual amendment that is being discussed. Under provincial procedure

Proposed Senate Reform you find amendments on the orders of the day, on the very day the subject is being discussed.
At this moment we are discussing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I want to read it because I am afraid some hon. members may have forgotten it. It reads as follows:
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen so that all appropriate steps may be taken in order that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system."
I rise to speak in support of the amendment although in principle I stand for the abolition of the other place. I have found it very difficult to understand why it is necessary to have a second house in the senior parliament of Canada. In the majority of the provinces of Canada, which have a very important jurisdiction under the British North America Act, it has not been found necessary at all to have a second house. I have yet to hear any M.L.A. or M.P.P. in a province that does not have a second house speak in favour of having an upper house. To my own knowledge I have never known the citizens of any of the provinces of Canada that do not have a second house express a desire for one.
However, under the constitution the federal parliament of Canada has a second chamber. Personally I think it is completely unnecessary, but if it is required then I am definitely of the opinion it should come under controls similar to those of the upper house in Great Britain, so the will of the elected members cannot be stalled for more than one year by a non-elected body. If under our constitution and in the view of the house we have to have the Senate, then I say that reform is necessary; and in conformity with the amendment now before us I say that at no time should a non-elected body be able to supersede the wishes of the Canadian people as expressed through their elected representatives in the House of Commons.
Although it is my belief that we do not need a second chamber in the parliamentary system of Canada, I believe I could, strangely enough, put up an argument as to why it should be retained. In a previous discussion this morning I made reference to a study of bills initiated in the House of Commons and referred to the other place. From 1924 to 1953 inclusive there were 1,799 bills initiated and passed in the House of Commons and referred to the other place.


Here, Mr. Speaker, we have a most interesting study of what happened to those 1,799 bills so far as the other place is concerned. May I say that from 1924 to 1940 there were 18 sessions, and from 1940 to 1953 there were 16 sessions. Here, sir, is the record of what the other place did with those approximately 1,800 bills.
There were 292 government bills amended by the Senate, and 28 rejected. There were 1,245 passed without amendment and four were withdrawn or action was not concluded. In so far as the private bills initiated in the House of Commons from 1924 to 1953 inclusive are concerned, 31 were amended by the Senate, five were rejected and 153 were passed without amendment. There was one withdrawn or action not concluded. In so far as public bills initiated by private members in the House of Commons from 1924 to 1953 are concerned, three were amended by the Senate, 10 were rejected and 18 were passed without amendment. There were two withdrawn or action not concluded.
Taking the total of government bills, private bills initiated in this house and public bills initiated in this house by private members, we find that there were 326 amended by the Senate, 43 rejected, and 1,433 passed without amendment. There were eight withdrawn or action not completed.
This has taken quite a lot of study, Mr. Speaker, but I have had these figures confirmed so I know they are correct. They prove that the Senate has a function to perform, because out of 1,799 bills initiated in the House of Commons, passed by the house and referred to the Senate, the Senate amended 326, rejected 43 and passed 1,438, while 8 died on the order paper. Something very strange happened in the other place. I have been trying to find out what strange thing happened, but as yet I have not found out. It occurred in 1940.
I feel the record indicates that something occurred in 1940 which should be of serious import to us. I have referred to the record concerning House of Commons bills referred to the other place from 1924 to 1953 inclusive, and now I am going to draw a line at 1940. I am afraid, sir, I must ask hon. members to follow this rather closely, unless they would like me to have this chart filed and printed.
As I have said, between 1924 and 1940 there were 18 sessions, and between 1940 and 1953 there were 16 sessions of the House of Commons. Here is what happened to the bills initiated in this house during those two periods and referred to the Senate. I am going to give a breakdown of what happened during the 18 sessions from 1924 to 1940 when the Senate dealt with House of Commons

bills, and the 16 sessions from 1940 to 1953. In so far as government bills were concerned, from 1924 to 1940 there were 1,164 bills referred by the House of Commons to the Senate. The Senate made amendments to 197 bills. From 1940 to 1953, that is during 16 sessions, there were 635 government bills referred to the Senate and 95 bills were amended by that body. In the first period, 1924 to 1940, there were 28 government bills rejected by the Senate. Of the 635 government bills referred to the Senate between 1940 and 1953, only one was rejected.
Let us go to private bills initiated in this house between 1924 and 1940. There was a total of 1,164 bills referred to the Senate during that period, of which 30 were amended. From 1940 to 1953 one private bill was amended by the Senate. From 1924 to 1940 five private bills were rejected by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953 no private bills were rejected by the Senate
Let us take the public bills by private members. From 1924 to 1940, three were amended by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953, none. From 1924 to 1940, 10 were rejected by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953, none was rejected by the Senate. Sir, put these records together and it makes an amazing picture, and very definitely proves the need for some kind of reform in the other place and an explanation of what has happened since 1940.
Can you understand it, Mr. Speaker? I nave not the record here; I shall have to go through the figures in my own mind right now. From 1940 on not one government bill was ever rejected by the Senate. Go through the entire chart of government bills, private bills and public bills by private members from 1940, and you will see it is prefectly obvious, judging by this chart which I have checked, that the Senate is the stooge of the government since 1940.


André Gauthier: Oh!


Harold Edward Winch: The Senate is the stooge of the government. Why? Why, sir, I do not know. I said I did not know after I got this breakdown and had it checked.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the abolition of the other place. I believe in that most sincerely. It is not required. Under the British North America Act the provinces, which have just as serious responsibilities as the federal government in their own jurisdictions, do not require upper houses. I have never yet heard any requests for it. But as we have not that power I say, sir, that there is need for a reformation of the other place in line with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. Apparently that is as far as we can go. I agree with him that there should be
Proposed Senate Reform discussion on appointments to the other house and how they are made.
If we are to have another place, I agree with him that in honesty not only to the people of Canada but to the other place as well we should have a definite understanding and workable agreement as to the part they play in the government, and in the administration of government business in Canada. I go beyond the amendment, if I may, although it ties in with it, and suggest that if this house believes we must have another place there should be reform, but it should not be completely on the basis of asking the government to consider it. If we must have another place, it should be on the basis that next session there shall be an agreement between the House of Commons and the Senate in the first week we meet as to the appointment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider the position of the Senate, and to draft recommendations and a report to both houses as to how they can do an improved and a better job as the non-elective representatives of the people of Canada. I also want to say it is imperative that it be known that at no time nor in any way can a nonelective, patronage-appointed group have any superior or veto powers over the elected representatives who sit in the House of Commons.
It may be necessary, sir, to have a body which is capable of giving second thought to legislation. I personally am very much in agreement with the views and the law in Great Britain. We have heard a lot today about the parliament in Westminster where the upper house can turn down the elected members once, but if the elected members twice say this is the opinion of the House of Commons, then they have to pass it.
Sir, I think we are faced in this amendment with one of the most important issues that can possibly come before us. I have expressed my opinions on the other place. If, because of our federal make-up, there are some provinces that still think, for reasons of their own, that they need the protection of the upper place in order to safeguard provincial rights, with which I do not agree, may I say that this is the representative body of all Canada.
If an upper house is still felt to be necessary, then, sir, I want to support the amendment of the hon. member that there should be consultation and a reformation. A good job would be done for all of Canada if early next session the government would bring in a motion for a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider-you may be surprised at this, Mr. Speaker-not only the responsibilities of the Senate but

Proposed Senate Reform the responsibilities of the House of Commons in relation to the Senate.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, we shall support this amendment. Personally I would be more enthusiastic if the committee that is recommended were to study first of all what is the useful purpose now served by the other place.
The amendment assumes that the other place is essential, that it does perform a useful function and that it should be reformed and maintained. I would be more interested in the setting up of such a committee if its first function was to make an impartial, down to earth study of just what achievements could be placed to the credit of the other place during say the past 25 years, and just what purpose the appointed chamber has served that could not be served just as well by the elected House of Commons. In my opinion that is the first study that is required.
If the other place is serving a useful function in our government, then let us know just what is that useful function. The origins of appointed second chambers go back in history to the days when the upper chamber and those represented by that upper chamber wielded political power within the country. It goes back to the days when the elected representatives of the people could not be trusted to govern. Our second chamber exists today on that premise. Once you assume the position that the elected representatives of the people and they alone must assume responsibility for the governing of the country, and that the second chamber must under no circumstances be able to oppose indefinitely the will of that elected representative body, then you have cut from underneath the Senate the foundation on which such chambers were first established.
As has been shown, the other place has been most modest in amending and rejecting legislation passed by this chamber during the past 15 years. This is a simple indication that there is growing up in the public mind the belief that the elected representatives of the people can be trusted to govern and that no check is required upon them by an appointed second body. I suggest that the members of the second chamber know full well today that if they were to reject any important government measure or amend in any important respect any measure passed by this chamber, they would be signing the death warrant of the second chamber. I suggest that is the reason, with the passing of the years, the influence of the other place upon legislation passed in this chamber has been diminishing year by year.
I shall support the amendment, but I do suggest that if there is any attempt made to
[Mr. Winch.l

set up a committee for the purpose of studying Senate reform that committee should be asked, first of all, to set down in black and white just what contributions that chamber has made to the government of this country which could not have been made just as well by this chamber, and without the cost to the country of maintaining a second chamber.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment has been before the house for some days because other debates have intervened. The amendment was drafted carefully with the idea of providing for such procedure as the government may decide upon. We recognize perfectly well that if anything of this kind is to be done the government in power must decide the course that will be followed, must be prepared not only to decide the course but to accept it as a responsibility.
I should like to read the amendment again, because it is neither limited as to exact form *nor suitable as a basis for proceeding upon at this time in the session. The amendment before the house reads:
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate, including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen, so that all appropriate steps may be taken in order that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system."
I would point out that under this amendment it would be appropriate for the government to institute such consultation as might bring into the discussion all opinions which would bear on this subject. I have emphasized my own belief on earlier occasions that in this country the provinces have a particular and continuing interest in the structure of the Senate and its functions. In that respect there is a fundamental difference between the role of the House of Lords at Westminster and the Senate in Canada.
At Westminster the House of Lords is simply an upper chamber of review. It is true that in certain instances the initiative is taken in the discussion of various subjects, but it is appropriate to say that in most instances it acts merely as a chamber of review. As has been pointed out this afternoon, the House of Lords has been placed in the position where it cannot prevent indefinitely the adoption of legislation passed by the elected body. Nevertheless that does not render the House of Lords impotent. The fact that legislation can be held up for one year means that if the House of Lords does

hold up legislation there is an opportunity within that year for public opinion to assert itself, and for the opinions of a free press to have their impact upon the elected body. In that way there is the protection of a second look during a whole year within which there is opportunity to arouse public opinion if in fact the legislation should not be adopted.
Here the Senate as an upper chamber is a chamber of review, but there is no doubt that the primary reason for the setting up of a second chamber was the protection of our federal constitution and the rights of the provinces under that constitution. It is only necessary to read the discussions which took place prior to confederation in 1867 to find that the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces made the creation of a senate a condition precedent to the acceptance of the general terms of confederation.
The reason for that was clear. It was thought that this would assure the greatest measure of protection to those rights which were being conferred upon the provinces by the British North America Act, our basic constitution. The fact is that in Ontario not the same importance was attached to the second chamber at that time, though I should think there would be as great an interest in Ontario as elsewhere in a properly constituted second chamber. I believe there must be a second chamber in Canada, no matter what arguments might prevail in any other jurisdiction.
I would point out that there is one correction to be made to a statement that was made in this house just a short time ago with regard to the provincial legislatures. It was said that no provincial legislature has shown any interest in a second chamber. Actually there is a second chamber in Quebec, which after all does embrace a very large part of Canada. There were second chambers until quite recently in other provinces as well.
I would point out that the reason for a second chamber in the provincial legislatures is not the same. The second chamber in the provincial legislature is simply for the purpose of review. There are no constitutional rights to protect, in relation to legislation adopted by the provincial legislatures. Here we must recognize-and when I say "we must" I do so in the belief that all of us do recognize-the necessity for respecting the fundamental principles of our federal system. There must be a second chamber if we are to avoid endless disputes about the whole constitutional structure in this country. Nevertheless there is a chance that we might come to the point where there would be
Proposed Senate Reform an overwhelming demand for the abolition of that second chamber, unless that second chamber were more effective than it is today.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that without transgressing the rules I may use the term "Senate", because I find that in all the discussions that have taken place in the past the word has been used in discussing this subject. It is difficult to use the artificial expression of "the other place" when we are in fact discussing merely the structural entity of parliament itself.
Perhaps if there is a single debate where the members might well say, "We have heard all this before", it is in regard to Senate reform. No other debate could be instituted which has covered such an extensive period. In fact it has been going on for more than 70 years. Some discussion began very shortly after Canada became one country under the constitution. Sixty-nine years ago the position of the Liberal party was stated in the House of Commons-not in this same chamber, but in the Canadian House of Commons-in these words on another supply motion:
The purpose which a second chamber was intended to serve in our parliamentary system has not been secured by the Senate as it is now constituted.
They discovered that a long time ago. Over long years this debate has been renewed on supply and other motions in an effort to begin an appropriate consideration of the necessary reform of the second chamber. If that was an accurate assessment of the situation in 1886, it would be at least 10 times as accurate today, and perhaps that is a very conservative estimate.
How can the government reasonably object to such a proposal? This is the only country with a second chamber which over an extended period has done nothing at any time to reform the upper house and bring it into a modern relationship with the operation of parliament, no matter how strictly the fundamental principles guiding that upper body may be respected.
There has been a fundamental change in the United States. Until as recently as 1913, from the formation of the United States the senators at Washington were appointed. Then by the seventeenth amendment to the constitution of the United States it was decided that they would be elected. They have been elected since then and presumably will continue to be elected.
In Australia the senate is elected. There have been substantial reforms there. The senate there has also been under very considerable criticism. In fact only a few years ago, when the whole question of the reform

Proposed Senate Reform of the senate was being discussed, it was described, in words that were repeated on a number of occasions, as "a group of 60 completely undistinguished men". I am not borrowing that quotation. I am simply pointing out that there have been other jurisdictions in which the need for reform has been recognized. The House of Lords, of course, has been reformed over and over again; and the further reform of the House of Lords is under consideration at this very time, although there have been numerous earlier inquiries.
One of the reasons I think if we were reviewing this subject afresh today we would still come to the conclusion that we should have an upper house is that each of those countries which emerged from the war and established new constitutions in a democratic form has established an upper house. In France, where they adopted a new constitution by a vote of the people after the second world war, an upper house was established. That was also true in Italy, where they established an upper house under a new constitution. The same is true in Germany, where an effective democracy is now in operation.
I am sure we would come to the conclusion that a second house has many advantages, even if we were not merely bound by the considerations which had so much to do with the adoption of the upper house at the time of confederation itself. I do not need to repeat today all the impassioned arguments that were made by members of the Liberal party in the past in regard to the need for reform. It became almost a basic issue in itself. There was going to be reform that would bring the second chamber-


An hon. Member:: Haven't they done so?


George Alexander Drew: -into consonance with the ideals of those who drafted our constitution at Quebec. When a Liberal government came to power the only reform that took place was a reform to make the Senate acquiescent with the House of Commons. That was never the intention of the fathers of confederation.


Harold Edward Winch: And since 1940 in particular.


George Alexander Drew: It was in 1940 that the efflux of time achieved the result which the Liberal party started on its course some years earlier, the course that led to appropriate control over the Senate in 1940 begun in 1925. It was at that time that one of the most cynical acts that has ever been undertaken by any government in Canada was undertaken openly and without apology. After all the lofty sentiments expressed about the need for Senate reform the prime minister of Canada 
at that time settled the problem by demanding from new Senate appointees the pledge that they would support legislation passed by his government.
Mr. Speaker, that was not only a cynical disregard of the appeal that had been made, but I am inclined to think those members were never entitled to sit. By their own pledge they had denied their independence. Whether or not they were legally disentitled to sit, they were morally disentitled to do so. Every man and every woman who went into the Senate with a pledge that he or she would blindly support any legislation passed by this house was in fact undermining the whole independence of parliament. In that very acquiescence to the demand of the prime minister appointing them they most effectively undermined public confidence in the Senate. It is no wonder that Liberals themselves on other occasions have described the Senate as a blot on our parliamentary system. Those are not my words; they are the words of Sir Richard Cartwright years ago in describing his attitude toward that second body.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the day has passed when this government feels it is impelled to elicit such a pledge. I do not know that the pledge has been discontinued but, from a practical point of view, I recognize that it is unnecessary at this time. There is a good deal of discussion in the press, including today's newspapers, about appointments that are to be made to the Senate. May I express the hope that no lady or gentleman in this country will accept a Senate appointment in the belief that by his or her acceptance he or she is going to effectively contribute anything to a reform of the second chamber. In fact the appointment of a number of distinguished men and women may serve only to obscure the fact that there are fundamental reforms that are essential. In the surprise and pleasure of seeing a number of independent and distinguished people appointed to the Senate, many may acclaim that decision and discontinue the pressure for reform.
I hope that will not occur. The appointment of men and women whose standing in their communities and whose independence of judgment would in themselves commend their appointment will not in any way overcome the weakness which has been continuing now for so many long years. For over 70 years the demand has been there for a reform of the upper chamber. There is no other country with a bicameral system which, over that period of years, has failed to do something to make the second chamber a more effective part of the structure of parliament.

I think we can express the hope that the government might welcome this motion. It is drafted in a way that I believe makes it acceptable. Earlier this afternoon discussion took place which grew out of a motion which I had the honour to present several years ago, and which was adopted by the government. In that particular vote we have evidence that the government can adopt a motion of this kind without embarrassing itself in any way, simply by saying that the motion is acceptable to them. Surely if there- is any government anywhere that should accept a proposal that steps of this kind be initiated, it is a government formed by a party which for 70 years has been demanding Senate reform.
Mr. Speaker, a number of quotations have been put on the record, and I do not intend to repeat those quotations. However, I wish to go back to a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906, when he'emphasized the special consideration that must be borne in mind here; and it did not relate alone to the emphasis that his native province places upon the second chamber. These were his words:
One consideration which, to my mind, is absolutely conclusive and paramount is that under our system of government a .second chamber is an absolutely needed safeguard for the smaller provinces against a possible invasion of their rights by the larger provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it goes further than that. It is a guarantee of the constitutional rights of the provinces. It is a guarantee against the invasion of the rights of smaller provinces by the larger provinces; but above all, at a time when there is a greater and greater concentration of financial and political power in the hands of the central government, it may well be the only protection of the provinces against the increasing strength of the central government.
For all these reasons I believe the motion should be regarded as acceptable. Because of our own special considerations here in Canada I am satisfied that this is a subject about which the provinces must be consulted. That was recognized in 1927, when the dominion-provincial conference dealt with this subject. As has already been pointed out, the then minister of justice, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, placed before that conference a number of considerations which should be examined, such as the possibility of an elected senate, or a partly elected and partly appointed senate, or a fully appointed senate, or even abolition of the senate.
As has happened so often, that conference reached no conclusion. Nevertheless, the very fact that this subject in detail was placed before a dominion-provincial conference at that
Proposed Senate Reform time by a Liberal minister of justice indicates recognition that the provinces have a part to play in this discussion. I would hope that they will be brought into the consideration of this subject.
The amendment presented to the house, Mr. Speaker, is drafted in the way it is with that thought in mind, that after the house has been prorogued the government can appoint a commission or can call a conference at which representatives of the House of Commons, as represented by the government, the Senate itself and the provinces could meet to discuss this subject. Surely there is nothing surprising that this demand should be made after all these years. Long years ago a leading Liberal, Sir Richard Cartwright, called the Senate a blot on our parliamentary system. I think if it was a blot then it might well be described in even more emphatic terms today although, of course, outside the house.
But the fact is that it is extremely unfair to the men and women who have accepted appointment to the Senate to leave them in the position where they find themselves so unable to carry out the tasks which I am sure they would be ready to accept.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question before he concludes? Would he care to indicate what specific reforms he or his party have in mind when they speak of Senate reform?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate to set up a body of inquiry and then tell the body of inquiry in advance what it should do. I have proposed a method by which a body of inquiry can conduct an objective investigation into the appropriate reforms that can take place, and I do not think it is necessary or proper for those who pass a resolution asking others to conduct an inquiry and present a report to tell them in advance what report they shall make. I pointed out that in the presentation of this subject to the dominion-provincial conference in 1927 an elected senate, a partly elected, partly appointed senate, and a fully appointed senate were considered, as well as abolition of the senate itself. All these subjects would be before such a conference or commission of inquiry if the government chose to set it up.
I do not believe any hon. member in this house will challenge the fact that there are men and women in the other place whose training and ability has been demonstrated, and who unquestionably could give valuable service if reforms took place which made it possible for that service to be rendered in the way it could be rendered in an appropriately reformed upper house. I think it is

Proposed Senate Reform equally unnecessary to argue that there would be many hon. members who would not recognize that the Senate is not held in that regard in which any part of our parliamentary body should be held by the public in general at this time. There have been too many cases where there has been sufficient reason to give at least some credence to the belief that the Senate has been used as a form of special pension for certain members of parliament.


Joseph William Noseworthy: By both Liberals and Conservatives.


George Alexander Drew: I am not suggesting there is any special virtue attached to any particular member of any party in this house, and I am certainly not going to assign any special badge of purity to the hon. members to my left. I feel sure this is something that calls for an examination of the subject without any suggestion that anyone can dodge responsibility for what has happened. But every hon. member here must accept some responsibility unless he asks that appropriate steps be taken to reform the Senate, including any method of reform that could be brought before such a body or committee of inquiry.


Harold Edward Winch: That is why I am supporting the motion.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that is the case. That was clearly indicated, and we welcome that support because we welcome the sincerity expressed by those who hold a viewpoint different from ours regarding the function of the Senate. We do suggest, however, that the body of inquiry, whether it be a conference or a commission, shall not have its hands tied in advance as to the recommendations it will make.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? I have been listening with a great deal of interest. I am trying to find out just what it is that, in the hon. gentleman's mind, makes the Senate unfit for doing the work we would like to have it do. The Senate is there. What is there about the Senate as it is now constituted which renders it unable to do the work it should do, and which could be removed by any other method of appointing members of the Senate or of getting them into office?


George Alexander Drew: In the first place, Mr. Speaker,
I think the evidence already presented as to the failure of the upper house to have any appreciable impact upon legislation in recent years is in itself one of the most convincing pieces of evidence of the need for reform. I also think we must recognize, and I am sure all hon. members do recognize, that the debates of the Senate have not been of a nature to leave a very strong impact upon


the general public in recent years. That is not because of lack of ability in the Senate, but because there has been a substantial measure of unreality in debate largely going back to the pledge which I mentioned earlier in my remarks.
I also believe that the Senate can be a body where legislation of certain types, other than divorce legislation, can be appropriately initiated. I feel sure that the general business of parliament could be greatly expedited by the initiation of certain types of legislation in the upper house. I accept the proposition that in this country there are special reasons why a second chamber is essential, and starting from that point I want to see that second chamber as effective as possible.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask another question?


George Alexander Drew: I would prefer to conclude these remarks. There is one other reason why I think we must examine this question. After all, whatever expenditures may be devoted to defence and other activities of that nature, which perhaps change our ideas of the importance of dollars, the fact remains that we cannot entirely disregard the fact that the Senate is costing the taxpayers of Canada approximately $3 million a year at this time. I think from a business point of view we should seek to make sure that the $3 million for the upper house is well spent.
I believe there is also another point that would make it very desirable that such a committee be appointed at this time. In reading the press in recent days many hon. members will have seen suggestions that not only is there to be an early transition of some individuals from one part of the parliamentary body to the other, but also that the Senate may become a convenient place to dispose of the embarrassing services of some members of the government.
Whether or not there is anything in those suggestions, the fact remains that in the face of suggestions of that kind I would hope the government's desire to maintain respect for the upper house would, in itself, perhaps encourage them to accept the suggestion that steps of this kind be initiated. Whether the government accepts the motion or does not, I do hope it will accept the responsibility for maintaining public confidence in our combined parliamentary system. This can only result from some inquiry of this nature which brings the provinces as well as representatives of both bodies of our bicameral parliament into consultation.
I would hope that once again, as on an earlier occasion to which reference has been made in an earlier debate today, the government could see its way clear to approving a

motion from the opposition, and that at least after 70 years there would be a practical beginning on the reform of the upper house so it might become a really effective part of our parliamentary system.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would the hon. member permit a question? I have spoken on the subject, but I can ask a question. I may say that I feel the questions that have already been asked show the interest there has been in the excellent speech the Leader of the Opposition has delivered. One of the functions of the Senate, as he saw it

and I think he emphasized it as the most important-was the protection of the rights of the provinces. I want to ask him if this protection is exercised in any other way except by such power of veto or amendment as the Senate has over Commons legislation? I ask this question in view of the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that practically no amendment or veto power had been exercised by the Senate over the last 15 years.


George Alexander Drew: I do not believe the lack of any veto power has been the result of anything but the change brought about by the cynical pledge which was demanded of those appointees from 1925 onward, to the effect that they would support any legislation brought forward by this government without consideration of their own convictions in relation to that legislation. I can only emphasize my own belief that this was an improper pledge, a cynical denial of the freedom of the individual within one of our parliamentary bodies. I would hope the reform that would take place would prevent any such course as was adopted at that time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In other words, in your opinion the provinces have ceased to have the protection to which they are entitled, for the reason you have stated?


George Alexander Drew: Shall I put it this way. I do not think there is any convincing evidence since 1940 that their rights are adequately protected, and that is one of the reasons I would hope that Senate reform would assure the measure of protection which was intended at the time our constitution was drafted prior to confederation in 1867.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Finance if it is firmly understood that one department will not be called?


Walter Edward Harris: Correct.
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy council office-
338. General administration, $474,595.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 449. Departmental administration, $1,560,620.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hunter for the second reading of Bill No. 484, for the relief of Real Perras.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, this bill was before us some time ago, but if there are more urgent matters the government wishes to take up at this time I am prepared to not go ahead with the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: I would appreciate that. Since we were in supply a moment ago, perhaps we could go back into committee of supply and continue with national defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the proposal of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), which has been acceded to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), be accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures 
relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1930, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose last night we were discussing Canadian army, militia, including Canadian officers' training corps, the details of which will be found on page 329.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Am I correct in understanding that the Royal Canadian army cadets would come under that item?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: There is a separate item.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to ask the minister regarding the plans for the development and improvement at Wolseley barracks, London. Would he outline the new construction and installations which are planned, what the proposed expenditure will be for this year and the next four years, and how much is proposed to be spent during the fiscal year? Will he indicate how much will be spent during the next four years? Is it planned to acquire any further property adjacent to what is now known as Wolseley barracks in Carling Heights? Is it planned to increase the amount of space allotted for married quarters now or in the immediate future?


Mr. Campney:: All these questions have to do with the Canadian army, regular, the estimates for which we have passed. I have no desire, however, to refuse information, but it will take some time to get the figures requested. As the hon. member knows we are establishing a home station at London which involves a great deal of construction, a large part of which is in progress and the remainder of which will be initiated in coming years. I have no objection to giving what figures I can, but it will take some little time to obtain them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just before the committee rose I had asked the minister about the arrangements in effect at defence headquarters for the organization and training of the militia. The minister stated that General Letson had

been appointed recently as special officer in charge of militia, and that Colonel Buell had been named as well. Could I ask what qualifications of training and experience Colonel Buell has?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Colonel Buell is a regular officer who has served with distinction with the Canadian army for a good many years. As a matter of fact I think he is the son of Colonel Buell of Vancouver, whom the hon. member may know, who was very active in the first world war. Colonel Buell has also been director of cadet training for some years.
In answer to the whole question raised by the hon. member, as I stated yesterday we have General Letson as adviser on militia matters to the chief of the general staff. We also have Colonel Buell, to whom I have just referred, as director of militia and of cadets.
Each branch and directorate at headquarters has the responsibility for the militia as well as the regular army as part of its normal function. In other words the several branches of headquarters deal not only with the regular army but with the militia as well. For example, the directorate of military training establishes training policy standards for both the regular army and the militia. The staffs at command and area headquarters are responsible for the supervision, administration and training of militia units and, in particular, the administration and arrangement of annual camps and courses conducted throughout the area for the militia. In addition the regular army renders such assistance as is practicable to militia units in the various commands throughout the country.
Permanent assistance to the militia is provided by an instructional cadre on a command pool basis, and the establishment of this cadre, which is available for militia purposes, is approximately 700 officers and men located throughout the country. Following the recommendation of the Kennedy committee, authority has been granted for the employment on a full-time basis of 536 militia personnel to perform administrative duties at the various militia units. Working through militia group headquarters, of which I think there are 25, these men assist in the co-ordination of activities in the particular areas for which they are responsible. That may indicate the tie-up that exists between headquarters staffs and the commands throughout the country, in relation to the training of militia as connected with the army regiments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the minister gave us the arm in which Colonel Buell served.
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: Infantry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a very good qualification. Would the minister give us a little more detail, please, as to the tasks to be performed by General Letson and Colonel Buell? Are they to be purely in an advisory capacity to the chief of the general staff, or do they have any direct control in an administrative sense of the militia?
Mr Campney: I believe General Letson acts wholly in an advisory capacity on militia to the chief of the general staff. Colonel Buell is charged with administrative duties both in respect to militia and in respect to cadets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I would be anxious to know is the relationship between the functions of Colonel Buell and those of the various branches of the permanent army at headquarters here, which the minister told us a moment ago also had responsibilities in connection with the militia. Could the minister give us more detail as to whether Colonel Buell's main job is to co-ordinate the activities of the various branches of the permanent forces with respect to the militia or merely to advise them on it, and what staff does he have? I realize that this is perhaps in the developmental stage, but how is it envisaged as working? In other words, I should like to be assured that this is not merely another gesture-and I use the term with respect-but that something concrete is going to come out of this.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Colonel Buell, who devotes his full time to his directorate of militia and cadets, is in a large degree a co-ordinator. He visits units, studies their needs and brings those needs to the attention of the various directorates of the army interested in particular matters. So his duties are much more than advisory. He has executive duties, and he has access to the other directorates of the army to make known the needs of the militia in an endeavour to have them met. He also advises other directorates on matters he thinks should be brought to their attention in the best interests of the militia. So in every sense of the word he is a very active and practical head of a directorate, similar to the heads of the other directorates of the army.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that directorate of equal status to the other directorates?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, it has equal status with the directorate of infantry and the other directorates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe the minister said
there are approximately 700 personnel of the permanent force assigned as a training cadre and 536 militia personnel whose employment

Supply-National Defence on a full-time basis has been authorized. That makes a total of approximately 1,236. Can the minister give us a more concrete figure as to the total number of personnel who would be engaged in the administration, training and organization of the militia? I do not mean the militia themselves. I am trying to get the size of the effort being devoted, here at national defence headquarters and in the army throughout Canada, to the establishment, organization and training of the militia.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In addition to the personnel of the directorate of militia, as I mentioned, all the directorates and their personnel devote whatever time may be required from time to time to militia activities. They are all charged with accepting whatever duties are brought to their attention within their respective directorates for the benefit of the militia. In other words the attempt was made-and I think it is meeting with a very high degree of success-to develop the militia training and administration, by having its directorate brought into correlation with other army directorates and their personnel.
Of course, the 536 full-time militia personnel allocated to militia operations were also the product of the Kennedy committee. They provide a connecting link of a military nature between militia units and headquarters, and reduce a good deal the delays and paper work ordinarily necessary. That also, I think, has more than justified itself so far as it has been tried. We are still tidying up the organization, but I think it is one step that has been extremely useful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would it be correct to say that there are in round figures only these 1,200 personnel whose duties are exclusively related to the militia, and that the others have a dual function; that is to say they are administering the permanent forces and discharging such duties as are entrusted to them with respect to the militia?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would say that is a fair statement of the position.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the director of the militia, can the minister say whether he has direct chain of command or authority to the militia units, or does he have in every respect to transmit instructions through the area commands?


Ralph Osborne Campney: All instructions-and that includes those from director of militia-go through command and area headquarters. The same procedure is followed in respect of the militia or any other units of the army.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So the organization for the militia is from units, from area headquarters,
rMr. Fulton. 1
to the director. It is difficult to get this matter into watertight compartments, but what authority does the director have in relation to the area headquarters? Can he issue instructions and require certain things to be done, or does he have to go perhaps through General Letson to the chief of the staff and make recommendations to him, and does the order have to be transmitted down from the chief of staff and through these channels out to area headquarters?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should say that the chain of responsibilities varies. If it is a matter of policy, then it would go, I presume, from General Letson to the chief of the general staff and be dealt with as would any other matter of policy. If it were a purely administrative matter, then I think he has sufficient authority, as do the other directors in their own respective spheres, to deal directly with the units through command and through area. It would depend on the nature of the particular item as to the way in which it was done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What staff has this directorate at the moment? What is the total number of personnel in that directorate?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Altogether I think there are 12 or 15, approximately that number, including two lieutenant colonels and six other officers, plus personnel of lower rank.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister just give us an indication of the nature of the organization of that directorate and of its various components? I do not mean that the minister give it to us person by person, but rather that he give us an outline of its organization.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand it, the directorate is divided into two subdivisions, each of which is headed by a lieutenant colonel. One division deals with militia units and militia matters and the other division of the directorate deals with cadets, of which we have about 65,000 at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How long has it been established now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Almost a year; it was established as soon as it could be put into effect after the report was examined and accepted by the chief of the general staff, and by the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Some question was asked earlier which related to this matter. I think it would be helpful if the minister could give us the percentage of those training with the militia units throughout Canada who will go to camp this summer for annual training.


Mr, Campney:: I think I gave the figure last night. If I recollect correctly the present strength of the militia is roughly 45,000. Yes

the figure which I gave was as of April 20, 1955, 45,828. The estimated number of those who are attending or who will be attending camp during the present year-we have not the actual figures yet, of course-is 19,082. That was the estimate that was made at the beginning of December of the number who would go to camp.


George Alexander Drew: I can only express some regret that at this stage of these estimates we have not a clearer picture of what has been taking place. Questions have been asked with regard to tank training, anti-tank training and the training of the units generally. I think it is agreed by everyone that in this country the militia is the backbone of our army organization. It is from the militia, in large measure, that enlistment comes in the permanent units.
I think it would be unfortunate if anyone left the estimates at this time without recognizing that at a time when we are spending such enormous sums of money, there are practically no units of the militia in Canada that either are fully equipped or are equipped with the most modern weapons. The question must be in the minds of everyone as to what the concept of our militia is. I noticed a statement given to the press a few days ago by the department to the effect that the department was confronted with a great decision as to whether to concentrate on conventional or nuclear war. The fact is that even in relation to the conventional units we have, there is not any suggestion that those are units in being ready to take the field in the event of difficulties.
I think at this stage a word should be said about the magnificent contribution being made by the members of our militia units training for the defence of Canada. They are limited in numbers. They are limited in opportunity to get the complete training that some of us would wish them to have. But in spite of all that the officers, N.C.O.'s and men of our militia units have done a magnificent job within the limitations under which they are framing. I think their carriage on parade and their acceptance of the duties that fall upon them are a credit to every one of them.
However, if events are as serious as they are portrayed to us, and if the times call for the sense of emergency which has been emphasized on various occasions in recent weeks, I feel that we should decide that the time has come for our militia units to be much more comprehensively trained and equipped than has been true in recent years. Whether it is artillery, tanks or armoured units; whether it is infantry, the army service corps or other units of our army, we are still training them as though we were under severe
Supply-National Defence limitations while at the same time we are spending such tremendous sums of money.
I wish we could have a clearer picture; but even in the somewhat blurred picture that is presented one thing is not uncertain, and that is the splendid contribution that is being made by the volunteer members of our militia forces. I feel that all hon. members have reason for satisfaction that, under whatever difficulties or limitations there may be, they are showing the kind of spirit that has made the militia the backbone of our whole defence organization.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I should like to ask a brief question that relates to the armouries at Virden, Manitoba. About four years ago the Department of National Defence purchased the lot adjoining the armouries there. Since that time oil has been discovered in Virden. The population has doubled within two or three years and property, particularly in the main section of the town, is at a premium. The question has been asked, what does the Department of National Defence intend to do with the property adjoining the armouries there, which it has had in its possession for some four years now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of all the circumstances attending the acquisition of that property at Virden. I presume it must have been purchased for use in conjunction with or for extension of the armouries. I have not been able to make a review of the armouries situation this year yet, to see what armouries we may be able to build. As I mentioned the other evening, ever since Korea we have necessarily curtailed the construction of armouries because of lack of funds, but we are now making a study of the armouries situation in order to arrange priorities and make some disposition of the most urgent needs. When I am looking into the matter, as I hope to be very shortly, I shall look at the Virden situation. I am not familiar with the details at the moment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it that it is contemplated there will be an extension of the armouries at Virden?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot say that. Frankly I do not know because, as I say, we are just preparing now a study of the whole armouries situation to decide which are more urgently needed than others and within what financial limits we can construct armouries this year and in the years to come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like, somewhat hesitantly, to express an opinion. I hardly even like to call it an opinion, but as a result of the answers the minister has given to my question about the directorate of the militia
6018	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence I am concerned over the question of the chain of command and communication. I understand that for anything requiring a decision or anything in the way of an instruction of major importance, the chain would be from the director down through area and command headquarters and from there to the militia units. I presume if a request or recommendation were going in the reverse direction it would have to go from the unit through command and area headquarters up to the director, and for any decision to be taken the matter would have to go to the chief of staff. Then if a decision is taken it goes from him back down through the staff channels of area and command headquarters and so on.
I wonder whether that would not tend to have the result, since obviously the main concern of area and command headquarters is with the permanent force, that militia problems will tend to assume a secondary place and the giving and implementation of decisions with respect to the militia will become delayed. There is no direct or personal criticism of area and command staffs involved here, because we are dealing with human nature. They are permanent force officers and personnel, and that is their main responsibility.
If, therefore, you have on the one hand somewhat of a lessening of the authority of area commanders with respect to the militia by virtue of the fact that a militia directorate has been established, I should think they would tend to say, well, if part of our authority has been taken away, then it is not as in gent that we deal with these matters as it might be if we were directly responsible. Having set up a directorate, I wonder whether it would not be sound to give it a somewhat more direct responsibility in the chain of command between the directorate and the militia units.
I am not blaming the minister because it is probably my fault, but I do not have a very clear picture yet how this thing works. However, as I understand it, it seems to me there is some danger that the militia, rather than assuming a more important place and having a greater degree of priority and urgency attached to their problems, will tend to assume a rather less important place. I would think that could be offset by giving the directorate more and greater authority to issue instructions, make decisions and have them carried out directly in the militia units concerned.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the opposite has proven to be the result of the new set-up. Major General Letson, as adviser to the chief fMr. Fulton.]

of the general staff, visits many units, as does Colonel Buell. General Letson also attends all the corps association meetings. In other words, while the channel of official communication is followed

after all, it is one army

the fact that General Letson is special adviser to the chief of the general staff with respect to the militia and Colonel Buell is the director of militia means that they keep in close contact with the militia units, visit them singly or together, and learn at first hand their needs and problems.
Of course General Letson has direct access to the chief of the general staff, and so far as we can tell all phases of the new set-up appear to be working out far more satisfactorily than under the former organization. We also believe it will improve as an understanding of the purpose behind the reorganization wh'ch took place last year becomes more general.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far as direct contact is concerned, that depends on the ability of General Letson and Colonel Buell to get about the country and make personal visits. Am I not correct in understanding that apart from that there is no direct contact and that these matters go through area and command headquarters? Therefore unless these officers are on tour all the time there is no direct contact.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think most of the complaints crop up at the corps association meetings which General Letson attends. The members are very frank and outspoken, and I think these meetings are helpful to him because representatives come from all parts of the country. Each corps meets by itself, in addition to the meeting of the conference of defence associations which takes place annually. At these meetings they thresh out all their problems in his presence and his guidance and assistance is available if they require it. I think on the whole the new arrangement has worked out reasonably well.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the discussion carried on the last time the committee examined these estimates with regard to the function of anti-aircraft batteries. The minister indicated the number still in existence in the militia, and I think the implication was that quite a number had been disbanded. I do not think he gave that figure.
In my own riding we had two very old batteries of field artillery that had very proud records as militia units in peacetime and in both world wars. After world war II they were reorganized into a light anti-aircraft unit, and last year that unit was completely disbanded. I have no special complaint to make if the action was unavoidable. I know

that the men who have taken such a keen interest in these militia units for many years will accept that action like the good soldiers they are if it is absolutely essential.
My question is this. I would ask the minister to indicate to the committee what form of organization is taking over the function formerly performed by these light anti-aircraft batteries? I realize, of course, that modern aircraft fly above the effective height of light ack-ack; nevertheless there are many types of conventional warfare in which there is a necessity for light ack-ack to prevent low level attacks on troop concentrations, airfields or special installations. There may be low-flying aircraft which would be armed with anti-personnel bombs, rockets, land mines or something of that sort. I am wondering what has resulted from this reorganization, in the way of means of protecting troops and installations against low-flying aircraft.
I do not pretend to be any expert on armed forces, but I can visualize a situation in which it would be necessary to protect northern airfields and many other installations of that sort against low-level, sneak attacks by enemy aircraft.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The question of anti-aircraft, as the hon. member knows, is one that has gone through a good deal of transition in the last few years. The usefulness of antiaircraft guns for many of the purposes for which they were formerly effective has declined. In our reorganization of the anti-aircraft section of the artillery we have retained 8, I believe, light ack-ack units and 9 heavy units which it is felt, having in mind that most anti-aircraft work is now sought to be performed by aeroplanes, rockets, etc., will be sufficient to take care of those areas where low-flying planes might be expected. Those areas are shrinking. We do not now expect nearly as many low-flying aeroplanes, if an attack were launched, as they would expect to have in Europe, for example. This is because of the distances from base and various other factors.
While we are working on air defences against planes, we are still retaining a certain amount of anti-aircraft, both light and heavy, to cover the situation so far as we think desirable. There may be a further reduction in the number of anti-aircraft units. In England, I believe they have almost eliminated anti-aircraft artillery. The situation is in a state of flux and will have to work itself out as we learn more, as we develop more modern equipment and as we are able to provide new methods to meet the situation.


John Angus MacLean: It would seem now that although the situation is in a state of flux and
Supply-National Defence these units might not for the moment fill a useful purpose, when the situation is further stabilized by developments it may be found that there would be a useful role for these anti-aircraft units if they were equipped with suitable weapons. I refer, of course, to ground to air rockets for defence against high-flying aircraft and also to the manning of radar equipment which might control these rockets after being launched.
Of course this is a very big subject, and is one upon which there are differing views; but I feel that perhaps we should go very cautiously about disbanding any more of these units. Perhaps it was unwise that we acted with such haste in disbanding the ones we had, because while their usefulness may be decreasing in their present form, it may well be that in the near future we will find ourselves in the position of having to reorganize similar units equipped with more modern weapons.
I just wanted to pass on that suggestion with a word of caution, because in the future I feel our big problem in North America is going to be air defence. Whether that will be chiefly achieved by the air force, and air to air defence, or whether there will be an important role for ground to air defence has not been Anally decided, but it seems to me the day may come when it will be well for us to have our chief industrial areas ringed by ground defences equipped with modern rockets to protect the area against high-flying aircraft.


Mr. Harkness:: I note that the sum for pay and allowances this year is $10 million. It was the same last year, and if my memory serves me correctly it was the same the year before. Would the minister tell us how much was actually expended for pay and allowances last year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The amount actually spent last year was $11,000,004.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the fact that only $10 million is to be appropriated this year, while $11 million was spent last year, is due to the fact it is expected there will be fewer people in the militia this year going to camp, and so on?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As a matter of fact the number of people who have gone or will go to camp this year is substantially higher than last year. I think a great saving will be effected by the fact that the members of the militia now are pretty well all active members. They are not paid until they serve 15 days. The steps that were taken in connection with the reorganization have resulted

Supply-National Defence in some economies. It is felt that the sum in the estimates this year will be adequate to meet our needs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should think there will be fewer people being paid if you are going to pay out less money; is that not the general situation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Last year, as the hon. member knows, the estimate was $10 million and we spent $11 million. We have budgeted for the same figure because, while we may spend the amount actually spent last year, $11 million, we feel that the savings may be greater this year by reason of economies and better organization. These estimates are, of course, only estimates. So far as I have been able to learn, it is not expected, however, that there will be any material decrease in the number of militia personnel.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further on militia?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: With respect to this matter of the training of the militia and the upkeep of the reserve army, I want to bring to the attention of the minister something of which he has heard before, namely the need for an armoury in my own city. Saskatoon is the home of a regiment which played no mean part in the last war, the Saskatoon Light Infantry. We have a few miles north of our modern and growing city of some 60,000 people a fine air establishment; we have a fine naval establishment, and adjacent to our city we have the military camp of Dundurn.
The missing link is an armoury for Saskatoon. It is a disgrace, I was going to say to the city but I shall change that and say it is a disgrace to the Department of National Defence. If that department wish to encourage the recruitment of young men I would suggest that they give these young men a place in which to train of which they may be proud rather than a place, under present conditions, of which they are ashamed. The temporary quarters have been there for years. It is a hodge-podge business in that there can be no order, and we need an armoury.
I remember four or five years ago, I am not sure of the date, introducing to a Saskatoon audience, I believe it was the Canadian Club, the former minister of national defence, Mr. Claxton. On that occasion he gave us 
what we at least considered to be a commitment of some priority in regard to an armoury for Saskatoon. I told him at that time, jokingly but also seriously, that he would be hearing from me in regard to that commitment in future years. Well, he did hear from me, but up to the present he and his successor have had deaf ears. I know that the mayor of our city has taken up the matter; I know that he is somewhere in the east now with the avowed intention of tracking down the present Minister of National Defence to see if he can use any persuasive powers upon him.
I might point out that our neighbouring and rival city of Regina has a good armoury. We do not like to be second string, and we know we should have an armoury too. As I say, the present accommodation there is really disgraceful. I have been down there on some occasions. I do not know how the men work there or how they train there at all. The minister was expected in Saskatoon the other day, as he probably knows, and we are very disappointed indeed that he did not arrive. We had prepared to meet him.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member can
attribute that to the present consideration of the estimates.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know there were circumstances that made it difficult for the minister to be there, and we forgive him for that. We hope he will come at some future date. I happened to be home in connection with the pioneer celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the official birthday of our province, and we were ready for him; we were going to greet him at the airport. I can assure him that if he had come there he would not only have received a warm welcome but would have received some warm representations as to Saskatoon's need for an armoury.
Our town is proud of her men. They are proud of the part they played in the last war; they are proud of the home regiment, the Saskatoon Light Infantry, to which some reference was made in the debate here yesterday. I am making this further appeal to the minister that something should be done in that regard.
I could talk on this subject at some length, certainly at greater length than I have; but once more I am making this appeal to the minister on behalf of our armed forces in that city, on behalf of the mayor and the city council, and on behalf of the whole population of Saskatoon, whom I am proud to call my constituents. That is all I can do about it. The matter is in the minister's hands. I hope he is prepared to give us some assurance that we shall be well up on the priority

list. I understand that the minister made some reference to priority of armouries this afternoon. I should certainly like to know that Saskatoon is high on that priority list.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further on this section? If not, we shall proceed to the Royal Canadian-


John Borden Hamilton: Can the
minister-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member rising on the militia?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes. Can the minister advise me whether the organization known as the Zouaves has an official status in connection with the militia?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of any connection of Zouaves with the militia.


John Borden Hamilton: Will the minister investigate the question as to whether they are connected officially with the Royal Canadian army cadets or the militia? We have had publications showing the group carrying arms. I wondered whether they had official status?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further on the militia? If not, we shall proceed with the Royal Canadian army cadets.


John Borden Hamilton: I notice under this heading an increase in pay and allowances this year of $100,000, which works out to an increase of about 6 per cent. At the same time, under civil salaries and wages, casual labour, there is an increase of almost 100 per cent. Can the minister explain this difference? If the pay and allowances increase indicates a larger enrolment in the cadets, I assume it will take a greater number of people to look after them. I am just wondering if that warrants an increase of almost 100 per cent in staff and salaries.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The increase is due to an expansion of the training scheme for cadets which has been approved and put into operation. The expanded training requires a very considerably increased staff and that accounts for the added cost.


John Borden Hamilton: What would the casual labour consist of which necessitates an increase here of approximately $200,000?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This increase takes a more realistic view of the amount required than we apparently did last year, when we spent $370,000 although the estimate was for only $230,000.


John Borden Hamilton: Has there been an increase in the enrolment in the army cadets?
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the number is
approximately the same, around 65,000.


John Borden Hamilton: Do these cadets get camp training, or is this limited to the school term?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The item includes the cost of training all through the year, but the labour and other added expenses are attributable to the increased training at the camps.


John Borden Hamilton: How many of that total of 65,000 would actually get camp training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Approximately 7,000 go to camp each summer.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is not the minimum age 15 years for boys taking part in this training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Enrolment is open to boys who are 14 years of age or are enrolled in grade 9, and no boys over the age of 18 years at the beginning of the school year are enrolled.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We had a peculiar situation not very long ago in northern Saskatchewan, and I believe it concerned the Dundurn camp. An item appeared in the newspapers not very long ago indicating that almost 100 boys had been sent back after they presented themselves at the camp with all their clothes and accoutrements expecting to take this course of training. I could not help but wonder what the trouble had been and I assumed that the directions had been vaguely or poorly given in the publicity which invited them to participate in such training, or that the army people did not mean what they said in regard to the age limit. The fact was that a number of these boys had to be sent home, and the news dispatch indicated that the reason was that they had not reached the age of 15 years, which was stated to be the minimum age for that particular training.
I think this is something the department of defence might look into and make sure the instructions are definite, so these boys will not be disappointed and their parents will not be put to the trouble and expense of getting them ready for camp. Does the minister know anything about this particular case?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. member has referred, and I would appreciate it if he would give me the particulars. I would like to look into the circumstances. If it was the fault of the army I would like to take steps to see that it does not happen again, although I have no reason to believe that it was their fault.
6022	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not know whose fault it was. I assumed that proper instructions had been given to these boys when they were invited to participate in this training, but there must have been something vague or uncertain about those instructions when almost 100 of the boys who presented themselves were later, and I emphasize the word later, declared to be ineligible for training. I shall get the particulars or send the minister the clipping; I believe it was in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. I think it was rather unfortunate that this happened, but it would seem to indicate that this type of training was attractive to these boys when so many of them presented themselves, even though this number were not considered eligible.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister mentioned that there would be 7,000 cadets in camp this year; how many were in camp last year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The number was practically the same for last year as this year. The only difference is in the extent and type of training, which is being increased this year.


John Borden Hamilton: This increase in the amount covers the increase in staff and the more extensive training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. Last year a comprehensive study was made of the operation of the army cadet camps. Certain steps were recommended as desirable, and those steps are being taken at some added cost.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Northwest highway system.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This item covers the maintenance and operation of the northwest highway system or the Alaska highway as it is commonly known. During the last month or six weeks I have seen a number of newspaper articles and reports to the effect that the Alaska highway was in very bad shape, that it was full of holes and I believe one report indicated that two bridges were out. I have seen a number of warnings to people telling them not to attempt to travel over the Alaska highway. These reports may have been exaggerated, but I should like the minister to tell us the situation as far as the Alaska highway is concerned, what is the condition of the surface of the highway and its general maintenance? Are there any breaks, or are there any bridges out?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member knows, the army took over the caretaking, maintenance and operation of the Alaska highway some years ago. Since that time we have been maintaining the highway, doing some


improving of the road and replacing a considerable number of the bridges with permanent structures. I have not been over the Alaska highway, but in the last few months we have received a considerable number of letters commenting favourably on the condition of the highway. One gentleman who drove over it last year was very complimentary regarding the way it is maintained. It is operated of course by the army engineers.
We try to keep the Alaska highway up to a reasonable standard. As far as I know, the people of the locality appear to be satisfied with the condition in which it is maintained. I am not in a position to say how long we shall be in charge of the highway or what its ultimate disposition will be, but since world war II we have been continuously entrusted on behalf of the government with its maintenance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been aware of the fact that, as the minister said, the army has been in control of this highway for a number of years. As a matter of fact it was a very good highway for a considerable length of time, but my questions were directed to the present condition of the highway and whether there are actual breaks in it, owing to bridges being out, etc. In addition to warnings that appeared in Alberta newspapers, I saw a United States newspaper with a fairly big announcement warning people not to go through Canada over the Alaska highway because of the fact that the bridges were out and because of the general condition of the road.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member knows, the spring freshets and storms of that area often put the highway out of condition for short periods of time. We keep patrolling the highway, and as soon as any washout or settling of the highway is detected we attempt to put that section into condition as quickly as we can. I have not heard in the last few weeks of any part of the highway not being serviceable. That does not mean some bridge might not have been out. We try to bring it back into use as fast as we can.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know it is very difficult terrain, and in the spring of the year you are bound to have floods which take out sections of the highway and possibly bridges and so forth. I was hoping the minister could perhaps assure us that by this time those bridges which were apparently out at one time had been replaced, and that the highway was now open and reasonably good for traffic. I think it is a bad thing that there should be a fair amount of publicity because the highway is not fit to be travelled over, or

there are breaks in it so one cannot get through, and that sort of thing.
There is one other question I would like to ask in connection with this. What percentage of this total vote of $2 million-odd, as I recall it, is for maintenance and what percentage is for rebuilding this highway?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry I have not a breakdown in that way, but I understand nearly the whole of the amount shown in that item is for maintenance of the highway, including bridges. The only item of capital expenditure in the details of the estimates, I believe, is the procurement of equipment, three-quarters of a million dollars. The rest of the charges have to do with the necessary staff and expenditures for maintaining the highway.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make it plain that nothing I may have said about the highway was critical of the minister or his department as far as this highway is concerned. It runs through country in which it is difficult to keep a highway in good shape. The reason I asked what part of this vote was for rebuilding, as compared with the amount for maintenance, was that I hoped a fair amount of rebuilding might have been going on, which I understand, from what the minister has said, is not the case. I think it is absolutely vital that this highway

the only highway in Canada that leads into the reasonably far north, and the only means by which motor traffic can get into the northern part of this country-be kept in good shape, thus making it possible for motor traffic to get up into the Yukon Territory and to some extent toward the Mackenzie river territory, though there is only one road leading off there, which happens to be in Alberta.
The only way we can expect to have any sort of road system in the north by which wheeled traffic can get into a fair part of the northern territories is to keep this road in good shape. It is the artery by means of which all wheeled traffic gets into a position where it can go into the areas not now served by roads, but which we hope will be so served in the future. As a result I would hope there might be a fair amount of rebuilding done on this highway so it would be kept in good shape. The highway was built during the last war as a military highway. If a certain amount

in fact, a fair amount-is not done to maintain that highway, it is not going to continue to exist and be able to take heavy traffic.


Ralph Osborne Campney: What I call maintenance involves some items which would be really
Supply-National Defence in a sense capital, such as rebuilding of bridges. The report on the highway for last year says:
During the past year army engineers began or completed construction of 13 new steel or concrete bridges replacing temporary wooden bridges erected when the highway was originally pushed through the northern wilderness in 1943 . . . Bridges and some of the 7,000-odd culverts are replaced as the original temporary structures become uneconomical or hazardous.
The item for maintenance probably includes some amounts for straightening sections of the highway and there is a considerable sum for bridges and culverts. We are trying to maintain a good standard on the highway, and that accounts for the fact that the maintenance costs are rather high. The work involves replacement as well as ordinary maintenance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am very glad to hear that probably a fair proportion of this vote is for what I should think is essential rebuilding, and that permanent bridges, culverts, and so forth are going into this highway. I would hope that this program might be continued, and also that some start might be made on surfacing that road.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: I just want to ask a couple of questions here, Mr. Chairman. There is over $11 million spent on this road. As the hon. member who just sat down has pointed out, I believe part of this road should be gradually hard-surfaced. I think a hard permanent surface should be put in there. I notice that there are a few new positions shown here. There is a matron, who is new this year. There is a plumber supervisor, who is new this year. There are also two upholsterers. What do they do? Do they upholster seats for the men on the highway or what?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have a good many camps and a good many permanent married quarters for the staff which operates the highway. All these properties must be maintained. Offhand I cannot give the number of married quarters in the various camps we maintain, but they are substantial in number. The furniture, the plumbing and the equipment of these quarters must be maintained, just as the highway must be maintained. Unless you have people in that part of the country who can do such maintenance along that highway, it is rather difficult to get them done because much of the highway is in a remote part of the country. The highway is between 1,200 and 1,300 miles long, so its maintenance is quite a large operation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then you have in the estimates this year cement finishers, who were not in the estimates last year. They are for those bridges, are they?

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes; and the culverts.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How wide are you making the culverts?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, but I do not know.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they of
standard width?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I presume they are.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What I am getting at is this. I think they ought to be at least of standard width when you are putting them in so it would be easier to do widening later on.


Mr. Barnett:: At page 333 of the details, near the end of the item for the northwest highway system, under the head of "Municipal and public utility services" there is a vote of $125,000. I was wondering whether the minister could give us some explanation as to just what that particular item covers and what the purpose of it is.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The largest part of this item is for the payment of non-resident school fees of dependents of the people who operate the highway system. The item also provides a certain amount for fire protection, water and electricity where it is available.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it that it does not represent the payment of grants to any municipal council as such, or to any municipal corporation as such?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But rather it is for the provision of utility services to the people who maintain the system?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes discussion on the northwest highway system, does it?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why should
travelling and removal expenses be up $262,000, according to page 333?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Much of this item provides for temporary travel on the part of personnel who operate the highway. They are permitted to go out once a year on a holiday. With the numbers of people there are on the highway system, in view of the extensive maintenance and repair work we are doing, it means that there are larger numbers to be brought out and taken back each year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The government pays the expenses of their holiday trip out and back again?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Once a year; one annual leave.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, according to the estimates there is not indicated that increase in personnel in a year which would warrant an increase of one-quarter of a million dollars in that type of travelling expenses.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Over a quarter of a million dollars.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Last year the estimate for travelling and removal expenses was much too low. We actually spent $550,000. Hence the increase is really not very great.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The extra
amount you spent you took out of the cushion, did you?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We transferred some of it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what the upholsterers were for.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I understand that we apparently have about 800 employees here, or a little better, and that we are spending $700 to $800 each on this item every year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I said, we provide transportation for one annual leave for the employees and their dependents. They come out once a year. Hence the number of persons who travel is more than the number of employees. I am speaking now of civilian employees covered by this item, but it also covers service personnel.


John Borden Hamilton: How far do you
pay those expenses? Is it set up so that the expenses are paid back to their permanent homes, or is it to the nearest rail centre or to the nearest airport, or how do you work it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the terminal point is either Edmonton or Vancouver, one or the other. I do not think there is any case where we take them farther east than Edmonton; or if they live in Vancouver, they go there.


John Borden Hamilton: Surely over $700 or $800 per family, even for bus fare, seems like an almost outrageous amount.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In addition to that there is of course a good deal of movement up and down the highway. It is 1,200 miles long.


John Borden Hamilton: I have been on it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The civilian workmen and the service personnel operating that highway must be used to the fullest capacity and they have to travel a great deal. Such travel is included in the item. It is not all leave

assistance. The leave assistance accounts for $172,000, which is the biggest single element of the item.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I have had an opportunity of travelling on the minister's highway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The taxpayers' highway.


John Borden Hamilton: Yes, the taxpayers' highway. In fact it is becoming more and more their highway every year, apparently. To anyone who travels on this highway it is apparent that it may become an extremely important one not just to the area up there but to all parts of the country. Undoubtedly there are tremendous natural resources throughout most of the area the highway covers. I think it is of interest to all of us that it should be put in shape, as stated by the hon. member for Calgary North, so we can take full advantage of it.
However, when we talk about repairs and maintenance, I might say that to me the amazing thing in these estimates is always that the first place we start is in the hiring of clerks and typists. Obviously that procedure is not going to get bridges built or a hard surface on the road. It seems to me we are always working from the wrong end in trying to accomplish what we set out to accomplish.


Mr. Nesbili:: It gets out six copies, though.


John Borden Hamilton: As the hon. member for Oxford says, it at least gets out six copies of everything, anyway. I have been speaking about this particular point with reference to other sections as we have gone along, and I notice that in this section again we have an increase in clerks and typists, and certainly no considerable indication anywhere else that we are getting down to the point where there are going to be more people working with their heads on a technical basis or with their hands to produce the result we need.
Anyone who has been out there knows the highway is necessary, and knows it is going to be increasingly important as the years go by. It is just as important whether you live in British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, or Yukon Territory, and I strongly suggest to the minister that in this endeavour, as well as in others for which he is responsible, he start working from the other end. Let him provide people who can give technical assistance and do the necessary work to improve the highway where it should be improved, and not start with an additional group of clerks and typists.
Supply-National Defence


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we pass on to the next item, Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system? I take it that is carried. We come now to the Royal Canadian Air Force, regular and general.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will be regarded as speaking from a prejudiced point of view if I suggest at the opening of my remarks that in giving consideration to the Royal Canadan Air Force we are dealing with a very important part of the Canadian defence organization, if not the most important part of our defence system. In the white paper on defence tabled in the house there is a very interesting paragraph on page 4 in which the minister recognizes the increasing importance of the air force in the defence role today. In paragraph 7 he says:
For North America, the possibility appears for the first time of an attack that could cripple the military and industrial potential of Canada and the United States. Should we ever be attacked with thermonuclear weapons, it is plain that our immediate problem would be national survival.
The minister has said that for the first time in our history it appears that an attack could cripple the military and industrial potential of Canada. I do not quite agree that this is the first time such an eventuality has become evident. Since the end of world war II voices have been raised from time to time suggesting that in the event of another outbreak of hostilities in this new atomic era, the fate of mankind as a whole would be weighed in the balance.
Over the week end we have had this viewpoint underscored by the statement issued by Lord Bertrand Russell on behalf of nine eminent world scientists. Their statement has again indicated the tremendous danger confronting us in this hydrogen bomb age. I, of course, along with every other member who speaks on this subject, express the hope that the sheer horror of it all will increase the chances for world peace, and there are hopeful signs that this may be the case as we note with considerable relief the apparent easing of world tensions today.
However, we must not refuse to face realities, confronted as we are by these threats; nor should we become mesmerized like the rabbit into a state of paralysis. We have to face the grim possibilities of the situation, and I think it is an encouraging sign when we note the swing of opinion in the country toward the importance of air power in the face of this most threatening danger.
Canada's air defence program has been moving forward with increasing speed since the Korean crisis. There was considerable crash planning evident when we were faced
6026	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence with the crisis of 1950 and 1951, and that crash planning resulted in some criticisms from this side of the house when the defence estimates were before us. I think, however, we have now progressed in the equipping of the R.C.A.F. to such an extent that there is room for a considerable degree of satisfaction, and that we are at least in a position to put up a creditable defence should an attack come from over our northern waste lands.
I am pleased to note that the new minister, whenever he has the opportunity of speaking on this subject, is more inclined to take the people of Canada into his confidence, and I noted that in several of his public statements he has been very frank in expressing the problem and trying to awaken Canadians to their individual responsibility in these matters. There has also been a very healthy shift in greater emphasis toward the problems of home defence, and it is in this area that I believe the R.C.A.F. has the greatest role to play. In defending ourselves against any possible hydrogen bomb attack we are almost completely dependent in the initial stages at least upon the air defence powers that are at our disposal.
The first arm of that defence program is, of course, radar; and we seem to be progressing toward the successful completion of a comprehensive program in that regard. I sometimes wonder whether the public are not labouring under a misapprehension that once we have the three radar defence lines in place and operating across the broad expanse of our country everything will be under control so far as our defence needs are concerned. Obviously that is just the beginning because radar, after all, is merely a warning device established to give the air power at our command sufficient warning to cope with any possible threat. Actually the radar defence is merely a beginning.
I think we should note in this regard that it is most imperative, in view of the threat of thermonuclear war, that warning be given at the earliest possible moment, because if we delay interception until the attacking bombers arrive over the built-up areas it would not be too pleasant an experience to have those attacking forces shot down in the midst of our cities, particularly when they are carrying hydrogen bombs. We have had broad hints that the D.E.W. line, the distant early warning program, is well under way, and that is encouraging indeed.
The chief arm in our defence is a Canadian-built aircraft equipped with a Canadian jet engine, the Orenda. We are informed in the white paper that there will be nine permanent squadrons fully equipped with CF-100 allweather jet fighters. The statement that they 

will be so equipped at the end of the year I think stretches the point somewhat, because in my own mind I have tried to count up the number of active squadrons already equipped, and I cannot get beyond four. But at least it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. I think even when we do have nine squadrons equipped with CF-lOO's we are hardly in a position to defend Canada across the entire length of the country.
There were some questions raised in the house concerning the effectiveness of the CF-100 when the scheme was first contemplated, and when it was under way. According to reports that aircraft has fully justified itself. Experts inform us that it is among the best of the front-line fighter aircraft in operation at the present time. I would imagine that is largely due to the Orenda engine rather than any radical change in the basic design of the aircraft, because as you look at the CF-100 it seems to be a largely conventional aircraft from the aerodynamics standpoint, tied in with a very powerful jet engine. However, there is reasonable assurance that the CF-100 will serve Canada for at least the next four or five years.
In view of these circumstances I have been somewhat surprised to find, judging from newspaper reports-there has been no formal statement in the house to this effect-that there has been a cut-back in the rate of production of the CF-100. There have been lay-offs at the A. V. Roe plant at Malton. I find this difficult to understand, in view of the necessity of equipping at least six additional active squadrons with this type of aircraft, and also in view of the continuing demands from other sources that have been hinted at as a result of the demonstrated effectiveness of this aircraft. There has also been a $100 million cut in expenditures for the procurement of aircraft and engines. I have been checking through the discussion to date, Mr. Chairman, and I have looked into all published documents very carefully, but I have not seen any explanation that would cover this particular situation.
Have we enough planes to meet our growing commitments, both at home and abroad?
I hardly believe the information we have before us at the moment indicates that such is the case. Rather I would imagine the A. V. Roe company should be operating at maximum capacity in order to meet the very urgent demands to deal with the situation that is frankly acknowledged in the white paper, and frankly acknowledged by all those who have responsibility for these matters. It seems to me that a situation of this kind suggests a degree of uncertainty, if not confusion, as we are approaching the demands

of a new era in defensive measures as a result of the potential threat of thermonuclear warfare.
I have not been able to get too much information either, Mr. Chairman, on the armament situation. Armament, of course, is basic to aircraft. Just as the aircraft has to fit into the radar scheme of things, in the final analysis a fighter plane really is merely an airborne armament platform. I realize there are matters of security involved. We have very broad generalizations concerning the use of guided missiles, air to air guided missiles and ground to air guided missiles, but we do not have too much specific information as to just how far advanced we are in this program of providing the new type of armament to deal with a new kind of threat from the air. I am amazed to discover, for example, we are still producing large quantities of 50-calibre ammunition, which was used in the traditional Browning type of machine gun which actually was obsolete at the end of world war II.
I know there are air to air rockets available now on our defensive fighters, but then again it would seem to me their effectiveness would be limited by the aerodynamic problems they create, particularly when they are slung outside high speed aircraft. These are matters concerning which perhaps it is impossible to give too much specific information, but nonetheless they are very important if we are going to prepare ourselves adequately to meet any possible threat from the air.
It occurred to me that one of the reasons for the cut-back in the production of the CF-100 arises from the change in plans for our auxiliary squadrons. There are 10 auxiliary squadrons in Canada that have been making a very effective contribution under very difficult circumstances during recent years as a result of lack of modern equipment and facilities of that kind. Last year in the white paper it was intimated that these auxiliary squadrons would be converted to CF-100 all-weather fighters. We raised a query at the time as to the feasibility of this program, in view of the very complex nature of the CF-100 flying operation, particularly the radar part of their equipment. I note that it has now been decided not to go forward with this plan for the auxiliary squadrons, and perhaps herein lies the reason for the cut-back in CF-100 production. It could be that the chief demand for additional CF-lOO's arose from the plans to equip our auxiliary squadrons with that type of aircraft.
That immediately raises the query as to what is to be done with our auxiliary squadrons. There are vague indications that 50433-381J
Supply-National Defence they could be used for transport work, for coastal command work, and certainly they could fit into that scheme of things and make an excellent contribution. However, Mr;>
Chairman, several speakers from this side of the house have suggested the necessity for providing a mobile striking force that would be largely along the lines of an airborne force. It seems to me that if such a force were contemplated our auxiliary squadron personnel could fit in very nicely here.
I believe that Canadair is going to manufacture or is in the process of manufacturing the Bristol Britannia turbojet. This type of aircraft produced under licence in a Canadian factory would be an excellent successor to the North Star, which has served its time and is now passing into obsolescence along with other conventional aircraft. The Bristol Britannia, or some similar aircraft, might provide just the type of machine that is needed to equip the auxiliary squadrons in order to provide this mobile, airborne striking force.
It occurs to me, for example, that in addition to providing incentive for auxiliary squadron personnel it would help provide incentive for army personnel by stimulating their interest in laying on trans-Atlantic operations. If we had the equipment, aircraft of the turbojet type, certainly the problems of distance would be reduced to such an extent that we could operate on an intercontinental basis, thereby cutting down the necessity of maintaining a large standing force of Canadian army personnel on the continent.
The main justification for that situation has been that it is a morale booster for people on the continent to see Canadian army personnel actually in their midst. I am sure that if we had a mobile airborne striking force engaged in intercontinental exercises this would have the same effect of maintaining the morale of our European NATO allies.
This is merely one thought that comes to my mind. On the other hand there are the deficiencies in our tactical air command group that I feel should be taken into consideration. We actually have a tactical air command in the R.C.A.F. at the moment, but it seems to me that it has been a very sadly neglected part of our air force operation. So far as I can gather it consists of two Mitchell squadrons, and the dear old Mitchell aircraft was obsolete in world war II. Last year we discussed this to a limited extent, and at page 6435 of Hansard the former minister of national defence had this to say regarding Mitchells:
Mitchells are going to continue to be used for the operation of cleaning up any landings that might take place. They are very good aircraft for the purpose.
6028	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence In the year that has passed since that statement was made, and in view of the new emphasis indicated in the white paper, that jsoint of view no longer holds true in defence quarters. No doubt the officials are very rapidly coming to the conclusion that our two obsolete Mitchell squadrons are not too effective in dealing with the responsibilities that would fall to a tactical air command air force in the event of hostilities.
I believe tactical air command provides for a versatility, assuming that you had the right aircraft, that would make it possible for such a group to operate in several areas of our air defence program. I am thinking now in terms of the versatility of the famous Mosquito of world war II. In those days the Mosquito served in almost every possible capacity in the air war, and did it very effectively indeed. There seems to be no reason why a similar jet type aircraft of the same versatile qualities could not be developed and supplied as equipment for tactical air command.
If our 10 auxiliary squadrons, which are apparently at the moment foot-loose and fancy free, were equipped with that type of aircraft they might operate, for example, under tactical air command, doubling as day fighters if the all-weather fighter proposition provides complexities too great for a parttime flyer to overcome. It is quite feasible that the auxiliary aircrew could cope effectively as day fighters and perform the basic function of ground support for troops against airborne attacks that might be aimed at our distant early warning radar units. No doubt the first objective of any potential enemy would be to destroy the effectiveness of our radar installations, and there is where a tactical air force would come in very handy indeed. Also, we have no bomber force, and there are no possibilities in Canada of moving into that aerial activity, mainly because our chief responsibility in the scheme of continental defence is defensive. But a versatile aircraft might easily be used as a low-level bomber, particularly for the pin-point type of bombing that was done so efficiently by the Mosquito during the last world war.
I have not sufficient technical knowledge to know whether our own CF-100 is a suitably versatile aircraft in this regard. If it is as efficient as the experts indicate, if it is as effective and as flexible as newspaper stories indicate, it seems to me quite logical to conclude that our own all-Canadian CF-100 might be such an aircraft.
Last year we were contemplating equipping our auxiliary squadrons with the all-weather fighter. That has not been found impossible, 

but still it might be possible to equip auxiliary squadrons with the day type of fighter to minimize all the complicated radar paraphernalia and the other electronic equipment that is necessary in this type of aircraft. These are some suggestions that have come to my mind, with my limited background, because of problems of security and so forth, as I have tried to give some thought to this matter.
The air force, or any part of the armed forces, is not worth very much unless we have the manpower to back it up. I want to speak just briefly on that problem, and in this connection I would refer to a question answered on May 2 of this year. Apparently the problem of obtaining suitable aircrew is assuming almost insurmountable proportions, and the hon. member for York West asked a series of questions dealing with this subject. The return brought down indicated that in 1954 out of a total of some 5,570 applications for enlistment as aircrew there were over 4,000 rejections. Those rejections were divided into three categories. Physical disability accounted for 312; failure to meet educational standard, 80; and other reasons, 3,729. I do not know what the other reasons would be, but the largest group fell into that category. That indicates a great wastage among applicants for aircrew, and no doubt for those who are in touch with the problem it presents a difficult situation.
Obviously the operation of modern jet and supersonic aircraft requires the best of personnel. This was so in world war II, when the selection was carefully carried out. However, it seems to me that we should be able to get a better proportion than was indicated by this return of May 2. I do not know whether it is that the right type of young Canadian is not offering himself for service, or whether the desire to fly the vast uncharted sanctity of space which drew so many into the air force in world war II is no longer present. Perhaps the minister could touch on this matter when he replies to some of these observations.
No doubt the crash record in the air force has been somewhat of a deterrent. I raise this issue not as a cause of further discouragement to anyone who might be interested in an air force career, but rather to point out what was indicated in a return tabled on May 18 in reply to questions concerning T-33 crashes in Canada since this aircraft was put into service. The return indicates that there have been 39 crashes, of which 30 were in training command. In reply to the question as to the principal reason for crashes it was stated to be error in judgment

on the part of the pilot. In other words it was not a structural or mechanical failure; it was an error on the part of the pilot in control of the aircraft.
To me that is a most significant answer, as it suggests that there may be something wrong in the training program. From time to time we on this side have indicated a growing concern over the substitution of a two-stage training program for the three-stage program which operated so successfully in world war II. Somewhere in the white paper it is stated that an order for 60 Chipmunk aircraft had been placed with the de Havilland aircraft company, which would indicate that we are going to use the Chipmunk as a basic trainer. No doubt this plan has been motivated by the fact that there have been such a large number of accidents in training command resulting from error in judgment on the part of the pilot.
We had sufficient experience with the commonwealth air training plan during world war II to realize that sound fundamental basic training is absolutely essential for the success of a military pilot. I am informed that was one of the fatal errors made by the luftwaffe. It attempted to streamline its training in order to get operational pilots into service more quickly, with rather devastating results to its efficiency. I am sure if there has been any deterrent to the enlistment of young Canadians of the right kind who can meet the physical, mental and other requirements, the knowledge that the Chipmunk is to be used as a basic trainer will tend to remove such deterrent.
There is another matter which comes to my mind. I am informed that the risk pay for members of the R.C.A.F. at the present time is something like $30 per month. As I recall, that is not as good as the risk pay the aircrew received during world war II. I have checked into the figures for the United States air force, and find that the risk pay there amounts to something like $170 a month. It is hard to say what a suitable relationship for the R.C.A.F. would be, but I imagine that on a comparative basis it should be something like $75 a month. In view of the demands created by the flying of high-speed modern jet military aircraft, an incentive of this kind would be of some importance in interesting our young Canadians in entering upon a flying career with the R.C.A.F.
So much for the permanent force. There are other things that could be mentioned, but we have not the necessary time. I should like to refer briefly to the reserve. As with the army, the R.C.A.F. reserve is the backbone of any wartime air force. In view of
Supply-National Defence the changed status of the reserve and the role it is to play in the new emphasis on air power, I think there is a great opportunity to create renewed interest in the R.C.A.F. reserve program. If the auxiliary squadrons can be converted to a challenging and responsible role, I have no doubt at all that Canadians will respond accordingly to the opportunities provided.
I should like to say just one word on the very excellent mobilization assignment training program that is making effective use of veterans of world war II. I believe the scheme has been meeting with increasing success, particularly since it has been made available to senior N.C.O's. One comment has come my way from those who have participated in this scheme. As the minister knows, this is a program whereby a member of the reserve air force understudies some particular permanent force position. I know of one instance, for example, where a flight lieutenant is understudying a wing commander, and he has turned out for four successive summers now. His civilian role is that of managing a very large and active automobile business, and he is himself a qualified engineer. Yet when he turns out for his annual period of training with the M.A.T.P. he has no other incentive but his desire to serve some useful purpose in our defence program. I am wondering whether the incentive of giving a reservist of that kind acting rank equivalent to the position he is understudying might not result in increased interest in this very worth-while activity.
I am informed that my time is almost up, and I shall close with a very brief comment. I do not know whether the minister has any influence at all in regard to the manufacture of military aircraft, but I have on several occasions directed the attention of the Minister of Defence Production to the rather futile approach of concentrating this kind of production in our large urban centres. I have been reading a report on the operations of A. V. Roe, and I notice there has been an attempt to decentralize the operations involved in the manufacture of the Orenda engine to the extent that now over 70 per cent of the Orenda engine is manufactured outside the Malton plant by more than 400 Canadian companies stretching from the maritime provinces to the middle west. In the opening paragraph of his report the defence minister stated:
It is now clear that a single thermonuclear bomb can be made large enough to destroy a major city and all its inhabitants by direct effects of blast and heat.

Supply-National Defence This indicates that the need for dispersal of our essential defence production has become imperative indeed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two observations on the remarks of the hon. member. First I should like to say that he obviously retains a deep interest in the Royal Canadian Air Force and has followed its development very closely. I should like to take the opportunity to correct a figure in the return to which he referred. It indicated that during 1954 rejections were as follows for aircrew:
(i) physical disability	 312
(ii)	failure to meet educational standard ...	80
(iii) other reasons	 3,729
As a matter of fact the figure of 3,729 included by inadvertence 1,207 people who merely made an inquiry and also 1,393 who made a contact and voluntarily withdrew before being examined for enrolment. The figure should therefore be about 1,200 rejected for other reasons instead of 3,729. I did not want to leave it on the record as it is in Hansard, because it is obviously a rather ridiculous figure.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the T-33 crashes. We regret these crashes, of course, and it is a matter of concern to the R.C.A.F., but the facts are that our T-33 jet crashes are a little lower than those of the British and just a shade higher than the American. They seem to run in groups, as they do in other countries.
The third matter I should like to mention is that the Chipmunk now being adopted in the training program has no relevance to the T-33 position. It is felt that the training wastage will be substantially reduced if we take first a simpler plane for the purpose of training. It is considered that this will show whether a man has any inherent disabilities and cannot learn to fly and, if that is so, the sooner his training is stopped the better. Second, it introduces him more gradually into flying than going directly on to a Harvard. But there is no relevance between the change-over from two-stage training to three-stage training and the crashes of the T-33 aircraft.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take the time of the committee to discuss the details of the various portions of the estimates with respect to the air command at this time. However, I should like to stress that I feel we should not minimize the value of our air force at this time, particularly when we are discovering that we are able to negotiate through strength. I am satisfied the minister is recognizing that fact, since
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
he is asking for something like $800 million for our air force expenditures out of a total of $1,729 million.
The matter that bothers me, however, is more particularly contained on page 340 of the estimates. We have on that page for the purchase of real properties, land and buildings, an estimated $3,590,000 for this year as against $1,400,000 for last year. That is an increase of $2,100,000. If we are going to improve our air force and add to it, we are necessarily going to require more land and buildings. However, the construction of buildings and works is a different matter, apparently. We are reducing the estimate from $107 million in 1954-55 to $69,660,000 for this year, or a reduction of approximately $37,340,000.
I think that is a retrograde step. We are reducing our construction of buildings and works for defence purposes in possibly the most important-or certainly one that has been regarded by many as the most important-of the services. That is particularly true in the light of the fact that on the same page we have for repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, including land, an expenditure of $8,243,000, as compared with the estimated $6 million for 1954-55. That is, the increase would be some $2,243,000 for repairs and upkeep of buildings. We are similarly increasing our rentals of lands and buildings to $2,228,000 this year from $1,406,000 last year. As we note from these figures, or as a study of them will indicate, apparently we are going to build less but are going to rent more. That might be taken to mean that the government are looking hard to see whether they cannot find people who are willing to construct buildings for them to use. We are not cutting down on our air expenses to the extent that we do not require more buildings. We apparently do require more, because we are going to spend more on rents. Therefore we are going to make it possible for people to build these buildings for us and for us to rent them from them, and thereby possibly gain more political heelers.
Those charges can be made and are being made. I refer specifically to a Vancouver Sun article of Monday, July 4. The title of it is "City Battles Ramp Claim". I am not so much interested in the struggle between the city and this particular company, but part of the article reads as follows:
The one-storey building, 1367 Howe, rented by the air force's ground observer corps, is claimed by its owners to have dropped $35,000 in value . . .
Owners are R. Rowe Holland and William Couper.

I personally do not know either of these men, so I cannot speak as to their political affiliations. However, here is what the article says:
He-
That is Mr. Holland.
-and Mr. Couper built at a cost of $42,296, Mr. Holland testified.
Value of the two lots on which the building is located was said by Mr. Holland to be $15,000 in 1952.
In other words we have here a total expenditure of something over $57,000. Now the rental on that building, according to the article, is $750 per month. The over-all receipts that Couper and Holland will receive from this building will be something over $58,000 in a period of seven years. The lease terminates apparently in 1959.
The question is this. Is it good business for the government to rent a building that costs- that is taking into consideration the over-all cost of the land or property, building, etc.- something like $57,000 and then pay rent of just over $58,000 for the use of that building for a period of seven years?
Ordinarily business property in the area may rent at that particular figure. But whether or not it is a good investment from a governmental point of view is entirely a different question. Business personnel, in leasing such a piece of property, do so with another purpose in mind entirely. They choose a site on which they want their particular business house placed, and they usually choose it with a view of customer attraction and with other factors taken into consideration, such as parking, etc.
Apparently those factors are not necessarily taken into consideration when the government asks other individuals to build a building on a particular location for them. The fact remains, however, that in the case of business the matter that is important is to have customer appeal because they intend to make a profit from that particular venture. So the business house, generally speaking, constructs its own building. Then it turns around and sells that business block to another individual who will become the landlord. They may even arrange in the lease to repay him in that seven-year period the value of the property. That is, the amount of the lease might amount to that sum.
However, business has the use of the capital they have invested in that building originally to make a profit therefrom in a general turnover of the stock; thereby it would cut back the rent considerably from what the government is forced to pay. We do not rent these buildings on the same basis that business is renting them. We do not expect to
Supply-National Defence make a profit out of the air force offices. At least, if we do so, I have not heard of any. I would say that it is most important to examine into this situation. I cannot blame the men who have been asked to build these blocks for the government for the purpose for which they might do it. I cannot blame the present Minister of National Defence. He was not here as minister in 1952 in charge of this department-or was he?


An hon. Member:: No.


Frederick George Hahn: No, he was not. However, I would say that at the time of leasing the building these factors should have been taken into consideration. If the government ask an individual to build a building for them, no matter who the individual is and no matter what party affiliations he might have, I personally would feel that he is not to blame. I cannot see that we could attach any particular blame to him. However, it is a mistake on the part of government to invest, on a rental basis, funds which would in themselves repay the cost of building that building in a short period of time such as seven years.
I would ask that the minister examine into these factors. I would ask that he possibly set up a committee to examine into the rentals of these various buildings. We have, for instance, editorials along these particular lines. The Vancouver Sun carried one. The British Columbian of New Westminster of Thursday, July 7, had this to say in an editorial entitled "Check Rein on Rentals". I may say that it is referring to governmental buildings, but others are referred to as well:
The rents paid here, it seems, are no higher than the government pays in other parts of the nation, and while some may he exorbitant, most premises bring from the federal government about the same as the owners could get from private businesses.
I suggested that was a possibility, as you will recall. The article goes on further to say this:
The government should, too, show the basis it employs for setting the rate of rental it will pay, and if these are so high as to encourage political manoeuvres, they should be revised.
Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that any individual, no matter who he might be, would have little difficulty in arranging the finances to build such a building if he could go to a financier and say, "I have a contract with the dominion government guaranteeing a seven-year lease and in the period of the seven-year lease the building will be paid for." That in itself is an exorbitant rate of rent. The lease is too high. It should be examined into. The fact that business-and "business" is not governmental business but private enterprise-would be willing to invest in a
6032	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence lease of that type does not necessarily exonerate our government or any other government from responsibility for such a reactionary method as that in which it follows in renting its buildings.
The fact remains that if the individual can rent the building to the government or can get from the government a lease by whose terms the building would be paid for in a matter of seven years or less, then I would say the government should be called upon to build such a building on its own, and we could well save the taxpayers millions of dollars by so doing. That is one reason I take exception. to the fact that instead of investing $107 million as we had proposed in 1954 and 1955, this year we should anticipate expenditures of only $69,660,000 in comparison. We are cutting our building expenditures there, as I said earlier, by something like $27 million while at the same time we are going to increase the expenditure for rentals. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to increase our rentals across the nation it means only one thing. It means that the more people who are interested in leasing buildings to the government, the more people there will be who are going to turn into government supporters by reason of the fact that they have a contract with the government to lease a building to them. That in itself is wrong.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps I might be permitted to refer briefly to the four items on page 340 to which the hon. member referred. The first has to do with rentals of land, buildings and works. The figure in the estimates last year, as he mentioned, was $1,406,000, and this year the figure is $2,228,000. The major part of that increase is entirely due to the rental agreements with the French and German governments with respect to married quarters, schools and other buildings which were occupied during the year for the first time. Therefore the increase is attributable almost entirely to our overseas rentals.
Then the hon. member mentioned the item having to do with repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, and made reference to the fact that last year the estimate was $6 million and this year it is $8,243,000. I am informed that the actual expenditure during the fiscal year 1954-55 wgs not $6 million but $8,900,000. The item was underestimated, and the actual figure was $700,000 greater than the estimate for this year.
With respect to the item having to do with the construction of buildings and works, the estimate for 1954-55 was $107 million and the estimate this year is $69,660,000. I am informed that of the estimated expenditure of


$107 million for last year under that head, only $59 million was actually spent. This year we are counting on spending $69 million so the figure is up rather than down, assuming that we spend what we have estimated this year.
The fourth item to which the hon. member referred has to do with the purchase of real properties. The figure this year is $3,590,000 compared with $1,400,000 last year. The increase is almost entirely due to purchases and settlements in the Primrose lake and Cold lake areas where we have the guided missile weapons range. Therefore the figures in the estimates probably do not quite reflect the actual conditions as they are.


Frederick George Hahn: I appreciate the straightforward way in which the minister has answered some of my questions, but there is one factor remaining in connection with the rental of buildings. What is the policy of the Department of National Defence with respect to the rental of buildings? Is it expected that the lessor should have his building paid for in a matter of seven years? Would the minister outline to us just how they go about leasing a building?


Ralph Osborne Campney: With respect to our rental of buildings, we act almost entirely through the Department of Public Works. I understand there are appraisers who fix the values. They proceed on a pattern of determining the value of the building and fixing a reasonable rental. I am not familiar with the matter to which the hon. member refers, but on the other hand I would think that the return of the capital cost of a building in seven years might be out of line.


Frederick George Hahn: Along that line I am going to suggest to the minister that possibly he should take it upon himself, if he considers such a return to be out of line, to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the hope of possibly instituting an impartial inquiry into all rentals of this type. I am very pleased to hear his statement because it bears out what I have been told by private appraisers with respect to this particular building, in connection with which it is suggested that the rent might have been $550 a month at one time but if it were set at $400 now it would be much more in line.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, for several days I and the minister's air advisers have sat in the house with a fairly good display of patience, I think, and have heard the house discuss alternatively reform of the Senate and the army estimates. I hope this was just a coincidence and that there is no special

significance to the close sequence of the discussion of these two topics.
I think probably the most important problem facing us as a nation in the policy field as far as defence is concerned is one of definition. I have the feeling that there is a great deal of uncertainty and woolly thinking about what our position is, what our requirements are and what progress we are making toward meeting those requirements after they have been established. There is a quotation to be found somewhere in the Bible, I think in Corinthians, to the effect that if the trumpets give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle? On one occasion Field Marshal Montgomery recommended the reading of that verse to the chiefs of staff. Perhaps something along that line would not be amiss at the present time.
I believe that if our defence effort is to be successful the general public must be convinced of its usefulness. They must be convinced that both their money and the human effort involved are being used to the best possible advantage. Therefore I think we need a clear and certain sound regarding our defence requirements. I realize reasonably well, I think, that in recent years there have been very rapid changes in the concepts of defence because of the rapid advances that have been made in the application of scientific knowledge to the art of war. For that reason I am not in any way trying to belittle the problem that faces those whose responsibility it is to guide our defence effort.
Of course there are certain truisms. We want to be strong as a nation so we can negotiate through strength and deter aggression. But that leads immediately to the problem of where that strength should be deployed and displayed, and how and where we can best deter aggression. I think there should be a very careful reassessment of the role of the three services in our defence effort, a reassessment of what we need in the way of a navy, an army and an air force. It is just possible that the changes in the relative importance of the three services should be further adjusted.
Very important too is the question of defence research. From my point of view I think that is the most vital thing in the long run. After all, our ability to defend ourselves in the near future depends on what research we do now. That research, of course, applies to all three services, but perhaps to the air force more than the others.
A vital subject, too-of course it does not come into this debate and I only refer to it briefly-is that of civil defence. We hear a great number of conflicting statements so far 50433-382
Supply-National Defence as that is concerned. On the one hand people say our civil defence is all it needs to be. On the other hand you hear people say civil defence is hopeless. Then in between you have all the other different points of view. At the moment I want to confine myself chiefly, Mr. Chairman, and I think you will be pleased to hear me say this, to the role of the air force in defence. World war I made two great revolutionary contributions to warfare. One was the tank and the other was the aeroplane. World war II also made two new revolutionary contributions, the atomic bomb and the rocket-propelled missile.
In the light of these developments I am rather concerned about what appears to be a growing complex regarding defensive measures, and a tendency to lull ourselves into a sense of false security in the belief that we can wall ourselves about with a line of some sort through which no aggressor can come. One does not have to go very far back into history to realize that was exactly the thinking that grew up in France after their experience in world war I. They built the Maginot line at terrific expense, and bragged about their security against aggression from any outside source.
I am afraid there is a tendency for us to look with satisfaction at the great amount of money that is required for our various warning lines of defence, the "Pinetree" line, the mid-Canada line, and the D.E.W. line. I am not trying to detract from those lines in any way or from the necessity of erecting them, but I think we should not place undue confidence in them.
In that regard I should like to quote very briefly from a lecture given by Field Marshal Montgomery to the Royal United Services Institute in October of last year. In one place he had this to say:
There is at the present time no sure defence against the aeroplane or ballistic rocket. Indeed, so far as we can see today, trying to get a secure defence against air attack is rather like trying to keep the tide back on the seashore with a picket fence. This situation must not be allowed to continue. The best scientific brains we possess should be gathered in to help in the task, working in close co-operation with air forces. I say "air forces" because I hold the view that air defence should be organized and handled by air forces, and that ack-ack commands should be handed over to that service.
That is the opinion of one who I think could be justly said to be fairly highly qualified to pass an opinion. We should not forget, therefore, that if we hope to deter aggression the only way we can achieve that is to be in a position to retaliate with great force and great speed against any would-be aggressor.

Supply-National Defence In that connection I should like to quote very briefly from an article written by Professor Stanley, professor of history at the Royal Military College. He says in part: More and more one is forced to the conclusion that both of the senior services must yield priority to their junior sister as the major fighting service of the war to come. Soldiers and sailors may still think in terms of "balanced forces'', but such thinking is more wishful than rational. "Massive deterrent air power" is our best hope for keeping the cold war on ice, but there are no dividends to be earned in building conventional forms of aircraft merely because they fly in the air. Fast jet -^bombers and jet interceptors with the latest scientific inventions are required.
There is an even stronger argument, I think, for the need for the ability to retaliate. This brings me to the second great development of world war II, the long-range jet-propelled missile. So far as I know there is no known defence against the type of missile which is related to the V-2 that was used towards the end of world war II. These things render radar lines obsolete. In the last eight months of world war II about 1,050 V-2's were fired on English soil, and about half of them landed in London. During that time Britain's radar defences were at a very high peak of efficiency, yet they succeeded in detecting less than half of these V-2's, and they succeeded in plotting the course of less than one-third of them. Of course conventional aircraft, regardless of their speed, are incapable of intercepting such missiles because even world war II missiles had a speed twice that of sound. In most cases they would arrive before anyone was aware they were coming. During the war there was a saying that if you heard a V-2 it had not hit you, and you were safe.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not had an opportunity of addressing myself to any of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but would it be possible for us to continue this debate for a while?
I think the debate is going along at a fairly high level, and perhaps we could continue.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that this debate continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: I do not want to be accused of taking a compliment at face value, but I may perhaps go on for a while to conclude my remarks. Perhaps then the committee could rise and report progress.
When I was interrupted, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the fact that really modern projectiles of the V-2 type will, in the very near future, probably make radar defensive warning lines obsolete if they are built and

designed only for the purpose of warning of approaching aircraft. However, it may be possible that some use can be made of them in future by developments which would allow the ground to air missiles to intercept these rockets coming from other areas before they arrive at their target. There may be developments that will allow radar automatically to intercept these missiles coming from outside our borders.
Since I have said that, I think it should be evident that it is highly important, above all else, to keep pace with progress. History teaches us that victors in wars become complacent and satisfied with their achievements, while the losers and the near-losers are whipped into a frenzy of action, and their development is apt to be more rapid than that of the victors. I feel there is a danger that we may fall into complacency in this regard. We do not want to develop a Maginot line complex as far as our radar lines and our conventional air defences are concerned.
This, of course, needs vision and imagination. It requires sound thinkers who can look at the lessons of past military endeavours and learn from them. If you have the odd genius who can have a flash of real imagination and make some revolutionary predictions as to what the future is likely to hold, so much the better. If we had a modern Tennyson he could probably give us a clue or two as to what is really going to happen in the future. After all I think it was in the 1840's, and that was quite a long while ago, when Tennyson wrote some really prophetic lines in "Loeksley Hall." He said, as I remember it:
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue.
That is a fairly accurate description of the state of affairs in which the world finds itself at the present time. But I do not think we can fairly expect the minister to have geniuses of that calibre on his staff. The least we can demand is that we have men who are capable and are given the opportunity-I think that is even more important-to assess as accurately as possible the very marked development and changes that have taken place at the present time. We must remember that wars are never won by using the methods of previous wars entirely. We must retain, of course, that which was effective

and will prove to be effective in the future, but we must also not be averse to change.
As far as the development of rockets is concerned, it does not take any genius to realize that if the Germans in world war II had a V-2 that could carry an atomic warhead, London would have been written off the map in very short order. The development of rockets has not ceased. As a matter of fact, at the close of world war II the Russians were successful in capturing most of the German experts who were in Peene-munde, and they have no doubt made great advances along that line. Even the V-2, at the end of world war II, was a weapon that had considerable range and, more important still, the Germans at that time had a two-stage rocket in the development stage which would have had a range of 3,000 miles and a speed of about 8,000 miles an hour. That, of course, would be an intercontinental rocket. There is information-I do not know how accurate it is at the present time-that the Russians have succeeded in developing a rocket of this type with a range of about 1,700 miles.
That brings us to the question of where such a thing might be used. At the present time the obvious target for missiles of that sort, especially if they had atomic warheads, would be the large cities of western Europe, such as Paris, London, and so forth. So far as I know there is no conventional defence against them. As a result it might be just possible that our excellent air division in Europe might find itself helpless to cope with an attack from the east, if it turned out to be an attack of that type.
Therefore, if one could justifiably go on that premise-I realize there are a lot of ifs -our air division could be used to better advantage on Canadian soil. So far as I know there are no V-2 types of rockets being developed which would be capable of reaching the large industrial centres of this continent from Asia or Europe, but it is highly probable that they will be developed in the next 5 or 6 years, and that is a possibility we should not lose sight of. It is vitally important, therefore, to have research into the development of rockets which could be used in a defensive way to intercept weapons of this type.
When one considers the horrible possibilities of an atomic war brought upon us by rockets-and it is not fantastic; it is quite within the realm of possibility-which we are incapable of intercepting or destroying in any way before they arrive, one is faced with a horrible vision. We must realize that our first responsibility, and it is a very great one, is to make sure that our defences are so 50433-382J
Supply-National Defence efficient that no would-be aggressor would dare attack. We can then hope that position will remain long enough to allow would-be aggressors to attain sanity. Even in the last two wars it could not be said that there was such a thing as winning the wars, because victory was attained at such a tremendous cost in life and treasure as to be practically indistinguishable from defeat. That would be even truer if a third world war should occur.
I do not want to end on such a dismal note, and I do not mean to imply that the world is hurtling toward inevitable selfdestruction. Nevertheless we should not assume that progress is inevitable. Change is inevitable; progress must be achieved. It behooves us to see that we make suitable progress, pre-eminent progress in the field of national defence, so we can deter aggressors until a better age dawns.
It has been said that the only hope of deterring aggression is to be in a position to retaliate, and I think that is true. Field Marshal Montgomery had something to say in that regard and I quote:
We stand today at the crossroads not knowing which turning to take. Absolute defence against ail- attack will be impossible in the future. A deterrent, the means with which to hit back instantly and to give more than you receive, is the surest way to make an aggressor think twice before he attacks. The west must build up such a deterrent, capable of being delivered immediately through the air. It is then vitally necessary to guard against a surprise attack, and against treachery, and to be able to hold such an attack long enough to enable nations to spring to arms behind the shield and mobilize their collective strength.
That is almost a truism. That leads me to the possibility of the reassessment of Canada's role as far as the air force is concerned. As I have said, we have concerned ourselves almost entirely with defensive aircraft. I realize that a strategic air force would be a terrifically expensive undertaking, and I am not suggesting that Canada should think of building up such a force, as I think that would be beyond our capabilities and capacities. We can speak only for ourselves in this regard, but I think consideration should be given to supporting what might be termed a British commonwealth strategical air force.
As I have said, such a force is the only means of immediate retaliation which we would have at our disposal. At the present time we are depending almost entirely on the strength of the United States in that regard. I should like to see renewed consideration given to the possibility of Canada supporting one squadron of a strategic air force which would be a combined effort of the whole British commonwealth. The last war demonstrated that the commonwealth can co-operate magnificently in efforts of that

Supply-National Defence type. The day may come when we will regret not having made any contribution toward a strategic air force of that type. Of course the development of suitable aircraft would have to be left to some larger country, either the United Kingdom or the United States. Equipment of United States design could be used, or perhaps some of the new V-class bombers which are coming into use in the United Kingdom.
While on this subject of equipment I should like to refer briefly to the whole policy of reequipping our air force when the present equipment becomes obsolete or obsolescent. I think we should make our contribution in the design field, so we would not get into the position of having only one egg and therefore incapable of having it in more than one basket. I think we are in a weak position when we have to depend entirely on the success of one aircraft which is designed in Canada.
I should like to see some co-operative system devised in this field so the various governments could put out design contracts. Perhaps you would have a dozen attempts at one design requirement, and the most successful could be brought into production in all the countries under licence. I recognize that we are manufacturing aircraft under licence now, the most obvious example being the Sabre. But we should not overlook the fact that the United States is also manufacturing British aircraft under licence, as well as engines. Therefore I feel that we should look carefully at the wide field of aircraft design and be ready to manufacture for ourselves and perhaps the NATO nations aircraft designed by some other country, if they are superior to what we have designed ourselves.
At the present time there is a necessity for such a program, arising no doubt from the need of a suitable replacement for the Sabre. There was a news item in the papers yesterday referring to a new MIG design which was to be seen in Moscow. This could go much faster and was apparently superior to the Sabre equipped with the Orenda engine. Therefore consideration should be given to the manufacture of some later type of fighter aircraft under licence in this [DOT] country. The one that comes to mind is an aircraft which was designed for the United States navy. This is a fighter of exceptional performance known as the Chance Vought XF8U, I think it is. I just cite it as one example; no doubt there are other designs which might be considered as successors to the Sabre.
Having said that, I conclude my remarks by saying once again that if our defence efforts should in the end prove to be unsuccessful it will probably be due to the fact that we have developed a sort of Maginot line complex, the idea that we here on the North American continent can protect ourselves against attack. With modern developments I do not think that is the case, and collectively we must be ready to deter aggression by having the means of rapid and powerful retaliation.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with national defence and then take public works.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 13, 1955