1955-05-31

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I raised a subject that had been discussed in certain newspapers in the United States concerning the directive given in connection with fraternization between Eskimos and others from either Canada or the United States who may be working on the D.E.W. line. When I read the quotation from the New York Herald Tribune the minister indicated that he would take notice of the question I had raised. Then he closed his remarks in the first instance with these words:
I might say immediately, however, that I do not agree with the quotation.
Mr. Speaker, I now learn that the quotation is from the agreement between Canada and the United States of America to govern the establishment of a distant early warning system in Canadian territory, which was effected by an exchange of notes with Washington on May 5 of this year, 1955. There were certain additional words not included in the-


Mr. Lesage:: That is it.


George Alexander Drew: In the quotation in the Tribune.


Jean Lesage: That is why I did not agree.


George Alexander Drew: The way the sentence actually read was as follows:
All contact with Eskimos other than those whose employment on any aspect of the project is approved is to be avoided, except in cases of emergency.
The words used by the Tribune came out of the agreement itself, or the appendix to the agreement, and I submit they do raise a question of discrimination within our own country as between citizens who have the full rights of voters; and that should be a matter of concern to members of this house.


Jean Lesage: I intend to make a statement on the matter when the orders of the day are called.

On the orders of the day:


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition raised
a question concerning restrictions that have been placed upon contacts with the Eskimos by men engaged in the construction and operation of the distant early warning line. He referred particularly to a report in the New York Herald Tribune of Sunday, May 29, attributed to Mr. Gerald Waring of the press gallery, which he quoted as saying that all contact with the Eskimos is to be avoided except in cases of emergency. I said yesterday I did not think I could agree with the quotation because according to my memory there was more to it than that. The Leader of the Opposition at the opening of the sitting agreed with me that the quotation was not complete.
Yesterday I dealt briefly with some of the considerations in this matter, and I undertook to take the question as notice and prepare a more detailed statement for today. With regard to my answer to this question the Leader of the Opposition said, as reported on page 4219 of Hansard of May 30:
In preparing his reply I hope that it may be one which will explain what does appear to many writers in the United States to be a rather unusual restriction upon the ordinary friendly contacts of members of the United States forces who are in Canada.
Again this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition referred to this aspect of the question.
I wish to say first of all that the regulations in question are not directed at the United States forces only. They are directed at any and all people having to do with the D.E.W. line. Everybody knows that the eastern portion of that line is being built by a Canadian contractor, the Foundation Company of Canada, Limited. The western part is being built by Northern Construction Company Limited, which is also a Canadian contractor.
However, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the restrictions which have been placed upon contacts may not be fully understood by many people in the United States. Might I draw his attention to the article to which he referred, in which we find a number of reasons why this agreement has been entered into. May I quote just two short extracts:
"The Eskimos are in a primitive state of social development", the Canadian government said in its note to the state department. "It is important that these people be not subjected unduly to disruption of their hunting economy, exposure to diseases against which their immunity is often low, or other effects of the presence of white men which might be injurious to them.

D.E.W. Radar Line
As a matter of fact that is practically what I said yesterday. Another quotation:
The government, which has a large scale program under way to broaden the base of the Eskimo economy and combat disease, is faced with medical evidence that the natives have little natural resistance to even relatively innocuous diseases of civilization.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that in the area from Coppermine eastward the Eskimos have had very little contact with our way of life. They are not used to our ways or customs. They do not understand what money is or what wage employment is.
As to the character of the restrictions, I might point out that they do not go so far as the New York Herald Tribune suggested, that is to exclude "all contact... except in cases of emergency." The provision is that employment should be under terms and arrangements concurred in by the department of northern affairs, and that other contact is to be avoided except in cases of emergency.
Might I just add that by coincidence this matter was under discussion yesterday by a standing committee on Eskimo affairs at the very moment the Leader of the Opposition inquired concerning it. This is an advisory committee consisting of the deputy minister and officials of the department of northern affairs; the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Bishop Marsh, the Anglican bishop of the Arctic; Bishop Tro-cellier, who is in charge of the Roman Catholic diocese of Mackenzie and who was yesterday represented by Father Laviolette of the Catholic Indian educational services; Mr. Chesshire, general manager of the fur department of the Hudson's Bay Company, and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The committee, I am told, spent more than three hours on Eskimo problems arising out of the distant early warning line. They considered particularly the provisions with regard to employment and contact, and the representatives of both churches, of the Hudson's Bay Company and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the other government officials were in complete agreement as to the necessity for the restrictions and with their character and application.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that my question yesterday was directed to the articles I had seen, and I mentioned particularly one which quoted directly from the Canada-United States agreement. I would point out that the opening part of the section
[Mr. Lesage.l
of the agreement which deals with Canadian Eskimos has this to say;
It is important that these people be not subjected unduly to disruption of their hunting economy, exposure to diseases against which their immunity is often low, or other effects of the presence of white men which might be injurious to them.
If we have reached the point, Mr. Speaker, when we have to put an iron curtain around our own white men in our own country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -then there is indeed a problem with which we are called upon to deal. We have been proceeding for these past few years and, in fact, for generations, in the belief that the contact of the white man with primitive races in different parts of the world was to the advantage of those peoples. If in fact these requirements are necessary, then there is something to be done with regard to the white people just as much as with regard to the Eskimos.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can allow that statement to go without reply. I believe the policy of the government and the department is sound. It has been approved by people who have had a great deal of experience with the Eskimo population. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to substitute his own judgment for that of all the advisers whom I have consulted, and is satisfied to do that, that is up to him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -on a question of privilege, there was no introduction of my judgment into this matter. I was simply raising the point that these regulations impose restrictions regarding the association of white men with people who are described as a primitive race; and if this is to be the attitude of the government it is a strange attitude indeed, having regard to the extent to which we are trying to advance the interests of primitive races in every part of the world by contact with white men.


Mr. Pouliol:: Mr. Speaker, as between the Eskimos and some white men, I would choose the Eskimos.


George Alexander Drew: I agree with you.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PRICES FOR CROP YEAR BEGINNING AUGUST 1, 1955

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has approved

initial prices paid by the Canadian wheat board on wheat, oats and barley for the crop year beginning August 1, 1955 at the same levels as during the present crop year.
The initial prices are as follows:
Wheat: $1.40 per bushel basis No. 1 Manitoba northern in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Oats: 65 cents per bushel basis No. 2 Canada western in store Fort William or Port Arthur.
Barley: 96 cents per bushel basis No. 3 Canada western six-row in store Fort William or Port Arthur.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING OF GRADE SPREADS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his most welcome announcement that the initial prices for grain will be maintained in the coming year. Can the minister say when grade spreads will be established, and whether they can be established in time to enable the elevator companies to issue cash tickets for grain at the beginning of the crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The spreads are established after the quality of the grain is known. I have never known spreads being established in time so the first deliveries to country elevators can be graded. The first shipments are graded approximately and an amount is held back to permit adjustment. I will ask that the greatest possible expedition be used to establish the spreads this year.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did he receive a communication from the directors of the Saskatchewan wheat pool on Friday asking for an immediate decision on the question of an emergency being declared in the flooded areas of Saskatchewan, and also requesting that some emergent assistance be given to the farmers in those areas? If so, what is the present position?
A telegram was received from the secretary of the Saskatchewan wheat pool dated May 24 -not Friday but Tuesday-suggesting that 50433-2691
Inquiries of the Ministry in instances where seeding in Saskatchewan had been prevented this year because of flooding there is urgent need for some form of compensation on a scale which would require participation by the government of Canada. With the approval of the house I should like to table a copy of the telegram and of the acknowledgment that was made to these representations.
The present position is that on two occasions members of the federal government have met members of the Saskatchewan government who have provided information on the damage caused by the floods in that province, and the question of federal participation is now under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	\


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: thank the Prime Minister, and I should like to ask him one question in that regard. In view of the serious emergency conditions under which 8,000 farmers on a million and a half acres will not be able to produce any crop this year, according to the estimate, is it possible for the Prime Minister to say whether or not early action will be taken?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, all the data that have been placed before us are being considered, and we are having tabulations prepared. It is the intention of the government that the people of Saskatchewan be treated according to the same principles that were applied in former cases where there were disastrous results from events over which no one could have any control.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Has the Prime Minister received representations with regard to flooding in Manitoba similar to the Saskatchewan representations and, if so, have any negotiations been carried on with officials of the Manitoba government?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): No, there is nothing I can add to the statement I made the other day. There was a request from the attorney general for assistance by the armed forces, which was complied with in the usual form, and there

Inquiries of the Ministry have been no other representations made to the government since that time.



INQUIRY AS TO CONSUMERS BENEFITING BY REDUCED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorklon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or in his absence to the parliamentary assistant. Is the benefit of the reduced price on government butter now being supplied to the retail trade in Canada being passed on to the consumers?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been passed on to the consumers in the price they have to pay in Ontario, at any rate.



FOREST FIRES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister report briefly to the house on his visit last week to the fire-ravaged areas of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
Severe forest fires swept through several areas of Nova Scotia a week ago and centred particularly in the Mount Uniacke, Timberlea, St. Margarets Bay, Bridgewater and Liverpool areas. At that time the damage to buildings was reported to be particularly heavy in the latter two regions. Some of the fires raged uncontrolled for several days. During this period we were in constant touch with the premier of Nova Scotia, local municipal officials and others, and learned that in addition to considerable woodland, about 80 buildings and some livestock were destroyed in Lunenburg and Queens counties. Fortunately no lives were lost.
On Friday last, thanks to my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), I flew over the devastated areas in a Royal Canadian Navy helicopter and subsequently visited on the ground. I took the opportunity of extending to those who sustained losses the sympathy of the government and of the people of Canada generally. Some of the people to whom I spoke had lost the results of a lifetime of hard work. I also met with the relief committees.

What struck me most forcibly, in addition to the losses, were the heroic efforts of fire fighters who, through extraordinarily hard work, were able to keep the property loss from being vastly greater than it was, and the magnificent manner in which the people of the stricken areas have rallied to the support of those who have suffered. The Salvation Army, the Red Cross and radio station CKBW in particular have done outstandingly good work. Officials of the departments of fisheries and public works were in the fishing centres to render what assistance they could.
Campaigns are now under way to raise funds to re-establish those who have suffered losses, and particularly to provide fishermen and farmers with the tools of production so they can soon again produce and earn. The relief committees are working diligently at collecting funds and assisting where necessary in caring for those who have lost their homes. The response has been good, but more money is needed and the appeal is continuing.



ARCTIC REGIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister taken note of a reported statement by Captain O. C. S. Robertson of the Arctic exploration ship Labrador that the Soviet union is far wiser in the ways of the strategic Arctic than we are in the west, and that Soviet Arctic specialists are miles ahead of us?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I am not aware of the statement to which my hon. friend has referred, but I shall be glad to look at it.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is in the Gazette of this morning.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister and his department give consideration to having the remains of what used to be a covered shelter, standing in a most prominent place on parliament hill overlooking the river, either painted so it will look respectable, or replaced by something more suitable?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: A national emergency.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



CHIGNECTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Am I correctly informed that the St. Lawrence seaway authority are giving active consideration to a proposal to construct the Chignecto canal?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the St. Lawrence seaway authority are contemplating such construction at this time.



CUSTOMS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 410, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. McCann-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Duty to report.
Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, last night I suggested that while section 18 of the Customs Act, having stood on the statute books for a long time, may now be in need of revision, in my opinion the legislation now before us has taken a very extreme form. I should like to ask the minister if, on further reflection, he has concluded that the legislation should take a less extreme form, and that it is not fair to place upon every person arriving in Canada, on foot or otherwise, the statutory duty to proceed to the nearest customs house regardless of whether it is near or far?
Does the minister think it proper that before a person travelling in a vehicle terminates his journey he should have to proceed to that customs house and there give to the officer in charge an inventory of all goods in his charge or custody? I am sure all members of the house want to see all the teeth put in this legislation that are reasonably required, but it is going a long way to put a statutory duty on everyone who enters Canada at any place-a place, for instance, which might be 25 miles from the nearest customs house-to proceed to that customs house before he may stop or go home or do anything else.
Customs Act


Mr. Houck:: Before the minister answers the question, may I say something apropos of what the hon. member for Eglinton has said. Representing a border riding, naturally I am very anxious, as are other people along the border, about this clause in the bill. We are wondering, and I think it has come about through erroneous reports, whether or not everyone crossing the bridges will be forced to enter the customs yard and subject themselves to a thorough investigation by the customs officers.
Last year at the port of Niagara Falls alone we had 1,100,000 cars of both the permit and non-permit class, and at the Fort Erie port there were some 1,400,000 cars in these two classes. Many of these people have asked me, especially people from Buffalo who own summer places along the lake shore, if they would be required to go into the customs yard every time they crossed the border. I should like to point out to the minister that I am not a lawyer, for which I am very thankful, but a reading of the section would lead one to believe that every commuter or non-commuter will be obliged to enter the customs yard and subject himself to a thorough examination by the customs officer every time he crosses the border.
Up until a few years ago there was a shortage of officers on the United States side of the Peace bridge to examine the cars desiring to enter the United States. I have seen cars lined up for two miles because of the shortage of officers. If this bill means what I think it must, and what I hope it does not, it would cause not only a traffic hazard but a great deal of inconvenience to the commuters. I would be greatly relieved, and I believe the customs officers would be as well, if the minister would make a statement verifying the fact that there will be no change in procedure. Certainly the customs officers are the ambassadors of friendship, and are the first people our tourists meet. In view of the millions of dollars the tourists leave annually in Canada I believe we should do everything we can to ease their way into this great dominion. I hope the minister will give me some clarification of this bill so I can explain to the people what it actually means.


Mr. McCann:: To set the minds of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Niagara Falls at rest, I will say that there is no change, and no change is contemplated, in the procedure which has been followed for the last 40 or 50 years. I have crossed a lot of borders myself in Europe, and I know of no country where one would not have to report upon entering the country. There has

Customs Act
been no change whatever in that. We are putting it into the law here, but the commuters will not suffer any inconvenience whatever.
As a rule what happens is that the first time one enters the country, say from Buffalo over to Fort Erie, he is given a sticker to put on his car. This sticker identifies him as he comes along and the customs and immigration officials at that point know the person and see that he is not held up for one minute.
We felt that at this time we should put it into law, and the purpose of the amendment is to require all vehicles arriving in Canada to report to customs in order to ensure the proper administration not only of the Customs Act but of all other acts which are enforced by customs officials. This includes, as I said yesterday, acts and regulations relating to immigration, health, the health of animals and so on. I do not believe this ought to call for much controversy. It is a practice of many years' standing that is being regularized now by law.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I find the minister very difficult to follow. The hon. member for Eglin-ton and the hon. member for Niagara Falls have pointed out the practical considerations. The hon. member for Eglinton pointed out that if we read this literally it seems to involve people, for instance, in the western country where there are many rural roads, in almost impossible inconvenience. When the minister says nothing is going to be altered, does he mean that in the situation so clearly described last night by the hon. member for Eglinton the people are just going to disregard the law?
After all, when the minister says there is going to be no change that means either one of two things. Either we are not reading this correctly, and I think that is not the case, or it is not going to be followed through. Let the minister take the case described by the hon. member for Eglinton last night and describe what happens and how this may be within the four corners of this section. I cannot see how it could be. Last night the hon. member for Eglinton described the case of a man coming across the border perhaps 20 miles from the nearest officer or reporting station, and outlined the possibility, if this section means what it seems to mean, of this man having a duty to take that journey of 20 miles there and 20 miles back before he has discharged his duty to the customs authorities. Now the minister says this is not going to change anything. If it is not going to change anything then this seems to me to mean nothing.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: This section under discussion reads as follows:
Every person in charge of a vehicle arriving in Canada, other than a railway carriage, and every person arriving in Canada on foot or otherwise, shall
(b) before unloading or in any manner disposing thereof, make a report in writing to the collector or proper officer at such custom-house-
I believe this has been the practice at every customs port in Canada as far back as I can remember. I fail to see any change there. I have some knowledge of water transportation and transportation by vehicle, and within my memory there has never been a time when the practice outlined in paragraph (b) has not been applied.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Read paragraph (a).


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have read it, and I cannot see anything in (a) that would change the customs procedure in this country from what it has been for as far back as I can remember.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for Charlotte is quite right. I want to read section 20 (1) in the Immigration Act:
Every person, including Canadian citizens and persons with Canadian domicile, seeking to come into Canada shall first appear before an immigration officer at a port of entry or at such other place as may be designated by an immigration officer in charge, for examination as to whether he is or is not admissible to Canada or is a person who may come into Canada as of right.
We believe the same principle ought to apply with reference to customs ports. I doubt very much if there are any places, in any event not many places, where one would be so inconvenienced that he would have to travel 40 miles, as the hon. member for Eglinton suggests, to report to an office. The offices at which a person could report are much closer together than that. A man coming into Canada, no matter in what kind of vehicle, knows he has to report so does not go the long way around. He does not go along two sides of the triangle when he could go by a direct route that would bring him to a port where he could declare any goods he may have and at the same time declare to the immigration officers that he is entering Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's earlier remarks were intended to be reassuring, but unfortunately his remarks seem to be at variance with the explanatory note in the bill. The explanatory note, after quoting the provisions of the present section 18, goes on to say:
The purpose of the amendment is to require all persons to report.

I daresay if, as the minister says, there is to be no change in the method of enforcement, no change in procedure at the border, if it were accepted, that would allay some of the apprehension of hon. members in the face of the very extreme language of the new section. However, we then have the explanatory note which seems to be in keeping with the plain provisions of the new section, that the purpose of the amendment is to require all persons to report.
It is one thing to say there is no change contemplated in the procedure at the border. The hon. member for Niagara Falls, who lives closely with this problem, will want very definite assurance that it is not a matter left simply to the whim of the local customs officer. Here we are not dealing with language which says that any person entering Canada shall report if called upon to do so by a customs officer. This new section purports to lay upon him a duty to report, and it is not one that is enforceable simply at the whim of the officers.
I am still greatly troubled by the case I have put, where a man enters Canada by a route that is not close to one of the border points in common use, and which is not close to a customs house. If the minister is going to put a statutory duty on that man then there are going to be a great many unwitting law-breakers in this country, in the face of language that seems to me to be very extreme.


James Joseph McCann: It is a legal requirement. I am afraid the hon. member thinks that if a man comes over the border into Canada he must immediately go to the customs office and declare. If it happens in the middle of the night and the nearest port is closed, we accept that man's entry at the earliest possible convenience for him, which would be the next day. So there is no inconvenience there. It is a legal requirement, and I think the hon. member for Niagara Falls will testify to the fact that this has worked out well both at Niagara Falls and at Fort Erie, two of the largest customs centres from the point of view of the number of people entering Canada.
We have had practically no complaint with reference to this requirement. As I say, it has been going on for years and years, and the change is that now it is put in the law. It was the law that if they had dutiable goods they must go and declare them. If this measure passes it will be the law that, whether or not they have dutiable goods, as early as is practicable and possible they will have to go to the nearest customs office and declare whether or not they have anything
Customs Act
that is dutiable. They must do that anyway for immigration purposes. Therefore no extra inconvenience is thrown on them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the position were as the minister has stated it we would not need to spend much time discussing it, because that would be reasonable. But unfortunately what the minister has said is not what is said by the language of the section. The minister has said that certain things can be done "as early as is practicable". He cites the case of the customs house being closed in the middle of the night. If it said "as early as practicable" that would be the saving provision; it would be the sensible thing and would take some of the sting out of the clause as I find it.
Unfortunately, however, the minister's interpretation of what the clause means is not what the clause says. Let us look at section 18 (b), which says:
Every person in charge of a vehicle arriving in Canada, other than a railway carriage, and every person arriving in Canada on foot or otherwise, shall . . .
(b) before unloading or in any manner disposing thereof, make a report in writing to the collector or proper officer at such custom-house or station of all goods in his charge or custody or in the vehicle and of the fittings, furnishings, and appurtenances of the vehicle-*
And so on. There is no language there that says he is to do it as soon as is practicable. And there is nothing in paragraph (a) that says that when a customs house is closed it will be sufficient if he comes back and makes his report as soon as possible. On the contrary, the language of (a), the language of (b) and of (c) are all mandatory and unqualified. Let us look at 18 (a) which says, in effect, that if a person arrives in Canada he shall go to the customs house nearest to the point at which he arrived in Canada.
It is all very well when he is going to a customs house at a border point, where such customs house is located right at the point where he enters Canada. But there are many places where people enter Canada today where there are no customs houses located near the point where they are setting foot on Canadian soil.
I suggest the minister should look at the language and trim it down until it meets what he has said is the purpose of the legislation. He has pointed out that the person is to do what is practicable in the circumstances, and if that language were inserted it would meet the objections, the fears and the apprehensions in the minds of hon. members about the section as it stands. But it will take something more reasonable than the language now appearing in the clause to allay the fears and apprehensions in the minds of hon. members. Let the minister introduce words

Customs Act
such as he mentioned in his explanation, words such as "as soon as practicable", and that will meet the objection raised.


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps I should have said "reasonably convenient". I am thinking of a case where a man crosses the border at twelve o'clock at night. He has a tongue in his mouth and can ask, "Where is the nearest customs station?" "Well, there is one ten miles to the east", or it may be ten miles to the west. "I have to report there; is that place open?" "No, it will not be open until nine o'clock tomorrow morning." If he wishes, he can stay at an inn for that night and go in the morning to the customs house.
Can the hon. member suggest to me any other way in which we can keep track of people coming into this country and whether or not they are carrying dutiable goods, unless they are registered in some way? If they are coming in as immigrants they have to register. If they are coming in with dutiable goods or with a vehicle they must declare the fittings, furnishings and appurtenances of such vehicle. That refers of course to any extra tires and that sort of thing. We keep the closest touch we can with these people, and believe it would be in the best interests of the country to have them register at the nearest customs house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister would introduce the words he used in his explanation it would meet the requirements of the situation. He used the words "as soon as practicable" and later the words "as soon as reasonable". Either of those expressions would meet the situation. But if we do not add words like that, then the legislation places upon every person a statutory duty that is unqualified, requiring him to go to the nearest customs point and report there before going anywhere else.
That is not reasonable. It may be simple where people are entering at important border points during the day, but it is quite unreasonable to lay an unqualified statutory duty upon people, as it is set out in the language of this section. Therefore I am asking the minister to make the section conform with the purpose he has described by introducing at line 9 the words "as soon as practicable", to meet the needs of the situation.


James Joseph McCann: This is a statutory duty under the Immigration Act. I do not know how anything could be a greater invitation to people who wish to smuggle than to have the law provide that they would not have to report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a question of having to report. It is a question of the circumstances under which they report. We are not talking about immigration; we are talking about the Customs Act. As I see it there is no difficulty in connection with persons who are entering as immigrants, because those people are entering at well established points and there are a number of other requirements they must fulfil. But you have many people entering this country in vehicles, crossing the border to and fro. Surely you are not going to put upon them a statutory duty in the language of this clause. If the minister will make the language of the clause conform with his statement of purpose, in which he was very careful to use the words "as soon as possible", he will meet the needs of the situation, but not otherwise.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, mention has been made of isolated places along the border. I believe it will be found that at these small border crossing points immigration inspectors are also customs inspectors. It is illegal for people to go from one country to another without getting in touch with an immigration inspector, and when you get in touch with him you are usually in touch with both, so far as the small crossing points are concerned.
Let me say in all sincerity that a great deal of discretion is used by customs officers, as is well known by the minister and his deputy. I should like to give one example in the locality from which I come. In that area there are a great many who are employed in boating and freighting across the border into the United States. They come back, and the department has always been more than helpful in every way in suggesting to the boatman that when it is convenient he should come to the customs office, but not to lose freight on account of doing so. That has applied as far back as I can remember and for long before that. When it is convenient for them to come to the customs office they do so. It is done at the discretion of the officers who know the local conditions. They are carrying out their work in a most efficient manner, and with satisfaction to all concerned.
So far as this regulation dealing with border crossings is concerned, I have every faith in the personnel at the border, and I hope they carry on exactly as they have in the past. I assure you that no Canadian coming back into Canada and no citizen of the United States going into that country can complain that at any border crossing point they have not been treated kindly. As I said before, I believe this bill confirms

exactly what is taking place and what has taken place over a period of many years.
With respect to the change suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton, I still have a great deal more faith in the discretion of the officers, than I would have in any change in the wording of this act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the situation is very clear, and the hon. member for Charlotte has made it very clear. We have got on extremely well because the officers at the border have been allowed to exercise their own discretion and ignore the law. Now, that does not-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege, I did not say anything of the kind. I have never suggested that anyone should ignore the law. I said these things were done with the knowledge of the department. The particular practice I cited has gone on for 50 years or longer. The department is well aware of the fact, and it will go on for the next 50 years. I have every reason to believe that the officers in these particular localities, knowing local conditions, are in a much better position to take care of this situation than we are here, by making a change in the regulation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry if the hon. member for Charlotte thought I was not fair in repeating what he said. I thought what he said was very sensible. I took down part of what he said. He described the attitude of the official in dealing with this matter. He said, "When it is convenient for you to come, come". That is good sense. That is obviously what has been happening, but it is not in accordance with this section. I submit, as my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton has submitted, that it would be very easy to make a change in the wording which would make what is now being done, and done, I think, with common sense, within the law.
I would imagine that some of these cases, particularly in the west and no doubt in New Brunswick, are in this position. You hardly know there is an international line. People are going back and forth constantly doing their business. In the community where you have an official present, that is one thing; but where you have, as the hon. member for Eglinton described it, wide open country where you may be many miles from an official of any kind, there you have a situation which is more difficult. The point is, do we want to leave a statute in such a condition that it just cannot be carried out? I suggest that is what we have now. I submit this ought to be changed.
Customs Act


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member suggest that at these isolated places he has mentioned we should put the same regulations in effect in connection with immigration; that any person can come over the border, regardless of who he may be, and report to the immigration official under conditions such as have been outlined?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Immigration is an entirely different thing.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Excuse me. At these isolated points the immigration officer and the customs officer are one and the same man.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That to me is quite irrelevant. When an immigrant comes in it is an entirely different thing. It is an event of importance to him, a turning point in his life, you might say, and it is quite important to us. There must not be any too great easement there. As a matter of fact, if he is to be put to any inconvenience I would say to him, "All right; you are getting a great privilege for it". But here you have a situation where a man, in the ordinary course of his business, may be going back and forth every day. Incidentally, I should like to point out that the one notable change in the legislation, as far as wording is concerned, is that it applies to people coming on foot.


James Joseph McCann: It always did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It did not say so pre viously. Foot passengers have been mentioned. That is not vital either. All I am suggesting is, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton, that you could make a simple change here which would get away from what I am quite sure is a fact now, that many people are unintentionally, if you like, breaking the law. I say we should leave it like that.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I am
auite interested in this bill because I come from a western constituency which, of course, borders on North Dakota. In the past we have had very friendly relations with that state. Not only do tourists cross back and forth, but also many farmers cross that wide stretch of the international border. I join with the hon. member for Niagara Falls, the hon. member for Eglinton and others who have shown concern for what may happen under this legislation with respect to people who previously were not obliged to report to customs. Last evening the minister stated the purpose of the bill pretty well. At page 4257 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
The only difference under this amendment is that, whereas only a person crossing the border with

Customs Act
dutiable goods had to report, now all persons who cross the border have to report to the nearest customs official.
Today he has told us that perhaps the officials would be quite satisfied if people crossing the border reported when it was practicable to do so. If the customs office was closed, then they could report when it was fairly convenient.
The hon. member for Charlotte said he was quite sure the customs officials would use discretion in dealing with people crossing the border and) perhaps not reporting at that time. I am sure that people crossing the border, and all of us, want the act to spell out exactly what the conditions are and what the responsibilities are. I am concerned. Unless the minister can assure us that in the past there have been breaches of the act which his department has not been successful in coping with, conditions which he expects to rectify by this new legislation which will make it mandatory for people to report, the change should not be made.
I feel sure that many people, particularly farming people, who cross the border do so for no other purpose than to carry on their farming operations. They will be inconvenienced. I also believe it will cause inconvenience to many people who go across on short trips. I know in the west there are people who do not bring in dutiable goods. If it is necessary to amend the Customs Act to give the minister additional power, then he should say so. If it is going to make no difference to the people going back and forth, as he has stated, then this is an amendment which we should look at with a great deal of displeasure. Unless there have been abuses we should leave things as they are.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I just wish to say one more word. I find that paragraph (a) of clause 1 reads:
. . . come to the custom-house nearest to the point at which he arrived in Canada,-
This is the dutiable part:
(b) before unloading or in any manner disposing thereof-
And so on.
Surely no one in this chamber will suggest that anyone should be allowed to come into Canada from another country and unload goods or commodities before he reports at the customs office. If you read paragraph (b) carefully you will see that there is nothing very harmful in this provision in connection with anyone coming into Canada from another country who brings nothing with him. This is to prohibit the unloading of goods that may be brought in from another country before reporting to the customs office.
(Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).]
It is spelled out as plainly as can be. It states that every person in charge of a vehicle arriving in Canada must come to the customs house nearest to the point at which he arrived in Canada or to the station of the officer nearest to such point before unloading or in any manner disposing of such goods as he may be bringing in. Surely no one is going to suggest that the customs department should allow a person to come in from a foreign country and bring in and unload commodities before going to the customs office. If he does not bring anything in he has nothing to worry about.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, I intend to restrict my remarks to the matter of the additional language which has been suggested. I am quite sure that the inclusion of such language as "as soon as practicable" or "as soon as convenient" would mean that this section could not be interpreted properly. If we consider the records of the tested court cases we will find that the supreme court of Ontario ruled seven or eight years ago that the word "reasonable" or other words of that type are almost impossible to interpret. I do believe we should be most careful about adding language of that kind to the statute.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I observe that the words "on foot" were in the previous section, and for the life of me I find great difficulty in seeing what is being changed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Valuation for duty.
Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I have not had an opportunity to look up the latest agreement between the contracting parties on tariffs and trade, but it seems to me that in this clause there is a violation of the Geneva agreement. This reads:
Wherever duty ad valorem is imposed on goods imported into Canada, the value for duty shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.
Then it spells out the various methods of appraising articles for duty purposes. Then subsection 6 reads:
When the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections for the reason that
(a)	like or similar goods are not sold for use or consumption in the country of export, or
(b)	there is no established market in the country of export for like or similar goods,
the value for duty of the goods shall be such value as the minister determines.
My understanding of the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade is that we agreed that no valuation would be made on an arbitrary or fictitious basis. If that is so, then it seems to me this provision proposed by the minister conflicts directly with

that agreement to which we, in common with the other contracting parties who are signatories, agreed. My contention is that this provision should be rejected by the committee or withdrawn by the minister because it gives the minister the right to establish a fictitious value, an arbitrary value, which is not permitted under the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
It seems to me that those of us who are interested in a tariff policy which does not allow arbitrary valuations which may lead a country into the establishment of prohibitive tariffs on certain types of goods entering the country cannot accept this provision. With its avowed philosophy of freer trade, fairer trade and lower tariffs I believe that if the government look at this provision they will agree that it should not be in the bill. It is quite incompatible with what the government profess in regard to tariffs and so on.
There are countries where goods are produced for export which are not used in the country of manufacture. We can think of a country where the climate is not sufficiently severe to encourage people to wear mitts or gloves, but those articles may be manufactured in that country for export to Canada. Under this provision the fair market value in the country of origin would not be the determining factor, nor would the value of like goods if you could find goods there of that description. The minister is to have the arbitrary power to fix the value for duty purposes without regard to the internal or domestic prices of the country of origin.
I suggest to the minister that he should not press this clause this afternoon, but that he take another good look at it and also at the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I have not had an opportunity to look up the particular clause to which I have referred, but I think my memory is correct that the Geneva agreement absolutely prohibits a contracting country establishing arbitrary values on goods that may be imported into such country. I ask the minister to take another look at this clause before he presses for its passage.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by my officers that this is absolutely in accordance with GATT. That opinion has been given not only by our own legal officers but by the legal officers of the Department of Justice who prepared this bill. I am glad the hon. member has brought up this question, but I assure him that there is nothing in the section that is incompatible with GATT.
The section the hon. member has quoted applies to the very odd cases. For instance, shoe machinery is imported into this country.
50433-270J
Customs Act
The large firms in the United States who make shoe repairing machinery do not sell it. You could not buy it for love nor money; you must lease it. It is the same with International business machines, which must be leased.
It is for cases of that type that this subsection is designed. An appraisal cannot be made because of the peculiar marketing methods in the country of export, or where goods are not sold with a transfer of property rights but are only leased with the right to use on a royalty basis, or where the goods are manufactured exclusively for export trade. If we keep in mind what we are trying to remedy, we are putting into law the valuation for duty purposes. If goods are shipped into this country and the importer does not have a legal right to them but has a lease, somebody has to make an appraisal on which the duty will be based for that concession, as it might be called, of sending the goods into this country on a lease basis.


An hon. Member:: Would the minister say whether a tariff is charged against machinery that is brought into the country on lease? '


James Joseph McCann: Yes, there is a tariff even on machinery that comes in on lease, the same as if it were bought. It is the valuation that matters.


George Alexander Drew: In connection with the point that has just been made, does the minister mean, for the sake of argument, that if a contracting company in the United States is moving machinery here to perform a contract in this country, a tariff is paid on that machinery in that case?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, a tariff is paid on that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How is it arrived at?


James Joseph McCann: On the value of the machinery. If it is used machinery, it is an appraised value. If it is new machinery, the tariff is paid for new machinery.


An hon. Member:: What happens when that machinery returns to the United States?


James Joseph McCann: Once it is used in Canada the duty belongs to the crown. There is no remission.


Mr. Lennard:: I do not see how you could do otherwise. If you did not do that, every machine brought into this country would be bought on a lease basis.


Mr. Leboe:: Is it not true that there is a provision whereby they may pay so much every month or every two months on used machinery coming in?


James Joseph McCann: That application is where machinery would be brought into this country

Customs Act
on an emergency basis. As an example, a few years ago certain machines were brought here to harvest grain in the west during the winter season. A special arrangement was made for these people, who came from Dakota, to bring up their machines, and a special rate or a remission was made to them because it was an emergency condition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Might I ask the minister a question with regard to clause 2? I suppose it is fair to say that this clause is being passed because it is not felt that the legislation of December, 1953, completely did the job, and we now have what may be called remedial or reinforcing legislation.
I should like to ask the minister one or two general questions. First of all, can he give us some figures as to dumping, showing just what is the extent of the evil with which it is sought to deal? Then I should like to ask him if he will go through this section. Several different situations are dealt with in subsections 2, 3, 4, and 5, and I should like to have the minister go through it point by point and explain to us just what is being done to render the law more effective. First of all I should like to have any figures that can be given as to the extent of the evil.


Mr. Harris:: Before the minister answers, Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to move an amendment to the opening words of clause 2. There has been a misprint, and this is only to correct it. I move:
That subsection (1) of section 2 of Bill 410 be corrected to read: "Subsection (6) of section 35 of the said Act is renumbered as subsection (12)".
The purpose is to change the number of the subsection from 11 to 12.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Borden Hamilton: Before the minister replies to the hon. member for Greenwood, I wonder whether in his reply he would also consider the words in subsection 2, "under comparable conditions of sale", and advise the house if any thought has been given under that wording to some type of equalization of value on the basis of comparable labour costs in the country of origin and in Canada. That might be both from the standpoint of manufacturing costs and in connection with conditions of sale, from the standpoint of retail sales costs in Canada.
It seems to me that the true benefit of these sections is being entirely lost owing to the great difference in costs of production of the articles which are being assessed. Notwithstanding the fact that we may go down through the subsections and be able to determine the cost in the country of origin and on

this basis work out the tariff provisions, we are far from determining costs under comparable conditions of sale.
I would be very pleased if the minister would give us his feeling in connection with that question. In addition, of course, under subsection 6, which also was referred to previously, I believe, the minister has wide discretionary powers. I should like to know if at any time in administering those powers he has taken into consideration differences in production costs as between the country of origin and Canada.
The observation I have made might also be applicable to subsection 7, which is a catchall at the end of all the other subsections in which it says "plus a reasonable addition for administration costs, selling costs and profit", and the minister might say whether in connection with that subsection any consideration was given to the point I have raised.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer a question of the hon. member for Greenwood with reference to dumping duty collected in the following calendar years. In 1950 it was $1,735,543; in 1951, in round figures, $1,547,000; in 1952, $1,373,000; in 1953, $1,102,000; and in 1954-this is preliminary, as the accurate figures are not available- $1,114,000.
It might perhaps serve the purpose if I deal with these different sections and give the explanation for them. Subsection 2 is the section which states the primary rule for establishing value for duty, and in no way changes the present provisions which provide for valuation for duty purposes of imported goods at home market prices in the country of export.
Subsection 3 is new. It is intended to provide a basis for value for certain classes of importations not covered by the general provisions of subsection 2. It also seeks to remove from the present law a very serious difficulty arising in such instances from the almost unworkable rule of determining the "nearest ascertainable equivalent" to what is in effect a non-existing home market value.
This kind of problem arises where a sale is made to Canadian importers under special conditions for which there is no comparable marketing situation in the country of export. Most typical of these cases would be where the special conditions of sale result from the Canadian importer dealing with a related foreign company in a trade relationship which does not exist between the exporter and any other parties in the country of export. That is a new condition of business that has arisen in this country within the past few years.

We come now to subsection 4. It merely carries forward a portion of the present subsection 1. It is applied where value cannot be established under the previous subsections and permits the appraisal of goods in such instances to be based on the home market value, at which goods similar to those imported are sold for home consumption to various classes of trade in the country of export comparable to the trade status of the importer in Canada and in quantities comparable to those imported.
We come now to subsection 5, which is a new provision. It provides for cases where the importation, not having been capable of valuation under the preceding sections, requires more specific provisions. This subsection covers cases where the goods exported to Canada are not identical with but are similar to goods sold in the country of export, and which are sold to Canada under special conditions which have no comparable counterpart in the home market structure. This subsection, as in subsection 3, provides for valuation at the home market value at which the similar goods are sold to the trade in the country of export.
Subsection 6 is also new, and is the one about which I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was inquiring. It again is applied only when the previous sections offer no basis for valuation. The kind of case for which this subsection is designed is where appraisal cannot be made because of peculiar marketing methods in the country of export such as, for instance, where goods are not sold with transfer of property rights but only leased. Shoe machinery and International business machines are instances of that.
Subsection 7 in essence brings forward the present subsection 3, which provides for cases where appraisal cannot be made under any of the valuation provisions based on home fair market values. It is somewhat similar to the preceding section and is invoked when the former does not apply; for instance, where semi-processed goods are imported for further processing in Canada-that relates to a great many parts for cars-but are never sold in that condition in the country of export. In the country of origin they are finished, but they are shipped to Canada perhaps as castings and then they are burnished here and further fitted. One has to make an appraisal for duty purposes of those.
Subsection 8 is a repetition of a provision now in the present section 1. There is no change in substance. The principle of value for duty in no case to be less than the selling
Customs Act
price to the importer in Canada is continued. In common practice the value is never less than the selling price.
Subsection 9 makes it clear that internal taxes to be disregarded for valuation for duty shall be taxes imposed directly upon the goods in the country of export, and not assessments upon producers, or upon wages for social security of various kinds, income taxes, etc. This condition obtains with reference to goods manufactured in and exported from France. These duties are added to the value. The general provision for the disregarding of such taxes is at the present time contained in subsection 4, which has not been found to be sufficiently specific.
Subsection 10 is the same as the old subsection 5. As to subsection 11, this amendment will authorize a segregation of the value of goods from the value of services where the price of the imported article combines both charges. There are numerous examples, one being, for instance, the importation of unassembled educational kits, the cost of which includes the value of a course. Of course you could not put a value on the course, but when there is an educational kit accompanying it that is appraised and the duty is applied to it. Another example would be a person who might go from Fort Erie to Buffalo to consult a doctor. The doctor will charge a fee and probably will prescribe medicine or treatment of some kind. You do not pay duty on the doctor's knowledge. You pay it on the article brought into the country, whether it be medicine or an appliance. The same thing obtains with reference to architectural and engineering plans. They are often brought into the country. We do not assess duty on the value of the knowledge, experience and scientific equipment that went into their preparation. We put a value on the plans themselves for duty purposes.
I think that explains pretty well all the subsections of the new section 35. I do not know that there is anything more I can add, but I shall attempt to answer any further questions that may be asked with reference to it.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister seems perfectly satisfied that his officials and the law officers believe there is no conflict between the subsection to which I referred and the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade. If his officials are satisfied with it, of course I am not well enough informed to dispute their opinion. However, it seems to me this does permit the minister to make an arbitrary or, perchance, a fictitious valuation, though I am not accusing the minister of wanting to do the latter, and that would be in direct conflict with the

Customs Act
agreement we have signed. However, the minister seems satisfied I am wrong, and I shall let the matter rest meantime.


James Joseph McCann: We have made the most careful inquiry into that point. The law officials of the department have considered it, the Department of Justice has given an opinion upon it, and the expert who drew up the legislation considered it, and we are assured that there is no conflict whatever with GATT in this regard.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand the
minister, looking at subsections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of clause 2 of the bill we have first of all subsections 2 and 3 dealing with like goods, and then subsections 4 and 5 dealing with similar goods. I am going to ask the minister to explain those two phrases. Then in the case of each of these two pairs we have one subsection which deals with situations where there are comparable conditions of sale, and another dealing with situations where there are not comparable conditions. We have four alternatives. Would the minister specify a little further as to the difference between "like" and "similar"?


James Joseph McCann: When I was going over the legislation I inquired into that matter myself. I am told that "like" means identical and that "similar" means similar to but not identical. If one thinks that over one can see that there is a difference. Under comparable conditions of sale the duty shall be the fair market value. What are the conditions under which the goods are sold in another country as compared to the conditions under which they would be sold in this country? There may be some difference there.
My own interrogation and questioning on this matter brought out the point that there are firms in the United States having a business in Canada that takes the whole output of a factory. They do not sell to anybody else. What are you going to compare it with unless you compare it on the basis of the value we put on it when it comes into Canada? If you were doing it according to the general formula you would be comparing the sales of that factory with the sales to other customers in the same country. There are no such conditions. They are set up there and are supplying their customers in the United States as well as their affiliate customers in Canada. You do not have comparable conditions.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister would refer back to the questions I asked concerning the powers he has and the interpretation under some of these sections. I asked whether at any time any

thought had been given to using the comparable conditions clause and the discretionary powers as well set out in subsection 6 to have a realistic valuation placed on the goods being imported. I use that term because it is directly contrary to the term used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who suggested it was a fictitious value that would be set under subsection 6. I would be inclined to think the minister might use his discretionary power to set a realistic value instead of a fictitious value.
I am especially concerned, if I heard the minister correctly, about subsection 9, because under that subsection such things as some type of social welfare legislation tax in France, say, would not be included in the value of the goods for duty purposes. Surely here in Canada a manufacturer is faced with the fact that the cost of the article he is producing includes every type of tax, and would include any type of social welfare contribution which is made.


James Joseph McCann: They would be included.


John Borden Hamilton: The type of tax which would correspond to some type of contribution made by a manufacturer here would be included?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, that is included in the value for duty.


John Borden Hamilton: That is included. The other question I have to raise is, has the minister at any time exercised any discretion in attempting to equalize the cost of production in countries where similar conditions do not exist, such as we have here when establishing the value for duty purposes?


James Joseph McCann: No, we have no such discretionary right in that instance.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the exercise of such discretion contravene the Geneva agreement to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, it would contravene GATT.


John Borden Hamilton: Do we have any escape clause of any kind in the Geneva agreement which might enable the minister to use his discretion in that way?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, there is an escape clause if there is injury or prejudice to a Canadian manufacturing firm by reason of that condition.


John Borden Hamilton: Has the minister at any time to date exercised his discretion as a result of the injury clause contained in that agreement entered into at Geneva?


James Joseph McCann: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no.


Edward George McCullough: A year ago we passed Bill No. 29, which gave wide discretionary powers to the minister in respect to placing a valuation for duty upon goods coming into this country. I feel that western farmers are quite interested in our whole tariff structure. I may say that I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I do not want to argue about whether or not these wide powers given the minister will make it possible to contravene the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I just want to say that it seems to me he is given very wide powers under this bill that enable him to establish an arbitrary price structure and make appraisals for duty.
I should like to draw to the committee's attention paragraph (b) of subsection 6, where it says:
.	. . the value for duty of the goods shall be
such value as the minister determines.
In following through the various sections of the bill that give the minister power to price goods coming into the country, it seems to me that the first six sections of the bill give the minister such wide powers that he can price these goods in any manner he sees fit. If he has not had such powers given to him in the first six sections, then he has them in sections 7 and 8. Subsection 2 of section 35 says that the value for duty shall be the fair market value. Does the fair market value mean the fair market value established in Canada in the retail trade, or does it refer to the fair market value in the country of origin?


James Joseph McCann: Read the next line and you will get it.


Edward George McCullough: I am
going to do so.
... at the time when and the place from which the goods were shipped to Canada, of like goods when sold in like quantities for home consumption in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions and under comparable conditions of sale.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there are ever comparable conditions of sale when the goods are sold for home consumption. For example, when we were discussing Bill No. 29 last year we were told that volume production in the United States made it possible for them to produce goods with which Canadian textile firms could not compete. Of course those goods would not be allowed to
Customs Act
enter Canada at the same prices at which they could be readily sold in the United States. The conditions prevailing in the United States are the result of competition, but when the goods enter Canada, perhaps because we cannot produce in the same volume, those conditions do not exist. Then apparently the minister has a discretion to determine whether or not the conditions prevailing in Canada are fully competitive with those existing in the United States.
Then there is the provision concerning comparable conditions of sale. In view of this, I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he says the minister is given wide discretionary powers. Surely under the discretionary powers given the minister he could set what might be termed fictitious prices instead of, as one hon. member said, realistic prices. After all, these goods coming into Canada are being imported by importers who feel they are going to make money. We as western members, particularly interested in agriculture, feel it could well be that once again there will be a protective tariff wall put up against imports, and unless we can have a comparable situation for our primary producers it just means that we are up against a tariff wall which will raise the cost of production.
I think that is one factor that has caused the high-price economy under which we are trying to exist. If the wide powers which have been granted the minister under Bill No. 29 and under this bill are going to be used simply to keep out goods, then that is not going to serve the best interests of our economy.


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. member would just read carefully what it says he would see that when the duty is imposed the value for duty shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section. You take subsection 2, and if you can make an appraisal under that subsection, well and good; you must do it. But if you cannot do it under 2, then you come to 3; there is no use reading it over again. If you cannot do it under 3 then you come to 4; and if you cannot do it under 4 you come to 5. And then you come to 6-
When the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections-
Then it gives the reasons why this cannot be done-
(a)	like or similar goods are not sold for use or consumption in the country of export, or
(b)	there is no established market in the country of export for like or similar goods,-
Then the value for duty shall be such as the minister determines. I do not agree with the hon. member that there is anything very arbitrary about this. After all, somebody has

Customs Act
to take the responsibility. All these different selections are made under the first five subsections, and if it is not possible to determine the value for duty under them, then it says the goods shall be of value such as the minister determines.
I cannot see how anything could be fairer than that, or more logical. You go to the different subsections-2, 3, 4 and 5-and if you cannot bring it under them, then somebody has to declare the value for duty purposes, and it is left to the minister.


Edward George McCullough: How
do you determine the value of Japanese textiles coming into Canada?


James Joseph McCann: On information we get from our appraisers and investigators in the United States as to their value there, and the appraisal that is made by experienced people in the department, many of whom are experts in the textile business.


George Harris Hees: What procedure does the department use to determine the fair market value of end of line goods in the United States, such as we were talking about in 1953? What is the mechanism used to set a fair market value on those goods?


James Joseph McCann: I remember that was discussed at great length, the question of end of line or end of season goods. The hon. member has referred to textiles, but it refers to other articles such as electrical goods and refrigerators. We have sent in our representatives and they have been very favourably received by the manufacturers, who give us all the information we want. We look back over a six-month period. We look at the prices at which they have been invoiced, and if they are invoiced lower, then they are brought up to a comparable price for duty purposes. The price is made comparable with that at which the goods sold formerly.
I believe this has worked satisfactorily. I made the statement that there are many invoices I could bring before the committee, if required. I have gone over them carefully. I may find that hundreds or thousands of yards have been sold, and I find how it averaged out over a six-month period. If the price is not pretty much the same, we bring it up for duty purposes.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I have before me the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the United Nations conference on trade and employment, and I find this in article VII:
2. (a) The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise on which duty is
[Mr. McCann.)
assessed, or of like merchandise, and should not be based on the value of merchandise of national origin or on arbitrary or fictitious values.
That is what I had in mind when I rose a little while ago. For the life of me I cannot see how we can get around that article. In this bill we are giving the minister power under certain conditions to determine the value of goods for duty purposes. I am sure the minister has expressed the view of his legal advisers. I am not a lawyer; but unless there is an interpretation which lawyers can place on this provision other than the one I would place upon it, because the words are in plain English, it seems to me they prohibit exactly what the minister is trying to do in this bill. For the life of me, in my own mind I cannot get around that fact. If we pass this measure are we not permitting the minister to establish arbitrarily a fictitious value? I am using that word because it appears in the article. How do we get around this?


James Joseph McCann: I could not agree more with what the hon. member has said. It was only two or three minutes before he entered the chamber that I gave what I thought was a satisfactory explanation of the provisions in the bill. I said that we must take 2, 3, 4 and 5 seriatim, in that order, and if the goods cannot be classified in that way, then you come to subsection 6 which says:
When the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections for the reason that
(a)	like or similar goods are not sold for use or consumption in the country of export, or
(b)	there is no established market in the country of export for like or similar goods,-
The value for duty shall be such value as the minister determines. As I said before, somebody has to take that authority, and in this measure we are seeking it. The matter my hon. friend has reference to and which he thought might be in contravention of GATT deals only with that class of goods which is not sold but is leased. The point is as to the value of the lease for duty purposes. For instance, it refers to International business machines, to shoe machinery, and all the rest of it. I do not think I can explain it further.
I know it is hard to comprehend the whole thing. It took me a long time to acquire any knowledge in the matter, or at least sufficient to attempt to make a reasonable explanation. However, I am convinced, after looking into the matter, that this is good legislation and that it is the type we need for the purpose for which we seek it.


George Harris Hees: Have complaints about end of run goods coming into Canada greatly diminished since Bill No. 29 was passed, or has there been much change?


James Joseph McCann: I would think the general opinion is that they have diminished. There is one thing we forget, and that is that there is a free entry of United States goods up to a value of $100 three times a year. I shall try to be fair about it in stating that, not only as a result of Bill No. 29, there has been a great deterrent effect upon importers of certain lines of goods into this country, because they did not know just what the value would be and what their bill would be for duty purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to refer to subsection 7. We have referred to 2, 3, 4, and 5 dealing with various differing conditions. Then we come to subsection 6 which says that when the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections, for the reason that like or similar goods are not sold for use or consumption in the country of export, then the minister may determine the value.
Then we come to subsection 7, and I wish to be sure that this subsection is accurately worded. It says:
Where the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections, the value for duty shall be the actual cost of production-
And so on. At first I thought that should be worded, "When the value for duty cannot be determined under the preceding subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5", because under 6 you have the means of determining for duty. What I want to know is this. Is the answer there that 6 deals only with a limited class of goods, so that subsection 7 is correctly worded as it is? Is that the answer to my question?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I find that article VII, section 2 (a) of GATT reads as follows:
The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise on which duty is assessed, or of like merchandise, and should not be based on the value of merchandise of national origin or on arbitrary or fictitious values.
Certainly, this clause provides for arbitrary and fictitious values. If this section of GATT prohibits it, then it would be an evasion; but is not the escape clause the use of the word "should"? It says "should not be based." It does not say "shall not be based." Is that not the explanation of why you can in effect make this change, which on the face of it appears to be arbitrary? Is that not the reason? Certainly if it is not the reason then it is obvious that what is being asked to be passed by parliament today is indeed a contravention of GATT. An ordinary reading of the section indicates that it contains no
Customs Act
escape clause whatsoever. I thought I was helping the minister, but of course he says I am not helping him at all. If that is not the reason, then it is obvious that what we are doing here is passing an amendment to the customs laws which we have criticized the United States for doing over and over again. We have suggested that is one of the reasons GATT has in such measure been defeated in its original purposes.


James Joseph McCann: We are entirely in agreement with the principle that we should not apply arbitrary measures; but I ask the hon. member for Prince Albert, where else can we go for advice except to good lawyers in our own department, and in the Department of Justice? If the hon. member for Prince Albert and those lawyers could get together they could argue over it for a week. I am taking the opinion they gave me, that there is nothing here that is a contravention of GATT, and on that premise we went ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we
criticized the United States for doing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Prince Albert is one which cannot be lightly dealt with. Is there a written opinion? Those of us who are not expert lawyers are competent to read plain statements in English. This is so important that it should not be allowed to go without some satisfactory answer.


James Joseph McCann: Well, I do not know whether there was a written opinion. I was present when the bill was discussed before the legislative committee of the cabinet. The man who drew the bill was there, and in my own hearing this was the opinion he gave. It stuck in my mind just as well as if it had been written. It applies only to a very limited type of goods, as I said. We do not want to be arbitrary about it, but I do not see any other way of doing it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to know that the minister remembers a thing just as well as if it were written, and that it sticks in his mind. I simply ask whether this has been brought to the attention of the law officers, and whether they say there is no contravention.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this to the minister. Apparently when he answered me he said this applied only to a limited group of articles.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.

Customs Act


Major James William Coldwell: Article VII of GATT reads as follows:
The contracting parties recognize the validity of the general principles of valuation set forth in the following paragraphs of this article, and they undertake to give effect to such principles, in respect of all products subject to duties or other charges or restrictions on importation and exportation based upon or regulated in any manner by value, at the earliest practicable date. Moreover, they shall, upon a request by another contracting party, review the operation of any of their laws or regulations relating to value for customs purposes in the light of these principles. The contracting parties may request from contracting parties reports on steps taken by them in pursuance of the provisions of this article.
The article goes on:
2. (a) The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise-
There is no limitation anywhere there. As I take it from the preamble, that applies to all merchandise and not merely to leased merchandise. I continue:
-on which duty is assessed, or of like merchandise, and should not be based on the value of merchandise of national origin or on arbitrary or fictitious values.
I cannot see where there is anything in that which limits this to leased articles such as shoe repair machines and so on. I am sorry, but I just cannot see it. I know the minister must be guided by his advisers and his officials, and I am just a layman without training in the law and understand only the English language. Consequently I suppose I have to accept what the minister says, though I do suggest that he should take another look at it. That is all I suggested in the first instance.


James Joseph McCann: I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman, except that the government will take the responsibility that we are acting correctly.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar a question. If you cannot determine the fair market value under the act as it exists, what other method than the one suggested would you use to determine the fair market value? I am asking the question. That is the practical problem that customs is up against. What would you do?


John George Diefenbaker: You would not sign GATT to begin with, if you wanted to meet the situation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is clause 2 as amended carried?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. It is no answer, with all due respect to my colleague, to ask what would you do. This is what we would like

to do, undoubtedly. If we get into difficulties and paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 prove unavailing, certainly paragraph 6 is what we want. But on the other hand the question arises whether we have put it out of our power. I hope it is not so, but I think we have to be satisfied on it, and the mere recital by the minister here that someone in the Department of Justice said it was not so does not seem to me to be adequate.
I feel that this matter is of great importance, because we are devoutly hoping that the United States is going to behave better in respect to GATT than it has in the past. I do not think we want to be in a position where they can point a finger at us. We want to be in the opposite position. I am still hoping that the minister is right; of course I am. I am hoping that he will be able to get a reasoned answer which will satisfy everybody. I do not think it is adequate just to be told that the Department of Justice has said it is so. Even great lawyers sometimes find that if they could get all the facts they would give a different opinion from that which they had given.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
James Joseph McCann: the third reading of the bill.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, it looks to me as though the government is moving into a transfer of responsibility as it will now be in a position to close a port of entry and place the onus on an individual coming back across the border to find a port that is open. I submit it is the responsibility of the government to provide these services and not put the onus on an individual to find a port that is open.


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


Major James William Coldwell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



GOVERNMENT SERVICES-SUGGESTED NEED FOR ECONOMIES

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the privilege that this motion

affords to place before the house a positive motion for the consideration of hon. members. There are occasions when members on the government side are inclined to ask in a rather complaining way why the opposition does not put forward positive and constructive proposals. I submit that the record will show that many positive and constructive proposals have been made.
Nevertheless it is the function of the opposition acting as it does in the capacity of auditor, in so far as that is permitted, to examine the business that is done and to criticize where criticism seems appropriate. A motion of this kind provides the mechanism for seeking the favourable consideration of something which seems to be to the advantage of the house as representatives of the people of Canada. What I propose to place before the house now I suggest is something calling for the earnest consideration of every member of this house and of everyone in Canada at this time.
Profound changes have taken place in the life of our people and in the Canadian economy within the past few years. We have seen industrial enterprises expand beyond recognition and individual activities extend to a much wider field. However, in no single activity within our country has there been a wider and more rapid expansion than in the field of government itself. Much of that was imposed by the dreadful demands of war; much of it was imposed by the necessity for improvising when sudden new requirements called for the setting up of organizations or agencies which had not previously existed. However, there is this great difference.
I do not believe that there is a single business of any size in this country which has expanded greatly within recent years which has not deemed it advisable to examine thoroughly its expanded structure and to seek outside independent advice as to how that greatly expanded structure can be guaranteed and brought into an efficient integrated entity to the best advantage of all those working with it and of all those who depend upon its success. Any business enterprises which have not done that already are doing it now and there is a very important reason therefor.
The post-war sellers' market is gone and new competitive conditions are arising everywhere throughout the world. Within our domestic markets as well as in foreign markets we are feeling the direct impact of the highly competitive atmosphere in which business is now being conducted. The adjustment required to meet those conditions is something that is going to spell success or failure, advancement or disaster within those years immediately ahead.
Government Services
We are telling ourselves constantly that the nation's business is the largest business of all, and I submit that the time is long overdue for Canadians generally and for the representatives of all Canadians in particular who sit here in this house to examine the position and to take those steps that are appropriate to bring the largest business in Canada into a position of efficiency as every businessman would do if he were confronted with the same circumstances.
I am not suggesting for one moment that at this time, when we see so much evidence of the effects of this highly competitive world market upon our own export trade and upon our domestic business, the adjustments needed to meet this situation can be made by governments alone, but certainly if there is one place where an example can be given and where the action taken can be of advantage to everyone meeting a situation of this kind, it is in the case of the government itself. If the organization of government and all its agencies were to be examined in the same objective manner as any successful business has already been examined, then there would be, not only an enormous saving of public funds, but an encouragement to people generally to prepare themselves in the most effective way for the very competitive period through which we are going to pass. The action of the government in this respect could be decisive in determining the attitude of our people. It is not only because of the competitive market that this should be done; it should also be examined because of the impact of inflation upon hundreds of thousands of our people.
Do not let anybody repeat again in this house that we have avoided inflation in Canada. We have had very heavy inflation. Our dollar today is worth considerably less than half of the pre-war dollar in purchasing power. Those who are able to work with their hands and to combine the efforts of their hands with the skill of their brains in the great competitive activities, those who are engaged in the professions, those who are in business, have been able to adjust their position and actually in many cases to take some advantage of inflation itself. Let us examine, however, what this has meant to hundreds of thousands of people dependent upon the small income from their life savings, to all those thousands who are dependent upon railway pensions, upon military pensions, upon pensions from insurance companies or endowment policies of various kinds. Think of what this means for everyone on a small income. Think of what it means in cases you actually know of people who worked hard, performed great service and looked forward to declining years, not

Government Services
in comfort but with an adequate amount to give them that measure of happiness and security that they had a reason to expect when they looked at the number of dollars that would be coming in. There is no one in this house who does not know someone today, who does not know several people, who are finding it, not difficult, but impossible to make ends meet because of the effect of inflation.
In the midst of great plenty, in the midst of very evident prosperity, there is in fact great hardship in this country at this time. Now, the cruel results of inflation are something which we should consider, because there is no single influence which does as much to create inflation as excessive government expenditure. That is not only because excessive government expenditure adds to the tax burden of our people and in turn adds to the cost of the things everyone buys; it is also a fact that where there is excessive government expenditure the ordinary standards which establish the cost of many products and many services are upset by the loose methods of handling these affairs by government agencies. Unless there is the same test in regard to the value of services and the cost of things that are bought in the case of a government agency as would apply in the case of a private agency, then you are creating the most vigorous inflationary force which can operate in any country.
For that reason, the first and most effective place to tackle inflation-and in tackling inflation to increase our ability to meet the competitive period in which we now are-is within the realm of government itself, the nation's business. The lengthening shadow of government in this country now extends over 25 per cent of the expenditure of all moneys in Canada. A quarter of what is spent in this country is spent by all the governments, federal, provincial and municipal. Seventy-seven per cent of that is spent by the government of Canada. Therefore, the place where the most effective job can be done in creating greater efficiency and reducing the inflationary pressures at this time is right here within this House of Commons to which, I hope, the government of Canada is still answerable.
In tackling any problem of this kind the essential consideration is to obtain the facts. We have not the facts today. That is not because an effort has not been made to obtain them. The facts cannot be obtained. The facts are hidden behind the front of those doors which contain the records that are not open to the members of this house through any mechanism now available to

us. Wherever any door has been opened- and I repeat this without any exception, wherever any door has been opened-it has been found that savings could be made by more efficient methods and by better bookkeeping and better organization. It is the duty of the members of this house to see that the facts are obtained. A thorough analysis of the administrative efficiency of government and of all the departments and agencies of government is long overdue. Careful and detailed analysis is required, because of the impact of all these activities upon all the business operations and the whole life of our people in this country.
Surely the figures that will impress this upon us most forcefully are the figures which indicate the tremendous increase in government expenditure within the short period of 15 years. For the year 1938-39, the last year before the war, the total amount spent by the government of Canada was $533,063,000. For the year 1954-55 the expenditure by this government was $4,255,387,000. This government is now spending eight times what the government was spending in the year before the war. No explanation related to increase in population, increase in national income, increase in productive capacity or any other explanation will give us the full story of those figures.
Eight times what the government spent in the last fiscal year before the war is now being spent. Yes, I realize that part of that figure is represented by money being turned over to the provincial governments, but that is only a fraction of this large figure. Surely any ordinary business seeing an expansion of eight times in its spending would say: Where can we do something about this? The government says: What would you suggest should be examined? Let us look at a few of the things that any ordinary business enterprise would examine very carefully. For instance, let us take the Department of National Defence, the Department of Defence Production, and civil defence, which can be bracketed together. Let us see what they spend.
I am not talking now about their expenditures for arms, for the men to perform the military duties, or expenditures to produce weapons and military requirements generally. Let us look at some of the figures that I know any business would examine if it were involved in spending such a huge amount of money. These figures only relate to those departments having to do with defence. May I ask hon. members to listen to them and remember that this is well within the time that a number of members now in the house have been sitting here.

First of all let us take travel and removal expenses. In the year before the war-and in every case where I use that expression it will refer to the fiscal year 1938-39-they amounted to $1,101,000. The amount in the estimates for this year is $46,084,300-$1,101,-
000	before the war and $46,084,000 fifteen years later.
Let us look next at the expenditures for telephones, telegrams and other communication services. There is not a businessman who does not know that in any business where anybody can grab a telephone and make long distance calls you can throw more money away within a short space of time than perhaps in any other single way. They have very careful ways of checking the propensity of the ordinary person to listen to a distant voice and to exchange ideas by telephone when it could be done just as well by a letter which would be carried there by airmail in 24 hours or 48 at the outside, with good service. Listen to these figures for telephones, telegrams and other communication services, and remember that they relate only to defence activities. In the last year before the war the amount was $57,000, not an insignificant figure. This year the estimate is $6,843,150. You know, you cannot help wondering whether something could not be done to encourage the use of letters with airmail delivery by way of substitution for some of these calls. In fact, every hon. member of the house knows perfectly well that unless there is an objective examination of figures of that kind by outside experts nobody here will begin to know the nature of the calls that have multiplied these expenditures so enormously.
Then, let us talk about publicity and the various things that go with it, again just for defence. In the year before the war the amount spent was $5,000. There must have been certain Scotch instincts operative at that time so far as publicity was concerned. The estimate for this year is $2,507,500. Then
1	come to office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings. In the year before the war the amount was $233,000. It will be recalled that there was a large reserve force at that time and also not comparable permanent forces but permanent forces with various headquarters staffs and so on. The amount then was $233,000 and the estimate for this year is $7,018,684. You can buy a lot of office furniture for $7,018,684.
Then we have another item not covered by publicity, namely, publication of departmental reports and other material. That is a nice euphonious name for some of the informative material that does not forget to give an apple to teacher at the same time. In
Government Services
the year before the war nothing was spent on that item, but the amount in the estimates for the current year is $2,311,650. I have brought the items relating to defence together so that we shall not have anyone saying: Oh well, defence has made us spend this money.
Let me deal with the non-defence departments, and I am not dealing here with any of those things that can be regarded as fixed or rigid expenditures. Let us get back to travel and removal expenses for the nondefence departments, in this case not people urgently called upon to carry out some very dramatic duty. In the year before the war travel and removal expenditures amounted to $3,504,000. The amount this year is $15,770,736. Is there no room for examination there, Mr. Speaker? Is there no room for that question we saw printed on signs in the railway stations of Great Britain during the war-Is your trip really necessary? I think there could be some examination of these expenditures.
Let us look at telephones, telegrams and other communication services. In the year before the war the amount was $689,000, quite a substantial figure. You can do a lot of telephoning and sending of telegrams for that amount of money even if you have airmail service which was not available in the same way at that time. But let us see what the amount is now, even though we have an airmail service that transports letters right across the country so quickly. Instead of $689,000 the amount for this year is $7,356,469.
Then there is publicity, and oh, how publicity-conscious this government is! In the last year before the war the amount was $1,794,000 for the non-defence departments, and this year the amount is $7,663,790. That of course does not include any of the host of people who have been attached to the various staffs to make sure that their own people are not forgotten.
Then we have the publication of departmental reports and other material. There again, strangely enough, before the war not a cent was spent on that, but this year $4,484,645 will be spent, quite a tidy sum to get out these reports on the habits of bees and birds, the mating activities of lobsters and things of that kind. I am not suggesting they all fall into that category but nevertheless we have seen some material which could only be described by a term that would be unparliamentary and which goes into the wastebaskets of most people who have any occupation for their time. It is certainly included in that figure of $4,484,645.

Private Bills


Mr. Benidickson:: One hundred and one people in public relations in the Ontario Hydro.


George Alexander Drew: I am so interested in the fact that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is aware of the Ontario Hydro Electric system-


William Moore Benidickson: Your baby.


George Alexander Drew: -because if there was a single agency of the government here that compared in efficiency with the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission an examination of this kind would not be nearly as necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact-


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that we deal with private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 380, respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.
He said: The capital of the company since an earlier amending act in 1929, Mr. Speaker, has been $6 [DOT] 5 million, of which $5 million divided into 50,000 shares of $100 each is known as class A stock and has no voting rights. Approximately $1-5 million is divided into 15,000 ordinary shares of $100 each. No class A shares have ever been issued, and the total capital presently issued and outstanding consists of 10,103 ordinary shares having an aggregate par value of $1,010,300.
The company wishes to decrease its authorized capital to $2 million divided into 200,000 shares of $10 each. So far as the splitting of the shares is concerned, this could normally be done by a bylaw provided under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, but it was deemed desirable to reduce the authorized capital in any event, and further this private bill is necessary because of a provision in the original act of 1887 under which shareholders were given one vote for every $100 subscribed. This would not be practicable when the par value of the shares is reduced from $100 to $10.
Many years ago, in 1897, the company issued 1,243 shares of preference stock but these were later surrendered by the preference shareholders in exchange for ordinary shares. Some technical objection of a legal

nature could be taken to the method employed in surrendering the preference shares, and accordingly it was thought desirable to include in the proposed new bill a clause confirming the present amount of stock issued and outstanding.
One further point arises in connection with the clause permitting the company to write all kinds of insurance other than participating life insurance. The company enjoys these privileges at the present time but some of them were acquired under the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and it was thought advisable to have the authority stem from the company under a private act.
I may say, for the benefit of hon. members, that the form of the petition and also the draft of the proposed bill have received the approval of Mr. MacGregor, superintendent of insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 408, to incorporate Trans-Border Pipeline Company Ltd.


Mr. Green:: Could we have an explanation of this bill?


John Decore: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to incorporate a pipeline company under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act. As hon. members know, before any company can engage in the operation of a pipeline which crosses a provincial or international border, it must be incorporated by an act of parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act. Of course, the matter is subsequently referred to the board of transport commissioners.
This bill follows the usual pattern of pipeline bills which come before this house. Probably the important clause is clause 5, which I will read:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by. and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the Pipe Lines Act, and any other general legislation relating to pipelines enacted by parliament with respect to the transportation of gas and oil and other liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
Now, the purpose of the incorporators, if this legislation is enacted, is to acquire through lease or purchase a pipeline which was constructed during wartime and was known as the Canol project. This pipeline is one in existence now between Skagway in Alaska and Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. As I say, this pipeline was constructed during wartime by the United States authorities with the con-

sent of the Canadian government to receive petroleum products which were brought in by tanker to Skagway. At that point these products were discharged into storage facilities and then transported by pipeline for the use of the army and air forces.
I am informed that the United States authorities are now constructing or have constructed a new 8-inch line from Haines, Alaska, to a point on the Alaska highway. The old pipeline was a 4-inch line. It is likely that this 4-inch pipeline between Skagway, Alaska, and Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory will no longer be required by the United States authorities and will, therefore, be available for lease or purchase. The proposed company is prepared to acquire this pipeline.
It may be of interest to note that Yukon Pipelines Limited, the bill incorporating which was recently before this house, apparently has the same idea in mind and seeks to acquire the same line. I feel that a little competition is always beneficial. Should this bill be given second reading, Mr. Speaker, I intend to have it referred to the proper standing committee where more detailed information will be given.


Howard Charles Green: There is one feature of this bill that I should like to bring out, and that is that while the purpose of the applicants is to compete with the White Pass and Yukon railway the bill which the officials of that railway got through this house contains a proviso which has not been written into the bill now before the house. When the Yukon Pipelines Limited bill came up for second reading it was sponsored by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). At that time he explained that he proposed to ask in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that there be a proviso written into the bill to the following effect:
Provided that the main pipeline or main pipelines for the transmission of gas and gaseous hydrocarbons shall be located entirely within Canada.
Now, that amendment was passed by the standing committee, and it has since been passed by the house. The Yukon Pipelines Limited bill now contains that proviso, subject of course to approval by the Senate. I do suggest to the sponsor of this bill that his bill should be subject to the same proviso. As a matter of fact, that proviso has been written into all the pipeline bills that have come before the house at this session. It was even written into the charter of Trans-Prairie Pipelines, Ltd., when their bill was before the standing committee.
I have seen no reason why Trans-Border Pipeline Company Ltd. should have any
Trans-Border Pipeline Company Ltd. advantage over the others. As a matter of fact the present applicants are proposing to try to get a pipeline which, I believe, is on the right of way of the White Pass and Yukon route. This pipeline was laid during the war by Americans, but now they are not using it. They are putting in a new line of their own which runs from Haines; and this pipeline along the right of way of the White Pass and Yukon route has to be taken over by someone.
The officers of the White Pass and Yukon came here and^had a bill passed incorporating Yukon Pipelines Limited so that they could take over this pipeline. Now it would seem that these outsiders are asking for a charter so that they might have this same pipeline, which is actually on the right of way of the other people. This point need not be discussed at the moment, of course, but I would like to ask the sponsor whether the applicants for the present charter are willing to accept the same proviso in their bill, when it is being studied by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to offer my support to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I hope that when the sponsor replies he will say that his company will be willing to do what other companies have done in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member speaks he will close the debate.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized to say that when this bill is dealt with in committee the agent acting on behalf of the proposed company will have no objection to amending section 6 in the bill so that it will provide that the main pipeline for the transmission of gas and gaseous hydrocarbons shall be located entirely within Canada.
Incidentally I always admire the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) when he insists that these lines be built in Canada. I would only hope that some of his colleagues might follow his example.


Howard Charles Green: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 414, respecting Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.
4288	HOUSE OF
Westcoast Transmission Company Limited


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation?


Francis Thrower Fairey: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house seeks permission for Westcoast Transmission Company Limited to change its capital structure. This company was first granted a charter of incorporation in 1949. This is the company which proposes to build a transmission pipeline from northern British Columbia and Alberta to supply natural gas from the Peace River bloc area to the lower mainland of British Columbia and, particularly, to the Greater yancouver area. Arrangements to purchase this gas have already been made with the B.C. Electric Company, the distributors for this area, and the Inland Natural Gas Company, serving communities in the interior of British Columbia.
In addition, the Pacific Northwest pipeline system in the United States northwest have filed an application with the United States federal power commission allowing Pacific Northwest to import 300 million cubic feet daily, contracted for from Westcoast. This, together with 100 million cubic feet daily contracted for, for British Columbia's use, will require a line capable of carrying 400 million cubic feet daily.
Permission to export gas from this area has been obtained from the government of Alberta.
Because the proposed facilities now required to serve the market in British Columbia and the western states will require larger pipe of greater capacity than was contemplated at the time of incorporation of the company, and because of the continued increase in discovery of natural gas in the Peace river area, the company must be in a position to increase its facilities to take care of gas made available by exploration and the market demands for gas which will accrue from the growth of population in British Columbia and the adjoining states of the United States.
To finance these larger undertakings, the company is asking that the capital structure be changed from five million shares without nominal or par value to twenty-five million shares.
I might say that on incorporation of the company in 1949 the fee paid was based on five million shares of the maximum value of $10, having a total maximum value of $50 million. By establishing 25 million shares at a value of $2 per share, the total capitalization of the company for which the fee has been paid remains at $50 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. Speaker:: The business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to the subject matter under consideration at five o'clock.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.



GOVERNMENT SERVICES


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when the proceedings were suspended at five o'clock to consider private and public bills I was dealing with comparative expenditures as between the year before the war and the current year, and I shall continue to discuss that matter now.
I had mentioned the figures in regard to the publication of departmental reports and other material which, in the year before the war, had called for no expenditure, but which in the current year called for an expenditure of $4,484,645. Then there is the very interesting item dealing with professional and special services which, in the year before the war, amounted to $4,104,000 and for the current year $32,014,774. That item of course covers the employment of people outside the ordinary government services, which embrace so many highly qualified people. I notice that in referring to that item I omitted to mention a very interesting change in the item as applied to the departments related to defence. Perhaps I should call the attention of hon. members to this, because in the three departments dealing with defence matters the total expenditure in the year before the war for professional and special services was $198,000 while that for the current year is $20,855,750.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these figures would suggest to anyone who has any sense of business responsibility that there should be an examination to see what can be done to increase efficiency, to improve the services and to co-ordinate some of those activities which have sprung up so rapidly under the pressures of war and the immediate post-war period. There is one way that this can be done, and that is for the government to set up an appropriate board of inquiry under the public Inquiries Act, with full power to examine this subject and to report to the government in the usual way. Following the ordinary practice, parliament would then receive the report as well.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, to move for the setting up of such

a board of inquiry. I would suggest that the government make this a free vote. I would earnestly request the government to consider the advisability of withdrawing any suggestion that a vote one way or another involves any test of confidence. I would hope that at this time it may be possible for the members on both sides of the house to indicate their belief that the nation's business shall be examined in the same way as any ordinary private business, and a general plan put before the government and parliament upon which we can act with knowledge of essential facts, knowledge that we do not possess at this time.
In making that proposal, Mr. Speaker- and I intend to deal with what has been done elsewhere-I was pleased that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River drew my attention to the Hydro Electric Power Commission. I recognize that he is not well acquainted with the facts in connection with that commission.


William Moore Benidickson: You are wrong there.


George Alexander Drew: For that reason, I would therefore like to remind him that there is a particular reason why the Hydro Electric Power Commission should be recalled in that respect. At the time that I had some responsibility in connection with that organization, following years of maladministration by a Liberal government in Ontario, I-


William Moore Benidickson: Just look at the increased expenditures in recent years.


George Alexander Drew: -I had occasion to deal with that very subject. I was confronted with problems of this kind, and at that time I carried out the very suggestion that I am now making here.


William Moore Benidickson: Twenty-two points that you have not delivered yet.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member was really acquainted with the Hydro Electric Power Commission, he would know that at the time I was called upon to assume some responsibility in that respect we did appoint a similar committee of inquiry. The people we appointed were people who not only knew something about the Hydro Electric Power Commission, but were experts, and the most highly qualified experts in their own field. For instance, I was able to bring over to this country the chairman of the British Electric Grid, which had just carried out a tremendous reorganization of the whole electric system in Britain. I also was able to obtain the services of Mr. Walter Gordon, a man in whose qualifications this government has demonstrated confidence. I also obtained the services of Stone and Webster,
Government Services
a firm of engineers in the United States, who had been responsible for the construction of some of the largest hydroelectric enterprises in that country. In addition to that, I brought into that group the highly-qualified engineers and accountants of the Hydro Electric Power Commission. We set up a task force that examined the whole hydroelectric organization, and it needed that badly after the lack of attention and the interference which there had been for some years. But that was done. We received a report from men who really understood the businesslike operation of an organization of that kind. As a result of that, the Hydro Electric Power Commission stands today as an example of how public enterprises can be conducted under standards similar to private enterprise, following an inquiry of that nature.


William Moore Benidickson: The most improvident thing that happened in years.


George Alexander Drew: I realize the hon. member does not know anything about this enterprise and is only repeating some of the campaign literature which probably has drifted into his possession during recent weeks.
I would not have mentioned this rather interesting example of a somewhat similar activity had it not been that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River displayed his lack of understanding of what is actually taking place in connection with that large public enterprise. I have dealt with it simply to show to other hon. members why I propose now that there be something in the nature of a committee of inquiry made up of real experts to examine the organization of government and government agencies. In the more limited field within which I once,had responsibility I carried out, not only in that instance but in other instances, exactly the type of inquiry that I am now suggesting could be carried out to the great advantage of parliament and the people of Canada if the government would act on the suggestion that is being made.


William Moore Benidickson: You left a real lemon.


George Alexander Drew: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does show some indication of needing a rest in the benign surroundings of the country in which he normally lives.
I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it should be possible to deal with this subject without the interjections which did make it necessary for me to deal with the comments which had been made. I would point out to hon. members that there have been many suggestions of the need for a thorough assessment and examination of our accounting methods and a general business set-up of the government
4290	HOUSE OF
Government Services
agencies as well as the government. For instance, in the annual report of Mr. Watson Sellar there is a finding which is made in regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I quote from page 18, item 52, of the last report presented to us. This is merely one example of the things that suggest, and would suggest to any person operating an ordinary business, the need for an examination of this kind:
Radio Canada building, Montreal, represents a [DOT]capital investment of approximately $4,500,000. It is regarded as public property acquired for the international shortwave broadcasting service, but a substantial portion is occupied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for purposes associated with its national service. No formal lease exists but the corporation pays rent at $1.79 per square foot for the space used for the ordinary services of the C.B.C. It cost $192,824 ($1.64 per square foot) to operate the building last year. The rental rate therefore is insufficient (a) to provide for depreciation, (b) to give a reasonable return on the capital investment, and (c) to recoup the cost of specially installed facilities. Consequently, the broadcasting corporation is being indirectly subsidized. Information provided is to the effect that the rate is under review.
That is simply one of the findings, which indicates a reason for examining this whole general situation.
Then we have the letter of Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General, to the Hon. James J. McCann, dated Ottawa, August 5,	1954.
Surely that letter would suggest to any businessman dealing with a similar proposition reasons why he should engage outside assistance to examine in a detached and objective manner the general organization of government and its agencies. The letter reads as follows:
Sir,
Re: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Having completed the audit of the accounts of the above-noted corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, I now report to you, in compliance with the requirements of section 87 of the Financial Administration Act the results of the examination both of the accounts, and of the financial statement forwarded herewith.
Allowance for depreciation and obsolescence. 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 and concluding with the words: ". . . it is suggested that the system be carefully reviewed, and appropriately revised and co-ordinated so that there may be no need to qualify the audit certificate in this regard".
Subsequent action by the corporation not having been of a nature to remedy the situation, the manner in which the accounts were kept during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, was not found to be conducive to satisfactory audit.


The letter then finishes with the statement that subject to the foregoing it is found that the general accounts represent the situation. Any businessman responsible for the administration of a large business who found that the head of one of his departments was continuing to refuse to make changes necessary for the efficient supervision of the business of that department would act, and act very positively and quickly. It must be remembered that this is the largest business in Canada. I suggest that what should be done in regard to other types of business certainly should be done in this particular case.
Other governments have not shown themselves to be unwilling to admit that there can be changes and that there can be improvements. The fact is that other governments have been able to carry out very important improvements. I am reminded of the fact that in Great Britain they have examined a number of their departments under inquiries similar to that which I am proposing.
But, after all, we have one government very close to us, it is true under a different constitutional system but actually dealing with similar problems and having the experience of an almost parallel expansion of activities. While the constitutional structure is different, the general business activities of Canada and the United States are so similar that when we see the tremendous expansion such as we have seen in both Canada and the United States during the same years we can well examine what is done in both countries.
Therefore we are interested in finding that in the United States the government did not suggest that everything was perfect. They decided that it would be wise to act like businessmen when dealing with the largest business that there is. I do hope that other hon. members are not being interrupted by the conversation of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). Probably he is still trying to convince the hon. member sitting next to him that he knows something about the Hydro Electric Power Commission, but I must confess that it is a little disturbing when two speeches are being made at the same time. I think I should tell the rest of the hon. members that one reason why the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does not know about Hydro Electric is that they do not get their electricity in Kenora from the Hydro Electric, it is provided by the M. and O. Company.


William Moore Benidickson: Very wrong.


An hon. Member:: You do not know.


George Alexander Drew: I am not wrong at all; the M. and O. Company provides the power.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member was formerly the premier of Ontario and yet he does not know.


George Alexander Drew: The M. and O. provides the power and the hydro take that power-


Mr. Speaker:: May I humbly request that the Chair be addressed and a private conversation not carried on across the floor of the house.


George Alexander Drew: I will just finish the sentence. The M. and O.-I want hon. members to know the facts-is a large pulp and paper company. It provides the power and some of that is taken by the Hydro Electric Power Commission in the areas around.


William Moore Benidickson: You have forgotten all about Ear falls.


George Alexander Drew: That is not in the city of Kenora.


William Moore Benidickson: It is in my riding.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member seems to be suffering from some indescribable indisposition. The fact is that I know Ear falls very well. I opened the Ear falls plant, so I should know something about it. I know exactly what area it serves.
I am simply mentioning this to remind hon. members that there have been other inquiries which produced helpful results. I recall particularly the Hoover commission in the United States. The inquiries carried on by that commission were most successful and many changes that could be made were suggested.
In so far as the Hoover commission is concerned, I need not remind hon. members that that has been discussed before in this house. The United States government found that their first activities in this field were must successful so they then set up another commission with even wider powers. In doing so they have had the advantage of a team of experts who have been able to inquire into every aspect of government, including the production and distribution of power and things of that kind. They have obtained facts upon which a general discussion of this subject can take place.
As far as this particular activity is concerned, we might well recall that such an able administrator as General Eisenhower saw fit to renew the activities of the Hoover commission. The second Hoover commission was set up with what was described as a task force of 100 experts including widely experienced accountants, businessmen and
Government Services
others whose training would best qualify them to conduct an inquiry of this kind.
They have been inquiring into various aspects of government. One thing that they have been emphasizing is that under the tremendous impact of the improvised expansion which was necessary-I want to emphasize the words "was necessary"-during the war years a lack of integration in accounting methods and supervision resulted in methods that did not provide either the most efficient operation or the savings that could have been effected.
I think we have all been following some of the things that have been done. It will be recalled that the first Hoover commission was appointed in 1947. Perhaps it is also worth recalling that the first Hoover commission was given that name because its chairman was a former Republican president of the United States. He was appointed by a Democratic government in the United States. This indicates that there was certainly an impartial and objective inquiry.
That commission made its report and so well satisfied was the government with that experiment that President Eisenhower appointed the second Hoover commission in 1953. That commission has been reporting since then and already many reports have been received from the task forces that have been dealing with different subjects.
In regard to the report of the first Hoover commission, the New York Times, which I think most people will regard as one of the very responsible newspapers in the United States, said that 72 per cent of the proposals of the first commission appointed in 1947 had been either wholly or partially put into effect. Then also there was a very interesting organization set up in the United States, known as the citizens committee for the Hoover report. That voluntary committee sought to emphasize the need for efficiency and economy. That citizens' committee, made up of highly qualified people seeking efficiency in government, calculated that, of the 273 specific proposals put forward for more efficient and more economic administration of the government, 116 had been completely accomplished, 35 mostly accomplished, and 45 partly accomplished. The committee found also that, when the full effect of the proposals adopted had been felt, this would result in a monetary saving of at least $5 billion annually. I recall that figure because we have emphasized our belief that there can be large savings by an ordinary businesslike examination of the administrative figures of government and the general organization of government. Dealing with the organization of government, they found that $5 billion

Government Services
annually could be saved merely as a result of the carrying out of the recommendations of the reports of the first Hoover commission.
Then we come to the second commission, which was given very wide powers to examine various branches of government, and we find that the many reports which they have made suggest further substantial increases of a very striking nature. Again, to look at a very responsible newspaper in the United States, I find that the Wall Street Journal for May 20 of this year-and it is a very reputable financial publication-comments on the second Hoover commission under the heading "Hoover Says Commission to Make Suggestions for $13 Billion Saving". These are savings effected in a structure which expanded under forces and stresses very similar to those which caused the expansion here. The Wall Street Journal says that the taxpayers can be saved a total of $6 billion in regard to ordinary operating expenses and in addition that the treasury can gain a further $7 billion in moneys that are now being spent in connection with activities which could be better carried out, according to the Hoover report, by private enterprise in the United States.
Whether the figures are exactly comparable, at least let us remember that the first Hoover report resulted in proposals that actually called for savings and have resulted in large savings which, fully implemented, will reduce expenditures in this field by $5 billion a year, and that the second Hoover commission has made recommendations which would result in further annual savings of $6 billion a year. It is true that we cannot give the exact figures but, remembering that the United States is just a little over ten times as large as Canada, surely it is perfectly obvious that we could expect and would have reason to expect savings of the order of hundreds of millions of dollars if we carried out an appropriate examination of the general business of government in this country. That does not suggest for one moment that there is any dishonesty, that there is any misappropriation of funds or anything of that kind. When business experts go into any ordinary big private business and, as they often do, save hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions for the shareholders of those companies, they do that, not because there has been any misappropriation but because they have found that the business organization grew without effective integration of its activities and that, as a result of a more appropriate set-up, the avoidance of duplication and the better employment of the people actually engaged, they have obtained these results.

Now, let us remember that in this country, in addition to departments of government, we have many enterprises that will bear examination. Let us just look at the crown corporations which would bear examination. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation needs examination. I am talking about it from the business point of view on the basis of the reports of the Auditor General. The findings of the Auditor General make it perfectly clear that there should be an examination of the business structure, and its very unusual set-up would also suggest that. Then we have the Canadian farm loan board, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, Canadian National Steamships Limited, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Eldorado Aviation Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, Northern Transportation Company Limited, Northwest Territories Power Commission, Polymer Corporation Limited, Trans-Canada Air Lines. These are only some of the great corporations operated by the government, in regard to which every hon. member here is entitled to information. We know we are not able to get full information in regard to the Polymer Corporation. We know we are not able to get full information in regard to Canadian National Railways. We know we are not able to get full information in regard to Trans-Canada Air Lines. We know perfectly well we cannot get full information in regard to many of these because we are told that to disclose these facts would be placing those organizations in an unfair competitive position. If we accept that-and I certainly do not accept it-then the only hope we have is to have one of these objective examinations such as have been carried out in the United States.
I should also point out that another thing which the Hoover report dealt with in a very interesting way was the paper war that is carried on within their departments. It pointed out that there was an unbelievable waste of paper, to say nothing of the human effort involved. In the New York Times of February 21 of this year there was the following heading:	"Hoover Unit Bids U. S.
cut Red Tape to Save Millions". Of course, it is true we have had the statement, "What's a million?" But this is not a single million; this is millions. This is one of the things that are symptomatic of a general condition. The Hoover report already filed suggests better management of the paper work of government; and how forcefully it deals with some of these slick publications issued by government departments to extol the hidden

virtues of some of those associated with the various activities of those departments! Those reports make interesting reading, when we see the figures of transportation dealt with by the Hoover report. They indicate the wanderlust that gets into people once they find that there is nobody restraining their movements. There is nothing irregular, nothing unnatural, but if nobody is looking into the matter it is strange how distant fields not only look green but beckon so strongly that the farthest point to which a ticket can take one is the point that seems to be the most natural. Because of that the Hoover commission recommended that there be a director of transportation just to see if the trip really is necessary, and just to see also if there could not be certain savings. It also suggested certain directors to look into telephone calls, telegrams and communications of that kind. All of it has an astonishing similarity to what we see here in this country.
I do not propose to deal any longer with the Hoover reports because I know hon. members have read them, but there are so many things that suggest similarities. For instance, one of the task forces of the Hoover commission dealt with the fact there were so many architects in scattered offices here and there. Some of them did not know that other architects were doing exactly the same thing. It has already been commented on during the present session that there are 89 architects throughout the government services responsible to their respective departments but without any co-ordination of their activities under one central guiding body.
Then, what about the various activities of different departments which are precisely the same? What, for instance, about the national film board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Let me refer to them as an example that could be extended over hundreds of examples, and I say hundreds, right across the board. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is now using a great many news films for its telecasts. We also have the national film board and private agencies taking news films. In many cases these people are taking the same news films on the same occasions. Surely if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is going to be taking news and other films of that nature they could be the government agency to take that kind of film and supply them to the national film board or, if the national film board with its longer experience is the one to do it, then let them have the handling of them on the directive of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I cannot tell and no member of the government can tell at this time how much could be saved, but one thing is certain,
Government Services
that a great deal could be saved just by that one simple procedure. Other examples of that kind could be multiplied throughout the whole of the system.
There is another reason why I think there should be an examination. I think the time is overdue now for an examination of some of these agencies of government just to see where they fit into our private enterprise system. Let us really recognize that our economic system is a private enterprise system and that it is based upon the belief that the genius of individual effort and individual initiative provides the generative force which has given us the prosperity and growth that we have in this country. We should be very careful that, in a perfectly normal desire to meet emergencies, we do not create agencies which restrict that great human driving power which proved so successful during the last world war. If ever there was a real test of private enterprise it was the initiative of human beings brought up in a private enterprise economy who were able to adjust themselves suddenly to the dreadful demands of war and to improvise with all the initiative and ingenuity that arose under those conditions.
Then let us remember that these great public enterprises pay no taxes and little or no interest on their enterprises except for the special provisions which have recently been made. In the ordinary course of events they do not pay taxes such as are paid by private enterprises. I recognize there are exceptions, but the general principle is a limitation of taxes on publicly owned property.
Then there is very real evidence of a desire not to include depreciation in government accounting. That has been manifest in many of the accounts we have examined. However, without going into detail we do know that many of these organizations were built up under great pressure, and there should be an objective examination by an independent inquiry into the general set-up. We should be told whether these are in the best interests of Canada, and in the case of those that we know will and must continue to operate, like the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, both of which, I might say, were brought into existence by Conservative governments, we should have a re-examination and the whole system should be properly analysed to see where the impact on private enterprise is or is not appropriate, recognizing that we are a private enterprise country.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that just as in the case of private business we should examine them on a businesslike basis or we

Government Services
will encourage inflation. In fact, the government will get a vested interest in inflation unless it tackles this problem, because unless it does so the only way it will be able to meet some of the continuing obligations will be to encourage still further inflation by deliberately inflationary methods. Do not let anybody suggest that cannot be done because it has been done in country after country where they did not examine government business in the very manner that is being suggested here. Just think of all the countries of Europe which, a comparatively few years ago, thought their economies were as sound as a rock and whose currencies are debased today to a point where all the life savings of millions of people have been completely wiped out or, in the best of cases, substantially reduced in many of the countries.
We still have a chance but the time of grace is not too long. We still have a chance to examine our own affairs and to reverse the trend, to place the business of government on a sound basis. As I conclude these remarks I repeat my earlier suggestion which I placed before the government. If there should be a free vote, as we have had on different occasions, I would hope that hon. members, seeing what has been accomplished elsewhere to improve the general efficiency of government and the agencies of government, would support the motion I am going to place before the house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question he deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the appointment of a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act with powers to examine into and report upon the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government with a view to ascertaining and making recommendations respecting:
(a)	economies and improved services which could be effected by reorganization and elimination of duplication;
(b)	the status and function of crown corporations and other government agencies and their effect on our free enterprise economic system."


Major James William Coldwell: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being-


Major James William Coldwell: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to adjourn the debate?


Major James William Coldwell: I will adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think he wants me to call it six o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: I did call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: I called it six o'clock twice.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not hear the hon. member because I was thinking of the amendment and some of the precedents that I was reading, while at the same time listening to the Leader of the Opposition. I may as well say now that it occurs to me this amendment deals with efficiency in government services. I should like hon. members to consider that during the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the acting leader of the opposition moved an amendment which appears on page 31 of Hansard for January 10, 1955. It reads in part as follows:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary measures:
(d) to eliminate waste and extravagance in government and improve its efficiency.
Then on the budget the hon. member for Greenwood moved, at page 2954 of Hansard for April 19, 1955, the following amendment:
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that in its budget proposals the government has failed:
(c)	to curb its own extravagance and inefficiency.
The house will recall that, as recorded on page 3425 of Hansard for May 3, 1955, I issued a warning that questions that had already been decided by the house should not be offered for decision again in the same session. I referred hon. members to some rulings that had been given by my predecessors, namely Mr. Speaker Black and Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and also to two authorities on the point, Bourinot and Beauchesne. During the debate on the budget the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) did speak about the reduction of expenditures as recorded at page 2945. I see that in the same debate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who was the seconder of the amendment, spoke about what he called the fifth problem the budget ignored, the problem of waste and inefficiency. His words are to be found on pages 3396 and 3397 of Hansard for May 3, 1955. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) dealt with the point as well, and his words appear on page 3613 of Hansard for May 10, 1955.
I think I have said enough at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: Since you have raised the matter now, and doubtless will be considering it, may I make a brief observation which I would not wish to suggest concluded my

remarks on the point. Each motion to which Your Honour has referred was a motion which expressed regret that certain things had not been done or sought a declaration that there was waste and inefficiency. Now, unless the defeat of those motions is to be taken as a declaration that this is the best of all governments and that they are flawless, I do not know how it would be possible to suggest to the house practical ways in which improvement in the business of this house should be carried out. We would be denied that opportunity.
After all, we are merely saying we want a committee set up to examine the business organization, to consider ways in which efficiency could be increased and savings effected, and the general aspects of our crown organizations in relation to private enterprise submitted to examination. I do submit that if resolutions suggesting waste and extravagance, and regretting that certain things have not been done, are voted down by a majority which finds it convenient to support the government, if that is going to wrap around the government such a veil of sanctity that we cannot even make practical suggestions for improvement, we really would have paralysed the business of this house.
Naturally, I leave that suggestion with you until this matter is under consideration again.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that when the acting leader of the opposition moved the amendment to the address in reply, I indicated to him at the time that each point mentioned in the amendment would be just that many blocking motions in the future. I felt the amendment was rather long. Now, later, when the amendment on the budget came along and we had another recital of various points which were a repetition of many of the points recited in the amendment on the address, I contented myself with issuing a caveat. In the first amendment on the address in reply we have words to the effect that the house regrets the government failed to eliminate extravagance and inefficiency. In the amendment on the budget the words were to the effect that the house regretted the government had failed to curb its own extravagance and inefficiency. Now, we have an amendment to the effect that consideration be given to the appointment of a commission to try to eliminate extravagance and inefficiency.
Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has overlooked this point that the amendment to the address in reply, the amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means on the budget and this amendment on a motion to go into supply, are three want of
Government Services
confidence motions. When I issued the caveat a few days ago I was dealing with the amendment on the budget, and I referred hon. members to the Journals for Tuesday, November 22, 1932, page 113, a ruling by Mr. Speaker Black. It is not an isolated one but is one that fits the situation with which we are faced now perfectly.
Mr. Speaker Black had to give a decision on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. To this an amendment was moved by Mr. Heaps as follows:
"In the opinion of this house it is desirable that a committee or commission be appointed to consider the economic situation in the dominion with special reference to unemployment and to report back during the present session of parliament."
A point of order has been raised that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it again introduces a matter that was debated and disposed of when the Right Honourable the Leader of the Opposition moved as part of an amendment to the address:
"The house regrets that, except the dole, the government has no policy with respect to the relief of unemployment."
Mr. Speaker Black continues:
I have carefully considered the arguments presented on the question of order, examined the authorities and precedents of both the British and Canadian houses of parliament. In the debate on the amendment of the Right Honourable the Leader of the Opposition to the address I find that he suggested that a committee or commission be appointed and given charge of the whole question of unemployment relief which shows that the subject matter of the proposed amendment was then open to discussion and actually debated. If this amendment is allowed it inevitably follows that there will be a repetition of the debate on unemployment.
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion, for instance, a matter already decided by the house cannot be discussed. Bourinot 420
This amendment is offered on the motion to go into committee of ways and means and not being accepted by the government is a motion of want of confidence and the fact that it provides for the appointment of a commission or committee with special reference to unemployment is in effect a condemnation of the government's policy on that question.
The house has refused to condemn the government's policy on unemployment by rejecting the amendment moved to the address by the Leader of the Opposition.
In view of that decision by the house I cannot find that this amendment being a motion of want of confidence dealing also with unemployment is in order.
Now, the only flaw in this line of argument would be for the government to not consider this motion as one of want of confidence. Pending the time we hear from the government on that score, I shall reserve any further judgment. As it is six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: If I may expedite the business of the house, I would point out to Your Honour that under no circumstances would

Government Services
the government entertain a motion by way of amending the supply motion as other than one of want of confidence.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances I must very regretfully declare the amendment out of order, for the reasons I have already given.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It is past six o'clock; but does the Leader of the Opposition wish to speak?


George Alexander Drew: I had not thought that you had concluded the argument. However, it is quite obvious that you have made up your mind, so I shall not extend the discussion at the moment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the house a grievance having to do with agricultural matters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to continue the subject discussed this afternoon. I understand I may do so. Am I seen?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue until stopped.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Your Honour, I think I know the reasoning behind the desire of the hon. member for Greenwood to continue certain remarks. May I point out to you that there is a possibility that we-and when I say "we" perhaps I mean Your Honour-are confusing two things. On the motion to go into supply there are two kinds of speeches that may be made, namely, one, discussing public business and the other discussing grievances. We have followed the practice in this house, as I recall it, of Your Honour encouraging persons to continue the discussion of a grievance until it is exhausted, before proceeding to another.
As I apprehend the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, the matter under discussion could not be described as a grievance; it could be described as a matter of general public business. That being so, it does not follow, I suggest, that we have to continue with the same subject. If it were a grievance, I suggest we should.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on that point might I remind Your Honour that a ruling has been

made based upon the fact that it is related to what had been expressed in the form of a grievance or a complaint on an earlier occasion relating to a similar subject. To the extent that we have been able to establish that this was a form of public business unrelated to earlier complaints in regard to extravagance and waste, then, under the ruling that Your Honour made, and which it is not my intention to question at this point, we most certainly would have been in a different position from what we are now.
The rule, as I understand it, is that grievances may be raised. This was a grievance in the way in which the term is used to the extent that we placed before the house certain things that we thought should be done. It is quite proper to point out that we have placed the same thoughts before the house on other occasions in a different form, but, Mr. Speaker, I very strongly urge that the broad term of raising grievances covers the very point, and the only limitation is not that there be one class which is described as a grievance and another class which is described as a positive raising of public business, but rather that in raising grievances there may be only one motion. We have raised that motion. Your Honour has ruled it out of order. But I submit that it certainly comes within the broad term of grievance as used in relation to the rule that we are discussing, while we may ourselves have put it forward in a positive form.
Might I say, Your Honour, before you make a ruling, that of course there is also the fact that the leader of the house has divested himself of the opportunity to raise the argument that he now raises by saying that under no conceivable circumstances would he agree to a motion which was an amendment to the motion to go into supply. Consequently, he himself has established that this is a grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it, wide latitude is given to hon. members to air grievances on the motion to go into supply. The limitations are set out in citation 467 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which says, in part:
. . . shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
In connection with the first part of the citation that I read, which is to the effect that a grievance shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, hon. members know that sometimes grievances are put forward without any amendment being

submitted. That is citation 468. An amendment has been submitted which had the effect of directing the house to make a decision upon the amendment. I ruled the amendment out of order because in the main it dealt with a matter which had already been put in the form of an amendment on earlier occasions and decided upon by the house.
We are now in the same position, the amendment having been ruled out of order, as if no amendment had been moved at all. Until the Leader of the Opposition had moved his amendment, he had covered a wide field of government administration with respect to pointing out inquiries that should be made in order to strengthen the administration and also crown corporations that are agencies of the government. I am inclined to think that the discussion can go on on that particular subject matter, and any violations that I can foresee will probably have to be dealt with under standing order 40, subsection 2, which deals with repetition of arguments already used in previous debates which have been concluded, either by the hon. member who is about to speak or by other hon. members. But, as hon. members know, wide latitude is given with respect to grievances on the motion to go into supply, and I would hesitate very much at this moment to limit the discussion. I would rather see it go on, if that is the wish of hon. members, in the hope that there would be no repetition of the arguments that have already been used with respect to some of the points that may be brought forward at this time on the subject introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that what I say will at least satisfy you that I am continuing on the line which you have approved.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I realize that what is happening is that we are suggesting to the government that they might improve their administration by getting the assistance of some experts to look at what they have been doing, I find it hard to believe that their answer is in the negative, or would have been in the negative, had it come to a vote. To me it seems so obvious that this would be a desirable course. Let us have a look at it. What is the situation of this nation's business? What kind of business is it that we are engaged in? After all, we are engaged in the biggest business that goes on in Canada by far. Well, of course, the first thing that strikes one about it is that it has grown enormously in the last 15 years. It has mounted by some 10 times or more. The second thing that strikes one about it-and this is a very unusual but a very important thing-is that it is a business where those 50433-271
Government Services
who are carrying it on can fix the income of the business. The income of the business is what they determine it is to be, and of course that in itself is a great hazard; that in itself is a great temptation to be easy-going with money, because, after all, if you do not have enough it does not mean you go broke; it just means that you get more money, as we are going to do this year because we are budgeting for a deficit.
I feel that when you consider the figures given this afternoon-I am not going to review them; I have heard them before; they were not new to me, and yet they struck me all over again-you have the feeling of what would happen if it was a private business. Well, of course, the answer is it could not happen; it would have been checked long ago. And so I repeat that all these things seem to me to indicate that an inquiry, assuming it is carried out by competent people, for people who are conscious of the need of help, who want help, could not be anything but a good thing. Of course, in private business it is the most natural thing in the world.
Let us have a look at these men in private business. Most of them have been in it all ttieir lives. They have been trained up to the job. It has been a matter of economic life or death to them. They naturally had to give everything they had in order to be a success; and yet they are only too ready to go outside and check up on what they have done. It does not mean that they abdicate their own judgment. I do not mean that they put themselves in the hands of some outside company because, as was pointed out to me by a shrewd observer this afternoon, sometimes the ideas of outside experts may be grandiose. Sometimes they may have extravagant ideas. Nevertheless, to have a check-up by an independent mind is good.
These heads of corporations are not weaklings; they are not men who have no selfconfidence; they are not men who are rushing off every day fearful of their own judgment and trying to substitute someone else's for it. They are men of self-confidence; but nevertheless they feel that from time to time it is wise to check themselves up from the outside, to get competent people to come in and look over what they are doing.
These efficiency companies do not just rise out of the air; they do not rise up without there being some field of want. People do not pay their high fees just for the fun of it, they pay their fees because they feel it is worth while to do so. They do so because they believe in having fresh and independent views. They want the truth, and there is nothing to prevent them getting the truth. Sometimes we in this house are a little

Government Services
handicapped by the fact that we know that we represent the views of other people, we know that we have to make our views palatable to other people and sometimes we may be a little handicapped in following an argument just where it leads. That makes it all the more important in my opinion that those who are engaged in the business of government should be ready and willing and anxious to get assistance from the outside.
What is the situation with regard to administration when we look at the cabinet?
I have proper respect for the cabinet and I think it worthy of some of the esteem in which its members hold themselves. Nothing that I say is intended to be derogatory. But I think it is also fair to say, and I think it is obvious to say that few ministers come into the departments with wide experience in administration. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was an exception.
What are the essentials of administration?
I suggest that a good administrator is a man who understands the advantages of delegation. That seems to be the key of the whole business. Delegation, I suggest further, means that he can pick good men, and that he will give them their heads, that he will give them plenty of responsibility and back them up. That is an awfully easy thing to say but it is extremely difficult to do.
I want to say another thing which most certainly can be said without any offence. We have a great many lawyers in the cabinet. I tried to be a lawyer once so that anything I say now cannot be regarded as derogatory to lawyers. But I say deliberately that it is only by an act of God that a lawyer is a good administrator, because after all-


Frank Exton Lennard: You can say that again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I believe that an act of God has been defined as an act that no reasonable man would take. As I said a moment ago, the essence of an administrator is that he knows how to delegate. But the essence of the whole life of a lawyer in practice is that of a man who does not delegate, it is that of a man whose personal services are wanted by his clients. I say with all respect and deference and regard for the profession that it is only an act of God if a lawyer is a good administrator.
I am not overlooking the civil servants who are there standing behind the ministers. There is no one that has more respect for them than I. They are trained men who have come up gradually, but on the other nand to some extent their life has been a secluded life. They have not had wide contacts with the world, they have not entered into tne rough
[Mr. Macdonnell.)
and tumble that people in business encounter. Furthermore I would be willing to hazard a small sum that if one could get a really freely expressed comment of the civil servant in the higher echelon as to whether he would like, however competent he may be in his own work, to have a check made by someone else looking at his work, he would get this reply, "Why wouldn't I?"
If he did not make such a reply then I would say that he is not as good a man as I thought he was. I would feel that he was conscious of some weakness, that he was not fully confident of his own work, that he was afraid or at any rate hesitant to allow an independent view to be brought in. Therefore I repeat that I think the highest type of civil servant would be all for an independent view. That adds strength to my feeling that it is desirable.
I come now to what I think is a most important point. I ask whether there have been any experiments, whether anything along this line has been done by the government. Of course the answer is that it has. I have here a report made several years ago in relation to the national film board, and hon. members will remember the reference that was made to the Woods-Gordon report in connection with the post office. In those two cases, for reasons which obviously I am not familiar with, there was a reference to an outside source. I want to refer to those because to me they offer the strongest possible argument in favour of what I am now arguing for.
If we had found in the case of these two reports that the investigators had no comment or criticism of any kind to make, then I think it might be said that that was prima facie evidence that my suggestion was unsound. It could then be said that when the government did do what I wanted them to do, when they did go outside to get allegedly expert people to make a report, they got a clean sheet. It is for that reason that I want to put on the record a brief reference to what was said about the national film board and also about the post office.
I suggest that if we find, as I shall suggest we do find, that these reports are critical, that they indicate all was not well; if we find, as I think we shall find, that these reports were the occasion of substantial and even drastic changes in the administration of these departments, then I shall feel that that is a strong argument for the argument I am making. I might just interject here, lest I forget, that it seems to me that what was said this afternoon by my leader about the Hoover report is in itself a very cogent argument.

We are extraordinarily like the Americans in many ways. When we find that they have spent the large sums of money which they did on those reports, when we realize the tremendous effort that has been put into the work implied by these reports, it seems to me that that is the strongest argument-putting it at the very lowest point-that we could find that that would be a useful course for us to follow.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the comments made with reference to the film board. The criticism was not strong, but nevertheless I think it warrants the time that anyone might spend in reflecting on it. This is a report by J. D. Woods and Gordon Limited, made by a man who I think has the respect of this house regardless of party. I submit that the suggestions made here are indications in connection with this small and rather tiny department which might be of tremendous importance in connection with the larger ones. Before I go on to the film board, I digress here to speak for a moment further about the huge department, the largest of all, the defence department. We have tried very hard here in this house to suggest to the predecessor of the present minister, who is a friend of us all, that he had a terrific job on his hands-he had over 30,000 civilian employees apart from the huge military staff-that it had grown like a mushroom and that it needed the most expert assistance that could be brought in. We did not get very far with the minister. The minister was capable of prodigies of individual work himself; he worked with almost feverish energy. I sometimes wondered if he did not think that if he worked as hard as he could, twice as hard as most of us, somehow or other that would do the job. At any rate when I pressed him and asked him how he was undertaking this huge addition to the work of the department, the answer I got was to the effect that there always has been a defence department, it has grown a bit certainly, but we are doing our job. I took that as said in good faith. If working, as I say, with feverish energy would have done the job, then I am sure it would have been done, but it left me with the feeling that there was no recognition of an obvious fact crying out for recognition, that here was a terrific job that needed special effort and special assistance.
Having said that about the Department of National Defence, I want to come back and read a short extract from this report on the film board because this is the kind
50433-271J
Government Services
of thing which if applied to the huge departments, should pay off with terrific results. This is the report made in 1950. I quote:
The administrative controls and procedures of the board have improved considerably in recent years but there is still room for substantial further improvement. Present shortcomings are mainly due to three causes: The business management section has lacked sufficient authority to control the expenditure of funds; the board has been obliged to work within the framework of government accounting practices which were not designed for a productive organization and are not suited to its needs.
I think that is a very important point. Here is a department of government which has gone into business and does not have the proper tools. I read further from page 24 of the report:
In the past, difficulties have arisen because commitments have been made without regard to the availability of funds; for example, in some cases: (a) Budgets have not been prepared until after the production of a film has commenced; budgets have been prepared to cover part of the work only;
I skip the rest and go down to (d):
Prints of films have been ordered by the distribution department without reference to the business management section as to the availability of funds.
I am not going to weary the house with further quotations. I submit that that proves exactly the point I am trying to make, that it could be of the greatest assistance to a department if some competent, reliable person of good sense were brought in and asked to give advice.
Now I wish to refer a little more at length to the Post Office Department, because, as we remember, a good deal more by way of criticism was said in regard to that. I am reading now from Hansard of January 15, 1954, page 1173:
With regard to the operations branch the report says-: "The work of the operations branch has over the years increased to the point where the staff at all levels are overloaded with a multitude of routine problems and correspondence. No one has had the time to develop policies which can be applied on an over-all basis."
Later on page 1173:
Here is one of the things the report has to say regarding controls:
"The branch is operating under a severe handicap as there are no standards established to measure the relative efficiency of a given method of operation. The lack of such standards is particularly felt when requests are received for additions to staff or accommodation."
One further quotation:
The cost information available to the department discloses that the special delivery service is operated at a considerable loss. In some centres the postal rate for a special delivery letter is less than the contractor is paid to deliver the letter. The user of the special delivery service is interested in a rapid and assured delivery. It is believed

Government Services that the majority of users would be prepared to pay considerably more for this service if their requirements were met.
Here is a statement of a condition which apparently was not known to the department.
I repeat it:
In some centres the postal rate for a special delivery letter is less than the contractor is paid to deliver the letter.
That is apart from all the work and overhead in the Post Office Department itself.
Now, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that to me the arguments in favour of this seem convincing, and I have still to hear any argument against it. I cannot remember any real argument at all having been made against it. I would not undertake to say that no argument has been made, but certainly none that seems to me worthy of consideration. I would have thought that all the arguments were on the one side. The expense would be trivial and the possibilities of recovery enormous. As I say, it almost seems as if we on this side were not to be allowed to have any good ideas of any kind. The mere fact that we put something forward apparently is enough.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend knows we have often accepted good suggestions from the opposition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I may have a poor memory, but I do not remember many.


Walter Edward Harris: Maybe there were not many.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is open to the minister to say that they would have accepted them if they had been good; that is always open to him. But I will repeat that I hope very seriously that if this is going to be turned down we shall be given the reason. There may be good reasons, but I do not know them.
I remember a remark made in the New Statesman and Nation about Lord Beaver-brook. They did not think much of him, but they did say this, and I think it is applicable to the present situation. In the early days of the war they said that they would like to see Lord Beaverbrook put into every department of government for just two months. They meant that he would clear out all the cobwebs, that he would throw out all the preconceived ideas and make everyone re-think what they were doing.
It also reminds me of a story about Churchill when he became first lord of the admiralty as a young man-I think he was 37 at the time. He went all through the departments and asked all the people to tell him what they were doing. After they told him, he asked a question that they had never been asked before. He asked "Why?" That 

apparently was quite a shock to them. I suggest that something like that should happen here. I do not wish to derogate from the members of the cabinet, and I do not wish to derogate from the civil servants, for whom I have a great respect. I am talking about what I believe is an inescapable situation where things are allowed to run on from decade to decade. In some departments we would probably find that they were doing things because they did them in the time of Sir John Macdonald. I do not doubt that the things that were done in Sir John's time were wise, but that does not say that they are going to be wise 60 years later.
It seems manifest good sense to do this.
I should like to point out that this comes, not from a man without experience in administration. I should like to recall in passing that my leader was prime minister of Ontario for five years and, speaking for myself, I have never yet heard anyone of any party in Ontario say he was not a good prime minister. The suggestion comes from him and the rest of us support it and are enthusiastic about it. I hope it will not suffer the fate it had before, for I say, subject to being corrected, that I do not recall an argument being made against it. I say that to me this is manifest good sense. At the worst we will have spent a little money. Perhaps we will feel afterwards we did not get value received, but I do not fear that. There would be value received anyway because if no criticism were made the government could have the feeling that everything was all right and they could make use of it in the next election. I would take a chance on that myself. I would risk the government getting a clean sheet. Therefore I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that consideration should he given to the appointment of a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act with powers to examine into and report upon the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I really had not anticipated entering this debate but since it has continued on the basis of the subject matter introduced in support of the amendment you declared out of order before the dinner recess, and since another amendment of a rather different kind has now been moved, I wish to say something about the subject matter surrounding the amendment. First of all I want to say that the members of the parliament of Canada are elected to do a certain job and when we are elected we assume

certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities as far as the opposition is concerned and, indeed, private members on the government side too, is that we shall scrutinize very carefully expenditures of the government and proposals of the government for expenditures. It seems to me that is a fundamental duty of members of the House of Commons. I do not believe that at any time, unless the circumstances are very exceptional, we should abdicate those rights and powers that are properly the function of parliament.
It has been said of course that a somewhat similar commission was set up in the United States by congress under former President Hoover. But let me point out that the parliament of Canada and, indeed, the parliaments of the commonwealth of nations, are not comparable in many respects to the congress of the United States. In the House of Commons we have sitting before us every day of the week that we sit ministers of the crown who are responsible directly to the elected members who sit in this house. The advisers of the president of the United States, that is. the cabinet of the United States, are not members of congress. They are the personal choice of the president, are not responsible directly to the members of congress and do not occupy seats either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.
Consequently the situation in the United States regarding the examination of accounts, the questioning of ministers and the inquiry into public matters of that description is essentially different in method from those that we adopt in the parliaments of the commonwealth, of which the parliament of Canada is one. One of the major responsibilities of the members of the House of Commons is that of inquiring into the expenditures of the government and satisfying themselves that those expenditures are being properly, efficiently and economically made. So I say that there is a fundamental difference in the approach to this problem between the United States and Canada.
Let it not be said that in saying this I am condoning in any way the extravagances which I believe can be found in government administration. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) quite properly placed before the house a substantial list of very startling expenditures that, I suppose, had been prepared for him very carefully by persons in his office or elsewhere, and which indicated there were very large expenditures in certain fields that I do not think can be justified at any time.
For the last several years I have looked at the expenditures of the first department he mentioned today, the Department of
Government Services
National Defence. It is a very difficult thing for a member of the opposition or, indeed, any private member of the house, to rise and suggest that the estimates of the Department of National Defence should be cut by $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $400 million or $500 million because, unfortunately, the Department of National Defence is surrounded by a veil of secrecy. If one endeavours to curtail the estimates of that department one is accused immediately of being opposed to adequate defence of our country. I think there is no individual, no person in this house, who would cripple our country in defending itself against the threat of aggression or actual aggressive action on the part of any country in the world.
Yet I say I am convinced in my own mind that the figures produced this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition confirm in part the opinion I have held for a long time that we could save $100 million, $200 million, $300 million or more if we could examine the expenditures of that department. Let us take travelling expenses. Personnel travel unnecessarily I think from one end of the country to the other by air or by train with all the facilities that the railways offer to travellers by train these days available to them. I am not complaining about that because when we send our young men across the country for training in the army, navy or air force I think they are entitled to as comfortable a trip as we ourselves like to have when we move from one end of the country to the other. But I am convinced that if the house could go into the expenditures of this and some other departments we could effect very considerable savings and economies.
Consequently let it not be said that in criticizing the proposal made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) or the proposal ruled out of order this afternoon I am in any way condoning any of the extravagances I am convinced could be discovered if this house constituted itself in a manner that would enable it to inquire into these expenditures very carefully indeed. We of the opposition, of course, have to take some blame ourselves. We have not endeavoured to have one of the standing committees of the house meet and function as it was intended to function. I refer to the public accounts committee. I do not think there has been a meeting of that committee this session. In my view that is rather scandalous, but I am not blaming the government alone for that. I think we of the opposition are equally to blame with the government if the public accounts committee does not sit and does not function properly. This afternoon and again

Government Services
this evening mention was made of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the necessity of inquiring into the expenditures of that organization. We get that opportunity almost every session. Almost every session a committee is set up. One was set up this session. What are the terms of reference? The terms of reference are that the report of the broadcasting corporation shall be referred to this committee for examination. The report of the broadcasting corporation, which includes a financial report, is sent to that committee.
What has that committee become? It has become an avenue of propaganda for the private broadcasting stations in this country. Almost the whole time of that committee is occupied in listening to criticism of the C.B.C. from the point of view of the private broadcasting companies or listening to propagandists for the Canadian association of broadcasters, the private organizations. That has been true over the years. If we on this side of the house are going to complain about alleged extravagances within the C.B.C., then let us indulge in a little self-examination to ascertain whether or not we have accepted the opportunities presented to us for an examination of the expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The same is true, of course, of many other organizations, organizations which, as the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, were established by Conservatives. If there has been any lack of investigation into some of the financial operations of the government, then, as I said before, we of the opposition parties share a responsibility because we have not pressed adequately for the functioning of the public accounts committee. We share responsibility because, when the reports of the broadcasting corporation or some other corporation have been referred to a special committee, instead of going into the financial affairs of the organization most of the time has been spent in propaganda discussions as to whether or not the corporation should lose some of its powers and whether private interests should obtain greater privileges in that connection.
I am not going to criticize government expenditures except on the ground on which I have already criticized them, namely that I think there are extravagances and that sufficient economies are not effected by the government. I do not go along with the idea that government expenditures, because they are government expenditures, are inflationary. As a matter of fact, I would take the opposite position. I would say that if the government taxes the people of the country then they deny to the people of the country demands that might lead to scarcities and inflated
fMr. Coldwell.]
prices. We in this country are being very heavily taxed now. Secondly, if the government borrows from the savings of the people, and does not go to the Bank of Canada as in effect we did during wartime when such expenditures were inflationary, then that is actually deflationary because we are taking from the people by way of a loan the savings that they might otherwise spend in seeking consumable goods. If that money were spent in that form, it might conceivably lead to competition for commodities which would increase prices and bring about inflationary conditions. I am not, therefore, criticizing from that point of view. I take the opposite point of view in this respect.
I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning. I am convinced in my own mind that if this house functioned as it should, if the committees functioned as they should, and if we -were permitted to look into some of the departments of government where expenditures are mainly confidential and where many of the activities are classified or secret, we could effect considerable economies in those departments. As I said at the beginning, I have particularly in mind the one department which we cannot investigate fully, the Department of National Defence. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that accounts for telegrams and telephone calls and so forth are out of all proportion. As a matter of fact today I can mail a letter from this House of Commons at noon, and it will reach my own constituency nearly 2,000 miles away the next day.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is the post office.


Major James William Coldwell: The Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Pickersgill) takes a bow. I do not believe he has anything to bow about. If he were on his job he would canvass the government departments to see that they spent more money on air mail and less on telephones and telegrams. I do not believe my hon. friend has anything to bow about in that regard. It always amazes me that something this parliament does-and it was this parliament which authorized the all-up carriage of first class mail, this parliament did it and not the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) or the Acting Postmaster General or the government-


Mr. Sinclair:: On the recommendation of the government.


Major James William Coldwell: It was this parliament that authorized the doing of this particular thing. The government recommended it but that does not say-


Mr. Pickersgill:: And the hon. gentleman opposed it.


James Sinclair: The Liberal majority put it through.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not oppose it. I am one of the "hon. gentlemen opposite", and I did not oppose it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you not oppose the Postmaster General's bill last year?


Major James William Coldwell: That was concerned with something else, and not the carriage of air mail. Sometimes it seems that hon. members will take a vote or a speech by a member on this side of the house and twist it around to suit their own convenience. I think that is what the Acting Postmaster General is trying to do now.


George Alexander Drew: Let us get our history straight.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going into the history of anything of that nature because I might make a mistake in the date. I do not want to have to rise tomorrow afternoon and correct an error of that description in Hansard, because I, too, taught history for quite a long time.
I do not agree with the idea of setting up a commission which in effect would be an abdication by this parliament of its responsibilities and rights. I cannot support that point of view. The time may come when this parliament may become so ineffective that we may have to do something of that sort. But in spite of the fact that, as I fear, and have felt for some time, this parliament has not been functioning as it should function, and moreover that it does not command the respect of the people of Canada that it should command, I do not agree with the idea of setting up a commission. I feel the fact that parliament does not command the respect of the people is not the fault of parliament itself. I feel it is the fault of the electors. If, over the last few years, the electors had sent here a house which was more evenly divided-no matter how divided-


Mr. Dufresne:: Had sent a Conservative government.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, the best parliament for dealing with problems of this description and other problems in which I ever sat was the parliament from 1945 to 1949, when the government had a relatively small majority. Both the opposition and the government kept on their toes during those four years. That was the best parliament in which I had sat; and this is my fifth parliament. And I say it is not altogether the fault of members of the house, but rather the fault of the people who have made it impossible,
Government Services
because of the smallness of the opposition, for the opposition to function perhaps as it should function.
I think of the manner in which committees are set up. Just look at this house tonight, and it becomes clear that several members are not here. And that is because committees are sitting tonight. One of those committees has been sitting all day-morning, afternoon and evening. Sometimes as many as three or four committees are sitting at the one time.
I would like to see more committees of the house; but that would necessitate a larger representation on the opposition side of the house. Because, while the government has plenty of supporters to fill those committees- and they make sure that they do fill them, in the literal sense-the opposition is in a very different position.
So I say, then, that I am not in favour of abdicating the functions of parliament by setting up a commission. I think what the opposition should be doing-and I am talking about all members in the opposition, not just the official opposition-is to demand that the public accounts committee should sit and that it should sit early in the session. I say that there should be sittings of the committees examining reports involving large expenditures, reports like that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that such committees should devote more attention to the balance sheets and less to the propaganda involved. And may I say I am very glad to hear someone sitting near me say that they spent more time on the balance sheets this year. I am glad to hear that.
But there are other committees that could be doing the same sort of thing. Let me say in conclusion that I wish to see every extravagance ended. As a matter of fact, if I may pay a compliment, I am thinking of one of the facilities that comes under the direction of Mr. Speaker himself. I have in mind the reading rooms of the Senate and the House of Commons and the great quantities of journals that come to those libraries and to the various departments of government. After careful study these have been cut down, more or less on the recommendation of Mr. Speaker himself, although I know that our committee did approve the recommendation.
True, that is a small saving; but there are major savings many times as great that could be undertaken if a thorough review were made by the house of the expenditures of the various departments. I would like to see this parliament function as a parliament should function, and one of the first duties of parliament is to examine carefully expenditures of government.

Government Services
Up to the present time how many estimates have we had before the House of Commons? There have been very few indeed. We have not had, for example, the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, nor have we had the estimates of the Department of National Defence. We are at the present time considering in the standing committee the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, but we have not begun to examine defence expenditures.
Beginning next Monday we are to have morning sittings, which means that the government hopes that within four or five weeks we may prorogue. Yet up to this time we have only begun one of the major functions of parliament, namely the careful examination of past expenditures and those for the current fiscal year.
And so, while I am not in favour of adopting the American plan, because American plans do not suit parliamentary institutions of the commonwealth, I am very much in favour of doing everything the house can do to curtail expenditures when they are extravagant. Because an expenditure which is not extravagant, an expenditure efficiently made, is often worth while.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Major James William Coldwell: I said that an expenditure that is not extravagant is worth while.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I would want to examine it. I am not even saying that I would know it was worth while. I have simply stated the fact that a worth-while expenditure is not an extravagance. In making that statement I am not judging as to what is or is not worth while. I am stating what, in Euclid, we called a self-evident truth.


George Alexander Drew: Res ipsa loquitur.


Major James William Coldwell: And so, Mr. Speaker, I leave the matter with the house. I, personally, shall not support the amendment because I believe we cannot abdicate the responsibility the people of Canada have imposed upon us as members of parliament.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a moment or two in this debate. There are one or two things I would like to say in support of the amendment, because I feel it is both sensible and sound. I do not think the proposal is suitable only to Americans just because the government of the United States has adopted it. Certainly there are many large businesses in Canada, which have, at

one stage or another, called in efficiency experts to see whether a job is being done well.
The Hoover commission in the United States did an exceptionally good job for the Eisenhower government. They showed where literally millions of dollars could be saved. I see no reason whatever why, if a similar commission were set up in Canada, it also could not recommend many savings the government could make.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has suggested that the scrutinizing of expenditures is a duty of members of parliament, and particularly of opposition members. Of course it is; but government has grown so tremendously in recent years that it is physically impossible for opposition members to scrutinize these expenditures with the necessary care.
This year we have been sitting since early in January. I wish to point out that the estimates of only three departments, totalling $189 million, have been passed. This means that we still have $4-3 billion to pass within the next three or four weeks. I say that rushing through the estimates at the last moment is not good enough. But I do not think it is necessarily the fault of opposition members. I give the government credit this year for having set up the estimates committee, to which three departments were referred. I think that committee did excellent work, but I believe it is only a beginning. The government should go much farther. Perhaps it would not be presumptuous on my part to suggest that next year every department of government should be referred to one standing committee or another.
For instance, finance, national revenue and trade and commerce could go to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Perhaps agriculture and immigration could go to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Perhaps defence, defence production and veterans affairs could go to a special defence committee. Then, labour estimates could go to the committee on industrial relations, those of the Department of Transport to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The estimates of the Department of Fisheries could go to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and so on.
In other words, in my opinion, the estimates for every department of government should go to one standing committee or another for scrutiny before they are brought to the house. Moreover, I believe that every crown corporation owned by the government of Canada, should come before one standing

committee or another. At the moment I am thinking of organizations such as the Bank of Canada, the Polymer Corporation, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; Canadian Arsenals, the Canadian farm loan board, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the printing bureau, Canadian government elevators, and so on.
Most of those organizations have not been before any parliamentary committee in the ten years I have been here. I do not think that is an efficient way for the government to run the people's business. If the estimates were referred early next session, as soon as the debate in reply is concluded, they could be given a much more thorough scrutiny.
Another point which I desire to make is that the opposition, which is so divided and weak at the moment, should be given experts to help them look over these various accounts. I do not think it would cost the taxpayers of Canada very much money to hire eight or ten economic experts to help us on the various committees to expertly scrutinize the estimates. I am sure such an expenditure would be returned many times over.
But even if the government adopted these proposals, I imagine there is still room for a commission such as the Hoover commission. Members simply have not the time, they have not the facilities, they have not the technical experience required to go over estimates thoroughly. I say that they would be helped in their duty by the kind of commission which is suggested in this particular amendment.
I wonder if there is an hon. member who thinks that in the expenditure of $4,500,000,000 there are not places where there is waste and extravagance. I know that there are some members of the government who have done their bit in the last year to cut extravagance. I would give the first credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). There are 22 vacancies in the Senate. He has not filled them. It is a good saving. I suppose it amounts to about $220,000 a year. Including office help, it may amount to $300,000. If further vacancies occur and are not filled, perhaps we can save additional money. I give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) credit for saving fairly substantial sums. He cut down on the C.B.C. foreign service by about $500,000; he reduced the grain subsidy $1,500,000; the gold subsidy, $4,800,000. He cut down on the maple sugar subsidy, $400,000. He is taking steps in the right direction though I still do not think he has gone far enough. There are a good many other places where we can save money.
Mr. Speaker has done much in effecting savings in these parliament buildings. I have always maintained that here in the nerve 50433-272
Government Services
centre of government, in these buildings, the taxpayers should be able to expect reasonable economies. Unfortunately there are still a good many departments which are duplicated. I give the Speaker great credit for having amalgamated the post offices of the Senate and the House of Commons. I hope he is going to continue along the same lines with other duplications. There are still about 25 other departments in these very buildings which are duplicates, such as the police forces, the reading rooms, the barber shops, the stenographic pools, the journals offices, the debates offices, and so on. I hope, sir, that you will keep on with the good work you have done, and carry out your job to its logical conclusion. Let me express the hope that the members of the other place will give you every co-operation.
There is one place in particular where I think a committee of the nature suggested by the hon. member who moved this amendment could do very useful work. Over the years our estimate books have contained a great many subsidies. I am quite prepared to admit that once a subsidy is commenced, usually because of an emergency, it is very hard to get rid of it, even if the emergency has ended. There are literally dozens of subsidies in the estimates book. During the supper hour I looked through the various departments, and would like to mention a few. For cold storage warehouses there is a subsidy of $500,000; there is a grain subsidy of $15,500,000; there is a maple sugar subsidy for pails to the amount of $100,000; there is a C.B.C. subsidy to the amount of $18,000,000; there is a coal subsidy of $10,000,00; there is a gold subsidy of $11,000,000; there is a subsidy on government annuities of $1,300,000; there is a butter subsidy of about $1,225,000; there is a subsidy to McGill University for a coal gas turbine of $100,000. Many of these may be useful; many of them are probably desirable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But I do think that once these subsidies have been put on the books, from time to time somebody should review them, and make certain that the original need continues. An outside body, not having to worry about the political results, could go over these subsidies and make recommendations to parliament as to whether or not any could be discontinued, or whether there was room for reduction in some particular item.
Of course, it is too late this session for such a committee to be set up, but I for one wish to join with the mover of this amendment, in hoping that the government will take such action at the next session. It would be sound business practice.

Government Services


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but recognize the continuation of that good sense which the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has been showing recently-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In getting fluorescent lighting in his office.


Daniel Roland Michener: -in the remarks which he has just finished, and what I have to say to some extent will parallel what he has already said. The problem before the house is the essential problem of the house in committee of supply, namely, that of seeing that value is received for the dollars that are spent. It has been said that everybody's property is nobody's property. No doubt public property, which is everybody's property, is the responsibility of this House of Commons, and no one wishes to detract from that responsibility. It is clearly recognized. The control of parliament with respect to the purse is clear under our constitutional history, and the control of the purse has been the control of the executive. There is no question of abdication; there is no question of parliament shirking its responsibilities. The question before the house is how that responsibility can best be exercised.
It is true that the ultimate decision and choice rests with parliament; but there are many ways that it performs this function with respect to the purse. What we are considering tonight is an aid to parliament. Parliament has aids which we all know of and use. The Auditor General makes a constant scrutiny of the expenditures of the departments to make sure that they comply with the authority given by parliament for those expenditures in the various votes, and his report is a report to parliament on what he finds.
Then, of course, the house attempts to discharge that responsibility of seeing what value it is getting for the expenditure of the money. As has been pointed out, it is a task that is somewhat beyond the time and capacity of the house as a committee of the whole. Perhaps we have four weeks to go, and the amount that is still to be voted is a large proportion of a very large budget of between $4 billion and $5 billion.
I should like to refer to the assistance that was given to parliament by means of the special estimates committee this year. As I sat on that committee, I think I can properly say that to my mind at least it had the opportunity to inquire in greater detail about the work of the departments which came before the committee, the expenditure of the money which had been voted for those
[Mr. Thatcher I
departments, and of the activities and results which arose out of that expenditure. But, as has been said here, the possibilities of that kind of inquiry are limited. One of the greatest limitations is that of party solidarity. In that special estimates committee the opposition are naturally the most critical of the government's expenditures of money, and why should they not be? The government itself is not anxious to bring out of the closet those skeletons that may be there, and therefore they are very careful to keep the door as tightly closed as possible, both in the House of Commons and in these committees.
As I said, the solidarity of the support which the government gets from its own followers is such that the opposition minority in the house or on a committee, while it is ready to work and seek information, is not always successful in getting it. As a matter of fact it is quite the contrary. While the special committee on estimates was a useful inquiry into routine departmental administration, I suggest that it did not fulfil the purpose which is envisaged by this motion.
That purpose is to have an objective inquiry by a non-partisan commission outside of the house, not composed of members of either the government or the opposition but of disinterested experts who would have the right to inquire and to receive information of all kinds which is necessary to come to conclusions and make the recommendations which should be made.
It has been suggested that this is in fact a proposal that parliament abdicate its responsibility. I think what I have said so far indicates my viewpoint on that, that parliament is in no sense abdicating. It retains its ultimate control, but it has need of the various aids and assistance which have been suggested. More particularly it needs the aid of the objective outside inquiry which has been proposed in this motion.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) says that we are copying United States precedents which have no application here, which are not needed and which in fact would indicate an abdication by parliament even if in the United States the Hoover commission has been able to perform a useful function. As everyone knows, congress is a good deal more independent of the executive than is parliament. Everyone knows that committees, both of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, exercise very wide powers. Those committees can seek and obtain information. In spite of that framework for inquiry we find that the Hoover commission was able to recommend substantial economies which none of these committees had discovered.

I suggest that the government itself has recognized the virtue of this proposal. It has proposed an inquiry by a commission outside of parliament into the economy of the country. That is no different in kind from what is suggested with respect to the administrative machinery of the government. Further, the government has recognized the virtue of this proposal in part by the inquiries which it has commissioned by private investigators into various departments of government.
Hon. members will recall some of those inquiries. There was the inquiry which was discussed last year into the Post Office Department by a firm of business experts or engineers. There have been a good many inquiries commissioned by the government to assist those public servants who are charged with the administration of departments. Those inquiries have been able to make suggestions for improvement in the methods of administration and for economy.
This is what one would expect would come out of a private inquiry reaching into all departments of government and having a view of the administration of the federal government as a whole. I said that there were some very good reasons why a private view is necessary. In the course of the examination of certain departments this year there were some very notable instances of the overlapping of the functions of civil servants in one department with those of civil servants in another. There is ample scope for the co-ordination of the activities of many departments which cross each other's paths. Therefore it seems to me that an over-all view, which would be an extension to some extent of what the government has been doing already in connection with individual branches or offices or departments, would pay large dividends to the people of Canada in economies and in efficient administration.
Another reason why the suggestion is timely is to be found in the course taken by public finance in this country in the last five years. The predecessor of the present Minister of Finance followed a policy which produced undeclared or unpredicted surpluses, or at least surpluses of undeclared proportions and unpredicted size in each of several years. That method of budgeting was not a deliberate production of surpluses for the purpose of reducing the public debt; at least it was not the avowed production of surpluses to reduce the public debt. If it had been, one could have understood and approved of it as an example of cyclical budgeting on the theory of surpluses in good times with the possibility of deficits in less good times. But that was not the declaration or the admission of the Department of Finance.
50433- -2721
Government Services
So we had in effect large surpluses produced which were not expected and which I think were to some extent embarrassing because they had not been predicted. Of course in circumstances where there is money lying around there is always someone ready to devise a method of spending it or to make use of it for one scheme or another which may be his particular hobby. Civil servants are no different from other people in that respect.
I suggest that the fiscal policy of this country during the last five years, producing as it did unexpectedly large surpluses which were not appropriated for the purpose of debt reduction but which just had to be expended as an unexpected surplus, which had to be spent, meant a debauching of the public service of the country by leaving around too much money for them to expend.
Every man in a job likes to do as well as he can. That often involves the expansion of staff and the increase of functions. The thing snowballs until we have departments which today are spending twenty times what they were spending ten years ago. Many departments have been through an experience of that kind. Many of them not only have had an experience of that kind but they have had the experience of the opportunities that came with war. In the case of those who administered the Department of National Defence, all one had to do was to ask and he would receive. No one questioned expenditures directed to the winning of the war. But that kind of attitude toward public funds which can develop in wartime must be checked eventually. I suggest that the government has never faced that issue and we still have a Department of National Defence which feels that all it has to do is to ask and it will receive.
With that immediate background to public administration in this country, it seems to me that this is a most opportune time to ask for the sort of inquiry which has been suggested. Ordinary expenditures of government have risen from $500 million in 1939 to $2,500 million today, five times what they were a bare sixteen years ago. Taking into account the expansion of the country, the inflation of the dollar and a number of other things, there is still a great deal of inflation in the expenditures of the departments themselves, which deserves inquiry to satisfy the house that it is getting value for its dollar. It is the responsibility of the house to be satisfied. This is a method by which it can be satisfied. It is a means by which the house can more effectively discharge its responsibilities.

Government Services


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house calls for the appointment of a commission-I quote from the motion itself-"with powers to examine into and report upon the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government". If that is all that the motion seeks to accomplish, it certainly does not bear out the intention of those who have spoken so far in respect to government expenditures or extravagances, because it does not refer to extravagance and it does not even refer to expenditures. It has to do with the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government. All that that commission would be in effect is an advisory committee to the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister is the one who is responsible for the organization of the various departments. He is responsible for the appointment of the various ministers who head those departments, and of course the ministers in turn take the responsibility for the internal organization of the departments over which they are head. So all this motion would accomplish if it passed would be to set up an advisory committee to the Prime Minister giving him advice as to how the various departments should be set up. On that basis, of course, it falls far short of any inquiry in the real sense of the word into extravagance or expenditure and for that reason, I believe, is quite inadequate to the situation which is being discussed.
However, I realize that behind the motion is the intention, as expressed by various members so far, of trying to find out and correct any extravagances which may be found in government. But it should be clearly understood that there is a differentiation between extravagance or waste or inefficiency on the one hand and expenditures as such on the other. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), who spoke a few moments ago, did not seem to understand the distinction or did not see fit to state so, because in trying to justify his criticism of inefficiency and extravagance he used examples which had nothing to do with inefficiency and extravagance at all. They had to do with government policy, or rather with policy passed by this parliament. He referred to subsidies, for example, the feed grain subsidy and that on butter. That has nothing whatsoever to do with inefficiency and extravagance; it is the carrying out of a policy laid down by this parliament. The government is doing something which parliament has authorized it to do. It is doing that efficiently. If it is paying out these subsidies in an efficient manner, then there is no extravagance or inefficiency involved
[Mr. Michener I
at all in the matter. If there is inefficiency in the administration of those subsidies, then to the extent that there is inefficiency there is waste.
But the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was not complaining about any inefficiency; as a matter of fact he was complaining about too much efficiency in the paying out of subsidies, because he wanted the subsidies cut down and he wanted less subsidies paid out. This is rather a strange position to take, because he could have gone on to cite the greatest example of a subsidy in this country, which would eclipse altogether all the little ones he has mentioned. He could have mentioned the Canadian tariff structure, the biggest subsidy in the history of Canada, a subsidy which makes all the other subsidies look like peanuts. It is a subsidy which is the umbrella under which manufacturers have been operating, the chief among the beneficiaries, of course, being the hardware business. If we are going to talk about subsidies as such, we would have to begin with the tariff structure and work our way down to these other things, rather than begin with the little things.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I would like to see that tariff abolished too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I may have a convert.


An hon. Member:: He will be back with you, the first thing you know.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Seriously, to come back to the motion itself, it is necessary to differentiate clearly in our minds and in our presentation here between the expenditure as such authorized by parliament on the one hand and waste and extravagance on the other. If we do not do that, we shall leave a false impression in the minds of the public. Statements have been made that parliament is not always looked upon very kindly by the public. Quite often it is parliament that is to blame, not because of the way it carries out its duties but because of what members say about themselves. If we leave the impression that every time we pay a subsidy or make an authorization of exoenditure which runs into hundreds of millions, for example, national defence, which runs into billions, we are wasting money and being extravagant, we deserve to be criticized, but we are leaving a false impression. Every expenditure is passed by parliament, and if that expenditure is made efficiently then there is no extravagance involved; it is a simple business operation. But there are legitimate cases of extravagance and waste, and that is what we have to go after.
I can give one example of extravagance of which I would like to hear an explanation

by the Minister of Finance or some other person authorized to give it. For example, recently I received a return in which it is shown that three cabinet ministers have permanent passes on the T.C.A. which permit them to use the facilities of the T.C.A. at any time anywhere. To my way of thinking, in the first place that is quite unnecessary, and in the second place quite unfair. There is no justification for it. If the government can justify that kind of thing, then I should like to hear the explanation. Some may say that after all we are not throwing money away but we are just giving free rides to these ministers, but at the same time it costs money to transport people. There are three cabinet ministers, all of whom, I assume, have expense accounts, and on every legitimate trip they make on government business they are legally permitted to put that down on the expense account and that is paid for. What purpose can be served by giving those three ministers permanent passes which permit them to fly to any part of the world where T.C.A. flies, whether it is on government business or for a fishing trip or any other purpose? It might even be for the purpose of speaking at an election campaign somewhere.


An hon. Member:: They would not do anything like that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, they would not. To my mind that is one type of expenditure which is an extravagance and a waste, for which the taxpayer is paying, and which is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified. There should be an explanation for it. I could give other examples, but our greatest disability lies in what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), my leader, expressed as the veil of secrecy. It is a serious matter. It is a matter about which a great many taxpayers today are beginning to ask questions, and they are quite justified in asking those questions. For example, when we say we are spending approximately $2 billion a year for national defence they want to know just what we are getting for the $2 billion. They are not saying it is too much or too little. They are in no position to say that any more, if I may be permitted to say so, than we are because we are not able to get the information they want. They want to know, when we authorize an expenditure of $2 billion, how many planes, how many tanks and other types of equipment we are getting for the money, the cost of each unit, where the money is being spent, how it is being spent, and to what extent it is necessary for the defence of Canada.
Government Services
When we try to get that information we are told that a great deal of it is not available because it is of a secret nature and to reveal it might result in giving information to the enemy. I for one certainly would not advocate anything which would result in any potential enemy of Canada obtaining information it could not get otherwise. But I am afraid that at times we "kid" ourselves if we think that the kind of information we need in order to justify that kind of expenditure is the kind of information that the potential enemy either does not have or cannot get.
When it is a question of the cost of the equipment, the way in which government contracts are granted, the margin of profit on such contracts and so on, these are not matters of a military nature. However, if the government feels some danger is involved in informing members of the House of Commons of the details of national defence I suggest

I for one would be prepared to do this although others may not-the setting up of a committee of the house whose meetings would be held in camera. It could be made perfectly clear that the information would only be revealed in confidence and if the government insisted I would be prepared to take an oath of secrecy with respect to such information as, in the opinion of the government or in my opinion, would be of value to the enemy.
But I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the things we would like to know about expenditures on national defence are not the kind of things that would be of any value to anyone except as information to the Canadian taxpayers. That is one way in which a great deal more of detailed information could be given. Then we as members of the house would be in a position to judge and would be able to inform the taxpayers of Canada whether their money was being efficiently handled.
Another department with respect to which we are under the same disability, and this matter has been mentioned recently on a number of occasions, is the Department of National Revenue. Under the terms of the Financial Administration Act that department is authorized to make refunds or remissions of taxes. I was going to say "kickbacks" but that might be the wrong word. Only recently certain remissions were made to private corporations amounting to approximately $2 million, a considerable amount of money at any time. We have sought to obtain an explanation of the reasoning leading to the making of these remissions which, after all, involved the giving back to private

Government Services
concerns of money already in the public treasury. But when we get down to the hub of the question we are told that the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act do not permit the minister to disclose the information.


Walter Edward Harris: May I ask a question? I recall the debate on that particular point, and I thought it ended by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) saying he would discuss the question on his estimates. I do not recall that he refused the information on the subject of the particular remissions to which my hon. friend has referred.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The question was raised in the house more than two months ago and was raised again later. The Minister of National Revenue has had plenty of opportunity to give the information requested to the house but so far he has not done so.


Walter Edward Harris: He said he would do so on his estimates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The information already
asked for has been refused by virtue of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is partly right when he states that the Minister of National Revenue promised to give an explanation of the particular case to which I referred during the discussion of his estimates, but the minister will recall that previously I asked by way of a return for the correspondence dealing with the dispute between the department and the companies concerned in that case, which is actually the information needed to enable us to pass upon the case and decide whether the money was remitted to these companies in a proper manner. That information was refused by the Minister of National Revenue on the basis of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act-again the veil of secrecy.
These are the kind of things that make it difficult for us to obtain the necessary information in order for us to be able to judge these matters. May I say here that I am not criticizing anyone in particular because I am sure all members of the house, whether on the opposition benches or sitting behind the government, want to have factual information about every dollar that is spent because, after all, it is the taxpayers' money that is being spent. We represent the taxpayers so that we have an inherent right to that information, but we cannot obtain it.
Before leaving this matter there is one thing more I should like to point out. Quite often we talk about inefficiency and extravagance when we speak of government expenditures, and it is quite legitimate to do so. After all, this is the forum of the country. But

I would not want to leave the impression that the only place where there is inefficiency or extravagance in the handling of money is in connection with government expenditures because to do so would be to leave a wrong impression in the public mind. I am quite convinced, and I am sure those who are familiar with private business will agree with me, that in the huge privately owned financial and industrial corporations of this country there is a great deal of extravagance and inefficiency, but because it is not something in which the public are directly interested it is never brought to light. It is also said it is no concern of ours.
For example, if the Ford Motor Company or General Motors wasted $500 million we would say they were wasting their own money so why should we care, but if the government wastes $100 we want to know why. That is perfectly true so far as our direct responsibilities are concerned, but let us not forget we have an indirect responsibility so far as private business is concerned. If a huge corporation, through inefficiency, extravagance or for some other reason, wastes a few million dollars that amount of money must be charged to the consumer who buys their product. This is an indirect form of taxation which every consumer must pay, and therefore I should like to see an inquiry into price spreads which would help to bring to light waste, extravagance and inefficiency in private administration as well as in public administration.
I say that in passing-of course it cannot be done under the terms of this motion-in order to make it clear that when we speak of waste, extravagance and inefficiency in the administration of government we should be careful not to leave the impression that all government administration is wasteful, extravagant or inefficient, because that is not the case. Any government, particularly a government that has been in power too long and has perhaps become a little bit slow at the switch, is in danger of allowing inefficiency and extravagance to creep into its administration.
If members of the house had the opportunity to obtain the kind of information which they want, I think they could pass judgment on government expenditures without the necessity of having any kind of commission. As I said at the beginning, I am not particularly opposed to a commission if it can perform a useful function. But the motion calls for an examination and report upon the organization of the various departments of the Canadian government. In my opinion, that does not begin to touch the question of waste or extravagance. It could,

as is suggested here, add a little to the cost of government because after all the government would have to pay for the commission. In my opinion, that does not fill the bill.


John Borden Hamilton: should like to approach this problem in a more practical way from the standpoint of the government expenditures that have been referred to in the course of this debate. This afternoon my leader referred at considerable length to the amount of money that has been spent by various departments. Tonight we have had a differentiation made between those types of expenditures which take the form of subsidies and those which might be involved in connection with direct payments to maintain government departments.
I think the last speaker, to a great extent, used the same terms as were used by the Financial Times in its issue of about a week ago in discussing an address by Mr. Harvey Perry of the Canadian Tax Foundation. The article reads:
The conclusion to be drawn from Mr. Perry's review of the tax situation is that we are today merely paying the piper. The people wanted family allowances; and they got them. They wanted old age pensions; and they got them. They may not particularly want defence expenditures; but it is incumbent upon the government to undertake them in the interests of the people.
Now, this type of expenditure is the type that ordinarily we can expect will continue. When we talk about a commission to inquire into the expenditure of government funds, then I think the last speaker made no differentiation between those items in which we may expect economy and those in which we may expect continuing payments, perhaps even on a larger scale. As a matter of fact, it seems that there should be no reason why we cannot approach the business of government in the same manner as any businessman approaches the problems in his own business. I believe that if we referred to the problems which arise in connection with production methods and controls, we could find a very good example to follow in connection with expenditures by government departments.
The practical situation is this. When someone is setting up a production line for a particular product he expects that, with continuing production, he may cut down his over-all cost of production. The larger his production runs the more economies he may expect. Apparently this is not true in connection with government departments because we have seen increasing expenditures far out of proportion to the increase in our population or even in proportion to the decrease, if I might use that term, in the value
Government Services
of our dollar. In looking at some of the figures I might refer to a publication entitled "The National Finances" published by the Canadian Tax Foundation for the year 1954-55. We might take a good look at this to see what is happening in connection with government administration. I shall probably follow the figures through a little more closely than my leader did this afternoon.
In 1939, professional and special services cost this country $4 [DOT] 1 million. Now, I think we could say that since that time our population has increased approximately one-third or even 50 per cent. We might say that professional and special services should now amount to $8-2 million. Then, economists will tell you that your dollar is only worth 50 cents today, so that $16 million might be a reasonable figure to spend on professional and special services under today's conditions in relation to the amount that was spent in 1939. However, we find that this government estimates it will spend $31 million in that category in 1955.
Travelling and removal expenses, if we applied the same principle of allowing for the additional people who must be looked after and doubling the amount to cover the decrease in the value of our dollar, would probably result in an expenditure of approximately $8 million on the basis of the 1939 figure. However, we find that the estimate for 1955 is $15 million. This trend continues right through the list. Telephones, telegrams and other communication services amounted to $700,000 in 1939. It might rise to $2 million under the formula which would relate it to the 1939 figure. Instead, we find it rises to $6-7 million for 1955. Advertising amounted to $1-8 million in 1939. Using the same formula we probably should arrive at a figure of perhaps $3 million. We find that the estimate for 1955 is $8-1 million.
This is a fairly large sum to spend on advertising. As a matter of fact, we have set ourselves up in government at a pretty high price. I have here a list of the amounts spent on advertising by the leading firms in this country. The authority is the Toronto Star records department. I find the largest amount spent by any corporation in Canada last year was $688,031. However, we apparently use advertising services in this government to the tune of approximately $8-1 million, perhaps 10 to 12 times as much as the largest corporation in Canada spends on advertising today.
If we apply the production type technique and if we, as an illustration, look at such items as the handling of family allowance cheques we may get some information. It is

Government Services
true that over a period of time we are going to find the number of cheques that will be handled will perhaps be doubled. I am sure that if the ordinary production line system were used it would not mean that we have to double the number of machines or the number of people who handle those machines. Perhaps 10 machines have been ordered with a certain capital expenditure. If ordinary production line methods are used I think the purchase of an additional two machines and perhaps an increase of 25 per cent in the labour force would produce twice the results. This is the lesson that can be learned from watching industry in action, and it is a lesson that there seems to be no reason to believe could not be applied to government.
Sometimes we ask ourselves, how do these terrific costs arise? In connection with the expenditure of our money on the armed forces, I find that for the current fiscal year approximately 43-9 per cent of the defence dollar is going to be spent on the air force. It is a very worthy branch of the service on which to spend it. We are talking about a lot of money because during the year we will spend on the armed services altogether approximately $1,863 million.
I would refer to the article concerning the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) appearing in the latest issue of Canadian Business. Approximately 43 per cent of this money will be spent on the air force. Someone may say, "I wonder how they can waste any money there." Well, the Globe and Mail of May 2 contained an article dealing with the answer to a question tabled in the house. It was shown that there were 5,570 air crew applicants for the air force during the year, and that 4,000 of them were rejected. Obviously if this type of recruiting program, whatever it may be, continues, then it can be expected that to recruit 1,570 men it is going to cost many times the amount that should be set aside for that purpose.
These are the things we should look into if we are going to save money-publication costs, and items of that kind. As I said before, I wish to stay clear of other items to which reference has been made from time to time-and I am referring to the payments of various grants through the welfare branches of government.
I could give another illustration, because I have in my hand another of these divorce bills from the other place, the only difference being that this time it would seem that they are going to put them on nice, sugar-coated stock. It is much nicer, and fills more paper. I am sure it does not perform any better service, and that it continues to find its way into the wastepaper baskets of all members.

These are places where we should look for economy. We could expect economies if an independent commission were set up to take a real look at the situation. I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) speak about the duties in the house, and the committees to which various items might be referred. Surely after the performance we have had at this session, a performance which at every turn has refused us the information we require, we cannot expect to get economies or to get at the basis for economies in the various government departments through the utilization of that method. As a matter of fact, if that is the type of scrutiny that is to be allowed, then all I can say is that most of us will rot in our places before we will get the information we need.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are anxious to hear you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to hear him at once.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have four minutes before ten o'clock. If you wish me to, and if hon. members wish, I shall proceed for those four minutes. I shall be very glad to do that, and then I shall adjourn the debate at ten o'clock.
I am very flattered that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) just cannot go to bed without hearing my golden words. I will deal him a small hand.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the nicest part of your speech.


George Harris Hees: And may I say I have never heard the hon. member for Temiscouata more eloquent. He is his usual charming and delightful self.
I should like to deal in the time available to me with something said by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) about expenditures to which he objected, involving ministers having passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines. I disagree with him on this. I think ministers of the crown should be allowed to travel on Trans-Canada Air Lines at any time, just as ordinary members of parliament are allowed to travel at any time on the trains. On that subject I have said several times in the house that I object very much

to the fact that members coming from distances more than 500 miles away from Ottawa are not given unlimited passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines. In my case, coming from Toronto, it is very easy for me to get on the train at 11 o'clock on Friday night, to be in Toronto for breakfast in the morning, to leave on Sunday night-


James Sinclair: Whom are you kidding?


George Harris Hees: To leave on Sunday night and-


James Sinclair: Monday night.


George Harris Hees: -to be in here at nine o'clock Monday morning, bright and shining, to grapple with the tasks of parliament. But I really do think that members who come from distances 400 or 500 miles from Ottawa should be given unlimited passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines so that they could travel back and forth as we do. This would make for better parliamentary government. Members would be more readily available to their constituents, and could visit with their families. My wife can go to Toronto and back again at any time, as can the wives living in Quebec or Montreal. But I think it is an unnecessary hardship placed on members who come from great distances-
Government Services


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


George Harris Hees: If you wish to call it ten o'clock, all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. member a question? Does he not think it would be in the interests of economy if the children, as well as the wives of members, had passes?


George Harris Hees: I did not say that I thought the families of members of parliament should have unlimited passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines. I said members of parliament should, if they live more than 400 miles away from Ottawa. I was not referring to the children. It is important that members should be able to travel back and forth to their constituencies, so that they can visit the people they represent, and learn their views. They should be permitted to see their families far more frequently than otherwise is possible.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


George Harris Hees: May I call it ten o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.	I


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 1, 1955