1955-02-08

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that agreement has now been reached between the federal government and the province of Ontario which will result in an enlarged and accelerated civil defence program in that province in the coming year. Announcement of this cooperative undertaking is being made simultaneously in Toronto today by the Hon. W. M. Nickle, the provincial secretary and new minister in charge of the province's civil defence preparations.
For some time now financial aid for civil defence purposes has been made available directly by the federal government to assist municipal civil defence organizations in their efforts at the local level. As a result of the agreement now reached with Ontario, provincial as well as federal funds will now be made available to municipal civil defence organizations.
Federal funds under this arrangement, when fully matched by provincial and municipal contributions, will result in a total of approximately $1,200,000 available for civil defence expenditure at the municipal level in the province of Ontario in the coming year.
One-half of this total amount will be provided by the federal government to help finance civil defence undertakings submitted by the municipalities concerned and approved by the appropriate provincial and federal civil defence authorities.
To supplement the federal grants to these undertakings, the province of Ontario, in accordance with the agreement, will contribute to the cost of these same approved civil defence projects submitted by participating municipalities an amount equal to one-half the federal contribution. As a result, for approved municipal defence expenditures, 50 per cent of the costs involved will be contributed by the federal civil defence authority, 25 per cent by the provinces, while the local authorities will be called upon to contribute 25 per cent of the total expenditure.
In addition, further funds are available from the federal government to match provincial civil defence expenditures on the organization of civil defence services at the provincial as distinct from the municipal level. These federal funds, when matched by equivalent provincial contributions, will result in further expenditures in the year to come. Therefore, a total of at least $1,400,000 will be available in Ontario this year for the development of adequate civil defence at the provincial and local levels.
It should, of course, be pointed out that the federal contribution to the development of civil defence in Ontario is substantially greater than the amounts which I have mentioned. These amounts take no account of the million-dollar hose-coupling standardization program, to which the federal government contributes one-third; nor do they include provision for the civil defence compensation agreement, nor for the substantial amounts of equipment and material-fire pumpers, rescue vehicles, and other items- which have been supplied exclusively at federal expense to civil defence authorities in the province. These federal expenditures, including, for example, the moneys spent for medical stockpiling and earmarked for Ontario, are considerably greater than the amounts provided by the provincial and local civil defence authorities from their own budgets.
I should like at this time to express my satisfaction at this important development which is bound to stimulate civil defence activity, not only in the province of Ontario but throughout the whole of Canada.
The present agreement arises out of discussions which I held with Premier Frost of Ontario, whose personal contribution to the successful completion of these arrangements I should like to acknowledge at this time.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he would clarify a point for me. Do I understand from the announcement that the same arrangement as is now concluded with the province of Ontario will be available, if so desired, for all the other provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every province now has a similar agreement with the federal government except the province of Quebec.
936	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce CUSTOMS TARIFF



TABLING OF REPORT OF TARIFF BOARD ON WOOL CLOTH INDUSTRY

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of the tariff board with respect to the Canadian wool cloth industry and the record of the proceedings before the board.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the request made by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) on January 18, 1955, I should now like to table a copy of the contract between the government of Canada and the Foundation Company of Canada Limited with reference to the construction of the Winnipeg post office.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Maxine Samuels Resseguier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Ginette Monique Cornu Lebegue.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Eugen Hart-berg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Joseph Pierre Emile Jasmin Rheaume.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Elizabeth Jane Marcelin Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Hugh McCrone Dunsmuir.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Hazel Winifred Edwards Welcher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Joan Audrey Baur Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Pauline Alice Leduc Sponagle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian Greenberg Seligman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marie Antoinette Demers Vigeant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Yoneyuki Watanabe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Leslie Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Rita Ursule Labadie Huot.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Evangeline N. Rodinos Zolotas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Maria Lutz Kaczmarek.-Mr. Hunter.
[Mr. Mart.in.l
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Clare Taylor Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Jean Claude Robitaille.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Ida Meitin Wooden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Fleur-Ange Francoeur Therrien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Maria Christina Vettore Austin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Roland Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Augustine Denonville Leclere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mary Therese McSheffrey Richard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Pierrette Marsan Short.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Greta Irene Kokko Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Yolande Sega-tore Grandillo.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Annie Laker Gillen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Juliette Bertha Langlois Miller.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Arthur Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Bela Antal Kelecsenyi.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Joseph Roger Gerard Doucet.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Elsie Amelia Armistice Wood Lavoie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Joseph Rene Romeo Lafrance.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Gweneth Leslie Clarke Atkinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Muriel Claire Wilson Hart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Violet Doris Hubbard MacGregor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Christina Mellis Campbell Squires.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Katharine Hamilton Ellis Bishop.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Sheila Kathleen McNaughton Best.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Pearl Mendel-son Markus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Leona Dalton Dawe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Ethel Tietle-baum Segal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Sheila Mary Power Stone.-Mr. Hunter.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this is the first government motion of its kind which has been made since confederation, and that if it is carried we shall have established a new method of dealing with the estimates as they are submitted in the blue book.
On the other hand, it is not the first time that the subject has been discussed in parliament. I have no doubt that there were discussions in the early days. I find that at least as far back as 1921 a formal motion was presented to the house for a committee of this kind to consider the estimates and that, as one would expect, that motion was made by a member of the party to which I happen to belong. Of course, in the years since the world war there has been repeated discussion on the subject and in each of the committees on procedure which have been set up we have had extensive talks as to the method by which to bring about a better way of dealing with the estimates. If hon. members are interested, they would have noticed that the 1947 committee recommended that we adopt in general terms the system obtaining in the United Kingdom. To adopt any different system from that which has been obtaining in the committee of supply raises serious questions of practice. After all, if parliament meets for one thing only, I think it could be said that that thing would be to vote supply for the purposes of the government for the following year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or, in the alternative, to withhold it.


Walter Edward Harris: Or to withhold it, as my hon. friend says. Lest one should think that I have not other matters in mind, may I say that of course we meet here to preserve the liberty and the freedom of the citizen. Nevertheless, if the government did not have legislation to present to parliament and if you can imagine a state of society in which there would be no other matter to be debated, we would still have to consider the estimates and either vote them or reject them. It therefore might be supposed that the consideration of expenditures in parliament would take a good deal of our time. Over the years I think we have found that we take about 50433-60
Special Committee on Estimates one-fifth to one-third of the time of parliament in considering the estimates. This time is spread out in the normal session from early in February until the final day, as a rule, on which we sit.
There has grown up in the country an impression that during the final week, and especially on the final day, it has been our custom to pass large sums of money at a rate which is not in accordance with the seriousness of the subject. To my mind that opinion is false; but unfortunately it is fostered by members in the house who, in my view, do not take the trouble to consider the amount of time we put in on estimates early in the session. I think it is true that in the last week of the session before last we passed about $800 million. It is equally true that we passed all the other expenditures in the preceding eight or nine weeks during which we had bten considering them. Both because the facts do not bear out what they say and also because I think it proper that parliament should not depreciate its own value, I suggest to hon. members that we should have a second look at the oft-repeated statement that we put through estimates in a scandalous manner in the last few days of the session.
The arguments that are usually advanced in favour of a different method of dealing with the estimates are these: First, in order to avoid what I have already mentioned is the false impression of the speed with which we deal with these things in the last few days of the session; second, that hon. members do not have in committee of supply sufficient time to cross-examine a minister until they obtain the information they have in mind. I have been spoken to by many members who say they do not feel like monopolizing the time of the minister or of the committee and that they are therefore constrained not to take tod long at any one time on a subject in which they are vitally interested. The third reason is-and it is a natural consequence of that-that if there was more time there could be better informed and more critical statements made about government policy and about a particular department in which an hon. member may be interested. I think we all agree as to the desirability of that objective. Government policy will be that much better in proportion to the good criticism which is directed towards it. I do not think any government wants to have passed through this house something in the order of $5 billion without careful scrutiny, careful thought and intelligent criticism. We have had some experience in dealing with expenditures of this order in the recent ten

Special Committee on Estimates or fifteen years. During the war we had a war expenditures committee; and since the war we have had a number of defence expenditure committees. These committees have served certainly two useful purposes and perhaps more. One on this side of the house cannot help saying that, despite all the sittings and all the work which was done, none of the committees turned up anything which was really detrimental to the manner in which the government had been spending the public money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Because they could not get information.


Walter Edward Harris: Second, the committees served as a useful warning to those who might take advantage or think they could take advantage of the haste which was a necessary part of government activity in a time of emergency. There are other reasons, of course, and other useful results flowed from those committees. I know that hon. members are well aware of them. But these committees dealt with large sums of money. Even now they deal with almost one-half the budget when they examine the affairs of national defence. We did not think it necessary at that time to consider the ordinary departmental estimates in a committee similar to that which had considered the war expenditures.
The whole question seems to resolve itself into divided opinions as to what the committee would do and what it might add to the deliberations of the committee of supply. Most members start off with the assumption that this committee will be in addition to and not by way of substitution for the committee of supply and will therefore perhaps only be an added burden to the activities of parliament. Even those who do not hold that view think that, whatever the committee does, we could not possibly have in that committee any different position from that which we have in the committee of supply, namely that the minister of a department concerned will be responsible for the conduct of the affairs of his department before that committee.
I think I should say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about the systems in the United Kingdom and in the United States and then indicate in what respect I think we ought to follow them, if at all. In the United Kingdom they have what they call an estimates committee but what, according to my reading of the record, would be something between an estimates committee and a public accounts committee as we understand it in Canada. The committee consists of 36 members, of which only 7 constitute a quorum. But they


divide themselves into subcommittees and the subcommittees do the actual preliminary work. The committee examine officials of all departments concerned, but it should be noted that they do not go through the estimates as we understand them. Rather they select one item in the estimates which is a matter of public interest and they prepare a quite comprehensive report about it. I have in mind one of two or three years ago on overseas broadcasting. The item ran, I think, to about four million pounds. The report itself is 27 pages long of printed material and the evidence and the appendices run to another 145 pages. It will be seen that this kind of committee takes far more time to consider estimates than we have in mind in this house. That particular subcommittee, as I remember it, was appointed in November and brought in its report the following July just on one item in the estimates of a particular department and not on any other item in that or any other department. The committee has authority to sit not only when the house is sitting, which is rare in the United Kingdom, but to sit as well when the house is not in session at all. They have even gone as far afield as central Africa on one occasion to examine into a particular matter of concern there.
Looking through the Hansard of the United Kingdom, I found that in the period from 1946 to the end of last session only on three occasions were reports of the estimates committee considered in the committee of supply of the United Kingdom parliament. I realize that the reports would appear in the journals, but the point I am making is that they were not debated in the house except on those occasions I have mentioned. It may be that I missed one in the index but I think I covered them fairly thoroughly. Two of these debates were only side issues, so to speak. Only one of them was a full-dress debate and it concerned school buildings in the United Kingdom and was originated by one of the opposition members at the opening of one of the allotted days for supply. I am not suggesting that the reports are not useful. On the contrary, I am sure they are. I am sure that the committees do put on the record a great deal of useful information. 1 am sure that the members who serve on the committee are better qualified to deal with the departments when they consider them, and I am also sure that the minister of the department concerned has his mind refreshed on his problems and probably has useful advice and information given to him about the work he should be carrying on. On the other hand, I have stated the position as I see it and I am quite sure that that kind of activity is not what

we have in mind in Canada at the moment when we speak of an estimates committee.
In the United States I think hon. members know that the appropriations committees of congress have vested in them authority to deal with appropriations. It is true that the executive makes recommendations to the committees, but I would suggest that over the years that congress has been functioning it is highly unlikely, except on occasions of emergency, that you will find an appropriation bill that was sent to the committees which did not have some change made in it before it became law. The committees, as I say, have this authority vested in them by law, and automatically they examine officials of departments, cabinet ministers and even persons outside the public service.
I mention that only to point out the distinction there and to say that I do not think for one moment that in the parliament of Canada, having in mind our constitutional arrangements, having in mind our belief in the theory of cabinet government supported by a majority in the house and taking responsibility for expenditures, we would want here to devolve into the hands of a committee the sole authority to pass expenditures. Indeed, I think the whole system of our government is based on the theory that the committee of supply consists of every member of the house and that every member has the right to scrutinize and pass on the advisability of every single vote in the blue book. I would go further and say that in addition to that privilege there is a joint responsibility on all of us to scrutinize these items and to pass upon them. It is that responsibility which troubles members who say that under the present system they do not have ample scope to discharge the duty in the way they think they should.
Having pointed out very sketchily the differences I find in other jurisdictions, I think I should indicate what we have in mind ought to be for the moment at least our procedure here. We think that the estimates committee, at least as a preliminary, ought to conduct itself as closely in keeping with the practice in committee of supply as possible. The minister who is in committee of supply is quite often asked a question about his department concerning a detail which no one expects him to carry in his mind, and so he has to have recourse to officials who can provide the information. By long practice these officials sit on the floor of the house but of course they do not take part in the discussion. They do give information, however, to the minister who gives it to the committee, and it is his answer for which he is responsible. We think that this course should 50433-60i
Special Committee on Estimates be followed in the estimates committee. It will be the responsibility of the minister to conduct the affairs of his department before the committee, and if he chooses to make all the answers himself that would be consistent in our view with the purposes of the committee. If, on the other hand, he thinks it desirable to leave the explanation of details of administration to others, that will also be his responsibility, but if this course is followed it will not be possible for an official or other person to be questioned as to the policy of the government. This must be the responsibility of the government and the minister concerned, and he cannot devolve that responsibility upon an official.
For that reason we hope that on an experimental basis, as I have said, we can do the work of three or four departments in the estimates committee in much the same manner that we do it now in the committee of supply, having in mind, however, that hon. members will want to take more time and will want to obtain more information than they say they have the opportunity to obtain at present. Therefore in the committee we can test the validity of the argument of those who say that this does not add anything to the committee of supply and see if in fact we can do the work in another place when the house is engaged in other business.
I am quite satisfied that there are a number of members who are frankly sceptical of the advantages of what is being proposed, and I think I can safely say that those hon. members are in all parties in the house. But I think we ought to make the experiment to see if in fact an estimates committee can have the advantages that those who sponsor it believe it has. I think all hon. members will agree with me that it would be better to begin cautiously and not make an initial error which might bring about an unsuccessful conclusion to the experiment. For that reason I am recommending a cautious approach to a new system, one which can be tried out without in any way saying that on a future occasion a committee might not decide to recommend to the house a different procedure.
My answer of course to those who say that this might limit the committee initially to the point where it would not be a success is simply that all of us, I think, are prepared to make the experiment. I think all of us are prepared to make it work but that it would be unwise to go beyond what at the moment appears to be possible in order to carry out the objective we have in mind.
The government hopes that the results of the experiment will be twofold at least. It hopes first, as I have said, that there will
940	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates be more intelligent criticism of government policy based on greater information in the hands of a member who wishes to make a particular study of a subject in which he is interested and, second, that there will be less time taken in committee of supply on the details than there is now taken in that committee. If neither of these results occurred, it would be a matter for consideration whether the experiment had been successful, and at that time those who think that the committee should be formed along the lines of that in the United Kingdom, or any similar committee adapted to Canadian conditions, would be free to say what they think was the cause of the failure of the experiment.
For the present we prefer, as I say, to keep the committee's activities definitely within the scope of the committee of supply so that we can achieve at least the minimum success in doing what members would like to have done. I would therefore ask the house to adopt the motion, even with the limitations I have indicated, to see if the estimates committee can be made to work in the interests of a more expeditious disposal of business and the better consideration of votes totalling about $5 billion.
I should, however, add that there will be certain consequences following from the passage of this motion. In the first place, we shall present to the committee, if established, the estimates of the departments of finance, veterans affairs, citizenship and immigration and northern affairs. In order to do that it will be necessary for hon. members opposite to realize that these estimates cannot go before the estimates committee until we have been moved into supply by a motion that the Speaker do leave the chair. When that motion is carried we shall have to move in supply that these estimates be transferred for consideration of the estimates committee.
As I have indicated on several occasions, though perhaps not in the house, that motion ought not to be debatable. It is not the intention of the government to create an additional debate to those now existing. If the committee is not going to be given the freedom to deal with these items, but rather have the motion create one more debate in committee of supply which we do not now have, then those who think this system will save the time of parliament seem to be misinformed. When the motion for supply is made, therefore, it will be the intention of the government, after that motion is carried, if it is, to call the four departments I have mentioned and one more at least. These items could

then be sent to the estimates committee for its immediate consideration, and we would have one more department's estimates to consider in the normal way on Thursdays and Fridays.
I would hope that this procedure would commend itself to hon. members and that the estimates committee could, during the months of February and March, do the work which we have in mind. There is no point, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in having the estimates committee working much after the end of March or April because members will want to serve on other committees at that time.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: We
have all listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). We all recognize the importance of the proposal which he has put before us. He could not resist one or two opening gambits, which perhaps we should allow him. There was an indication of the impregnable self-satisfaction which we constantly observe in those opposite, and I thought he allowed himself to make a little slip when he forgot that the estimates of the department of immigration, a year or two ago, to all intents and purposes came down on the last day of the session. There may have been some technical reference to them before, but I think we all agree that, to all intents and purposes, they came down on the last day of the session.
I shall not take the time to cover the ground the minister covered in differentiating his proposal from the estimates committee in the British house, though I shall refer to that later, nor shall I disagree with him in his reference to the system in the United States. We do recognize, and have always recognized, the fact that our system of government is different in that it is not merely representative, as in the United States, but it is also responsible. We have never sought to deny that for one moment, indeed we have affirmed and underlined the fact that the government has responsibility. There have been one or two suggestions from quarters which should have known much better that we were trying, by indirection, to introduce the United States method or something like it, but nothing could be farther from the facts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a measure seeking to improve the way we spend our money. The minister referred to the fact that in the early days parliament did little, if anything, more than grant money. I propose to read a sentence here to indicate how true that

is. This sentence is contained in a writ issued under authority of Henry III in 1254, summoning parliament:
The sheriff of each county is ordered "to cause to come before the King's council, two good and discreet knights of the shire, whom the men of the county shall have chosen for this purpose in the stead of all and of each of them to consider along with the knights of other shires what aid they will grant the king."
In other words, they were brought together for the purpose of giving the king money.
At the present time the federal government, as we all recall, spends nearly $5 billion or, in the average, not much short of $350 for every man, woman and child. The matter is much in people's minds. I only wish today that our words here could carry far enough to make the citizens of Canada take this as seriously as they should. I quote briefly from the Regina Leader-Post of October last these words:
Economy in government is as essential to the economic welfare of the country as economy in business is to the health of that business. It is necessary therefore that government scrutinize ordinary peacetime expenditures carefully with a view to keeping them to a minimum, . . .
Later, in the same article, this appears: The trouble is, of course, that we forget it's our money the government is spending.
Many Canadians are indifferent about government spending.
But every citizen should remember that by far the biggest part of the government's income is money that it takes from every citizen in the form of taxes. This is money which we ourselves would be spending, or saving, if the government did not take it in order to spend it, or save it, on our behalf.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I wish we could persuade the people of Canada to take the interest in this that they should. Sometimes I feel they have grown to despair about economy and therefore have turned their minds-as was indicated by a recent Gallup poll where only 11 per cent put economy at the top-in many cases towards what more they can get for themselves. If we are not fair with ourselves in scrutinizing the present method of taking care of the expenditure of our money, the discussion is really not worth while. If private business behaved as we do, it would not last any time.
Let us consider what the practice has been. The estimates are brought down early; that is admitted. What are the estimates? Well, the estimates are represented to us as being the result of a hypothetical battle between the treasury board and the various departments. We are asked to believe that there is a terrific battle, and that the treasury board is
Special Committee on Estimates ever so tough. The late minister of finance used to reassure us on this point. I am not sure that the present Minister of Finance has not, by implication, indicated he thought his predecessor had not done a very good job.
Let us look at what a close and not unfriendly observer thinks about the economy which has been exercised. I am using words which I used previously in this house, and which emanated from the Ottawa correspondent of the Winnipeg Free Press in December last. He said:
Careful study of the federal civil service indicated that the cause of the hitherto uncontrollable growth was simple. Whenever there was a need for expansion, the departments expanded. They did not search within themselves for surplus personnel and meet the need for expansion by making better use of their existing staff. They invariably added to it.
The same writer says:
Hitherto, the treasury board has only dealt with proposals for increases. There has never been, until now, a consistent effort made to employ the existing staff more efficiently or to reduce the civil service.
We all know, or all believe we know, that there is carelessness and extravagance. Some time ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) said that he knew the Department of National Defence had wasted $300,000 in his riding in the purchase of a swamp that was absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was bought.
I want to ask, what happens when the estimates come into this house? Let us consider the way in which they are adopted. In the first place they are regarded as sacred. In the ten years I have been here, only once has a dollar ever been stricken off. In some cases the estimates, which are all regarded as government measures, are actually used also as government legislation.
I remember on one occasion when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and I argued across the gangway here as to whether there was authority for a certain expenditure, and he brought the argument to a very complete end by saying in effect, "Well, what does it matter? If this resolution passes, does that not settle it?" And of course it did settle it. In other words, you can have indirect legislation by an item being brought into this House of Commons.
Let us again try to describe what happens in committee of the whole. The minister of the department is deeply entrenched with experts in close support. The instructions are that the line must be held at all costs, that there must be no giving way anywhere, that they must hold to the last man-that
942	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates there shall be no discretion of any kind, that not a dollar must be struck off. Oh no, I am wrong there, because there was a dollar struck off once. There was one case where it was discovered in the Department of Public Works that a certain plan had not been carried out, and the minister of the department struck off a quarter of a million dollars-for which I give him credit.
But of course the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) is different from some of the rest of the ministry. He is an engineer; and engineers have to have regard for figures.
I can imagine some others sitting near him, seers such as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who would not have felt it necessary to stand up in the House of Commons and say that a mistake had been made. He would have been able to explain it away, so that in the end the amount would have remained there. And who knows; perhaps it might be used for some other and different purpose about which no one had thought until then.
Meanwhile what are the opposition doing? Well, they are doing their best. They advance against the dug-in minister with his close support; but they are in the open. They have no experts in close support. The minister is -well dug in, and nearly always the line .holds.
How, it would not be fair to say that there is no result from that. True, there may be no result at the moment, and there may be no result during the current year; but I like to think, however little the ministers show it, that they do pay some attention to what we say, and that perhaps afterwards they do say to each other, "You know, that was a good point. We got away with it, and we had the answer ready, and the answer was pat. But that question was really a good one, and we must pay some attention to it next year, although without admitting that there was anything wrong."
I think that is a reasonably fair description of what happens. Now comes the idea of a committee. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that this is an experiment, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has pretty well followed that line, too. Of course the idea of a committee is a very attractive one. The newspapers have taken it up. We see that the Globe and Mail says this about the setting up of the committee:
The only complaints against this innovation are that it is belated and that the scope of the proposed committee is too narrow.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Too little and too late.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Too little and too late, yes. Then it says:
Having been graciously permitted to set up an estimates committee, they should make sure that it covers the ground. The government's plan, it is unofficially stated, is that the committee should study expenditures of the departments of External Affairs, Citizenship, Finance, the Secretary of State and Veterans Affairs. This is not good enough. The list does not include the big spenders, as that word is generally understood.
Now, it is most natural to think that a small committee can be much better than a committee of the whole house. That argument sounds so convincing. You get a few men around a table in a spirit of intimacy, where they can concentrate better, and where information can easily be got. Indeed I believe the natural tendency is for people to accept that view. But I would suggest to the house that there is another side to the question, and that we need to be on our guard, "Won't you walk into my parlour?", said the spider to the fly.
I do not think we should forget that it is the desire of the ministers to get the estimates through the house with the least wear and tear to themselves, and with the least possible questioning. And it is with that thought in mind that I shall read one or two comments from a very experienced British politician, in which he throws out a word of caution which, I suggest, we would do well to remember. At page 570 of the British parliamentary debates, 5th series, 1953, the Hon. Walter Elliot, a former minister of the crown, has this to say:
I am very jealous of any projects to take discussion away from the floor of the house. I am uneasy about sending too much to select committees of members specialising on particular matters, such as foreign affairs or colonial affairs or, for that matter, domestic affairs. I will refer in a moment to the committee stage of bills, but I would say that the over-use of the specialised committee is a great danger.
And later on the same page he says-and this I commend to all members of the house who are not ministers, and to the minister as well:
The only thing, I am sure, of which a minister is frightened is the whole house.
And I would like to think that the ministers here are frightened of the whole house. Of course they would be more frightened if they did not have two-thirds of the members in the house who never frighten them at all. He continues:
That is when a minister really begins to pay attention to outside opinion, when this place, which has the power, which has the strength, which has the last word, begins to come into play. Then the strongest minister-*
And let us remember that the Minister of Finance has been caricatured as Hercules, so

we ought to have that in mind when we are considering this-that it is he who is bringing this forward. It continues:
Then the strongest minister bringing forward, from his point of view, the most important matter, is bound to pay the very closest attention to it. Believe me, he pays much more attention to a debate where the whole weight of the House of Commons is being focused on him, in the hearing of his colleagues, than he does to any amount of expert opinion in a room upstairs, whence he can come out and say, "Well, the boys were rather fussy, but we have got the bill."
Now, I commend that earnestly to every member in the house. And I wish to read a word more from the same source as it appears at page 575-and this is something I think we should remember. The whole genius of this system of ours is that there is struggle going on. Let us be candid about it; there is a struggle for power going on. And this is indicated in what I am about to read:
The difficulty in which parliament is always placed is that the purpose of parliament is controversy. We come here not to agree but to differ. If we all agree, there is no necessity for our being here. This is the place for argument, where differences of opinion are brought out. What we should consider is, not how differences of opinion can most easily be smoothed away, but how they can be brought fruitfully to conflict.
Well, even a man with pacific tendencies like myself can realize how true that is, and how we should be on our guard against what can be made to appear to us as reasonable, and which can be useful if it is properly used, but which could also be used merely to dig those entrenchments I tried to describe just that much deeper, and to make the gentlemen in close support that much more effective.
Let us remember this, with regard to ourselves in the opposition, that often we call ourselves watchdogs. But watchdogs should be able to growl and to bite. And if we are slipping into a situation where we do not growl and bite so well, then we ought to be very much on our guard, indeed.


An hon. Member:: What about barking?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a new set of false teeth.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Therefore when they come to us in a very pleasant atmosphere, as the minister did, and they say* "Let us sit down together and we will deal with this pleasantly, so that nothing will ever arise that will jar us in any way, and so that we can come back to the house and the members will feel that the matter has been dealt with, and they will be shy of having anything further to say"-I say when we are put in that position, let us be on our guard.
Special Committee on Estimates
Ministers would not be human if they did not have the hope that this was going to be a softening-up process. Of course, that is what they hope. Why would they not hope it? And certainly it is our duty to be on guard and we are just a lot of nincompoops if we fall easily into a trap. I hope we will not.
That brings me to one or two things that the minister has said. One of them really nearly knocked me flat. As I understand it, when a minister says we are to go into the committee we are to sit around a table, all good fellows together. The civil servants are to be there, all good fellows together too and we are not to follow the common-sense course that everyone would imagine; that is, that we will be able to talk directly to these good fellows. No. The close support is still to be in support. They will not be in the front line and, as I understand it, any questions which are to be asked are to be asked of the minister who will then communicate with his supporters and the answer will be given him in that way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't make it too hard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is he now arguing for bringing civil servants into politics?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, no.


Mr. Rowe:: They have already been brought in.


Mr. Fleming:: Exhibit A.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the minister should have left that one alone because I have made it clear already that we understand the principle of responsible government; that we understand we are not to discuss matters of policy with civil servants; that we understand we are there for the purpose of getting information; but, notwithstanding the assault of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I still submit to this house that there will be something awfully ridiculous in our sitting around the table and asking questions of the minister and then having the minister turn around and ask the close support. We will all be able to hear what is said but we must not question them directly. I hope the minister will not stick to that because I think that bids fair to make the thing rather a farce.
Then the minister said-and here he left it rather at large-that this committee was to conduct itself, mutatis mutandis, in exactly the same way that the committee of the whole house conducts itself. He did not make that very specific. I am not going to go into
944	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates details on that. I am not just sure how far he takes that. I have one or two substantive comments I wish to make later on the conduct of the committee and therefore I shall leave that for the moment. But I have been disturbed. What the minister said really made me feel that-I will not say it is phony, because the last thing in the world I would ever charge the Minister of Finance with was introducing a phony-I do think he has not really thought the thing through. For us to go into a room together and just try to reproduce the atmosphere of this committee which is carried on in public, which is carried on sometimes with scores of people present, is not very realistic. I hope he will back away from it.
I now come to what seems to me to be essential and to be the only conditions on which we should be asked to consent to this committee; that there will be an opportunity to question civil servants, though of course not on matters of policy. That is understood. Secondly, though I am not going to argue that we should turn ourselves into something like the committee on estimates in Britain, because I realize the force of what the minister said, nevertheless, I do argue that we should have certain rights of questioning within the limits of common sense. For instance, I suppose crown corporations will come up directly or indirectly. There ought to be the right of questioning there. When you come to a subject like trade and commerce, you will find the government is in business in competition directly or indirectly with a lot of private business. And I would think that there ought to be a pretty wide range of questioning there, just as there is in the United Kingdom where, when they consider export credits, for example, they have a wide range of evidence made available to them.
The minister has pointed out the difficulty that that involves and the amount of work involved. I am not suggesting that we in any detail model ourselves on them, but I am suggesting that if these committees are going to be more than a rather poor imitation of the committee of the whole, there has to be some latitude. Let us take the committee on external affairs. My understanding is there has been quite wide latitude there. I am not speaking so much of witnesses who have appeared. I am not familiar with the detail of it, but even a hasty reading of the minutes shows there was a pretty wide range of questioning allowed. When it came to the committee recommendation, again we had the old situation of a government majority and the report was, shall we say, entirely free from criticism.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

I want to make the point that there must be complete freedom, just as there has been in respect of the external affairs committee. It seems to me that should be the pattern. There must be the complete right of debate when the occasion arises in the house referring the items to the committee, and equally the right of debate when the report comes back, as there has been in the case of external affairs. That seems to me essential.


Walter Edward Harris: Why does the hon. member
think there ought to be an additional debate on sending the estimates from the committee of supply to the committee on estimates?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My understanding is
that in the case of external affairs the procedure is exactly as I have stated. There is a debate when the items are sent and there is a debate when the items come back. I did think, perhaps without sufficient warrant, that what we are doing here is to extend the procedure in the external affairs debate, and for my part, while the minister shakes his head, I put myself on record as saying that I see no reason why the practice followed in that connection, or an equivalent practice, should not be followed here. As a matter of fact, when one comes to think of it, are we in this committee of the whole house going to pass this on automatically without any opportunity of debate? Bear in mind-and this is as true as true can be -when the external affairs estimates come back from the external affairs committee it is inevitable that the rest of us in this committee have the feeling-I know I have it myself-that since all these estimates have been gone over by a good committee, to intermeddle in the debate further would be taking oneself too seriously. I do not think that is the right attitude. Somehow or other we must try to prevent that attitude arising because if it does it is lowering the position of this committee; it, in my view, is lowering the position of parliament. If you get to the stage where every committee is dealt with in that way it will have what is to me a very injurious effect on the procedure of this parliament.
In case the minister wants to throw the United Kingdom instance in my face, we should remember that in the United Kingdom they do not have ten provincial parliaments dealing with a lot of the legislation. They have a vast amount of work to do that we do not have to do here, and they are constrained to reduce the amount of time taken on estimates. Moreover, these procedures are not regarded there as party matters.

I understand in the public accounts committee in Britain a member of the opposition is the chairman, and that is something which, so far as I understood the minister, he did not suggest was going to be done in this Canadian House of Commons. Therefore, I say that the rights of debate, just as they have existed in respect of the external affairs committee or the equivalent, should not in any way be curtailed.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this experiment, as I notice the Prime Minister called it and the minister again this afternoon, should be tried, but I wish to repeat that we should be on our guard against its being used as a method to get away from the House of Commons. Ministers being human, do not let us be sentimental enough to believe, as I said a moment ago, that they do not have that in their minds. Of course it is in their minds.
In consenting to this as an experiment, therefore, I believe we should ask that there be freedom of debate on the motion to refer it to committee, and freedom of inquiry in the committee, always excepting matters of policy which we recognize are the responsibility of the government. There should also be freedom of debate when the matter comes back to the committee of the whole.
In winding up my remarks I wish to underline and again read what Mr. Walter Elliot said with respect to the position in which we now find ourselves, and the only position that we should for one moment accept. He said:
I am very jealous of any projects to take discussion away from the floor of the house.
And then again he said:
This is the place for argument, where differences of opinion are brought out. What we should consider is, not how differences of opinion can most easily be smoothed away, but how they can be brought fruitfully to conflict.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was brought before the house some years ago, I believe, as the minister said, it was in 1947, this party approved of referring estimates to committee. But in doing so we were not and are not any less suspicious of the government and its intentions than if the estimates were considered on the floor of the house.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and though he finally approved of this motion most of his arguments, it seemed to me, were against the motion, though I believe the same arguments could be used against the setting up of any committee for any purpose.
Special Committee on Estimates
I believe we should try to remember that times change and parliament and legislatures are today being called upon to deal with many more matters of importance than they were even 20 or 25 years ago. For that reason, if for no other, we should try to find ways in which we can deal with these matters expeditiously.
I believe I am just as firm in my resolve as the hon. member for Greenwood that we should not forgo any opportunity for debate in this house on matters of importance. I would add, however, that during the years in considering the estimates in the house a great deal of time has been taken up not so much in dealing with particular items as in dealing with questions of policy or other questions which could not be discussed except on the estimates. I confess I have been as guilty in this respect as many other hon. members. However, one aspect of our parliamentary institution in which I take pride is that there is no question which cannot be discussed here. A private member will have an opportunity to discuss any subject in which he is interested if he watches for that opportunity, and most of us watch for such opportunities during the discussion on the estimates.
I am not sure whether I understood the minister correctly when he said that these estimates would be referred to the committee without debate. If he means that these committees will be brought into supply and no debate will be allowed, then I disagree with him because I am not prepared to sacrifice any opportunities we have for debate on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.


Walter Edward Harris: If I might be permitted to clear up any doubt in my hon. friend's mind, my reference to there being no debate was on the formal motion in committee of supply to send these items to the estimates committee.


Mr. Knowles:: Does not that take place with Mr. Speaker in the chair?


Walter Edward Harris: They will have to go into supply before they can go anywhere else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But have not external affairs estimates been referred to that committee on a motion with Mr. Speaker in the chair?


Angus MacInnis: I quite agree that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, as far as this particular motion to refer them to committee of supply is concerned, are a little different, because on those occasions the motion was made with Mr. Speaker in the chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a much better memory, but I believe on
946	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates occasions Mr. Speaker has left the chair. However, the purpose of that debate was to give the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and others in the house an opportunity to discuss external affairs and not necessarily the estimates of that department. If we can be quite sure that there will be no interference with debate in taking these estimates into committee I believe we can get over any other difficulty. I quite agree with the minister in his statement that there is no reason for two debates.
I have been discussing the matter with some of my colleagues and they are concerned as to whether we would have an opportunity to debate these estimates when they come back to the house. My understanding is that we will have such an opportunity, in the same manner as we will have an opportunity for discussing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
I believe a great deal of good can accrue from referring these estimates to a special committee. I believe everyone who has had the opportunity to serve on the committee for external affairs has found that committee very useful indeed. I can recall outstanding explanations that have been made on the operation of government policy to that committee, and such explanations alone justified any time spent there. We had an extremely useful explanation during last session when Mr. Cavell outlined to us the work being done under the Colombo plan, and I am sure everyone found that information-information we could not get easily in the house- extremely useful. Last year and the year before that we had a most interesting three or four days with Mr. McNaughton who explained to us the workings of the international joint commission. It is questions of how policies are put into operation that take up time on the estimates, and not the scrutinizing of how the money is paid out. For that reason I believe the committee should be set up.
The hon. member for Greenwood mentioned that private business could not possibly carry on its operations in the same manner as we do here. But if private business had 265 members insisting on talking on every matter that was brought under consideration by the president or general manager, and insisting on giving publicity to all that took place, I do not believe private business could handle its affairs as it does now. I am not saying that they handle their affairs particularly well now, but they certainly could not do so under those circumstances. That is what happens in this house. Everything that the government does is supposed to be done in a goldfish bowl. That may be a good


thing or it may be a bad thing, but we must realize that that is the way public affairs are carried on. There are some people, I assume, who would like to make the work of these committees a matter of determining particularly whether such and such an expenditure should be made-and I find nothing wrong with that-or whether economies could be made. But in a quarter of a century of experience here, I do not think that I have ever heard of a member complaining- in fact, I am sure I have not-that the appropriation for his constituency was too large and that it ought to be reduced. It is my opinion that until we come to the state of mind that will enable us to criticize appropriations for our own constituencies, it ill behooves us to be too virtuous in our criticism of other estimates.
Over the years I have noticed the two papers here that criticized the government- and particularly one of them-unmercifully. I do not mind that. I think it is a good thing for the government even if the criticism is not always justified; but I think it is justified in most instances. But if you put in the estimates an appropriation for Ottawa, there is no criticism. If there is any criticism at all, it is that the appropriation is not enough, and that a great deal more could very well be spent in the city of Ottawa with good effect.
It seems to me that economy is not so much a matter of the saving of money as it is of the proper expenditure of money, or the getting of proper value for the money that we spend. I do not want to revive another debate, but the other evening someone said that we, in this group, were always ready to spend the other fellow's money. I am not particular whether or not that accusation is made against me, as long as I am trying to save the other fellow's life or to improve his life; and that is what we have been trying to do here with a great deal of the money that the government spends.
As to the matter of economy, I am reminded of a story I heard about a Scotsman, the head of a family. It is rather strange, but the Scots are about the only race left about whom you can have a joke without giving offence. This Scotsman bought a barrel of apples. When he took the lid off the barrel, he found there were a few bad apples on the top. Being thrifty, he insisted that his family consume the bad ones first before they consumed the good ones. But lo and behold, when they had taken off this layer of bad apples those that were previously good had now gone bad, so they had to eat them also. Eventually they consumed the whole barrel of apples but they ate them

all in a state of decay, more or less. That is not good economy, in my opinion; it is poor economy indeed. It is that kind of economy that we ought to try to avoid.
I do not know that there is anything more I want to say on this matter. As an experiment, I think this suggestion is worth trying. It is not a matter of policy but rather a matter of procedure. If we can make it work, it will be to the benefit of all of us. But it is an experiment that is not breaking entirely new ground because, as I said before, we have had the external affairs committee for several years and I think no one would wish to abolish that committee.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I think that most members in the house will agree that the present method of dealing with the estimates is not a satisfactory one. I think one of the reasons for that situation is that in committee of supply a great many unnecessary questions are asked. I use the word "unnecessary" because, in many cases, the answers to the questions asked can be found in the back of the book of estimates. In the second place, you have members wandering in and out of the house, with the result that members come in late and ask questions that have already been asked and answered. That is something that is happening repeatedly every day while the estimates are under discussion. That sort of thing would not be so likely to happen if the estimates were dealt with by a committee.
We in this group have always favoured a policy under which the estimates of a department might be sent to a committee dealing with matters relating to the department whose estimates are under discussion. For instance, that is done in the matter of external affairs. Officials are present before the committee. Any questions may be asked. As a result of that procedure, I think a great deal of time is saved in the house. The reason that time is saved in the house is that the other members who are not on that committee know that on the committee are members who are especially interested in external affairs and that those members will have made a fairly good job of investigating the estimates. I believe that similar action could be taken in the handling of the estimates of many other departments such as agriculture, veterans affairs, defence and finance. That is, the Department of Agriculture estimates could be sent to the committee on agriculture, the estimates of the veterans affairs department could be sent to the special committee on veterans affairs and the estimates of the finance department could be sent to the banking and commerce committee. On those committees you would have members who
Special Committee on Estimates were especially interested in those subjects. Hence the rest of the members of the house who are not on those committees would know that those members would be making a fairly good job of investigating the estimates. For that reason, they would not be likely to ask a great number of questions or at least would not be likely to ask as many questions as they would otherwise ask when these estimates were referred back to the committee of supply.
As to the suggestion before us, the minister has stated that some members are sceptical about it. I will admit that I am one of those members who are sceptical for the very reason I have just mentioned, namely that on that committee you are going to have members who will not be especially familiar with the matters referred to it. Consequently, when the estimates of a department are referred back to the committee of supply other members who are interested in it and who have not had a chance to ask questions, are going to start asking questions, I think, to just as great an extent as they would have asked them before the estimates had been referred to that committee.
I think there is a step that could be taken to prevent that happening. If the estimates of a department are dealt with until finished in that committee, then each group could change its representation on that committee before the next department brings its estimates to it. But if you are going to take one department for a few days, then jump to another department, and then come back again, it will be impossible to follow a sequence of that kind, and I think you are going to run into a great deal of trouble. But if you carry the estimates of one department through to a finish and then, before changing to the estimates of the next department, you allow a group to change its membership on this committee so as to have on that committee men who are especially interested in that department, I believe that many of the objections I have raised could be overcome. I hope the minister will say that the procedure I have suggested will be followed and that the groups will be allowed to change their membership on this committee without too much difficulty. The minister has stated that the committee is to be set up as an experiment. We realize that the present system is not satisfactory, and although we would prefer the method to which I have referred, nevertheless I think we are prepared to support the proposal as an experiment and do our best to help to make it succeed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think I might be less than frank if I did not say something in regard to this
948	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates subject, for both in the house on various occasions in previous sessions and in the committee on rules for several years I have advocated, though perhaps in somewhat different form, the establishment by the house of a committee on estimates for the purpose of reviewing the estimates of the government submitted in the annual blue book.
I am not going to enlarge at undue length on the subject of the historic responsibility of the elected representatives of the people sitting in the House of Commons to pass on public expenditures, both past public expenditure and contemplated expenditure. There is, both historically and in fact, no higher responsibility resting upon members in any parliament modelled upon the mother of parliaments.
Sir, I have felt as a member of the house over the past ten years that that responsibility is not being adequately discharged. Indeed, I go further and say that under the procedures obtaining in the house today it becomes virtually impossible for the members of the house to discharge that high and important responsibility. How are they to do it? The vehicle is the committee of supply, perhaps the clumsiest of all the elements of parliamentary machinery at Ottawa today. If you wish to make a serious attempt to review proposals for expenditure you do not in the first place send the matter to a body of 265 members. In the second place, you attempt to have some order in the deliberations of the reviewing body. You would not have questions of policy, questions of detail, questions of amount, all mixed up. You would not have questions flying from all parts of the house with little relation to one another, nothing consecutive and very little that is coherent.
This committee of supply, sir, is a clumsy, awkward vehicle for the discharge of an important public responsibility. It takes up a great deal of time. I wish to make it quite clear that in my approach to this problem the saving of time is not the most important element. For me the most important element is the discharge of the public responsibility to review these proposed expenditures. But the saving of time is, I think, one of the results that would follow, not at the expense of efficiency but with an increase in efficiency if a different procedure were adopted.
Another of the patent disadvantages of our present procedure in committee of supply is that any information obtained by members must come through the mouth of the minister. That again is an awkward, time-consuming procedure. The minister


very often acts as a fence between the member who is seeking information and the official who has the information, when time would be saved and efficiency would be served by permitting the question to be asked directly of the official. Members very often come into the committee primarily to seek information. Others wish to make speeches in reference to policy. Others have speeches they wish to make depending upon the information they obtain in reply to questions asked for the purpose of eliciting the information that is needed.
On these various counts, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our present procedure in committee of supply just cannot be permitted to continue in its present form if we are to make any serious pretence at all of discharging this important responsibility. We do spend a great deal of time of the house in committee of supply. For my part I do not begrudge the time that is spent there, but I wish to see it spent in a way that will enable members to reach the meat of the problem and will permit a differentiation in the procedures of the committee between policy on the one hand and questions of detail on the other. At the present time these important questions of policy are confused with the minutiae of questions having to do with detail or questions in regard to amount, questions that have a very limited effect. No one here, I am sure, is going to pretend that when these little questions are mixed up with speeches in regard to important aspects of policy the result is a sensible or coherent procedure.
Now, sir, it is said at times by the government to us in the opposition: Well, these estimates have all been reviewed by the treasury board. In effect they say to us: You do not need to concern yourselves unduly with the details because they have already been combed through by the treasury board. Sir, this House of Commons can never abdicate its responsibility in this matter to the treasury board or any other board. It must assume its responsibility; it must discharge that responsibility. The only way it can discharge that responsibility is by a review of the details of the items that are submitted to it in the blue book.
We are not without experience in this regard in the House of Commons. For the past ten years now, beginning with the appointment of the committee on external affairs in the fall of 1945, the house has every year since followed the practice of referring to that committee the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I have had the privilege of being a member of that committee since it was first appointed in the fall

of 1945. As one who, I think, can say that he has shown some concern about these estimates and the way they are handled, I want to express the very firm opinion that the estimates which have had the best review in the House of Commons in these ten years have been the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
I think the reason is that they have been sent to the committee. In that committee there has been full opportunity to question the officials of the department. The minister has followed the practice of making an introductory statement in the committee, but then the details of the review of the estimates, the answering of questions and the submission of further information, tables and statistical data have been left to the officials of the department. Witnesses have not been confined to officials of the department. We have had men like General McNaughton and Mr. Cavell come before the committee, men associated with particular work, the international joint commission in the case of General McNaughton and the Colombo plan work in the case of Mr. Cavell. We have had other similar witnesses from time to time, sometimes people who are not connected with government at all. There has been freedom there and the estimates have been thoroughly reviewed. I think that the time of the house has been saved at the same time as a more efficient review of the estimates has been achieved.
That was not done, Mr. Speaker, by curtailing debate in the house, and here it seems to me that the minister is proposing today, if I apprehend his thought correctly, a departure from a procedure that has been found to be salutary and effective over this period of years in connection with the estimates of this one department.
When the motion has been made to take the estimates of that department out of the committee of supply and refer them to the select standing committee on external affairs, that motion has been made the occasion of a debate on policy; for, sir, this House of Commons is the place where policy should be discussed. That is the procedure that has been followed there and it has been a very useful procedure. When the estimates of that department have come back to the committee of supply then in some cases where there was need of a general debate on policy that debate has taken place on the first item. But usually where there was not some immediate occasion for a debate on external affairs policy in general, because we all recognize that there must be certain occasions for debate on external affairs from time to time during the session, what we have had
Special Committee on Estimates has been a very quick review in the committee of supply of the estimates of the department when referred back to that committee. The house, sitting as committee of supply, has known that these items had been reviewed in detail.
Now, there is nothing in the procedure of the house that obstructs any member at that point if he wishes to raise some question or to ask for certain information. I believe it has been the experience of the house, sir, that the questioning in that committee has been quite comprehensive. The information has been obtained and it is in the printed proceedings of the committee. There is no occasion for repeating it in the house. But if something arose in that committee which, in the opinion of any hon. member, called for special comment, there is no reason why that comment should not be made then in committee of supply, and made with the assistance of information. There is no occasion at that stage for speeches going off at tangents based on erroneous information, because that information has been sufficiently elicited in the committee.
I feel, sir, that the experience this house has had now over an extended period of time is an experience which should assist the house greatly in connection with this question, and should be a useful guide to the committee.
We have the proposal that an estimates committee should be established. The estimates committee is not the only committee to which the estimates of any particular department could, or for that matter should, be referred. I trust that because a committee on estimates is to be appointed, there will be no suggestion that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs should not be referred, as in the past, to the select standing committee on external affairs. I would have hoped that having our experience with the external affairs estimates to guide us, some thought could have been given to referring the estimates of some other departments to committees of this house that happen to correspond to those departments.
We do not have committees in every case corresponding to a department of government. There are some and the committee on external affairs is, of course, one obvious example. Another example is the industrial relations committee, to which the estimates of the Department of Labour could be referred. Whenever a special committee on veterans affairs is appointed for a session, it seems to me there is no reason why the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs should not go before such a committee for review and report. Some serious consideration might be given as well, Mr. Speaker, to referring the
950	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates estimates of the Department of Agriculture to the select standing committee on agriculture for review and report. In this way I believe we would achieve the purpose of having a more thorough review of the proposed expenditures of those departments, and then we would have an intelligent discussion of policy in the house.
During the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that this proposal was being put forward by the government at this session as an experiment. Now, that is fair enough. I have been urging in the past that if the government was not prepared to go the full way, at least it might consider experimenting. I am glad that the government is prepared to experiment with this idea.
I wish to say, however, that the experiment ought to be conducted on an absolutely fair basis. Apparently we are to have the estimates of four departments referred to that committee. These four departments have already been selected by the government. The opposition has had no voice whatever in the selection of these departments whose estimates are to be referred to the committee- not the slightest voice whatever.
It seems to me, sir, if there is to be a fair experiment on this basis, if we intend to give a fair and reasonable trial to the suggestion that has been seriously put forward in this house over a period of some years, the opposition should have had some voice in the selection of the departments whose estimates are to go to this committee for review. I hope that it is not too late for the government to listen to the voice of the opposition in that respect, because surely no one is going to pretend that the trial is fair if the opposition has not been consulted in any respect in the selection of those departments whose estimates are to be so referred.
I wish also to say a word about the experience in the United Kingdom with the committee on estimates. It is not just a recent experience; it is a very long experience according to our ideas of time in this younger country. It is because there has not always been a clear understanding of the functions of the estimates committee at Westminster that I wish to read to the house several passages from a speech that was made at the commonwealth parliamentary conference at Nairobi, Kenya, last August. At that time one of the main subjects for discussion was the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government. The question arose there as to how the elected representatives of the people could discharge their fundamental and inescapable responsibilities in controlling public expenditure.


The spokesman for the United Kingdom delegation, Mr. Derek Walker-Smith, M.P., had a word to say about the procedures followed in the United Kingdom with reference to expenditure. I put this before the house and ask the house to follow the difference between the way they have found over a period of years they could best handle this responsibility, and the way in which I understand the minister is proposing that these estimates be handled in the committee on estimates. I am reading from the official record of the conference, and Mr. Walker-Smith proceeds:
So far as the traditional methods of financial control are concerned we still have in the United Kingdom 26 days set aside under Standing Order 16 for debates on the estimates, known as supply days, but those 26 days on the estimates are not now concerned, or scarcely at all concerned, with the question of a detailed scrutiny of the departmental estimates. On the contrary, they have become over the process of time debates relating to the policy and the administration of the particular departments whose votes are set down for debate on any of these 26 days. Similarly, our consolidated fund and appropriations bills are still, of course, a very vital part of the financial machine; but they are made the occasion not of financial debates but of debates varying over wide points of policy and administration. That being so, it is, I think, clear that the old traditional methods of financial control are not of themselves very effective for that purpose today.
We have however evolved certain other methods, new methods, in comparatively recent years. When I speak of new methods, one of these methods has been going on since 1861 and the other for 30 or 40 years, but they are comparatively new, speaking against that background of seven centuries of parliamentary government . . .
Then further down he says:
But in fact we have a dual system, a public accounts committee to make a detailed examination of past spending, and an estimates committee to make a detailed scrutiny of proposed expenditure. So far as the public accounts committee is concerned, that is the one which has existed since 1861. It is composed of 16 members of parliament and always has a prominent opposition member as chairman,-nearly always, in fact, a former financial secretary to the treasury. The public accounts committee has power to send for persons and papers and to call for attendance of senior civil servants for the purpose of examining them, but there are two things that they may not do-they may not call for ministers and crossexamine them and they may not challenge the policy of the government. And so you see the ambit of our public accounts committee is narrower and more functional than the ambit of those exciting congressional committees about which we read in our newspapers.
So far as the estimates committee is concerned, this is a very useful body, at any rate for us. It has been in existence for about 30 to 40 years and it examines the estimates, that is to say, the proposals for spending money and reports what economies consistent with the policy of government might be effected. This is a rather large body consisting of 36 members of parliament and in this case the chairman is drawn not from the opposition but is a private member of the party supporting the government. It is a very effective body, split into five sub-committees, each of which work on different departmental estimates. There-

fore I think it is broadly true to say, Mr. Chairman, that, taken together, the public accounts committee and estimates committee do much of the detailed financial scrutiny which was traditionally done by the house in committee of the whole house and which circumstances have made no longer possible by the traditional machinery.
Now, it seems to me there is much there to which we might hearken today. Nobody has in mind, I am sure, importing anything from the congressional committees system into our system here. But we are actually away behind Westminster in shaping our procedures to accomplish the fundamental purposes of parliamentary government and parliamentary responsibility.
And so, sir, I am glad that a committee on estimates is going to be set up; I am glad that it is going to be experimented with. I wish to see that system given a fair trial. And I do not think if the government is going to have the exclusive voice in selecting the work for that committee the trial will be altogether fair.
I come now-and I shall be brief-to what I conceive to be a departure in the recommendation of the minister from what it seems to me has been sound policy in the House of Commons, in the light of its experience with the external affairs committee, and the experience of the United Kingdom.
The minister said, in effect, "We are going to make the estimates committee a little committee of supply, a committee of supply in miniature." As I understood him, that committee is going to start its review of the estimates of a particular department with the kind of discussion of a general nature that we have in the house, in committee of supply. And then, as I understood him, the estimates committee will go on with the same mixture -the same baffling mixture-of detail and policy, amounts and policy, administration and policy, all mixed up, from which we suffer now in trying to bring any order out of the chaos which exists in the deliberations of the committee of supply.
It seems to me that that is just deluding ourselves, inviting confusion in this experiment. What we ought to do, as a house, is to discuss questions of policy in the house, sitting in committee of supply. This is the place to do that. The House of Commons, sitting in one of the committees of the whole, is the place where policy ought to be discussed. A select committee is no place to discuss policy.
Similarly the committee of the whole house, such as a committee of supply, is no place to discuss detail. The select committee is the place to discuss that. If I followed him
Special Committee on Estimates correctly, the minister seems to propose that the committee of estimates be made a sort of committee of supply in miniature, with questions of policy and questions of detail all mixed up.
The minister has said, "We do not want any discussion on the motion to refer the estimates of a particular department, or to take those estimates out of the hands of the committee of supply and to refer them to the committee on estimates." It seems to me we are only stultifying ourselves if we follow that proposal. Surely what ought to be done in this situation is to invite on such a motion a general discussion on policy in relation to that department, such as normally we now have on the first item. Have that general discussion of policy here in the House of Commons, a discussion that would not consider detail, and after that discussion of policy send the estimates for the department to the committee on estimates for detailed review. In the committee there would be the detailed review, but there would not be discussions of policy.
The next fact that I think ought to be kept in mind in this regard is that in the committee, in seeking full information, and in discharging that particular responsibility to get information with regard to amounts, and to seek economies, there should be complete freedom not only to send for papers but to send for persons; and such persons should not be confined simply to those in the government service, if there is good reason to send for persons outside. This afternoon the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) referred to a case where, in relation to the review of a department under whose jurisdiction fall, we will say, crown corporations, there should be power to seek intelligent advice from other sources as well.
The next point I should like to make is that when the review of the estimates of a particular department has been concluded by the committee on estimates, it should then be reported back to the house. There should be no thought of holding back a report on the review of estimates until the committee has reviewed the estimates of all the departments referred to it. It ought to complete its work as far as possible on any particular department, and then send its report back to the House of Commons on that department and its estimates.
The subject of rotation of personnel was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). It seems to me that only time and experience will bring the house to a right decision as to whether it

Special Committee on Estimates is better to follow the method in the United Kingdom, that of having subcommittees, or to follow the system which I believe is in the mind of the minister when making his proposal, that the committee should function as a unit and that, if necessary, when the estimates of a particular department have been reviewed, then by decision of the house the personnel of the committee could be changed so as to bring into it some others who would be more particularly concerned with or more expert in the affairs of the next department to be considered. I do not think we ought now to arrive at a final conclusion in either respect, but that we should keep an open mind and should be guided by the results of our experience.
Finally, I do not think we are doing any offence to our respect for parliament or the value we attach to traditions with which not snly the powers but so many of the procedures of parliament are attended, by conducting the type of experiment we are proposing here today. Mention was made of the fact that at Westminster they have had a committee such as that now proposed- speaking generally-for the last 30 or 40 years. When the House of Commons becomes so large and when its business becomes so involved that existing procedures are not adequate to enable members to discharge their duty, then it seems to me there is a responsibility incumbent upon the house to search for such procedures as will enable it to become more efficient, while at the same time retaining and performing the traditional duties and responsibilities that attach to it under our system.
Therefore, sir, in what we are proposing here today it seems to me we are simply trying to find a method by which we may better adapt the procedures of this house to the discharge of our duties. And while the motion before us provides simply for the setting up of the committee, and there is no motion yet before us to refer the estimates of any particular department to that committee for review, I hope that in the interval, before such latter motion is put before the house, the government will give consideration to the suggestions made here today- suggestions which I think, if given effect, will offer a much better opportunity for giving a fair trial to this suggestion and experiment which has in it very great promise of usefulness if given a fair trial.


Mr. Dickey:: I have two questions I should like to ask the hon. gentleman. I understand he quoted with approval the rather lengthy passage that he read from the proceedings of the British commonwealth parliamentary


association. In dealing with the debate on the motion to refer the estimates of the departments to this proposed committee, did I understand him to mean that the debate on policy would be a substitute for the debate on the first item that we now normally have, and that there would be no debate of a general nature on the first item when the estimates came back?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I read this somewhat lengthy quotation from this interesting and quite authoritative speech of Mr. Derek Walker-Smith, M.P., because I thought it was highly instructive. We have not in Canada quite the same situation, as I sought to make clear in my following remarks. The type of committee on estimates that is proposed by the government is not precisely the same as they have in the United Kingdom. But what I was trying to draw from the remarks of Mr. Derek Walker-Smith was this twofold instruction. First of all, their committee on estimates has been found, over a lengthy period of time, to be a very useful committee in relation to the discharge of the duty of control of public expenditure; and in the second place, to make clear, as he did, that that committee concerns itself with detail, and that in the committee of supply, according to the prevailing British system, the discussion is confined to policy. That is what seems to me a sound differentiation between the function of the house in the committee of the whole and one of those select committees. Let us discuss policy in the house but not detail and in the committee let us discuss detail but not policy.
The second question that my hon. friend asks is as to the status of item No. 1, following the general discussion. He will recall that, according to our procedures in the house today, in committee of supply, on the first item of general administration in every department we have first of all a general discussion. That is a policy discussion, and then after that there is, if anyone is concerned with the details of the item of general administration, an opportunity to go into them.
It seems to me that the proper course to follow is that when the general discussion on policy is concluded that is the point at which the estimates should be referred to the committee. You have had your general discussion on policy. Now, in committee, item No. 1 is not approved nor is the committee debarred from reviewing such details of the estimates of the item of general administration as may be required. My hon. friend will recall, for instance, in some departments there is very little outside the general administration item. Take the Department of National Revenue. There are

only a couple of items in each branch of that department, including general administration. Therefore, if the general administration item were carried in the house there would be very little for the committee on estimates to deal with. If, for instance, any department's estimates were referred, what that committee should do is to go into the detail of the item of general administration, the money amount, if they have any questions then remaining that they wish to ask on that item. My impression is that the bulk of the discussion in the committee on estimates on most departments would not revolve around the item of general administration. It would revolve around the later items in many of the departments, certainly in the departments which have a great many items. We have some departments which have scores and scores of items.
I have done my best to answer my hon. friend. It may be in his mind that there is going to be some duplication in discussion. I do not think so for one minute. That certainly has not been our experience with external affairs. We have had the general discussion here, and when the items have come back to the house, in some years we have gone through those items in a matter of minutes in committee of the whole when they have been referred back to it.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: As one
who for many years has been urging that estimates be sent to a committee, I rather welcomed the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) this afternoon and the discussion which has taken place; but I do believe that there are some things which arise out of the discussion and some perhaps have not been mentioned, which should be clarified by the minister before we finally adopt with enthusiasm his suggestion.
I am somewhat confused as to just what the procedure is to be in the special committee on estimates. I think I should say it would appear that in the minds of many speed is the requirement and speed is what we should be aiming at. I would suggest that really time is not the important element in this as much as efficiency.
With respect to the procedure in the committee, it would appear that all parties seem to be in agreement on one thing anyway, namely, that policy is the business of the government and the responsibility of the minister, and that officers of the department should not properly be questioned on matters of policy. I do not think anyone will deny that under our system of government the minister is responsible for all the details of his administration. He cannot foist on the shoulders of his officers the
Special Committee on Estimates responsibility for his administration any more than the responsibility for the policies that he advocates.
Now, coming to the procedure in the committee, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) that the business of carrying on by whispering or sotto voce suggestions will be impracticable if not futile in the narrow confines of a committee room. Pretty nearly all the members of the committee will hear the replies that the deputy minister whispers to his minister and naturally the members of the committee will say:	"Well, Mr. Minister, ask him this or ask him that", which would be a sort of three-handed form of questioning which would finally finish up by being a bit ridiculous.
I would say that there should be nothing in the order of reference nor in the intentions of the government to preclude officers of the department from being examined and cross-examined. But I would say this: If any minister believes that he on his own can answer all the questions which an ingenious opposition can put to him, well, then, let him try it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He would have to be good.


Charles Gavan Power: He would have to be good. I do not know whether the question arises or not, but out of these circumstances it would appear to me that inevitably the questioning would be addressed to the officers of the department. In any case, I would suggest to the minister that he make it perfectly clear to the house there will be no prohibition on officers being asked questions if the minister cannot reply to them himself.
I am not quite sure whether the order of reference should not be altered to meet those conditions. Perhaps, as has already been said, when the individual estimates are referred, the ministry may adopt the idea of stating in the order of reference that matters of policy are not to be discussed in the committee, but I do not think I would go as far as the hon. member who last spoke. I would suggest that matters of policy could be discussed in this special committee, and that questions respecting policy should be addressed only to the minister and not to his officials.
If the order of reference is not wide enough and does not go far enough I suggest to the minister that it should be widened. This is something new; it is an experiment. If in the government's mind it is a reform let us treat it as a reform and see that it is properly framed so that it operates. If it is

Special Committee on Estimates only a concession to my hon. friends of the opposition then let us make our concession freely and willingly, not grudgingly.
Reference has been made to the United States system of committees, and to the British system. With respect to the system in the United States it should be quite clear to all of us that on account of the differences in our parliamentary and constitutional practices it would not be easy and indeed might be very difficult for us to adopt anything like the United States system.
In the first place, in so far as I am able to judge their system does not carry any ministerial responsibility. The ministers are not even in the house. There does not appear to be any governmental responsibility for appropriations since any member of congress may move to add additional expenditure to appropriations. One reads of dozens if not hundreds of bills being introduced by private members for the purpose of giving pensions to worthy soldiers or civil servants. One also hears a great deal of the practice known as log-rolling, whereby certain members of congress agree with certain other members to obtain larger expenditures in their particular regions of the country. In view of these things any attempt to import the United States system would, I believe, be useless in this country.
With respect to the British system, it is worthy I believe of consultation and should perhaps be consulted, but I am reminded of a book I read recently with reference to the British House of Commons. It is a house, as we all know, replete with respect for customs, usages, and tradition. But something like 100 years ago they had to alter the rules of that house very radically indeed. Up to that time it had been known as an English gentlemen's club. Unfortunately, a large group of Irish arrived. The Irish were not Englishmen, and they had no ambitions whatsoever to be gentlemen.
With respect to us, we are not Englishmen either. We have our own traditions and 80 or 90 years of parliamentary government. Surely with these traditions back of us we can feel a way or invent a way whereby we can make our parliamentary system work without slavishly following that of any other country.
Going back to the story I mentioned, with respect to the Irishmen-though perhaps I had better not make any invidious comparisons in connection with the second qualification. However, I should say that owing to our own hypersensitivity with respect to the language used in the house, and owing to the decisions of successive Speakers, we have to some extent lost the flavour and saltiness of

the forthright language of our pioneer forebears, and in our attempts to become gentlemen quite a number of us have become little Lords Fauntleroy minus the lace collar and well brushed curls.
However, and be that as it may, I should say there are very great advantages in referring estimates to a special committee. These advantages have been enumerated by hon. members on all sides of the house, though I confess I was a little surprised that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) did not appear to share the enthusiasm of his neighbour who last spoke and favoured referring these estimates to the committee.
Nevertheless the control, criticism, and scrutiny of the estimates is one of the bulwarks of the opposition. The opposition should, if it is doing its duty, take every possible step to see to it that these expenditures are appropriate and in the interests of the country. May I say as one who enjoyed being in the opposition for two parliaments that I have great sympathy for the opposition, and believe it is the duty of the government and the house to give the opposition every opportunity to scrutinize these estimates.
With respect to hon. members on the government side, perhaps it should be said that there is no constitutional or legal bar to their scrutinizing the estimates also. Such scrutiny is not by law, practice, or the constitution the sole prerogative of members of the opposition. I suggest to many hon. members on the government side that they too would learn a great deal about the function of government, they would learn a lot about the inner workings of departments, if they would take the time and trouble to scrutinize the manner in which estimates are prepared and brought to this house.
From the standpoint of the government I can think of no better procedure than to have deputy ministers appear before parliamentary committees. Anyone who has been in the government must be aware of the almost intolerable pressure brought upon ministers to increase the estimates of the departments. Whether it be the natural tendency to empire-building which exists in all departments and which is very difficult to control; whether it be the pressure to have new gadgets in departmental offices; or whether it be only keeping up with the Jones's in some other department, the ministers have only one way of protecting themselves against this pressure from their officials and that is to be able to say, "No, I cannot get by with this in the House of Commons." If the departmental officers are brought face to face with members of the house and made to understand the reluctance of members to give in to their

whims and fancies, then perhaps the minister would have a much easier time with his department. Without being derogatory in any way to our civil service, I think it would be a good idea to match bureaucracy face to face with democracy as represented by the members of this house.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this subject has now been thoroughly discussed, and I do not intend to take time rehashing the arguments that have been made. However, I rise to support this resolution enthusiastically. No matter how badly this experiment may turn out, it cannot result in a situation worse than what we have today. Every hon. member, I think, realizes that members of parliament simply are not in a position to properly examine our estimates under the present system. All they can do is a superficial job. I am hopeful that when this committee is set up we can do much more effective work.
Speaking personally, I am going to judge the success or failure of this committee by whether or not we are able to save the taxpayer any money. Some hon. members seem to look upon speeches advocating economy as a kind of joke. They do not seem to be much interested in saving the taxpayer's money. I was rather surprised to hear a Scotsman rise in his place this afternoon and take such an attitude. I always thought most Scotsmen watch their money carefully; and if they watch their own money carefully, I think it is fair to expect them to watch just as carefully the money of the people they represent. As I say, I think this committee will be judged, at least in part, by the amount of money we can save the taxpayer.
I think this may be a task at which many backbenchers can make themselves useful. Early in the session there is usually a period of about two months when there is not too much work at hand. I think that backbenchers can be particularly useful on this committee. We can go into these estimates in some detail, and give them a thorough examination.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) made some reference to the United States system. There may be some features of the United States system that we do not like, but there is at least one practice that appeals to me. As I understand it, in their committees the opposition are given experts or paid officials who can help them go into
Special Committee on Estimates the matters being discussed in detail. If, as the hon. member for Quebec South suggested, the government are anxious to help the opposition with their task, I suggest they copy this United States practice. If we are discussing the Department of Finance, for example, may I suggest to the minister that he should give us two or three of his officials, tell them that whatever they do or suggest will not be held against them, and let them help the opposition examine and criticize the finance department's estimates. My understanding is that in the United States that is done, and I think it is sound.
There is one other point I should like to make. The minister today named four departments which would be referred. It seems to me it might be better if the estimates committee met and then themselves chose the department they were going to call. In that way the particular department would not be all ready; they would not be prepared, and you might get a more effective examination.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that government is the biggest business we have in Canada. We are spending about $5 billion. In that expenditure there surely must be many places where we can save the taxpayer money. I am hopeful that this estimates committee will be a real step in the right direction. I say again that I heartily support the setting up of the committee.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members listened with attention to the words of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) as he gave to the house his experience that goes back over more than 38 years, during which time he was not only a member of the opposition for two parliaments, as he said, but was also a minister of the crown.
As I listened to him I could not but recall an incident that took place I think it was in 1941, when I was a member of the war expenditures committee. At that time the hon. member was the minister of national defence for air. I spoke one evening and offered strong criticism against the training of air personnel by civilian authorities, indicating that in my opinion profit was being made at the expense of the state of war.
I was young in the house in those days, and I received a castigation from the hon. member for Quebec South. Next morning he called me on the telephone and told me-

Special Committee on Estimates and in saying this I do not believe I betray any personal confidence-that he had found that the remarks I had made were in accordance with fact. That afternoon he rose in the house and stated that he had made an error the night before in his criticism of my criticism, and in effect said, "This thing will be ended once and for all", and it was ended. To me that was an example of what can be achieved when ministers of the crown have some regard for the criticism offered conscientiously and seriously by members of the opposition.
The Minister of Finance, with some suggestion of pride, referred to the fact that in 1921 there had been before the House of Commons a motion to provide for the setting up of a committee somewhat analogous to the one envisioned by the motion now before the house. It is interesting to go back and to read that motion, which was moved by a distinguished predecessor of yourself, Mr. Speaker, the late Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux. The resolution read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, in order to co-ordinate and expedite the business of parliament in a more intelligent and practical way, the estimates of the various departments should, before being laid on the table, be scrutinized by a special committee of the house, where officers would be summoned to appear with plans and reports bearing on each appropriation.
Among those who participated in the debate was the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King, who gave considerable support to the views then expressed. The members of the government who spoke in the debate took the stand that a committee such as that which was asked for by Mr. Lemieux might invade the prerogatives of the cabinet inherent in our constitutional system. That committee would have had much wider powers than the one now contemplated.
As one looks back over the years one cannot but see that, year in and year out, less and less often is there a careful, penetrating examination of expenditure. A few moments ago my friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) expressed the hope that a committee such as that which is contemplated by this resolution may be able to help discharge a needed responsibility in the examination of expenditures and expressed the hope that something in the nature of the practice followed in the United States congress would be adopted here.


I hope not. Committees in the United States congress, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has pointed out, are not similar to ours. Indeed, one of the major criticisms of the system in the United States is that while partisan politics are forgotten in committee there is grave danger of log-rolling, resulting in expenditures that otherwise would not be made. Members of the committee separate themselves from their political parties and, voting either one way or the other regardless of any party considerations, do on occasion advance their own ideas for their own pet expenditures by supporting the pet ideas of other members of the committee. The result is not control of expenditures but additional expenditures.
Under the United States system there is of course no control by the legislature over the expenditures made. Our controls over expenditure as I understand them are as follows; first by the cabinet, and then through the treasury board. Then when grants are sought from parliament discussion takes place and in theory at least an examination is made of the expenditures that are asked for by the government. There is criticism in the committee of supply but, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said a moment ago, seldom if ever is there any reduction. I know of only one instance in the last 15 years, and I think there was one other case between 1935 and 1940. But, generally speaking, after the criticism is over the item goes through either by virtue of the majority or by reason of the exhaustion of the opposition.
There is one further protection, and that is in the report of the Auditor General. All the expenditures of parliament, except a very limited number, are audited by him. During recent years-and the trend has been an accelerating one-more and more crown corporations have been established. In my opinion there is no proper examination possible in parliament of overexpenditure by crown corporations. They enjoy a peculiarly isolated protection from examination by parliament.
There are two examples I might bring to the attention of the house to indicate the degree to which the difficulty of careful examination of crown corporations has been shown. One has to do with the Auditor General's report of last November in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Auditor General pointed out

that he had made certain criticisms of expenditures of the C.B.C. in previous reports but apparently no attention was paid by the C.B.C. to the criticisms offered. His report read:
Still applicable is the comment in previous reports to the effect that the appropriateness of the accumulated allowance for depreciation and obsolescence is open, to question for the reason that the rates used through the years have never been scientifically established or consistently applied.
Weaknesses having been noted in the accounts, this office wrote to the chairman of the board of governors on October 23, 1952, with supporting details . . .
The words he used were:
... it is suggested that the system be carefully reviewed, and appropriately revised and coordinated so that there may be no need to qualify the audit certificate in this regard.
That was proper criticism. What did the C.B.C. do? It simply ignored it. I say that as far as crown corporations and emanations of the crown are concerned there is need for an examination to take place in parliament. I mention something that took place yesterday, not for the purpose of discussing the decision made but to indicate just how far removed these institutions are from the control of parliament and responsibility to parliament. Whenever they need money they come to parliament, but whenever we endeavour to ascertain whether they have overexpended or recklessly wasted, then they hide behind the fiction that parliament has no right to know.
Yesterday I made a motion for the production of all letters and communications that had passed between the Department of Transport and the C.N.R. respecting the lease of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal to the Hilton interests. The answer was that it was not in the public interest to produce the correspondence. The $20 million for the construction of the hotel came from the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker; and it seems passing strange that with such an expenditure, and having in mind that parliament will ultimately have to put up any deficits on the railroad, parliament should have no opportunity of controlling expenditures made by this and other crown corporations and emanations except as now provided for in a limited manner.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is five o'clock, the house will now consider private and public bills.
Industrial Relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 152, REVISED STATUTES OF 1952    VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any length in proposing the second reading of Bill No. 7. My reason for such self-denial is that I am sure hon. members will agree that just about everything that can possibly be said about the voluntary revocable check-off, both for and against, has been said during the debates that have taken place over the last number of years. But, Mr. Speaker, even in the breast of an opposition member hope springs eternal, and I dare to believe that one of these times-it might be this year-we will reach the point when the government will decide that the time has come to implement its own promise in connection with this matter as set out in the Liberal platform adopted at the Liberal party's last national convention, which was held in 1948.
I remind hon. members who belong to that party that in their convention of that year they went on record as favouring legislation providing at least some form of union security. I remind them too that when they adopted that plank at their national convention in 1948 it was only a few months after a concrete proposal for union security in the form of the check-off had been dealt with here in parliament.
The concrete proposal was the amendment to the then new federal labour code which was moved in the industrial relations committee by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Every year since then the wording of that amendment has been the basis of a bill which has been presented to the house in my name. As for what happened in 1948, the amendment was written into the labour code in the industrial relations committee on the motion of the hon. member for Spadina, but when the bill came back to the committee of the whole house, on motion of another Liberal member the voluntary revocable check-off was deleted from that bill. We have had a difficult time ever since trying to get the proposal back into the legislation.

Industrial Relations
I have mentioned what happened in 1948 so as to remind Liberal members in particular that when they decided at their national convention in the latter part of 1948 that they stood for union security, it was in the light of the proposal to that effect which had been made in parliament by one of their own members. So I say, Mr. Speaker, I dare to hope that this year the government might have reached the decision that it is time to implement a promise made in 1948. I realize this is only 1955, only seven years since that promise was made, and that would be lightning speed for the Liberals; but who knows, such a thing might happen once in a while.
Another hope I have, Mr. Speaker, is that by now something might have developed as the result of a report that was made to the House of Commons in 1953. In the session of that year this same bill of mine was before the house, and on the motion for second reading the minister moved an amendment that the bill be not then read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. After considerable study that committee made a report to the house in which it said this:
Your committee endorses the principle of Bill No. 2-
I interject to say that Bill No. 2 of 1953 was identical with Bill No. 7, which is now before us.
-and recommends that the principle of the said hill, together with the submissions included in the printed minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on the subject matter of this bill, be considered by the government in its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which the committee is informed is now under study.
That report was made by the industrial relations committee on Tuesday, April 28, 1953. On May 5, 1953, on the motion of the then chairman of the committee, this house concurred in the report of the committee and made that recommendation its own. As I say, that is another reason for the eternal hope that springs within me that one of these days this measure will be accepted by the government and will become law.
Despite the fact that full details are on the record as to what this bill calls for, perhaps I should take just a moment to spell it out. It asks for what is known as the voluntary revocable check-off. It asks for a provision to be written into the federal labour

code making it the law that if a union which is certified under the provisions of that code wishes to have the check-off on a voluntary and revocable basis, it shall be given that check-off on that basis, as a matter of right. Even after that right has been given to a union, under the provisions of this bill it becomes necessary for each individual member of the union who wishes to have his dues deducted and paid over to the union to sign a card to that effect. Even after that, each such member has the right under the provisions of this bill to revoke that request if he wishes to do so. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is the minimum of what is known as union security that any legislation could possibly provide.
I point out that the railway workers of this country, who are the largest single group to come under federal labour jurisdiction at the moment, have more than this. They have the Rand formula, which is an even more far-reaching form of union security. I point out that legislation similar to the bill now before us is on the statute books of a number of provinces in this country. Therefore this is not legislation that is very radical in character. I point out as well that this has been requested repeatedly by the major labour congresses of this country. I would remind the house also that more Liberal members have voted for this bill than for any other opposition motion or bill that has been before the house for a long time. In other words it is quite clear that there is a strong sentiment for this kind of legislation when a dozen or more Liberals, on occasion, can stand up and vote for a measure of this kind, despite the fact that up to the present the government has not seen fit to endorse it.
As I said at the outset, I feel that on this occasion it is not necessary to speak at length on this measure. It is well known and almost everything that could be said either for or against it has been said, and said a good many times. I suppose if the government is not prepared to accept this bill, the debate may continue. It could be subjected once again to the talking-out process, and I imagine in that case certain members on the other side will make the same speeches they have made before. If the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) for example makes his speech, which I know so well, no doubt I shall make the same interruptions at the same points. We have been through it over and over again

Surely the time has come when the government should accept this measure on its merits. It is, I submit, a gesture to labour in recognition of the extremely important role that labour plays in our economy.
I have pleasure once again, Mr. Speaker, in proposing second reading of this bill for the voluntary revocable check-off, and I hope this time it will be accepted by the house.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: My hon. friend has been commendably brief this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the motion for second reading of this bill. I suppose he would include me amongst those who will give the well known speech and cover the well worn ground. I shall be commendably brief too, I hope, but I think I should refer to the fact that the meat of the recommendation of the standing committee of 1953 to which he referred was to the effect that the principle of this bill, together with the submissions included in the printed minutes of proceedings and evidence, be considered by the government in its review and proposed revision of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
The committee had been informed this act was under study. I indicated to the house on February 23 last that the study recommended by the standing committee was going forward. I indicated at the same time that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was not a very old act and that the officials of my department wanted to take time to review the amendments that were based on very useful years of experience. I made no apology then for going slow and I make none again this afternoon.
Following the discussion of the bill last year came the vote on second reading. I watched the result of that vote with interest, because it was the first opportunity on which the twenty-second parliament of Canada had a chance to express itself on this particular legislation. As my hon. friend said, there were members from all parties in the house who voted for the bill, but the fact that the total vote showed 107 against and 51 for did not indicate that the house as a whole was, at least then, in favour of this particular bill. I think it would be worth while to let the house know that I have had a survey made concerning the incidence of the check-off in
Industrial Relations
all its various forms in industrial establishments which come under the federal jurisdiction. Figures showing the number of employees in crown companies and in industries under federal jurisdiction who were covered by collective agreements providing for a voluntary revocable check-off, or some other form of check-off of trade union dues, revealed that the question of the check-off has become, in truth, a common subject for collective bargaining in those activities under federal labour laws. This of course is where my predecessor in this department, and I, have stated from time to time the present government feels this matter of check-off really should be decided, namely by collective bargaining.
It appeared to me that members of the house might like to have the general picture of how the unions under federal jurisdiction appear to view this alleged boon, the voluntary revocable check-off. The author of the bill has constantly called it the "very minimum of union security". I think we have a right to infer from his speeches that there must be a very great many workers under our jurisdiction deprived of something that we should see that they have, as a minimum of union security.
Well, I was very curious, and set in motion a survey designed to find out just exactly how the situation stood. If I have your permission, sir, I should like to place on Hansard the schedule I have prepared, and in doing so I shall indicate what it contains. This schedule bears the heading "Employees Under Federal Jurisdiction". It has four subheadings, the first of which sets out the total employees under federal jurisdiction; the second shows total employees under agreement; the third shows total employees under agreement providing for check-off of some kind, and the fourth shows total employees under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-off. Then down the left side are set out the various activities coming under the federal labour laws. The total of those in the first column, namely, the total employees under federal jurisdiction, is given as 392,500; the total of the second column, showing the total employees under agreement, is set out at 277,800; the total in the third column, the total employees under agreement providing for check-off is shown as 223,400, and the total in the fourth column in which are shown the total employees under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-off is

Industrial Relations
shown as 35,488. I am giving all these totals Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the minister in round figures.	leave?
If I have permission I should like to place


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, the complete table on Hansard.	Mr. Gregg: It is as follows:



EMPLOYEES UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
Numbers under collective agreements:
Numbers under agreement providing for check-off:
Numbers under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-off:
i	II	III	IV-	Total employees under federal jurisdiction (a)	Total employees under agreement	Total employees under agreement providing for check-off	Total employees under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-offTransportation- Railroads (including express and excluding commercial telegraph operations).. Shipping (including stevedoring)	
Air	
Motor and all other	204,400 35,200 10,100 6,0007c;	Round figures 177,600 150,800 32,000(7>; 8,400 6,300 4,400 6,000 5,700	1,300 1 2,900 20 600Communications- Telephone (d)	
Telegraph and cable	
Broadcasting	37,900 11,600 5,100	31,200 6,400 2,300	31,200 6,300 2,200	25,600 100 8Terminal elevators	3,600fcj	3,600	2,600	360Mining	3,800	3,100	2,500	2,500Manufacturing	13,GOO	6,900	6,900	2,100Service (C.N.R. hotels)	2,4007c;	2,400	2,400	nilOther government enterprises (e)	11,700	nil	nil	nilBanks	47,100	nil	nil	nilTotals	392,500	277,800	223,400	35,4887/;(a)	Estimated. (b)	Insofar as some longshore workers move from summer to winter ports, they may be counted twice as employees under agreement. (c)	Number under agreement; total figure for employment would be somewhat higher. (d)	Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia only. (e)	Includes Canadian Arsenals Ltd. (f ) Figures in column IV are also included in figures shown in column III.	
Now let us look at the prevalence of the check-off in relation to the estimated total of 392,500 persons who are employed in industries which come under federal jurisdiction. That, incidentally, includes crown companies. To begin with, this total of 392,500 employees should be reduced by an estimated total of 39,250 persons employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity, who are outside the scope of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Further it should be reduced by 47,100 employed in banks, and by 11,700 employed in other government 
enterprises who are not organized and are not covered by collective agreements.
Of the remaining 294,450 employees who are employed in industries under federal jurisdiction, in areas of employment where there is an established pattern of organized bargaining, the survey revealed that 277,800 are actually covered by collective agreements, and that 223,400 are subject to some form of the check-off. That means that slightly more than 80 per cent of the employees who are covered by collective agreements already enjoy the check-off, if one may use

that expression, in some form or other. In every case it was gained by collective bargaining.
In his remarks this afternoon the hon. member referred to the manifesto of the Liberal party at its 1948 convention. He said, and truly, that the Liberal party had indicated that it stood for union security. I would point out to him, however, that the Liberal party at that time did not indicate that it favoured this particular bill. I would also say that if the check-off is, in truth, the great boon to union security that he indicates, then the figures I have quoted show that 80 per cent of the workers of Canada coming under federal jurisdiction have, in the intervening years, gained that great boon by collective bargaining.
The survey is even more revealing in regard to the type of union security contained in the check-off provision I have mentioned. Of the 223,400 employees who are subject to some form of the check-off, only 35,488 come under the voluntary revocable check-off, the form which the author of the bill under consideration has called "the very minimum of union security". As against this 35,488 having the minimum of union security, the remaining 187,912 employees have some form of check-off which from the point of view of the trade unions must be more advantageous and desirable than the voluntary revocable check-off. In fact, the survey shows that in relation to 166,433 of the employees in question, the check-off is compulsory for all workers affected by the collective agreement, although the condition of union membership is not compulsory.
I would suggest, too, that if the check-off is a matter concerning which there is such a widespread habit of collective bargaining, as I have mentioned, then it is a matter which should be left to the parties to deal with.
Further, if parliament did legislate in this matter it would seem for the first time, as I have mentioned before, to be legislating in favour of one side in the field of laws relating to the conduct of industrial relations between management and labour. This would be contrary to the general principles now embodied in our industrial relations legislation. The concept of that act is that there should be voluntary agreement by management and labour upon the terms of the contract that would bind both parties.
The act is now free from coercive features relating to the substantive provisions of collective agreements, with the single exception of the requirement that every agreement shall contain a provision for the final settlement of differences as to the meaning or violation of the agreement. Of course that 50433-61
Industrial Relations
provision applies to both parties concerned. This freedom should be maintained; and it should not be forgotten that collective bargaining rights exist for the employer as well as for organized groups of employees.
The bill proposed by the hon. member would apply specifically in the case of "a trade union entitled to bargain collectively" under the act. The check-off provision is thus tied in with the exercise of collective bargaining rights. From our survey of collective agreements in the federal field of jurisdiction it is abundantly clear that the unions, acting as collective bargaining agents, have been able to make arrangements which, in many instances, go substantially beyond the provision for a voluntary revocable check-off and which, from their point of view, are more adequate and beneficial.
On the principle of the check-off, the attitude of the federal government is revealed by the check-off provisions which have been made in numerous collective agreements entered into by crown companies. This has been left to collective bargaining by those responsible for the management of crown companies. It is significant that in many instances, covering a very large number of employees of crown companies, bargaining has resulted in provisions for various types of the check-off of union dues in favour of the unions representing the employees.
The hon. member referred in passing to the fact that it had been suggested by the standing committee on industrial relations that the principle of this matter be carried along in conjunction with other amendments that it was indicated the department was bringing forward. The other day in the house, in response to a question, I stated that we were not for the present recommending those other amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act for two reasons. One of them was the case which is now before the supreme court, which I mentioned at that time. The other is this. Last summer there were some very serious discussions surrounding a dispute between the representatives of labour and management of our railways. By that time the dispute had gone through all the processes of the conciliation machinery provided by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Finally both parties consented to agree to the decisions of an arbitrator to be appointed by the government on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The arbitrator made his findings which have been accepted as the basis for a new agreement, which is now practically completed.
Since the first of this year the same committee representing the non-operating unions of the railways has been discussing a broader
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
question looking toward the future of collective bargaining in railway disputes generally. It has been reported that these discussions have touched upon the effectiveness or otherwise of certain features of our Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It has been reported also that later discussions may be conducted on the same question between the union committee and the railway management. If, as time goes on, suggestions are put forward to improve the usefulness of the act, we shall be glad to give those suggestions consideration. In the meantime I think we might postpone opening up the act for these other amendments that I referred to a moment ago.
As for myself, Mr. Speaker, I shall once more find it necessary to vote against this bill.
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to say a word on this bill. This is not the first occasion that we have had this particular measure before us, and it is not the first occasion on which I have expressed my views in regard to it. The minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have gone into the details of the bill quite sufficiently; therefore it is not my intention to deal with that part of it.
I want to speak more particularly with regard to the principle of the bill. We as a party have always maintained that we would do everything within reason to see to it that the workingmen of this country enjoy the greatest possible security in the field of trade unions, and the highest possible standard of living which they can attain. We have taken the stand that the voluntary revocable check-off is something the unions should have. As I have indicated on other occasions, we in Alberta have taken the lead in this country. Therefore we are just following the pattern which we have set in that particular legislation.
I recognize immediately, Mr. Speaker, the importance of having this legislation in the form of an amendment to the act itself, because it has been the experience of almost everyone who has had anything to do with labour organizations that some workers who enjoy the benefits that have been derived from the efforts of unions will take no part in financing the obligations of those unions. That is wrong. Anybody engaged in industrial labour should pay his fair share of the expenses incurred in getting the advantages. We know that from an industrial and economic point of view our whole national economy is dependent upon the amount of money which the labouring people, the agriculturists and others have to spend. If they

have not the money to spend, then of course the whole economy of the country is wrecked.
We recognize that immediately, Mr. Speaker, but I must point out, as I did on another occasion, one of the great objections I have to this type of legislation. I should not say "to this type of legislation", but more properly to the abuses to which it may lead. It is true that there are branches of labour organizations in this country who subscribe to the aims and policies of a political organization. I am not going to beat about the bush. The C.C.L. do subscribe to the political views of the C.C.F., and they have made the C.C.F. their political action arm. They may think that is proper.
I have always supported labour organizations, and they have always had my sympathy. Generally speaking, the people across this country are sympathetic to labour's aims, and they see the advantages of having a proper industrial organization in Canada; but at the same time a great many people object strongly to the unions siding with any political party. I have said without hesitation on occasions in my own riding, in the Drumheller valley and in East Calgary when that was part of my riding, both highly industrialized sections, that I would not want the unions to come out and support our organization as a political unit.
It is wrong. Every individual member of a union should have the privilege of supporting any political party he desires to support.
When you find some unions subscribing from $100,000 to $200,000 for political purposes during election periods then it is a bit out of reason. Some people say the money is not from such sources. However, I would maintain that if unions have that much money to put up for political purposes they do not have to extract such large amounts from the membership in the form of dues and in other ways.
I wish to make it quite plain that I am in wholehearted sympathy with workingmen. I want to see the unions progress. I want to see them with very strong labour union representation, and I want to see the voluntary revocable check-off instituted in law. I believe it is a good thing. But I would say this to unions. I believe it is unfair to the membership of the union and it does not serve a good practical purpose for any union to sponsor any political party.
Having said that may I say again that I am going to support this measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: The business reserved for this hour having been dealt with, the house will now revert to the business with which it was dealing prior to five o'clock.
++NAYS
Aitken, Miss
Anderson
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Batten
Bennett (Grey North) Blair
Blanchette
Boisvert
Bonnier
Boucher (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Bourget
Bourque
Breton
Brisson
Brooks
Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Buchanan
Cameron (High Park)
Cardin
Caron
Carrick
Cauchon
Clark
Cloutier
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deschatelets
Deslieres
Dickey
Dupuis
Fleming
Follwell
Forgie
Fraser (Peterborough) Fraser (St. John's Eas Fulton Gardiner
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Gregg
Hanna
Harkness
Harris
Harrison
Hellyer
Henderson
Hodgson
Hosking
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur) Howe (Wellington-Huron)
James
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun) Lefrangois Legare Lennard i Lesage Lusby Macdonnell
50433-61*
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
John George Diefenbaker: At five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing in general with the expenditures of crown corporations and their immunity from serious examination by parliament. They finance through parliament, but their responsibility to account for the moneys they receive and the manner in which they dispose of them is, to all intents and purposes, above consideration by parliament. There is, in truth, a committee on broadcasting to examine the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a sessional committee on railways to consider the auditors' report on the Canadian National Railways, but the examination made is ineffective and largely perfunctory.
I had referred to the request for information regarding the Queen Elizabeth hotel in

Special Committee on Estimates the city of Montreal, a matter that is very much in the minds of the Canadian people. It seems difficult for those with even a modicum of business experience to understand why a fabulous sum of money should be expended on the construction of a hotel by a public corporation which, instead of operating the hotel after completion, turns it over under lease to another company. I prefer to call it a lease, although the minister referred to it as simply a contract for operation.


Mr. Marler:: For management, I said.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I did not have the exact nomenclature in my mind, but to me it is a lease. It is a difficult thing for people to understand the reason for the change of front. Certainly the hotel could not have been in its original concept simply a building to turn over on a management lease or a contract to a company outside of Canada, or indeed to any company in Canada. When a request was made for the production of the documents one would have thought that the minister responsible to parliament would have shown alacrity in giving the information. The minister, however, relied on the defensive stand that it was not in the public interest, and that the course of not revealing such matters which had been followed in the past was being followed in this case.
I am not dealing in any way with the decision that was made by the house yesterday, but I simply point out this, sir. If, indeed, that is the general regulation affecting parliament, then all I can say is that parliament pays the piper for some of these crown corporations, but they are able to dance to whatever tune they feel like dancing to, regardless of the attitude of the piper. To carry it a little further, the refusal in the public interest to answer a question such as this is tantamount to drawing the blind of secrecy in order to exclude the searchlight of full disclosure to parliament.
However estimable a minister of the crown may be, human nature being what it is there would be considerable temptation for the minister to take this stand when questions might be politically embarrassing. After all, if that power rests in a minister of the crown there is no question that could be brought before the House of Commons upon which the minister, so long as his party stood with him, would not be able to deny information by the simple expedient of saying it was not in the public interest.
So far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned, two years ago they defied the Auditor General, who said their system of bookkeeping was wrong and did not properly reveal the position of their

affairs. They paid no attention to him. Last November he repeated his criticisms, and since then the broadcasting corporation has decided to pay attention to the recommendations that were made. If the Auditor General, who is the watchdog above all watchdogs over expenditures, may be defied by any emanation of the crown, then indeed his operations are restricted, especially if the experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is repeated in other departments.
Several years ago, I think it was in 1951, there was another example at the time the Ford hotel in Montreal was purchased. It was only upon examination by the Auditor General that" it was revealed the building had not been purchased by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was purchased by the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which service occupied only a small portion of the building while the remainder was rented to the corporation. It is that sort of thing that arouses the interest and the proper criticism of parliament. The Auditor General pointed out that it seemed strange to him that such an irregular course should be followed. In reality, in his eyes, it seemed to imply that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was being indirectly subsidized out of the money provided for the international service.
I mention these two examples simply for the purpose of indicating that if, under our present system, when a minister of the crown may say it is not in the public interest to answer questions dealing with these matters he is fortified by precedent, then it is time in the interests of the public in general and a proper examination of the vast expenditures being made by these crown corporations that such a rule should be changed. Such a rule may have had its place 50, 75 or 100 years ago, or even up to 25 years ago when the state was not in public business to the degree it is today. Such a rule, however, applied to the conditions of today can only operate to shackle parliament in investigating expenditures and controlling waste.
So far as the motion before the house is concerned, it is an experiment. I am not optimistic about its success; for the committee system being what it is, with the committees having an overwhelming majority of representatives of the government, there is no real incentive on the part of the majority in a committee to permit matters to be brought before it that may be injurious to the government and the party to which they belong.
Human nature being what it is, I am not saying the situation would be any different

under another government; but the fact remains that in endeavouring to apply, even in a modified form, the American committee system to the British system of constitutional government, there has never been any great success. Endeavours to make it successful have reduced the dangers of the present situation, but have not materially improved it.
In Great Britain, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out today, one of the committees has as chairman a member of the opposition. If that system were followed in any of the committees of this house it might bring about at least a degree of interest in the activities of committees, and there would be hope for greater success than has been the general experience in the operation of committees during the time I have been a member of this house.
I do not desire to dash the hopes expressed that the committee will achieve what other committees have not achieved. It is an experiment and I hope it will succeed, because it would provide an opportunity for examination that the committee of the whole cannot provide, in view of the numbers constituting that committee. I do hope it succeeds; but I believe first and foremost, before the committee is set up, when the house moves to go into committee of supply there should be no endeavour to stifle discussion, or to deny to the opposition the opportunity to consider policy and offer such criticisms as in the opinion of the opposition are necessary at this time.
I mention but one department the estimates of which are to be submitted to this committee, that of immigration and citizenship. Mr. Speaker, there is a department that deserves examination and criticism in the house before the committee is set up, and it is but one of several that could be mentioned. I do not single it out for special attention. But I do say that when the committee is set up unless an opportunity is given to make suggestions and criticisms, the examination cannot but be perfunctorily confined to the various items, and the criticism of policy which is so necessary will be denied.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, quite a bit has been said with regard to this motion before us, to the effect that the appointment of a committee on estimates will be an experiment. I think when an experiment is being undertaken all the evidence of previous experiments along that line should be carefully examined, and care should be taken to see that the benefit of earlier experience is made available to us so we will not repeat errors
Special Committee on Estimates that may have been made by other parliaments, or other houses of commons, in dealing with this problem.
There has been plenty of criticism of the method of procedure in committee of supply, not only here but in the house at Westminster. People have pointed out the defects in connection with that particular problem which parliament faces each year. Now that we have reached this stage, when a committee on estimates is about to be appointed, it is worth while for us to consider all aspects of the matter and continue to make suggestions to the Minister of Finance so that he might modify the proposals he has presented to us, or take into consideration some points he may have overlooked.
In the first instance, what is the purpose of a committee of supply? Some people have said, and we also read in the newspapers, that the committee of supply exists to pass estimates each year. Well, that is so; but in actual practice what occurs? In May's Parliamentary Practice, fifteenth edition, where he deals with the committee of supply as it operates at Westminster, he points out that in the eighties of the last century the opportunities for a general debate when the house went into committee of supply were limited to four occasions. He says that in 1947 this restriction was removed, and that 26 days are now permitted for consideration of supply. Then he adds this sentence at page 705 which, I suggest, is worthy of note:
It was intended that facilities for the criticism of departmental administration (now recognized as the real business of supply) should be available throughout the session, not merely during the period when there were estimates before the house.
It is not possible to underline sentences in Hansard, but the words to which I want to draw attention are those in brackets, "now recognized as the real business of supply"- namely the criticism of departmental administration.
That is a different concept from the prevailing opinion that in committee of supply our main business is to examine the figures placed before us, and to vote on them as we reach the end of the discussion of the estimates of a department. I realize there has been a considerable volume of criticism across the country with regard to committee of supply, and the statement is frequently made that at the last moment millions of dollars are voted without careful consideration. I am not at all sure that criticism is going to be met by the proposal now before us.
We have had our attention drawn to the work of the external affairs committee over the years. Those who have been on that
966	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates standing committee of the house have indicated to us that that is a good method of dealing with estimates. They have the advantage of experience on that committee, which I have not had; but for the last two years, though I have not taken the opportunity here in the house to express it, I have been objecting to that method of dealing with estimates in the committee on external affairs, for this reason. Those of us who are not on that committee never have the opportunity to examine the external affairs estimates here in the House of Commons. We have no opportunity of putting questions to the minister. That is all done in committee.
I am told "If you are not informed, read the reports of the committee on external affairs". We have so many reports of various committees to read that it is very difficult to keep abreast of what is going on, and some committee reports are not published very quickly. They do not appear, as Hansard does, the following morning. Therefore I have been suggesting that the external affairs estimates might very well be considered in the committee of the whole.
It might be said, "Well, you would not want to do that all the time". Perhaps not, but once in a while let them come forward here, let the whole house have a go at those estimates, let the whole house interrogate the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why should he be relieved of questioning in the house on the ground that there has been an opportunity to debate external affairs on the first item and again when the report of that committee comes to the house? There would be no particular harm in subjecting the minister of that department to the same system of interrogation that other ministers have to experience in getting their estimates through the house, and we would all have an opportunity to learn some of the details of that department. That is a contrary point of view to that which has been presented up to date, but it happens to be my opinion.
It is on the basis of the experience of the external affairs committee that the proposal has been brought forward that other departments be examined in the same way. Several references have been made to the experience in the House of Commons at Westminster. I would like to add a little to those references and point out one or two things which seem to indicate that even there the committee on estimates has not been an unqualified success. I shall quote three or four short passages from that excellent standard work called "Parliament", of which the author is W. Ivor Jennings. On page 259 he says this:
The function of the committee of supply is to examine and consent to the estimates. In practice


it is impossible for a committee of 614 members to do anything of the kind. Indeed, it is impossible for a small committee to consider them with any degree of success, even if they are all prepared to study 1,500 pages of figures and explanations and to undertake the long preliminary study which is essential.
Then he deals with the actual work of the committee of supply in the house, and quotes various people who had long experience in the House of Commons at Westminster. On page 298 I find this:
The debate is technically a discussion on proposed expenditure. Its purpose is sometimes said to be to induce economy in the government; though, as Mr. Lloyd George has said, "it generally ends in a demand that you should spend more money for something or other".
There is a notation at the bottom of that page. He says:
Compare Mr. Gladstone's statement; "It is more difficult to save a shilling than to spend a million."
The problem was acute even as long ago as Mr. Gladstone's time. Further on Mr. Jennings goes on to say:
For all these reasons debates in supply are often criticized. Lord Eustace Percy once called them "the most discursive and futile of all our proceedings."
With that some of us here would be in agreement. I continue:
On the other hand, Sir Austen Chamberlain said: I think they (supply days) are admirable. With the additional occasional vote of censure, they give the private member of the opposition sufficient opportunities for discussing policy, and I do not believe that you can do more in the House of Commons. I do not think that in these days the House of Commons will ever control the details of expenditure. You have to rely for those upon the departments whose business it is to control them. The more opportunities you give to the House of Commons to discuss supply, the more pressure is put upon ministers to spend money.
Then on page 303 he deals with the actual work of the estimates committee, and points out that proposals to establish an estimates committee were made in the house at Westminster from 1880 on, and at various times committees were set up. Reports were brought in suggesting changes and alterations. They had considerable difficulty in determining just what the committee on estimates might do. On page 303 Mr. Jennings says this:
At no time since 1902 has it been suggested that the committee of supply has been an effective means of controlling expenditure, or even a body concerned primarily with expenditures.
Hence the necessity of having a committee on estimates to look after the detail, letting the committee of the whole house deal with questions of administration and policy. Then he considers the success or failure of the committee on estimates in that house over a period of years, and quotes from the comptroller and auditor general, who, in 1931, was

Sir Malcolm Ramsay. This is what the auditor general said at that time:
The estimates committee has, I am afraid, failed to realize the expectations of those who advocated its establishment. It is true that it has helped to secure certain useful improvements, generally of a minor order, but it has effected no substantial economies and its results have surely been achieved by disproportionate expenditure of time and labour by members and witnesses, and some at any rate of the matters on which it has made recommendations might equally well have been handled by the public accounts committee (e.g. the regrouping of the estimates, or the financial control of the empire marketing board).
The last quotation I shall read is simply this, and it is the opinion of Mr. Jennings after his lengthy examination of the work of the estimates committee in the British House of Commons. At page 312 he says:
The estimates committee is not completely useless. It was particularly useful in re-establishing and reinforcing treasury control after 1920. For the most part, however, it duplicates work done more effectively by the public accounts committee.
Then he goes on to show that the public accounts committee has advantages that the estimates committee does not enjoy. For one thing, the chairman of the public accounts committee is the choice of the opposition; for another, it has the auditor general and various people to assist, whereas the estimates committee has not that assistance granted to it.
The weaknesses of the present plan must be obvious after the speeches we have heard on this subject, and I hope the Minister of Finance will take careful note of the various suggestions that have been made. It is rather a mistake to think that we can effectively control the expenditures that come to us outlining government policy. Every item in the estimates is a government measure; it is not possible to have an item reduced except with the consent of the government, nor is it possible to have items voted down without the government being called upon to resign. Therefore everything that comes before us is actually a government measure presented to us, and it is difficult for us to deal with those estimates from the standpoint of people who are anxious to effect economy. Yet parliament gets the blame for passing enormous sums of money in a few moments at the close of the session, as though we were all to blame for what is going on.
Surely we of the opposition cannot be blamed for what is actually in effect government policy. Our course is to attempt to indicate to the government that their expenditure is wrong, that there should be economies effected, or that there has been waste and extravagance in certain fields. But we as an opposition cannot effect economies which are
Special Committee on Estimates in reality in the hands of the government. We can talk and vote against the government's declared policy, and they stand or fall by the acceptance or rejection of their policy.
The present proposal does not in my opinion hold out any great hope of a change in that situation. I would have been prepared to accept the proposal in a more cheerful spirit had the minister not hedged it around with certain restrictions. The restriction to which I object is the one to the effect-if I understood the minister correctly-that we would not be able to have a debate on the administration and general policy of a department if the estimates of that particular department were transferred to this committee on the estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say anything of the kind.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said I might have misunderstood the minister.


Walter Edward Harris: You did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am happy to have his correction. If we in the House of Commons can still have a debate on any of these departments before they are dealt with by the estimates committee, or after they return from that committee, then I believe that is a proper safeguard. However, I am not sure that is what the house gathered from the minister's earlier statements. I believe the minister said the committee on estimates was going to conduct its proceedings after the fashion-of the committee of the whole house, and that on the first item that committee would discuss administrative policy and subsequently ask the minister questions. If we in this house can retain the right and opportunity to criticize the minister's administration and the policy of the government, then that is a real safeguard, and under such circumstances I might be inclined to support this proposed experiment.
But we want to be fairly certain that this is going to be the case because, as others have already pointed out, it is here in this House of Commons that the effective work of parliament is done. There is a great deal of work done in committee, but committees do not have public opinion focused upon them as is the case in the house; and I for one would not be in favour of a great deal of the work of the house being done in committee. I know there are opportunities in some committees to make a more detailed analysis of various matters that come within the scope of investigation, and that officials and other people may come before such committees and give evidence. Nevertheless, the work of committees does not receive the same attention by' the press or the public as the
968	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates work that is done here in the house, and I would not care to release any minister from his duty to rise in the house in the glare of public opinion and state his case with regard to his department.
I shall conclude with this observation. I believe it would be a mistake-and again the minister may correct me if I misunderstood him-to have a committee of supply examining departmental estimates in this chamber and at the same time a committee on estimates examining some other department in some other part of this building. We would have the main House of Commons and a minor house of commons operating at one and the same time. It seems to me that would detract from one or the other and my preference is to retain the discussion here in the House of Commons.
If the minister is prepared to modify his proposal, outline the safeguards and make certain we have every opportunity of interrogating ministers on administrative policy, I would say he might go ahead with this experiment. But I hope no one is going to be carried away by the expectation that large economies will be effected or that the house is going to gain greater control over the expenditure of money by parliament. It must be emphasized that these are government measures under government control. That, Mr. Speaker, concludes my observations with regard to this particular matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister and the house* are not feeling too impatient at this moment, because the minister himself referred to the fact that a motion was made in 1921 for the setting up of a committee on estimates. I have read the debates of that day and the marginal notations as to the time the debate occupied, and I would point out that the debate occupied two hours and 40 minutes, at the end of which the motion was withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same thing might
happen today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore in 1921 they were discussing an entirely academic question. I might point out in addition that the time was mainly occupied by speakers sitting in opposition to the government. Tonight, however, we are discussing a proposal which is far from academic and which, if adopted, will become the pattern for the conduct of the discussion of this house for a good many years to come.
I say this is far more than an academic discussion because the motion was spoken to by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and it obviously carries all the considered opinion and weight of the government majority behind it.

It is perhaps odd to note that the time taken on this debate up to this moment is exactly two hours and 40 minutes, and I hope the minister will not become impatient if we wish to express our views on the proposal now before us. I feel that a proposal for an experiment such as this is one which we as interested commoners should be ready to support. I have been a member of the committee which with Your Honour has been considering possible revision of the rules of the house, and I have in a general way expressed support for a proposal of this sort in that committee.
I am not going to back away from that position, though I confess I was disturbed by the minister's approach to this problem of setting up this committee when he spoke this afternoon, because I do feel if I understood him correctly that his proposal falls considerably short of the sort of committee we had under consideration, and which we had considered adopting as an experiment.
In my approach to this whole problem I want to say at the outset-and I know I share the views of all other hon. members here-that I get a little bit tired sometimes when I hear people criticize members for taking time in parliament. Parliament is the place where we are supposed to talk about the affairs of the nation, and particularly it is the place where we are supposed to discuss the spending of the money of the people who make up this nation.
I believe in parliament as an institution where we should discuss intelligently the affairs of the nation but where, it is quite true, we should not waste our time or the time of others by discussing them unintelligently, that we should not use our time inefficiently. I agree with the other opinion that has been expressed-I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and others in my own party expressed it, and also the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)-that the mere desire to cut down the time expended is not necessarily conducive to the more efficient conduct of the business of parliament.
I believe in parliament as an institution. I believe that parliament will work only as well as its members make it work. This proposed committee will therefore work only if its members-and they will be the same people who are members of the House of Commons-will make that committee work. They can make it work, in my submission, only if they approach their task in an attitude of mind in which they recognize that they are members of the House of Commons, and that their job is not to expedite the passing

of estimates but rather to examine closely whether or not the estimates are justified. If that committee approaches its work in the sense that it is a committee to get the estimates through more quickly I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be doing the work of the House of Commons, and that it will not be really in a true sense expediting the work of the House of Commons.
I am not an expert in this field. I have not been here very long. However, I have tried to do some reading and to absorb some feeling of what it is to be a member of the House of Commons and of what the House of Commons means. All my reading has convinced me that a member will not really advance the affairs of the nation as a member of parliament unless he as an individual is convinced of the importance of being a member of parliament; and being a member of parliament should mean the same on both sides of the house. If you go back to the old days in history you will find that the ordinary commoner, the member of parliament, was a person whose will and wishes were opposed to the will of the executive; and his job as a commoner was to seek to make certain that the will of the executive was not imposed upon the people contrary to the wishes of the people. It is in that sense that I feel we fall down in our approach to the task of being members of the House of Commons today.
I am not going into a lengthy criticism of the party system, but I am going to say this. I think that to too great an extent we are divided into members who support the government whether the government is right or not, and members who criticize the government whether the government is right or not. I believe what we should try to do is instil into members of this house a sense of being commoners, representatives of the people as opposed to the executive who are seeking-for motives of convenience, ease and expediency -to circumvent, if you like, the House of Commons.
It therefore seems to me that the job of the committee on estimates, whether it be the committee of the whole house, the committee of supply or the special committee now contemplated, should be to examine the estimates in a common spirit, not as members of the government trying to get them through more quickly or as members of the opposition trying to stop them from going through. It seems to me that we should examine the estimates as members of the House of Commons trying to see collectively whether the expenditures proposed by the government are justified and are in the best interests of the people.
Special Committee on Estimates
Unless this committee when constituted approaches its work in that spirit I believe it will not in fact expedite the work of the house or increase the prestige of the house, but rather will in fact make it more convenient for the government to get its estimates through with rather less trouble even than it had before.
I looked with some interest at the debate referred to by the minister in introducing this motion. There are some extremely interesting quotations in that debate. I start with the quotation by the hon. member who introduced the motion, namely Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux who read-and this I want to lay before the house for its consideration in setting up this committee-a passage from Bagehot on the English constitution, as follows. I am reading now from page 2193 of Hansard of 1921. He said this:
The House of Commons-now that it is the true sovereign and appoints the real executive-[DOT] has long since ceased to be the checking, sparing, economical body it once was. It now is more apt to spend money than the minister of the day. I have heard a very experienced financier say: "If you want to raise a certain cheer in the House of Commons, make a general panegyric on economy; if you want to invite a sure defeat, propose a particular saving."
That, of course, is the task which confronts all of us. It is the task with which we are all faced as members of the House of Commons. No one knows it better than the Minister of Finance, and there is no one who, when he stops to consider it, knows it better than the private member on the government side. As I see it, this is a collective task we have to do in setting up a committee that will approach its work in a spirit in which-perhaps because it operates with a little less publicity than does the committee of the whole house-they will say to themselves not "How will this look in my own riding?" or "How will this look in my own province?" but rather "We in the committee are all members of the House of Commons; we are all commoners, and here we have presented to us the proposals of the executive to spend the money of our people, the common people, the people we represent. Let us all go to work on them".
If we approach the matter with that attitude, remembering that even in the House of Commons it is perhaps more apt to invite defeat than to invite success to suggest a saving, because of the party lines that are drawn here, then perhaps in the committee that is to be set up we may be able to circumvent that tendency which I have outlined.
No House of Commons in the committee of the whole, or no special committee of the house, will work unless we have a sense of

Special Committee on Estimates our position as members of the house and a sense of our responsibilities as commoners in relation to the proposals placed before us by the executive. I think it is interesting that this proposal comes before us at this time, spoken to by the new Minister of Finance who has just recently taken over his portfolio. When I learned of his new appointment, Mr. Speaker, I wrote him a personal letter of congratulation and good wishes for success in his task. Therefore I can say what I have to say by way of public criticism in the knowledge that he has my good will as a fellow member of the house, and one who is entrusted with a very important portfolio of government in this country.
But I might then perhaps be permitted to express the hope that in introducing this motion to set up a committee he is not just looking for a whitewash, just seeking to constitute a body which will make it easier for him to get his estimates through, a body to which he can point and say, "Well, look; the estimates committee approved these things. What are you people doing criticizing them out on the platform?" I hope he is not trying to constitute a body which will be dominated by the government majority but that it will be, as I say, a body which will approach its task in the spirit I have tried, in a very imperfect way, to indicate I think it should be approached, namely in the spirit of commoners, of members of the House of Commons together.
Incidentally, I hope too that if the experiment should fall short of the hopes which we in the opposition, and I am sure members on the government side, have for it and, therefore, we are compelled on some later occasion to say that we do not like your estimates committee any more, the minister will not say, "But you approved the motion unanimously in the house." I admit, even while sounding these words of caution, that I am prepared to support the motion because I hope the experiment will work, but I am going to do as other members have done and suggest some positive changes in the approach to the committee differing from those which were suggested by the minister. Therefore I say again that I hope the minister is not just looking for ways, as it were, of making his extractions more painless. I hope the minister has not taken a course in painless dentistry.
I want to refer the minister to some other words uttered in the course of the debate to which he himself referred, as found at page 2201 of Hansard of April 18, 1921. It is true that the hon. gentleman, Mr. Michael Clark, then member for Red Deer, covered quite a

wide field and discussed various types of taxation which I know will be of interest to the Minister of Finance, but I think what he had to say is perhaps applicable tonight in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. He was discussing a motion to set up a committee on estimates, and said:
I venture to think that well as my hon. friend the minister of finance is shaping in his new office, at the present time he is looking anxiously for some method by which he may pluck the goose without making her squawk. Well, I trust he will not be too successful in his researches in that direction but will assume an attitude of stern public morality and seek out methods of taxation which will be righteous and just methods, and that he will not care whether the application of them is accompanied by considerable squawking on the part of the goose. As a matter of fact, it is only when you make the electors complain that you make them understand what your policy has cost them, in whatsoever line that policy may show its activities.
So I hope the minister, in introducing the motion to set up a committee, is not just seeking a more painless method of dealing with the estimates. I think the estimates should be a very painful subject of consideration in the House of Commons. I think we should make them a painful subject for the ministers who bring their estimates before us, because I think only in that way will we in fact be doing our collective duty as members of the House of Commons.
I should like to echo the words of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), trying not to adopt a tone of lecturing or moral rectitude, and suggest in all sincerity and in a spirit of comradeship to members on the opposite side that if they will join us in examining and cross-examining the government in the house and in the estimates committee not only will we welcome their help but they will find it a rewarding and, indeed, a rather enjoyable task. I hope they will approach the proposed committee on estimates in that spirit, and not try to make it easier for the ministers and the departmental experts who appear before the committee to get away with their proposals for expenditure.
I shall conclude in a few words by suggesting a different approach to the committee from that which I understood to be outlined by the Minister of Finance today. I do not consider that the committee on estimates should be modelled on the committee of supply. I think rather that the committee should concern itself with dollars and cents exclusively. I think the committee should have before it all the departmental officials who are responsible for the expenditure and administration of the items of the departments which come under the scrutiny of that committee. I think these experts should answer directly to the committee.

I believe it would be a great mistake to repeat in the committee on estimates the process we see here in the house where a member asks a question of the minister, the minister leans over the desk and listens to the departmental experts, quite often misunderstands them or fails to hear them because there is a buzz of conversation behind him or on this side, and then gives an answer. Then you see the deputy tugging the minister's sleeve, the minister leaning over again and then saying, "I am sorry, I misunderstood my hon. friend's question", when in fact he has misunderstood his deputy's answer, and corrects himself in what he has just said.
I quite agree that on the floor of the house-it can only happen when we are in committee-the minister must answer. Civil servants cannot speak here, and that procedure is proper even though cumbersome. But if we are going to set up a committee on estimates it will negate the whole purpose of the committee if we have to go through that procedure. I think the committee must have the right to question departmental officials directly, because they are the ones who are going to spend the money.
Also, approaching it in the spirit that the committee will work within the confines of government policy, I think we should be entitled to say to the deputy minister or associate deputy or head of a branch: This government policy says you shall have so many offices, let us say, where immigrants will be admitted, and you are admitting so many immigrants a year. Why do you need X thousand dollars to do it? How do you propose to spend those thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars?
That is the sort of work with which the committee should be concerned, and it is the sort of questioning which I do not think should be conducted through the indirect channel of a question to the minister, back to the deputy, back to the minister and then back to the member asking the question. It would take too much time in the first place, and I do not think you get sufficiently direct answers or a sufficiently complete process of examination and cross-examination.
That being the approach I should like to see followed, without laying down a blueprint I think a measure of consultation with the opposition should be recognized as to which departments should be referred to the committee. I know the government has to exercise responsibility and I am not seeking to deprive it of that responsibility because I expect, hope and intend to hold it responsible for all its acts; but when it comes to this business of the House of Commons examining the activities of the government 50433-62J
Special Committee on Estimates I think there should be a measure of consultation between the government and the opposition as to which departments it will be most appropriate in the public interest to place before the estimates committee. The government of course, I admit, would have to reserve, as it always must do, its right of final decision, if you like. I am only asking for a pattern to be established, that we should not be confronted at the outset with a decision that these are the departments that are going to go before the committee. Let us have at least a measure of consultation before that decision is made.
In that light I make this suggestion. The one department which this year should not go to the committee on estimates is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There are several departments, I feel, on which a discussion of policy is required. I see the minister smiling. I am not going to read anything into his smile. I was going to say this even before he smiled. I believe he will agree with me that it has been several years since we have had a real opportunity to discuss the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in committee of supply.
Taking the approach I do that a committee on estimates should be a committee on dollars and cents and not on policy, I feel that one of the departments which should not at this time be referred to the committee on estimates is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I would hate to see an attempt made to discuss policy in the house here and have the government say we should not discuss policy on the motion to refer the estimates, we should wait until the estimates come back from the committee on estimates. Then in the committee on estimates they would say, "This is not a suitable place for a discussion of policy; wait until this committee reports to the committee of supply." The report of the committee of supply is made on the last day of the session, and we would be placed in the same situation in which we were placed by the minister last year, when we had about seven and one-half hours on the last day of the session to discuss the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
These are the main suggestions I have to make with regard to this committee. Before the government lays before us a final decision as to how this committee should operate I believe there must be a good deal more discussion in the committee on rules, which is now meeting with Your Honour, as to the pattern which should be followed; as to whether that committee should be a dollars and cents committee, a mixed dollars and cents and policy committee or a policy committee; whether we should have a discussion

Special Committee on Estimates on policy when the motion is made to refer the estimates of the department, or whether that discussion should take place when the estimates committee reports back to the house. The last thing I want to see is a discussion of policy thwarted because the estimates of the department are being referred to the committee, then have the estimates committee report back to the house on the last day of the session and have us find we are deprived of the right to discuss policy.
These are the dangers. I admit I am drawing attention to the dangers. I am doing so because I approach this subject in the spirit that the government has asked us to embark on an experiment. I am prepared to embark on the experiment, but I am not prepared to support that experiment for one day longer if I become convinced this is becoming, intentionally or otherwise, one more tactic for making it easier for the government to impose its will on the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: When I was considerably younger than I am now, Mr. Speaker, I heard Admiral Beatty refer to the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States to settle the war debt, and his remark was that if it cost so much to win a war, what would it cost to lose one? I have been reminded of that today because I thought I was introducing a motion which had been requested on innumerable occasions in this house by the opposition. I wondered, in fact, if my senses had left me, and if I had not heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) on many occasions in the past six or seven years say that if only we had an estimates committee we would save a lot of time in this house; we would have a better discussion, and the constitution would be saved rather than ruined as some hon. members across the way would indicate now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You made it too conditional.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, 1 suppose we have to have conditions in the House of Commons; we have to lay down rules to carry out the business of the house. I am particularly glad that I did lay down some rules with respect to this committee in my opening remarks, because it is quite evident that if I had not the opposition would not be able to agree on a single thing the committee ought to do when it meets.
Just to be very brief about it, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) indicated that his group would support this measure


and asked one specific question which I should answer. He requested that there might be a change in the personnel of the committee from time to time because the opposition, and presumably the government side, would be desirous of taking care of those who had an interest in one department and not in another. I do not believe the government has ever refused to change the name of anyone on a committee if a party desired to have a change made, and that will continue to be the case. I would hope that in this way we would have the best possible experience brought to bear on the estimates from time to time in the estimates committee.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said he approved of the proposal, and wanted it made clear that there would be an opportunity in the committee to hear from officials of the departments for the purpose of eliciting information. He rather indicated that he thought the only way to do that would be to have the officials there, and not have an examination of the minister intervening. Now, I have not the blue sheets of what I said, but at that point I read very carefully the notes I have in front of me and I am going to reread the point I made, and which he must have overlooked in his remarks. I said this:
Each minister would be responsible for the conduct of the affairs of his department before the committee, and if he chooses to make all the answers himself, that would be consistent in our view with the purposes of the committee. If, on the other hand, he thinks it desirable to leave the explanation of the details of administration to others, that will also be his responsibility, but if this course is followed it will not be possible for an official or other person to be questioned as to the policy of the government. This must be the responsibility of the government and the minister concerned, and he cannot devolve that responsibility upon an official.
I take that to mean, Mr. Speaker, that in all probability ministers will prefer to have officials, from time to time, speak directly to the committee. But I repeat that is a matter of choice for the minister as to how he conducts his affairs before that committee. I cannot conceive of that committee having any greater authority than the committee of supply. I tried to make that point throughout everything I said.
The hon. member for Eglinton raised a number of questions, and in particular he seems to have taken objection to the thought that there would not be a debate on policy on the motion to send these estimates to the estimates committee. He pointed out that there had been debates on policy with respect to external affairs when we sent the estimates of that department to the standing committee on external affairs. It is quite true that in recent years we have followed

that course, particularly because there has been some anxiety in the house about external affairs matters during the last four or five years.
I should like to point out that it is only a practice which has grown up. We did not always follow it. In the first three years, 1946, 1947 and 1948, there was no debate on the motion to refer the estimates to the standing committee, and in 1952 there was no debate. Of the six or seven times we have followed this practice, there has been just about an even division as between debate or no debate.
The government has always acceded to the request of the opposition for a debate on external affairs. On occasion we have resorted to the device of moving the adjournment of the house to permit that debate. In my view that system, that practice, can be followed on any future occasion when there is an obvious need for debate on external affairs. But the point I wished to make-and I am sure the point was made clearly, though I understand I did not make myself clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-was this, that if there is any advantage whatever in a discussion of these estimates in a room other than this one, surely the opposition would not expect the government to follow their wishes in that respect and, in so doing, take more time in this room in a debate on policy.
Now, I said that a motion to refer these estimates to the estimates committee should not be debatable. That was all I said. I did not say-and I am sure no one else understood me to say-that that would preclude debate in the committee of supply itself. I think it is perfectly obvious from the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) why I went no further than that.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to when you can have a policy debate to the best advantage. One argument which has been advanced on innumerable occasions by the Leader of the Opposition was that if we only had an intimate, detailed discussion of the estimates first, we could have a better debate on policy afterward. So, as I conceive the practice here, we intend to send these estimates to the estimates committee. Hon. members will there be able to ask all the questions which they say they have not a chance to ask in committee of supply, or that they do not feel like asking because they appear to be trivial and they do not want to hold up the house. They can ask all these questions and get the information they want, then when the item comes back to committee of supply we will have, as we always intended
Special Committee on Estimates to have, a debate on item 1, such as we have always had; and that debate may very well be longer and more specific and better informed because of the preliminary discussions in the estimates committee.
That I thought was one of the most telling arguments in favour of this practice. Now we find that the opposition is hopelessly divided as to whether that ought to be done. The hon. member for Prince Albert for example wants to have the policy debate before these items go to the estimates committee. Well, if he has the debate before, I am sure he need not have one after. At any rate it is not the intention of the government to extend the time for consideration of the estimates.
The hon. member for Greenwood was less than enthusiastic about what we were proposing to do, as I understand him. In fact, if I were to judge his position-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Hopeful.


Walter Edward Harris: -it would be that he had some genuine doubts as to the usefulness of the estimates committee or, alternatively, that he was afraid that ultimately this would lead to a diminution of the responsibilities of the committee of supply. If he did not think those things, there was no point in quoting Walter Elliot, who expressed great concern about the difference in the consideration of the estimates in the House of Commons at Westminster at the time he was speaking, and what it had been on former occasions. I would suppose that the hon. member for Greenwood does not share the view that this committee can add very much to the usefulness of the committee of supply. We all hope it will; we think it will. But I want to assure him, and I want to assure all hon. members- because I was surprised by the suspicions which appeared to be in their minds about our motives-that this motion is as a direct consequence of our repeated discussions on this subject of aiding in the consideration of the estimates, and in the work of the committee of supply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister permit a question? Does he think it unnatural and unreasonable that on this side we should have thought, as I did, that the general pattern would be that which was followed with regard to external affairs? That was what I understood, and I would like to ask the minister if he thinks that was an unnatural and unreasonable understanding.


Walter Edward Harris: The estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been referred to the standing committee since the immediate post-war years. At that time it was the intention and the hope-and I think in the
974	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Estimates main the hope has been realized-that external affairs would remain an all-party consideration. That was the reason in the first instance it was possible to adopt the practice of sending those items on external affairs to the standing committee for further consideration. It was felt that external affairs, as a policy, was something that all parties ought to be involved in to the greatest possible extent, and that that in itself would lead to the committee extending its influence over matters of external affairs. But it was not considered at that time that a reference of the items to the standing committee would have any particular influence over the actions of the committee of supply. It was not requested that we should do what has been done for the purpose of simplifying debate in the House of Commons, in committee of supply, on external affairs estimates. It was for the purpose of a more general understanding of the policies of external affairs.
Now, over the course of two or three sessions, or perhaps three or four, one would suppose that he would get around to all the departments in the estimates committee. That is the intention, and I agree that hon. members opposite might find it convenient to consider a particular department next year or the year after which they would not want to have this year. I have no reason to suppose we shall not consult them about their convenience in this as we have in other matters.
However, as the hon. member for Kamloops indicated, we felt we were under an obligation to lay down a practice for this year by selecting the particular departments that have been mentioned. And just one word about that. We find the extraordinary situation of the hon. member for Prince Albert wanting to discuss the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and wanting to discuss it before it goes to the estimates committee and when it comes back, and the hon. member for Kamloops saying that is the one department that should not go to that committee.
It would not be confessing anything that is not known to the house if I pointed out that I was responsible for the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration until recently. I am not unaware of the fact that the opposition, through the leader of that party, has demanded a royal commission with respect to immigration. And this government has no intention of granting that request. On the other hand it did seem to us that by offering this department to the estimates committee for the kind of consideration they say they have not been able to give it in committee of supply, we were doing everything short of that in accommodating them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was just because of the lack of time in committee of supply. It was brought up on the last day.


Walter Edward Harris: I am prepared to speak about that, too, if my hon. friend wishes. It was not the last day; it was the last two days my hon. friends debated citizenship and immigration last summer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, no.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Governor General's car was practically outside the door when you brought on your estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: We began our estimates Friday afternoon and completed them Saturday night, or perhaps it was Thursday afternoon and Friday night; I have forgotten which. And, Mr. Speaker, while I do not mean to go far afield in the matter of citizenship and immigration, I should point out that we have just gone through a long debate on the address, and I do not think there has been any reference of any significance to that department in any of the speeches made by my hon. friends opposite. However, it is the desire

it is my desire, and one can understand why it should be-that that department should go before the estimates committee for consideration, so we shall not have any further reference to my having left that department to the last two days of the last session for consideration.
I always like to listen to the hon. member for Prince Albert, and long ago I made up my mind I would not intervene when he was out of order because eventually he does come back to the point. He did speak at some length about the Auditor General and his comments in the public accounts report about some of our past activities. He made a great point of the fact that the C.B.C. had, as he said, defied the Auditor General in connection with a certain bookkeeping method. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what defiance is in his parlance, but the fact of the matter is that the Auditor General did make comments. It is true that those comments were not acted upon immediately, but I for one would expect that I should have time to consider a report of the Auditor General and devise something within the complaint he makes and within the administrative problems that I have to face. As the hon. member finally admitted, the wrong that he claims was done has now been rectified, and we need not be concerned about that in the future.
He also pointed out, and I think in a manner that would leave the impression that something wrong was being done, that the

Auditor General had made certain other observations about practices in the C.B.C. and other crown companies. The very recitation of those things is an indication that no information has been withheld from the opposition. I have been astonished to find almost every speaker in the opposition suggesting that the purpose of the estimates committee which we are recommending to the house is a somewhat devious one on my part to bring about an easier passing of the estimates for which I am responsible.
I cannot imagine any sensible person believing them when they say that. I should have thought that if they complained that the present practice has worked to their disadvantage, the government, if it wanted it that way, would continue the present practice. On the other hand, as I said in my opening statement no government should ask parliament to pass almost $5 billion without the most careful scrutiny, consideration and intelligent criticism which can be given to it. In my capacity as Minister of Finance I think everyone will appreciate that if they could find a way of reducing the estimates,
I would be particularly happy.
On that point, I notice the hon. member for Quebec South is not with us at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, he is.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon. He was modest enough not to make any reference to his past, and of course I should not either; but I would like to point out that hon. members have not followed his practice very much in recent years, perhaps for reasons of their own. Some years ago the hon. member for Quebec South had occasion to move in the house that an item of the estimates be reduced. My recollection is that he carried that against the government of the day. That was the kind of activity which he considered at that time a private member ought to undertake in order to save the minister of finance something for his next budget.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister permit a question? Does the minister recall an occasion some five years ago when I did the same thing in connection with an item in the estimates of the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Transport said it was a vote of non-confidence in the government? The whip was cracked and all hon. members opposite came in and voted down the reduction.


Walter Edward Harris: The house knows perfectly well my views about party activity in this house. It is the duty of the government to carry on the business of the country. It is the duty of the opposition to do their best to indicate the weaknesses in the policies being
Special Committee on Estimates followed by the government; and if in accordance with that duty they can make motions in this house which would topple the government, then I think it is their duty to take that step.
On the other hand, my hon. friend asked me whether I am aware of what he tried to do. I confess I am. I recall the occasion, and certainly I would not suggest that he should not follow that course. If he tries to do it on my own estimates I shall try to defeat him, but I would be the first to admit his right to take the action he has indicated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the government regard it as a vote of non-confidence? There is not much chance of saving money if the government takes that attitude.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I have answered all the direct questions. However, I should comment on what has been said by the hon. member for Kamloops. It will be noted that his opinion about the nature of this committee differs radically from that of others in his own party. He thinks in terms of a committee-and I understand the hon. member for Greenwood shares this view-economy-minded in the sense of trying to cut down the estimates by showing that all the money is not needed. On the other hand, I take it that other members of his party think not so much in terms of an economy measure as of an exploratory measure which would arm them with better information to debate policy. I am not going to say which of the two will result, because I am quite sure the committee will find by experience what is the best course to follow.
The point I am making is this. I am glad we circumscribed the activities of the committee in the first instance, so that it would know what to do. If hon. members choose to work in the committee, as I think they will, with the objectives in view that have been discussed today, they will find, after some time, what are the limits and what are the advantages of the committee, and they will be able to report to the house on details of the estimates in such a manner that the two main results I have mentioned will probably occur.
I would point out that at no time did I place the saving of time first. I said that the committee would give members, both on the committee and off the committee, more information so there would be more intelligent discussion in the committee of supply. When the estimates come back from the estimates committee it may well be that we shall not have the detailed cross-examination about a particular item, but that we shall have a longer policy debate than has been the case up to the present time. Most members of
976	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the opposition have expressed the desire that that should be so; that we should not waste the time of the committee of the whole on details.
I leave it to the committee, Mr. Speaker, to work it out. I think we should give them all the encouragement we can, and I hope that after not necessarily one year, but perhaps two or three years, we shall find that this committee is in fact functioning to the advantage of the taxpayers of Canada, both with respect to economy and greater criticism of policy which will be possible in the committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit one question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a question? The present resolution makes no reference, as do most similar resolutions and as the one above it on the order paper does, to further powers of the committee; for instance, that the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence. Is it the thought of the minister that the committee shall or shall not have either or both of those powers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to ask the same question.


Walter Edward Harris: I am glad to see there is some unanimity in the opposition. It is not the intention at this stage to give the committee power to send for persons and papers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why?


Walter Edward Harris: I have indicated the limits which I think ought to be observed for the time being as an experiment. With respect to the printing of the proceedings, of course if the committee recommends that to the house I am sure the house should carry it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report of yet another incident near the Moose Jaw area on Friday last involving an R.C.A.F. Harvard and a late-flying Trans-Canada Air Lines plane, what steps, if any, has the department taken to try to avoid similar incidents in the future?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, a report has been received by my department concerning an incident over the Moose Jaw area on Friday last, and it has been turned over to the R.C.A.F. which I understand has investigated the matter. I should like to add that I am hoping in the very near future to make a complete statement on the subject of safety in the air and the measures which my department has taken in this connection.



HUMBER VALLEY AUTHORITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister had an opportunity to study the urgent brief presented to him on January 31 by the Humber valley conservation authority arising chiefly as a result of "Hurricane Hazel", and could he inform the house approximately when the government might be in a position to indicate whether it is willing to participate in the plan proposed by the authority, and to what extent?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 I received a delegation from the Humber valley authority, from the Upper Thames authority, and from the Moira river authority. It was a joint delegation. They were accompanied by the chief engineer of the department of development of the government of Ontario. The three delegations made representations requesting federal government assistance under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. In the course of the discussion I asked for further data from the three delegations, which I have not yet received.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) asked this question:
Is the minister aware that Queen Charlotte Airlines of Vancouver has received an offer or offers of purchase substantially in excess of the asset value of the company, and is it the government's intention to attempt to recover part or all of the quarter of a million dollar subsidy paid to the said company in the last two years if the sale transaction is consummated?
I am informed that only after the interests concerned have reached agreement are

International Rivers
arrangements for sale or purchase of airline companies submitted to the air transport board for approval. In the case of Queen Charlotte Airlines, no such agreement has been submitted and therefore I am not able to comment on the matter.
As far as the second part of the hon. member's question is concerned, the financial assistance granted to Queen Charlotte Airlines earlier was a subsidy and not a loan.



INQUIRY AS TO FLIGHTS FROM WINNIPEG TO COPENHAGEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In answer to a recent question of mine the minister indicated that the reason passengers for Copenhagen are not allowed to embark at Winnipeg via Scandinavian Airlines is because there are no reciprocal arrangements with Scandinavian Airlines. Can the minister now say why such reciprocal arrangements cannot be negotiated when the convenience and financial interest of Canadians resident in the mid-west might be advanced thereby?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


George Carlyle Marler: I suggest the hon. member might put his question on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it is the wish that this question be put on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements.
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing this debate I wish to refer for a moment to a speech made in this house by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and some of the statements contained therein. I have since had an opportunity to read this speech, and I have found in his remarks things I did not expect to find from a speaker from the socialist ranks. However, in a report of a meeting which he attended in the city of Revelstoke on the night of January 5 I found a very good
indication of what might be the socialist stand, and I would like to quote from the report of that speech:
The Kaiser dam would yield the B.C. government a million dollars a year for 50 years, plus some percentage of power developed. The C.C.F. party objected to the Kaiser company having this right, because it was a private company.
That is the kind of statement I expect to hear from a socialist, and I respect any socialist who stands up for his convictions and expresses what he actually believes. But I was certainly disappointed when the hon. member made no reference whatsoever in this house to this attitude and, in fact, I have come to the conclusion that he made a statement here that might well have come from the other side of the house. However, there is one statement he made in Revelstoke with which I am in full agreement. The report reads as follows:
"What is needed," Mr. Herridge said, "is a meeting of minds of the federal and provincial governments on this matter."
I agree with that 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
I now turn to the main features of this bill and some of the political aspects attributed to it in the press throughout the country. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province carrying the headline "Ottawa Will Stop It". Then follows the subheading "B.C.'s Kaiser Dam Project 'CockEyed', says Howe". The report goes on to say:
Trade minister C. D. Howe described the agreement between the B.C. government and the Kaiser interests in the United States for a storage dam without on-site power on the Arrow lakes as "a cock-eyed and improvement deal."
I do not like that word "improvement", and I believe possibly they mean "improvident"; but I am not going to correct the press, though it does not sound right. Nevertheless I cannot help but like that word "cockeyed". It shows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is quite a human fellow after all, and that off the record and possibly on the spur of the moment he made this very human statement. However, I cannot agree with the thoughts behind that statement.
A little further on, discussing development projects in Canada with a newspaper man, he made it plain that this was one project which would not be realized in its present form if the federal government had anything to do with it. He also made it plain that Ottawa had a lot to do with it, and was confident that legislation now being drafted would block the Kaiser dam plan. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is definite proof of the claim I made that this bill is nothing more or less than a political measure.

International Rivers
I am also going to put on record a couple of cases which I think are similar, and in which the action was not questioned, or disallowed. In fact there seemed to be no reason why any action should have been taken by the federal government toward the British Columbia government of that day. When the West Kootenay Power and Light Company made application for additional storage of water at Kootenay lake, a part of the Columbia river system, the international joint commission agreed that this was desirable in order to firm up power downstream. In this case "downstream", of course, is in Idaho in the United States of America. In this instance the federal government, knowing full well that the province of British Columbia would get no financial return for the extra storage, -and I would ask hon. members to remember that; no financial return-endorsed the plan.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Low:: Let him finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George William McLeod: The federal government endorsed the plan. With the Kaiser dam, built for the same purposes, British Columbia will be recompensed. Yet the federal government reverses its stand and says that British Columbia is "giving away her water resources".
There was yet another instance, Mr. Speaker. In the case of the Skagit river development for the benefit of the people of Seattle, also across the line, the international joint commission approved the flooding of British Columbia territory. The attitude of the international joint commission was to the effect that the Skagit project was desirable, subject to mutual agreement arranged and approved by the province of British Columbia and the city of Seattle, the only two parties at that time figuring in the transaction. According to the dominion government, as there was no objection they were the only two parties that had the right to take part in this transaction. Again it should be noted that the province of British Columbia received no material benefit from this development.
I can see no difference between the storage that will take place as a result of this Kaiser dam or Castlegar dam, call it what you will, and these two cases that I have mentioned. Therefore the only thing I can do is to ask this question:	Why has this government reversed its stand on this particular occasion? Why are they objecting to a storage dam or to the raising of water for use downstream across


the line in this particular instance while they have been letting it go by and taking no action whatever in past years?
Since coming into this house this session- to deal a little bit more with the political build-up-I have noticed quite a few questions on the order paper seeking information as to correspondence and so on that has passed between the British Columbia government and the federal government in this connection. The whole idea seems to be to place the provincial government in a rather poor light. They are being put on the defensive. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that had there been any legislation making it necessary for the British Columbia government to come to Ottawa for consent before taking on this project the need for this bill would not exist. I am therefore making the statement that there was no reason for the British Columbia government to ask the government of Canada if they could do this because there was no legislation to prevent it, and because they had a precedent in these two other cases I have mentioned.
There is one other point that concerns me possibly more than this one. That is the matter of interference with provincial rights. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, this is a further step in the centralization in the government at Ottawa of power and control over the destinies of the Canadian people from one side of Canada to the other. In this case it is true that it refers to only one natural resource. Many hon. members may wonder when we speak of water as being a natural resource, but in the case of British Columbia it is certainly our greatest natural resource. If we have a federal government that can interfere with a resource of this nature, which we believe is entirely the property of the people of the province of British Columbia and therefore entirely within the jurisdiction of the government put into Victoria by the people of British Columbia, let us just stop and think what further action could be taken at any time this central government should see fit to take it.
I maintain that the people of British Columbia are well able to look after their own affairs. They have proved it in the past. Governments have been toppled and governments again may be toppled, but I am going to say this: I believe that the place to fight out the merits or demerits of the Kaiser dam is in the province of British Columbia; and I believe that the fighting should be done by the people of British Columbia, not by any citizens down here in Ottawa.
I am strongly in favour of the settlement of disputes by conference. I mentioned that fact in an earlier debate in this house, and

I can only reiterate it at this time. In order to avoid this head-on collision which I mentioned here on Friday and which was prophesied by a minister of the crown, why is it not a logical thing for the representatives of the province of British Columbia and the representatives of the Dominion of Canada to get together and discuss this matter around the conference table? What I say is this. Forget political affairs. Divorce politics entirely from the question and put it on nothing more or less than a straight business basis.
In the past there have been difficulties over this matter of federal-provincial relations. We have an outstanding dispute going on at the present time. I am not going to interfere in that dispute because, as I said on that question a year ago, I believe the dispute between the province of Quebec and the government of Canada is strictly a family affair and it is up to the rest of Canada to keep out of it. I will say the same thing with regard to this particular dispute. I say that it is between the government of the province of British Columbia, administering the affairs of that province in the interests of its people, and the government of Canada; and I say that it is up to these two disputants to get together and iron out their difficulties.
As I said on Friday night-and I repeat it-I am positive that the premier of our province and his advisers would be glad to come to Ottawa. I do not think they would ask that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) come to a city in British Columbia. I am satisfied that they would come to Ottawa to discuss this problem in order to arrive at an amicable solution.
I think it was yesterday-I had been out of the house for a few minutes-when on coming in I found that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had the floor speaking in another debate. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that he was presenting a much better argument against interference with provincial rights than I could, but I was rather surprised to find that he was not dealing with Bill No. 3 at all. However, I am going to quote a few of the remarks made in that debate by the Minister of Justice. As found at page 904 of Hansard of February 7 he said:
New members have not been in this house very long before they become acquainted with the fact that the mere relationship between the central government and the provincial governments in our Canadian federal system of governments are themselves notoriously difficult.
He was referring to the problem of superimposing a bill of rights and so on; and then, in speaking of the set-up that has been inherited from the constitution of Great Britain, he said that its main feature was the
International Rivers
sovereignty of its legislative bodies. He was referring to the provincial governments. I would respectfully request that the Minister of Justice take the rest of the cabinet ministers to one side and expound to them very thoroughly and clearly some of the statements he made in the house in favour of provincial autonomy and the sovereignty of provincial governments. Hon. members will recall that the motion then before the house was talked out, but I could not help but notice the words spoken by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) near the end of the discussion. These are the words-


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order. Is the hon. member intending to refer to a debate which was concluded yesterday or the day before?


George William McLeod: I should like to quote these words-


Mr. Blackmore:: It is not yet concluded.


Solon Earl Low: It is not concluded.


George William McLeod: -uttered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when speaking at the United Nations. He said:
I wish to make it clear here . . . that, in regard to any rights which are defined in this document, the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of the provinces under our federal constitution.
In a few words our Secretary of State for External Affairs put forward as plain an argument as can be put, and I refer particularly to his words:
By this I mean the rights of the provinces under our federal constitution.
All I am asking is that the government take these words to heart and, before there is too much conflict of interest and ill will created over this flagrant invasion of provincial rights, do something to see that a serious head-on collision does not take place.
I should also like to say a word or two to every member of the house. This bill is more important than a lot of us think, and its tentacles are more far-reaching than any of us may envision. I ask every member of the house, regardless of party affiliation, to study the bill carefully, for I say it is the thin edge of a wedge that can be used in many ways to interfere in the internal economy of any province of Canada at any time the central government sees fit to do so. I would urge that that feature be given very careful consideration.
Finally I wish to refer to another statement that has been made with respect to this

International Rivers
legislation. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) referred to this proposed legislation as a club at the head of the British Columbia government. A club in the hands of an adversary, Mr. Speaker, is a fair weapon. It is a weapon you can see, a weapon you can protect yourself against, a weapon you can do something about. But what can you do when the government of this country, setting itself up as the supreme authority, takes political action and endeavours to pass legislation that will take away from a province rights which we believe we are entitled to under the British North America Act?
This is something worse than a club. It is a political weapon-and I cannot help repeating that because it is so very important -being forged by the government to thwart the British Columbia government in the administration of its affairs and embarrass it in the conduct of its business. It is a direct infringement of the rights of the sovereign legislative body of the province of British Columbia.
I am not going into the mechanics of the proposed Kaiser dam, which has been mentioned in the debate so often. I can only say, as I said before, that I am satisfied that the people of British Columbia are able to judge the merits of matters that relate to them and to them only; and I believe if any government, whether it be Social Credit, Liberal or C.C.F., at any time thwarts the will of the people of British Columbia it will receive the same treatment which the late Liberal government of that province received in 1952.
On motion of Mr. Byrne the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow of course is private members' day. On Thursday we shall continue this debate, then take Bill No. 4, and then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the Canada Grain Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 9, 1955