1956-02-29

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I informed the house that His Excellency the President of Italy had accepted our invitation to visit Canada during his North American tour and would be arriving in Ottawa on Saturday, March 3, to remain until Monday, March 5, and that he had consented to address both houses of parliament in this chamber on Monday, March 5, at 2.30 p.m.
In order to carry out those arrangements and to enable us to greet His Excellency in this chamber and hear his address, it will be necessary to delay the opening of the ordinary proceedings of the house until 3.30 on Monday afternoon. If I might have the consent of the house, I should like to move:
That when this house adjourns on Friday, March 2, 1956, it stand adjourned until Monday, March 5, 1956, at 3.30 o'clock in the afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to put this motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce the conclusion of a trade agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The text of this agreement is being tabled for the information of hon. members. If the house agrees, I suggest that the text be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), opened the way for this agreement during his visit to the U.S.S.R. last October. At that time it was agreed in exploratory talks that negotiations should take place in Ottawa. A delegation
from the U.S.S.R. arrived here four weeks ago, and the negotiations have been in progress since then.
The agreement which has been reached is set forth in five documents.
The first of these documents makes provision for the exchange of most-favourednation treatment along lines similar to existing agreements with various other countries. It includes other provisions having to do with the conduct of trade between the two countries. It recognizes that either government may apply prohibitions or restrictions of any kind for the protection of its essential security interests. Our strategic export controls are therefore not affected. This agreement provides in addition on a reciprocal basis for the non-discriminatory treatment of merchant ships while in port. On the Canadian side, the effect of this latter provision is simply to confirm the treatment which in fact has been available all along to ships of U.S.S.R. registry.
This agreement is to continue in force for a period of three years; agreement of both countries is required for any extension. It was signed on February 29 by accredited representatives of both governments and is now in force provisionally. By its terms, it is subject to ratification within 90 days from the date of signature and within this time opportunity will be provided for a debate in parliament. A resolution of approval will be introduced for this purpose.
The second document is a letter from the Canadian government reserving the right to establish values for ordinary and special import duty on any Russian product that might enter Canada in such increased quantities as to cause serious injury to domestic producers. In determining such values, the prices of similar goods imported into Canada from third countries are to be taken into account. This procedure is intended to deal with situations which might be created if Russian goods were to be sold in Canada at very low prices, even if they are not proven to be lower than their domestic values in the U.S.S.R.
The third document is a letter from the government of the U.S.S.R. acknowledging the Canadian letter on customs valuation.

Trade Agreement with Russia
The fourth of the five documents forming the agreement is a letter by which the government of the U.S.S.R. guarantees to purchase and take delivery from Canada, during the three years of the agreement, a total of between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 tons of wheat, in annual lots of between 400,000 and 500,000 tons. The exact amounts to be purchased in the second and third years, within these annual amounts, will be determined by the government of the U.S.S.R., taking into account the volume of Soviet goods sold to Canada. The total over the three years, however, will amount to not less than 1,200,000 tons and the amount in any individual year to not less than 400,000 tons. The Russian purchases of wheat are to be made at the prices and on the terms at which the Canadian wheat board is making sales to its major customers at such times as the Soviet purchases take place.
The fifth document is a letter from the Canadian government, acknowledging the letter from the government of the U.S.S.R. on wheat.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what is the best estimate of the dollar value of the import and export trade that is expected under the terms of this pact?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I said once before that I had lent my crystal ball. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member an answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely the department has some idea. None at all?


Mr. Drew:: The minister is not usually so reluctant to make guesses.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question arising out of the agreements with the U.S.S.R.? I have not seen the text. Would the minister say what the prospects are in connection with the provision for the sales of wheat therein? Will it be of low-grade wheat now glutting the elevators, and on what basis are the prices of wheat determined under these particular agreements?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that it is a misconception to suggest that low-grade wheat is clogging our elevators. As a matter of fact, we have to withdraw offers of low-grade wheat; it is all sold. The wheat that the U.S.S.R. is to take represents a fair distribution over our milling grades of wheat. The prices will be the prices of the day on which the wheat is bought. All wheat is offered at one price. The offer will be at the same prices and on
fMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

the same terms as are made to Britain, Germany, Japan and our other principal customers.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Have cleaners, messmen, fumacemen and employees in similar categories working on Royal Canadian Air Force stations across Canada yet been put on the five day week?
2.	If not, at what stations has the five day week not yet been put into effect for such employees?
3.	Is consideration being given to putting all such employees, on all Royal Canadian Air Force stations in Canada, on the five day week? If so, when will this take place?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is that when the government implemented the five day week for operating staffs, certain categories of employees were excluded. Among the excluded categories are staffs engaged in providing food and housekeeping service to civil servants, military personnel, and transient guests. Employees of the R.C.A.F. in the classification messmen have, accordingly, not been placed on the five day week. Some R.C.A.F. employees in the classification of cleaner and helper provide service to living accommodation.
Because it is considered inadvisable to have employees in the same classification at the same location working varying work weeks, the standard 44-hour work week, with one minor exception, has been retained for cleaners and helpers employed by the R.C.A.F. Heating staffs employed by the R.C.A.F. work a standard five day 40-hour week at locations designated by the government, in accordance with the announced policy. In some instances, it has not yet been possible to obtain sufficient qualified staff to implement fully the five day week for heating staffs. Where this is the case, overtime compensation is given for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
The answer to part 2 of the question is that the five day week is not in effect for such employees at the following R.C.A.F. locations: Goose Bay, Newfoundland; Debert and Greenwood, Nova Scotia; Lac St. Denis, Mont Apica, Parent, Senneterre, Moisie, St. Sylvestre and Rimouski, province of Quebec; Edgar, Foymount, Angus, Fingal, Collins Bay and Mountain View, Ontario; Gimli and Macdonald, Manitoba; Claresholm, Penhold and Cold Lake, Alberta; Fort Nelson, British Columbia; and White Horse, Snag, Teslin, Smith River, Aishihik, Watson Lake in the Yukon Territory.
As to part 3, a fairly full statement on policy in respect of these categories of

employment was given to the house by the then minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, on February 16, 1954, as appears at page 2122 of Hansard of that year. Government policy on the hours of work for federal employees is periodically reviewed and when changes are to be made they will be made known at that time.


MAIL DELIVERIES, ST. JAMES, MAN.
Mr. Churchill: What action is being taken to provide in the industrial area of St. James, Manitoba: (a) twice-daily mail deliveries; (b) special delivery and parcel post services; (c) additional drop boxes; (d) facilities for outgoing mail at the St. James airport?


Mr. Lapointe:: Mr. Speaker, this question deals with mail delivery in the industrial area of St. James, Manitoba. In answer to part (a), I wish to say to my hon. friend that a survey is under way at the present time to determine what delivery can be made. As to parts (b) and (c) of the question, any decision will depend upon the result of this survey.
As to part (d), there is already a receptacle for outgoing mail in the waiting room of the airport and a postage stamp vending machine is being installed. I am informed that existing airmail schedules do not warrant postal operation at the airport during day time or evening hours at the present time.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are there any restrictions on the right of government employees to bring any grievances they may have to the attention of members of parliament?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such restrictions, and what groups or categories of employees are covered thereby?
3.	If there are any such restrictions, on what authority are they based?


Mr. Pinard:: My answer, which will apply to the three parts of the question, is as follows. There may be administrative rules in particular departments, made under the authority of the minister, to manage the department, which indicate certain procedures to facilitate dealing with grievances. But I know of no statute or regulation of general application that would restrict the right of any government employee to bring a grievance to the attention of a member of parliament.



INCOME TAX REFUNDS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has consideration been given to making it possible for a person who has been unemployed
Questions
for 60 or 90 days to obtain, without further delay, a refund of income tax deductions made while he was employed?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	If not, will consideration now be given thereto?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, the government has in the past been asked to consider the proposal which is referred to by the question, in common with a number of other applications for earlier refunds of income tax where persons may during the course of the year marry and presumably not have a taxable income for the balance of the year. Up to the present time we have always felt the administrative difficulties of making the refunds earlier than the end of the year are too great to consider. In addition they are somewhat costly and we would prefer to continue the present practice.



REQUEST FOR FEDERAL PENITENTIARY, DRUMHELLER, ALTA.

Mr. Johnston (Bow River): 1.	Has a brief been received by the Minister of Public Works from the city of Drumheller, Alberta, requesting the erection of a federal penitentiary in that city?
2.	If so, what action, if any, is being taken by the government in this connection?


Mr. Winters:: The answer to the first part is no, and the answer to the second part is that it is answered by the first.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Bell: 1.	When did ice-breaking operations begin and cease at the opening and closing of the season in the gulf of St. Lawrence each year for the last ten years?
2.	What was the attempted open point on the St. Lawrence each year?
3.	How many days were the vessels on duty on this work during each of the above mentioned years, and what was the cost of such operations?
4.	Have any non-government ships been damaged by ice due to late departure or early arrival during the last ten years? If so, what vessels?
5.	Have any surveys been conducted with respect to the opening of the St. Lawrence all winter? If so, with what results?


FLIGHTS BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	Between the dates of November 26 and November 30, 1953, and November 25 and November 29, 1954, were any flights made by Department of Transport aircraft of a type suitable for carrying three or more passengers in addition to the crew of the aircraft?
2.	If so, for each such flight; (a) between what points was it made; (b) for what purpose; (c) how many passengers were carried?
3.	If passengers were carried other than officials or employees of the Department of Transport, what were the names of such passengers?

Motions for Papers


POST OFFICE ADVERTISING
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	For the calendar years ending December 31, 1954 and December 31, 1955, how much was spent by the Post Office Department tor the purchase of advertising in (a) newspapers; (b) magazines, programs and periodical publications; (c) radio?
2.	In the case of magazines, programs and periodical publications (a) what was the name of each such publication; (b) for each publication, and for each year as designated above, how much was paid?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Gagnon: 1.	Do any members of parliament receive pensions, either military or civil, from the government? If so, how many?
2.	Who are they and what amount of pension [DOT]does each receive per year?



DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Dufresne: What are the names, duties, places of origin, and present nationalities of all the employees attached to the Canadian diplomatic missions throughout the world?



REFUNDS OF WARTIME COMPULSORY SAVINGS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	What is the total amount of wartime compulsory savings refunds not yet returned to those to whom such refunds belong?
2.	What is the total number of persons to whom such refunds have not yet been made?
3.	What steps has the government taken to get these refunds to the persons to whom they belong?



PERSONAL INCOME TAX REFUNDS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	What is the total amount of personal income tax refunds, to and including 1954 or the latest year for which figures are available, not yet returned to those to whom such refunds belong?
2.	What is the total number of persons to whom such refunds have not yet been made?
3.	What steps has the government taken to get these refunds to the persons to whom they belong?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. McCullough (Moose
Mountain):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and [DOT]other documents exchanged between the government of British Columbia and the federal government, regarding the request for assistance in respect to the Fraser river valley flood in 1948.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The usual notification will be given to the government of British Columbia before the order is complied with.


Mr. Speaker:: Adopted, subject to the remarks made by the Prime Minister.
fMr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).]



PREMIUM IRON ORES-U.S. TAX APPEAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of any telegram or other communication sent by the Minister of National Revenue, or by his department, to any United States treasury official with reference to a tax appeal against Premium Iron Ores, dated at any time since October 1, 1955.
Mr. McCann:: There is no objection to this order passing, Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservation with reference to the consent of the other government concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion, subject to the remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has received or is aware of any complaint in regard to a C.B.C. public affairs television broadcast of last Sunday evening, conveying criticism based on the allegation that the program was loaded against the government and against the Liberal party? If so, what action, if any, has he taken in the light of the complaints or criticism?


James Joseph McCann: The matter has not been brought to my attention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he will make an inquiry of the C.B.C. and report to the house?


James Joseph McCann: I imagine, Mr. Speaker, it will be the other way around. If there has been criticism or objection, the C.B.C. will bring it to my attention.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Last
Wednesday, as reported at page 1428 of Hansard, the hon. member for Assiniboia asked the Minister of National Defence a question about Canadian representation at the Australian atomic tests.
Further to the minister's reply at that time I can now advise the house that, in agreement with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia, Canada is to participate in the series of atomic trials to be

Inquiries of the Ministry
held in Australia in late 1956. Members of the Canadian services and the defence research board will assist in the trials and items of Canadian service equipment will be exposed to the effects of the weapons. Sixteen officers of the three Canadian services and 11 officers of the defence research board will take part in these trials.



RADAR INSTALLATIONS INDICATED ON RESTAURANT PLACE MATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Has the hon. member read the story in last night's Citizen that Murray's restaurant had place mats which indicated the position of the distant early warning radar installations in northern Canada? Has there been a leak in security regulations which enabled the advertising agency and Murray's to publicize this information?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. While I have not lunched at Murray's recently, I understand the officials of the department have noticed the place mat which does not purport to be an official map, and there is nothing about it which has not already been made public officially.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a supplementary question? Can he indicate whether Murray's have withdrawn those place mats?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that the head office of Murray's has recalled supplies of these place mat's from their unit in the Lord Elgin hotel, and from Murray's restaurant on Queen street.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? Who authorized the trip of the ship Hilunga to the Queen Charlotte islands on the occasion when she foundered, and has any disciplinary action been taken in respect of this trip?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the ship was ordered out on the authority of the district engineer. The captain has been suspended pending the results of an investigation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State to clarify one point in connection with the answer he gave a few minutes ago to a starred question standing in my name? Is it clear that if there are any departmental directives telling government employees that they must process their grievances only in certain ways, that does not prohibit them from discussing their grievances with members of parliament?


Roch Pinard: I
agree with that. Whether there are any such administrative rules which would preclude employees from bringing their grievances to members of parliament, I must say I know of none.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO RELIEVE SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS

[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. Has the minister learned of the recent statement of the Saskatchewan wheat pool that a severe box car shortage has made deep cuts into current farm income? Are any steps being taken to make box cars available so that outstanding orders for box cars may be filled at an early date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know who is to be the judge of the number of box cars that would be satisfactory. It is my understanding that the difficulties during the past month or so have been due to a shortage of motive power to clear sidings of snow and to do all of the work that has to be done under severe winter weather conditions. The numbers of box cars engaged in the west have been rising steadily since last autumn. Whether there are sufficient box cars in western Canada is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has given its opinion; I am giving mine.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
1666	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had a chance to read the story by Charles Woodsworth in last night's Toronto Star suggesting that Saskatchewan has requested that they be relieved of performing the death sentence for murder cases in Saskatchewan from now on? Has the minister any comment?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to read the article in question, and my comment would be that since confederation the responsibility for the custody of a prisoner sentenced to death and the responsibility for the actual carrying out of the death sentence has been that of the provinces. During this long period of time they never questioned this responsibility and have carried it out.
It seems to me that if any change in this responsibility were to be considered at all it should not be considered until we shall have received the report of the parliamentary committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, the preparation of which is shortly to be under way. Until we shall have received that report we should not consider requests of this nature, and that is the position I took in the letter of reply which I wrote to Hon. Mr. Sturdy.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosefown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan government has turned its jails into corrective institutions where young men are incarcerated, does the minister think some arrangement could be made between the provinces and his department so that executions may be removed from these corrective institutions to places where more hardened criminals are incarcerated if we are going to continue capital punishment at all?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, any arrangements that we make with any one province, I think we would have to be prepared to provide for others. No one has suggested until the present time that the manner in which the province carries out death sentences is other than a provincial responsibility. I would be quite open to suggestions as to any means by which we might be of help to the carrying out of death sentences by this province. But we could not consider assuming this responsibility ourselves or even consider a consideration of assuming it until we receive the report of this committee. Otherwise we would be anticipating the report of the committee in a manner which would be most inappropriate.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the house if the federal civilian defence organization plans to make available to the city of Montreal any additional trucks or equipment under the same terms as the two camouflaged vehicles located yesterday?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood that the hon. gentleman was imaginative but I never realized he was so inquisitive. I can only say in answer to his question that that matter is now receiving my full attention.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. Will the minister confer with the Minister of Justice as to whether legal action should be taken against the city of Montreal in connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are some occasions when I think a co-operative effort is calculated to achieve better results. I had the privilege of discussing this matter the other day in my office with the mayor of Montreal, and I think my method will prove more effective than the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LAKE LEVELS  DEEPENING OF WELLAND CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask two questions, both of which, I think, should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since they concern lake levels. Perhaps the minister could take them as notice, because I imagine he does not have the information at hand; in fact, I am quite sure he would not have it.
Is the Welland canal kept open after navigation closes in the fall in order to take water from the great lakes? The second question is: if in the St. Lawrence seaway project the Welland canal is to be deepened, how much extra water would flow through that canal?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member is quite

right, Mr. Speaker; I do not have that information at the moment but I shall take his questions as notice.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I would like to give the further information promised yesterday to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne).
The regional office for the Atlantic provinces is at Moncton. All claims from the two offices of Campbellton and Edmundston, as from others, have to pass through the regional office for processing and then return to the local offices for payment. Therefore the number of claims actually under process at the regional office varies from day to day.
Only by physical count is it possible to get a picture of the status of the claims flowing through the regional office on any given day. In view of yesterday's question, I asked the commission if they would conduct a detailed count and report on the status of all claims at the Moncton regional office, originating from the local offices of Campbellton and Edmundston, as at the close of business yesterday.
Also the points at issue are not only the number of claims but rather the question of undue delay or the length of time that they have been under process since the date the claims were filed at the local office.
With that explanation, I now give the results of last night's work at Moncton regional office. A physical count of all claims originating in the above two offices and pending at the Moncton regional office was made last evening, February 28. The following is the breakdown:
Campbellton, N.B., office:	168 regular
claims. Of the 168 regular claims, 118 are less than one week old. I interject here that by "old" I mean the length of time since the claim was first filed at the local office. 36 are less than two weeks old; 8 are less than three weeks old; 6 are three weeks old or more.
Edmundston, N.B., office: 128 regular claims. Of the 128 regular claims, 91 are less than a week old; 27 are less than two weeks old; 7 are less than three weeks old; 3 are three weeks old or more.
Delays in regular claims are for various reasons, some beyond the commission's -control, such as: (1) Awaiting credits for contributions payable in respect of service in the armed forces; (2) insurance books lost or mislaid by claimants, requiring reference
Inquiries of the Ministry to previous employers for particulars of contributions; (3) awaiting transfer of contribution records from other regions in respect of claimants who worked in other than the Atlantic region and have since moved there.
The figures would not be complete without this reference. It will be recalled that in my statement in the house on 25th January 1 said there would be some delay in the computation of certain claims to be reconsidered under the reinterpretation of 119 (b) of the act, because of the heavy loads that the offices would have to encounter.
Therefore, I would like also to report on those that are at the regional office, Moncton, in this category, as of last night.
Campbellton, N.B.: Of the 70 claims for recomputation, 41 are less than two weeks old; 29 are two weeks or more old.
Edmundston, N. B.: Of the 240 claims for recomputation, 231 are less than two weeks old; 9 are two weeks old or more.
I apologize for taking so much time of the house on this matter, but answering this question gives me a chance, which I welcome, of paying tribute to the good work of the commission staff at the regional office in Moncton and at the local offices at Campbellton, and Edmundston, that has made such a very satisfactory picture possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would like the Minister of Labour to give the figures for ten days and 20 days ago.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I made it perfectly clear that with the flow in and the flow out of claims, unless the whole machinery is stopped and the entire staff is put on it to make an analysis and count all those claims that are going through, it is impossible to do it except as it was done last night. The variations within the week or ten days referred to by my hon. friend would not be very great.


Mr. Van Horne:: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. I presume-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ralph Byron Horner: Is this the purpose for
the hiring of approximately 38 extra persons recently by the Edmundston regional office servicing the Campbellton and Edmundston offices?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I presume that the purpose is to take care of the extra work arising from the winter. During the winter months all our offices have to take on extra casual personnel to help to cope with the situation in the wintertime.

Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH AND WELFARE	COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES



REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO REVIEW OLD AGE LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Will the government consider appointing a special committee to review the whole subject of our old age legislation in line with the recommendation made in the excellent report on our older citizens released last week by the welfare council of greater Winnipeg?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me if we will consider setting up a committee. I do not think there is any need for it in the light of the report to which my hon. friend directs my attention. But may I ask him if he has seen the article in a recent United States publication that urged the United States to follow the old age security program adopted by this parliament three years ago?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose the proper thing for me to say is that I shall take notice of that question. However, I suggest that this govemment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that this government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You know the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not intervening in order to interrupt the hon. member. I was just trying to ask that those who were making a noise refrain from doing so. I was going to allow the hon. member to make his comment, because I realize that when a minister, in replying to a question, makes a comment which may be debated, it may call, on the part of the member who receives the answer, for a debatable retort.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My reply is that I am glad to note that in the United States there is recognition of the excellent principle upon which our old age security legislation is based, but I suggest that, following the United States custom, there is room for a much larger amount of old age security pension to be paid in this country.



MOTION TO APPOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):
That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, last night just prior to the adjournment, following your second last intervention, as recorded on page 1655 of Hansard, I commented to you in reference to the earlier intervention of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) that the hon. member did not put a question. Then Hansard records that an hon. member said, "Yes, he did."
I should like to make this comment. It is quite true that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine asked a question and it is indeed true that he asked three questions. I accepted his questions and endeavoured to answer them. But what I was referring to at that time was the fact that after I had answered his three questions he then insisted on getting up and making a statement. That was what I was referring to in this statement that I made, which another hon. member has apparently thought was alluding to the earlier questions of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Sir, prior to the intervention of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) I was, as Hansard records at the bottom of the page 1654, the first column, making this singularly unprovocative remark:
I made mention of the way the committee on estimates functions at Westminster. The committee there decides what estimates-
Then there is a dash and then the intervention of the hon. gentleman began. I did not return to the thread of my comment. I wish to deal with the practice at Westminster in reference to the selection of work on the part of the committee on estimates. The committee on estimates at Westminster decides what work that committee will take in hand in review of estimates. I am informed that in the first instance they usually refer that subject to a subcommittee of the main committee. I suppose in our practice here we would call it the steering committee. That subcommittee consists of the chairman, the chairmen of all five subcommittees and also two or three senior members of the committee on estimates. The opposition, through their representatives on that subcommittee or steering committee, has full scope in the choice of the estimates to be examined.

The recommendations of the subcommittee or steering committee are then submitted to the whole committee and a decision is taken there in the light of the recommendations of the subcommittee. So you will see there is no attempt on the part of the government to select, before the committee even meets or is set up, the work that the committee is to undertake. The committee makes its own decision as to what estimates it is to consider. The whole estimates of a department may be referred to one of the five subcommittees for examination or the estimates of several departments, but frequently only certain items of the estimates of one or more departments under which money is provided for certain purposes are referred. The complete freedom of the estimates committee to select the work that it is to take up is emphasized at every stage of the procedure.
We have been told that this is the continuation of an experiment. We had one year's experience with the experiment. I suggest that if the experiment is to continue we ought to make it a useful experiment. Last year we experimented with a system under which the opposition was given no voice whatever in the selection of the departments. The government itself, before the committee was permitted to function, made the selection of the departments. If we are going to experiment further, then let us extend the scope of the experiment. Let us experiment this year with a committee that has a free hand to select its own business in review of the estimates.
Having experimented last year with a committee that was hamstrung and fettered, let us experiment this year with an unfettered committee and derive the benefit of the experience from it. I propose therefore to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "as may be referred to it" and substituting therefor the following: "as may seem fit to the committee."
I point out to the house that if the amendment is adopted it will bring the powers and procedures of the committee in this regard completely into line with the well established practice at Westminster, a practice that has now been in effect for 44 years and is working to the satisfaction of all political parties there.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that there was a time when the practice at Westminster with regard to the committee on estimates was apparently approved by the government here. As found at page 937 of
Committee on Estimates Hansard for February 8, 1955, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), in introducing the resolution, said this:
Of course, in the years since the world war there has been repeated discussion on the subject and in each of the committees on procedure which have been set up we have had extensive talks as to the method by which to bring about a better way of dealing with the estimates.
Then, note these words:
If hon. members are interested, they would have noticed that the 1947 committee recommended that we adopt in general terms the system obtaining in the United Kingdom.
I take it that the Minister of Finance would not have made that observation on the report of the 1947 committee of this house on procedure were he not putting that reference forward with approval. I say to all members of the house that if they wish to pay attention to the recommendation of the 1947 committee of this house on procedure they will proceed to bring the powers and procedures of the proposed committee on estimates into line with those prevailing at Westminster. They can do that in this respect by adopting the present amendment. If they do not adopt the present amendment they are simply proposing to continue a fettered and hamstrung committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Eglinton be good enough to send me a note as to the reference in which he found the wording of the United Kingdom order of reference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was giving a paraphrase. I was not reading directly. I was giving a paraphrase from a source from which I have had full instructions on the procedure prevailing at Westminster. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you wish, that it is from an hon. member of that house of long experience.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I ask is that I have doubts that the amendment is in order. Those doubts might be removed if I were to find the order of reference and explanations as to how it has come about in the United Kingdom. However, I will conduct my own research.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as one who was a member of the committee on estimates last year from the beginning and who was present at almost all hearings, and consequently as one of those who had to listen to the same diatribe that we have had to listen to from the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I think I should ask the indulgence of the house for a few minutes today. As we all
1670	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates know, when the committee was set up last year the official opposition put up a barrage of technical amendments and adopted all kinds of tactics to delay the proceedings of the committee and to prevent the committee from getting to work on the estimates of the departments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


René Jutras: The hon. member for Eglinton is not in a position to speak on that particular point because, although he was a member originally, he remained a member for a very short while.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is all on record.


René Jutras: But I admit that his colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, certainly tried to emulate him in this respect. As every member who was on the committee for any length of time knows, as soon as the hon. member for Kamloops was taken off the committee the committee got to work and from that day on we did very useful work.


An hon. Member:: Whitewashing the government.


René Jutras: The record speaks for itself. Anybody can look at the record. If you open Hansard for last year you will find that members from all quarters of the house, members of the official opposition as well as members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups and members on the government side, agreed that the committee had served a very useful purpose last year. Some did have certain qualifications. That is understandable coming from the opposition, but after some weeks of sitting, after we actually got down to work on the estimates, it is apparent from the record that the committee served a very useful purpose to the house and to the members themselves.
The only trouble with the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton is that when they came to the committee they attempted to do everything else but consider the estimates. This committee is a committee on estimates. The purpose of the committee is to consider the estimates of the department which is referred to the committee. The attempt made from the very beginning was to try to do something altogether outside of that jurisdiction. Then even when the time came to consider the estimates, the effort of the hon. member for Kamloops was to bring someone from outside to do the questioning for him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To get a witness before the committee.


René Jutras: We all know the hon. member for Kamloops. He is an intelligent gentleman. He is a lawyer and even a Rhodes scholar. IMr. Jutras.]

Yesterday he complained that he could not come to grips with the estimates. If he had applied himself in any way to coming to grips with the estimates, I am sure that he could have done so without any difficulty. However, as I say, he was in a frame of mind where he was so imbued with the idea of having somebody from outside or of doing something else apart from considering the estimates that, as he put it, he found it extremely frustrating indeed to be on that committee. I just want to remind him that if he was frustrated, he has no idea how annoyed the rest of the members of the committee were when we had to put up with these delaying tactics in sitting after sitting of the committee.
In the discussion yesterday and today the point made by both hon. members of the official opposition is twofold, as I understand it. First of all, they complain of the inability to send for persons, papers and records. I see that Mr. Speaker is looking at me. We had an amendment with respect to that matter and I am prevented from referring to it. I will certainly refrain from doing so, Mr. Speaker, although I should very much like to refer to it.
We now come to the next point. The next point raised by both hon. gentlemen-and it was raised today by the hon. member for Eglinton who indeed moves an amendment to that effect-is this. If I may I should like to read from the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops. As reported at pages 1639 of Hansard he said:
The second obvious limitation is that the committee will have before it for consideration only such estimates as the government by the control of its majority in the house may refer to it.
That in effect is the complaint of the hon. member for Eglinton, if I understood him correctly. Although I have not the wording of the amendment before me, the amendment is in effect trying to correct that situation. What is the complaint in this regard? The complaint of the opposition is that the matter of referring the departments to the committee is left to parliament. That is what it is. He says that it has for consideration "only such estimates as the government by the control of its large majority in the house may refer to it". In other words-and this is strange indeed-here is the official opposition complaining because it is left within the authority of parliament to decide what will come to the committee. They are arguing and then moving an amendment with a view to taking this authority out of parliament and placing it in a committee of the house. That suggestion seems strange to me, coming from the official opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do you not be realistic about it?


René Jutras: It is not a question of being
realistic. All matters are referred to the committee by parliament, not by the government. Now the complaint is that parliament is dominated by the government members. Of course that is so and it always will be the situation no matter who is in power. The majority in parliament decides but it is parliament that decides. It is parliament that decides what departments will come before the committee. Now we have this odd situation of finding the official opposition complaining that this authority should be removed from parliament because parliament is not competent to decide what departments should go before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How ridiculous can you
become?


René Jutras: That is a complete reversal of the stand of the opposition, if I may say so.
Extensive reference has been made to the United Kingdom committee on estimates. The one thing-and it is a most important thing- that all hon. members who referred to it failed to point out is that in the United Kingdom, as we know, the estimates have become so extensive, voluminous and large that members of parliament have given up the task of trying to study every one of the estimates in their parliament. As a compromise they have this estimates committee and all they attempt to do is to make a spot check, so to speak, on the estimates. Hence of necessity they are obliged to take certain items or certain departments in order to make a study of those particular items. But there is never any attempt to go through all the estimates. Here in this country we are still at the stage where the amount of our estimates and the number of our estimates are such that it is still physically possible for parliament and for a committee to make a detailed study of every item of our estimates. That is what we were doing last year with all the departments which came before our committee. We made an extensive and detailed study of every department that came before us.
I did not hear the opposition suggest that we should adopt the United Kingdom practice. I do not think we have yet reached that stage. I do not say that we may not reach it before very long. I recall, for instance, that a few years ago we streamlined our estimates. We reduced the number of our estimates because they were getting fairly bulky and difficult to run through. But today I suggest that it is practical yet for the committee to make a complete study of the estimates. I suggest
Committee on Estimates that the example of the United Kingdom type of committee which is set up for a different purpose altogether is not a fair comparison and does not apply to this country.
Reference was made to the United States committee or to their standing committees in congress.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. No reference was made to that matter.


René Jutras: Yes, there was. It was not made by you. Some other members made reference to it. Of course over there in the United States there is a different set-up altogether.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was not any reference at all to it in this debate.


René Jutras: Yes. I recall some reference to it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A year ago; not in this debate.


René Jutras: If I wish to make reference to it, I am entitled to do so. There is nothing to prevent me from doing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a red herring.


René Jutras: Let me say this to the hon. member. There are many people in this country-and I have run across the situation on many occasions-and many members in the opposition who are confused on many occasions. They see what goes on in Washington. They see how the system operates over there. Then we here in this country get requests for more or less getting the same thing done in Canada. They of course forget that we operate under quite different systems of government.
Shortly before the opening of this session it was my privilege to visit one of the standing committees of congress. As a matter of fact, I was invited to sit around the table with the members of the committee for part of a sitting and I was able to observe closely how their committee was operated. It is not for me to judge their method of procedure, but I certainly came out convinced that it could not be applied or followed with the system of government that we have. As I say, their system of government is entirely different from ours and their procedure does not apply here.
After all, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Kamloops or any other hon. member of the opposition says that with this type of committee he has been unable to come to grips with the problem in the estimates committee, I suggest that if he has been unable to do so it is simply because he has not applied himself to the task. Towards the end of the session particularly, everybody expressed the feeling that a good job had been done by the committee. At no time did the ministers refuse to answer any questions
1672	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates that were asked by either opposition or government members. At no time did the ministers or anyone else refuse to produce officials of the department for questioning by the committee. We had all the help of the department and all the officials who were asked to be present came. All the information was laid before the members. As some hon. members pointed out, we not only got a lot of information but I am sure all members learned a great deal about the various departments. I am sure the committee could function in the same way this year.
In conclusion, I should like to read one sentence that was uttered by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) in the committee last year. We had completed an examination of the first department to come before the estimates committee, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Everybody was commenting on the success of the committee up to that stage. Speaking for the opposition, the hon. member for St. Paul's said:
I should also like to put myself and my associates on record in expressing our appreciation of the assistance which has been given to this committee,-
He was referring to the officials who had appeared before the committee. He continues: -and I would like also to say that I hope Mr. Thatcher has recovered from his deep pessimism about the prospects of this committee.
I commend those words to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher).


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I have listened to this debate during this session and the last session with some interest. I feel that a lot of the discussion is irrelevant. If one reads the resolution, one finds it is wide open. It merely asks us to set up a committee to which estimates can be referred from time to time. There is not anything in the motion itself that refers to any particular department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were told on February 9 what they were going to be.


Clarence Gillis: It has been suggested that there are certain departments that would be referred, and it is with that point I wish to quarrel for a few minutes. I think that setting up a committee with the end in view as expressed by the official opposition that ultimately all estimates should get a working over by that committee, would mean the abdication of parliament. It is the duty of this parliament, in committee of the whole, to examine the estimates and not send 30 men from the house to go out and examine them without the remainder of the house knowing [Mr. Jutras.l

anything about the discussion. It certainly is not giving the other members of the house much chance to decide whether the money voted is legitimate or otherwise.
Another tendency this committee has, Mr. Speaker, is to make the rest of the members lazy. If you appoint two or three members from each group in the house to examine the estimates, it is their responsibility and the rest of the members are not going to look at the estimates. They are going to depend on their members on the committee. Another thing, at the end of the session when the estimates are being considered you will often find that the members on the committee, who you expected would be discussing those estimates are not here. Other members in the group did not look at the estimates because they felt that was the responsibility of the member appointed to the committee.
In my opinion, and it is my own opinion, the sending of the estimates of the departments of labour, health and welfare and the other two departments is unnecessary. I feel it is not very much trouble to examine the estimates of a department of government that is spending the money within the country. I do not think any committee will take the estimates of any department in which the money is spent in the country and change the estimates by one cent. If you look at the items in the estimates of the department that are to be sent to the committee, you will find every one of them is a fixed responsibility. The amount changes from time to time, but not very much. I believe the department officials could justify any of those expenditures. The fact of the matter is that in labour, health and welfare and post office we are asking for increased expenditures all the time, not reductions.
I think if each group in the house did what this group has been doing we would not have much trouble examining estimates. Before the estimates are brought down each member of this group is told he will be responsible for a certain department. I am told, "Your departmental estimates will be labour." It is my responsibility to take the labour department estimates and go over them item by item. If I think there is something wrong in some section I can pick up the telephone and get the information. If I do not like what I am told I can criticize the item here when the Department of Labour estimates are before the committee of the whole. I am in a position to do that because this group has given me that responsibility. One member of this group is responsible for going over the estimates of one particular department.

I do agree with the appointment of the committee, and for this reason. In the estimates this year $1,775 million have been allocated to the Department of National Defence; $15 million to defence production and $7 million to civil defence. All these defence expenditures amount to about 39-20 per cent of the total tax dollar. If there are any departments in which there could be waste and extravagance or duplication in money spent outside of the country, where it is difficult for any member of this house to make an examination of the justification of the amounts spent, it is in those departments. I think those departments should be examined by a committee. I do not think it should be a committee appointed merely to work over the estimates. As I have said for a good many years, when you have one minister responsible for three defence departments, the navy, army and air force-even although he has excellent deputies-when you are spending money on NATO all over the world; when you have money going into civil defence, a new type of organization about which we know little, then I think someone should take a look at these expenditures. Defence production is another one. Purchases are made for the defence department. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) is not in any position to report to this house with any degree of accuracy as to whether the money is being used judiciously or otherwise.
If we are to set up a committee, then it should be a continuing committee. The spending that we should be examining is the spending of the departments that I have mentioned. They are not fixed responsibilities. A great deal of money is going into that particular organization, and if a committee were appointed by this house, and if the members of that committee were picked carefully, they would sit there and work conscientiously. If that committee had the right, as suggested by the amendment just proposed, to call in the heads of different departments to give an account of their stewardship, the committee would be a brake on defence spending. The fact that they could be called in would place the men who are spending that money in the position where they would take another look at every item. They would do that if they were answerable to a committee of this house.
I imagine that expenditures on defence are going to be with us as long as most of us will live. These expenditures are growing all the time, and they will continue to grow and become greater. If we want a committee, then I suggest to hon. members that we are wasting time by putting before that committee for examination estimates that are fixed responsibilities. I do not think they get as 67509-106
Committee on Estimates good an examination in that way as they would get if they were taken up in the house and worked over in the ordinary way. It would require little change. A great deal of value would be derived from setting up a continuing committee whose responsibility it would be to consider the various defence departments. I have just suggested civil defence, defence production and the general national defence departments.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this committee. I find myself at a loss to agree entirely with the arguments adduced, but I must admit that many points have been thought-provoking. I think they are real. If we had some medium by which we could take the good points of these arguments and crystallize them into action, then we would be serving a more useful function.
There has been discussion as to the method by which the estimates should be presented for perusal. I think it is impossible for any estimates committee to deal with them intelligently at any one session. It might be worthy of consideration to take them in order of importance and perhaps rotate them so that there would be enough estimates presented to occupy the full time of the committee authorized to deal with them. I am inclined to believe, from what I saw as a member of that committee, that nothing would be presented that would cause the government any worry if they agreed to the request that the committee be given the right to call in anyone to enlighten them on the job they have to do. I do not think it necessarily means that with respect to every estimate that comes up you would be calling in scores of people from the outside. I do not think that is necessary at all. But if on the discussion of the estimates a reasonable doubt should arise, and we should have a little further information, then we should have the right to call for that information. I think that is conducive to good business. I would be the last one in the world to subscribe to that suggestion if I thought it was going to become a medium for political manoeuvring, where people were jockeying for political aggrandizement. I do not think that should be done at all.
There is another thing that I feel is not conducive to good business, and that is to have ministers sitting in as members of the committee. I have the highest regard for all of the hon. gentlemen, but I do not think I can reconcile that with my own good judgment. I do not think they should sit in as judge and jury both, and that is really what they are doing. It would be better in many

Committee on Estimates ways to have them sit there in their true capacity and not be identified as a member of the committee.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the ministers for the frankness with which they answered all the questions that were put to them. I should like to pay a tribute to those of their staffs who were so efficient and so ready with their answers to the problems that were perplexing members of the committee at that time. That is all to the good. They are to be highly commended; but I think we should consider the advisability of having the minister sit in the committee in the capacity of both judge and jury.
I heard certain statements made. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) commented on the amount of valuable time that was wasted through debating whether or not we should be privileged to call in witnesses. If it were recognized that they would be available if necessary-and it would be necessary only rarely-then it would relieve the tension and give us perhaps a greater opportunity more intelligently to deal with the business in hand.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us has been carefully explained by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The purpose of the amendment is clear. It would have as its effect an arrangement similar to that which has proved so satisfactory at Westminster where this practice was adopted. I regret very much that in regard to a matter so important to this house we should have no statement from the government on the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. We are still waiting to hear from the Prime Minister any reason why the reasonable requests made on an earlier motion, and now before the house on this motion, cannot be considered by the government. The only statements that have been made, other than the very numerous interjections from a seated position, are the statements made on February 9 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), in which he made no attempt to explain why the government was not following the very satisfactory practice adopted at Westminster, and the statements we have just heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras).
If anything favourable can be said about the speech of the hon. member for Provencher it is that it did at least attempt to deal with some aspects of the discussion now before us. The Minister of Finance, in a few words on February 9, as reported at page 1041 of Hansard of this session, simply informed the house that we were not going to
[Mr. Yulll.l
have this procedure that has proved satisfactory elsewhere. He also gave certain bald information, without explanation, as to why that was being done. For that reason, we are brought up to the statement of the hon. member for Provencher today, because it becomes necessary to deal with one or two statements he made, in view of the fact that we have no other statements to deal with in regard to this subject. The hon. member for Provencher told us today, in what sounded like an attempt to make an authoritative statement, "It is for parliament to decide what departments will go before the committee." Mr. Speaker, nothing could better illustrate how important it would be that this subject be dealt with under the established procedure, because the hon. member for Provencher obviously does not know anything about it.
The hon. member for Provencher is obviously unaware that on February 9 the Minister of Finance stated that two months ago, that was two months before February 9, the decision had been made. These are his words as found at page 1042 of Hansard:
We had considered what estimates we might refer to the committee this year. We did that some two months ago and decided to refer to the committee the estimates of the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office Department.
Since the only statement that has even pretended to give anything in the way of an explanation has been made by the hon. member for Provencher, I think I should put on the record a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the reply I received. It will be quite clear from that, if there is any uncertainty in the mind of any hon. member, that parliament has not been asked to decide and that this decision was made in December and was made by the government. When the Minister of Finance says, "We decided" he means the government and not parliament. Parliament was not sitting in December; hon. members know that parliament met on January 10.
On January 27 I wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister:
The Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent. P.C., Q.C., M.F., Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons.
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
In view of the fact that a motion stands in your name on the Order Paper to set up a committee to deal with estimates, I thought I should indicate to you the departmental estimates which we would prefer to have considered.

In the following order, we would like to have the committee consider the estimates of these departments:
Defence
Trade and Commerce
Justice
Fisheries.
I would hope that it might be decided this year that the committee will have power to call witnesses and obtain the production of papers and records. Naturally this power would be subject to review by the committee in any case where security might be involved. I do urge, however, that subject to this reservation, provision be made that the committee have this power.
Yours sincerely,
The letter is signed by me.
In reply I received the following letter dated February 2:
The Honourable George Drew, P.C., Q.C., LL.D., Leader of the Opposition,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Drew:
May I thank you for your letter of January 27 with respect to the business of the estimates committee.
Last December we considered this question and decided that we would refer to the committee the estimates of the Departments of National Revenue, Labour, Health and Welfare and Post Office, and these departments have been making suitable arrangements in the meantime. Under the circumstances I do not think it would be desirable to change these plans.
With respect to your request that the committee have power to call witnesses and require the production of papers and records, may I point out that the Minister of Finance, in moving the setting up of this committee last session, made it clear that as this was an innovation it was desirable, in the experimental period, to keep the work of the committee as close as possible to the practice and procedure in the committee of supply. 1 think you will agree we are still in the experimental period, and we would prefer to continue the experiment on the basis begun last year.
Yours sincerely.
The letter is signed by the Prime Minister.
It is quite clear that the decision was made in December and that no choice has been left to parliament to make any decision in this respect.
The suggestion has been made, by the only spokeman from the government side who has even pretended to deal with this subject, that the opposition is complaining that parliament must decide what will be done. That statement is pure unadulterated nonsense. Parliament is not being asked to decide. Where is there anything before this house that places parliament in the position to make any requests? What we are complaining about is that parliament has no chance to decide and we by this resolution are giving parliament a chance to actually have some authority. We are proposing a method that would be consistent with the procedure followed in the jurisdiction upon which this practice is based. I would point 67509-106i
Committee on Estimates out, however, that we need not go to Westminster to find reasons why there should be the right to call witnesses and also to call for the production of papers and documents. Every standing committee of this house has that authority now. Under the rules of this house every standing committee has the right and power to call for the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers and documents. We are not suggesting some strange innovation.
May I say that the only place from which any suggestion has come that we should make a comparison with the procedure in the United States is from the hon. member for Provencher. It would appear that he had gone to Washington to see if there was anything there which we might follow, for he tells us of his experience following the activities of that committee. Certainly we are not suggesting the adoption of a policy of that kind. We are suggesting the application of a procedure already incorporated in our rules in regard to standing committees. All that would be necessary to make this possible now would be for the government to decide that this committee will become a standing committee, and I make that proposal now, that this committee be a standing committee.
It has already been suggested here that this committee meet regularly. We want it to meet regularly. Let us have it a standing committee and then automatically it would have the right to call witnesses and to call for the production of papers and documents. As it is, this committee is nothing but a pious pretence. When the hon. member for Provencher said that they all came out satisfied with what had been done, he meant that the Liberals all came out satisfied that they had suppressed any opportunity of really getting at the facts that would have been available if witnesses had been called. That was the satisfaction they felt.
We listened this afternoon to a very clear declaration of true government policy, although it was not uttered by anyone with any apparent authority from the government on this occasion. The hon. member for Provencher suggested that it was absolutely unnecessary and unreasonable to expect that we should seek more than the answer of a minister or the people he proposed to bring forward. We have had plenty of evidence that we cannot rely on the statements of ministers. We have had plenty of evidence that they do not know what they are talking about when they make statements on behalf of their departments. We are not satisfied with statements of ministers here who one after another have made positive statements in regard to different problems within their
167G

Committee on Estimates departments and then within hours in one case and within days in other cases were proved to know nothing whatever about the subject they were discussing. We point out that if this were a standing committee, a perfectly normal procedure would be to call witnesses and to obtain evidence in regard to the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have just refreshed my memory and I find that a motion was negatived yesterday. A motion was moved by Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Blair, in these words:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
In view of the fact that this motion was negatived by the house, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should refrain from references to that particular phase of this problem.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall not pursue it further. I regret that Your Honour did not notice that the hon. member for Provencher had been discussing that point at some considerable length.


René Jutras: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I purposely did not discuss that point when the Speaker looked at me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is on the record.


An hon. Member:: Look at Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: Hansard fortunately now speaks for itself.


An hon. Member:: Let it speak for itself.


An hon. Member:: Don't change it.


George Alexander Drew: If the government really has any serious thought of making this committee on estimates an effective or an operative committee, and if there is one department that should be under examination, it is the Department of National Defence. That department, after all, directly or indirectly is responsible for the expenditure of nearly half of our very large budget. That department is one which certainly cannot be examined satisfactorily in the committee of the whole house.
Again I regret that it is necessary to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Provencher, because so little of it was relevant; but since it is the only statement made on behalf of the government I must take it that, up to this point at any rate, we should regard it as the explanation that is intended to come from the other side in regard to this motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
In his discussion of the subject he pointed out that there was a very different situation at Westminster, that there the estimates are so

involved that they would not be able to consider them in detail. Nevertheless he suggested that here there is, of course, ample opportunity to deal with them in the committee of the whole house. Well, there is not a thoughtful hon. member of this house who does not know perfectly well that it is impractical in the committee of the whole house to deal with the estimates of the Department of National Defence and, for that matter, with any other department, in the way they should be dealt wtih and could be dealt with. Why was it that in setting up standing committees there was the power granted to those committees, as a matter of right, to call witnesses and to call for the production of papers and documents?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten that I just drew to his attention the fact that discussion of that particular phase of this matter is out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out once again that I was dealing with what was said by the hon. member for Provencher, and I was dealing with it in order to correct a misstatement which was made and which was permitted without any interjection from Your Honour when it was made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was not in the house when the words to which the hon. member has referred were spoken. I am now charged with the duty of trying to keep this debate relevant and in order. I have drawn to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that this very question was negatived yesterday. Under those circumstances I can do nothing else but ask him to refrain from referring to that phase of this problem.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the 1947 committee on procedure recommended that we adopt in this house the same procedure in regard to all our committees that has been adopted at Westminster. That report of a committee of this house still stands as a matter of record. That report of a committee of this house, which after all represented the decision of members supporting this government as well as other members of this house, recommended a course which would have resulted automatically in our right to suggest the departments that should be examined. But even without that recommendation I submit that if this government really has any serious intention of making this committee operate, if this government is not merely making a pious pretence in its profession of offering some opportunity to examine the estimates, then it would name automatically, and even without request, the Department of National Defence.

Let any hon. members who are uncertain about how far the committees go in Westminster, which was suggested as the model by a committee on which the majority were members supporting this government, study the situation there. They will find that there the opposition is permitted to make suggestions as to the departments that should be called. There the opposition is given an opportunity to obtain information in regard to important subjects. If hon. member will read Hansard reports of the proceedings at Westminister they will find there the most detailed examination of the estimates' of the department of defence in the government of the United Kingdom. They will find that members of that committee travelled to different parts of the United Kingdom and called at various military installations, where there were brought before them not only senior officers but officials. They had senior members of the general staff before their committee, and they asked them questions. The most detailed information was given.
Is it to be suggested that here in Canada we are in a less favourable position to place under examination our staff officers and our officials dealing with defence activities than they are in Britain? In this country our defence activities are extremely important and call for the allocation of nearly half of our very large budget. Nevertheless not one hon. member in this house would suggest that there are as secret problems involved in our own case, nor would they suggest that the scope and the general scale of the responsibilities of our department of defence are commensurate with those of the department of defence in London.
They are able to come before a committee. They are able to give information. Upon the basis of that examination-granted only an examination in this case of a single department at one time-they are able to place before the house detailed recommendations which have resulted in substantial reform, not only in the matter of administration but in the matter of accounting methods as well.
We are suggesting nothing that is unusual. We are suggesting the practice we have adopted in regard to all our standing committees. We are suggesting a practice that has worked favourably in that jurisdiction that was recommended as our model for a committee of this house in 1947. May I once again emphasize that what we are asking is reasonable. What we are asking is consistent with our own practice. What we are asking is consistent with the practice that has been adopted elsewhere under a jurisdiction which follows our own parliamentary traditions.
Committee on Estimates
One thing that is certain-and I repeat it because it is in reference to the only statement that has been made on behalf of the government, or rather, I should say, on' behalf of the government from the government side of the house in regard to any of the details- is that parliament has not been asked to choose the departments. Parliament is not being permitted to choose the departments. If the hon. member for Provencher really believed, as he implied, that parliament should have that authority, then let him vote for this amendment and let the hon. members opposite vote for this amendment. Then he would be consistent for the first time.
However, this resolution-an important resolution, one sufficiently important that the government feels that it should be considered as only in its experimental stages-stands in the name of the Prime Minister, and we are waiting to hear from the Prime Minister any valid reason why this reasonable request should not be granted.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I desire at this time to say a few words concerning the proposed amendment, which expresses dissatisfaction with the setting up of the committee as it is presently proposed. First of all, I think all parties in the house agree that the committee is desirable. I know that over the years I have had the pleasure of being here it has been recommended and urged by members in various quarters of the house. Therefore I think it is desirable. I believe the public have a right to expect that the closest possible scrutiny will be given to the expenditures that are made here. Our expenditures are now approximately $5 billion, and from the correspondence I get and my contacts at home in my own riding I know that the people are concerned that the very closest examination be given the money that is expended here. I think the committee is welcomed by the members, and despite what the Leader of the Opposition has just said I think it is a fair statement to say that those who were members of the committee last year were well satisfied with the results.
I should like to take a moment to put on record the words of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) who, I might say, made a very worth-while contribution to the deliberations of the committee last year. I refer to the proceedings of the committee on estimates for Friday, March 18, 1955, and at page 427 I find that the hon. member for St. Paul's had this to say:
I should also like to put myself and my associates on record in expressing our appreciation of the assistance which has been given to this committee . . .
1G78	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates
The important thing is that these remarks were made on the last day of our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which all of us will remember was the most controversial so far as discussion was concerned. Then, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) had this to say:
I would like to add my word of congratulation and commendation to the officials for the straightforward way in which they gave their answers to some of these problems. I think they have done a splendid job and I really feel that this committee is worth while . . .
I think it is fair to say that the chairman of the committee summed up the attitude of the members when he made these remarks:
It is very heart-warming to all concerned to think that when this important work of examining the estimates of a department of government on behalf of the people of Canada is over, that in spite of the differences we have had everybody can feel that the work has been well worth doing . . .
I have also taken the trouble to re-examine the work of the committee last year. It is now proposed that the committee be set up again and at present we have an amendment to the motion before us. I think the committee could be more useful, but I believe it can only become more useful with a change of attitude on the part of the official opposition. I say this in all seriousness. It is my understanding, and I believe the understanding of almost every member in the house regardless of party affiliation, that the committee should be used to get at the facts and examine the expenditures of the various departments under review, and that it should not be used as a forum for airing and re-airing a debate that has already taken place in this chamber.
I think the official opposition can be criticized on that point. Hon. members will recall that there were 36 sittings last spring, and I have taken the trouble to examine them. Of the 36 sittings, 16 were devoted to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In other words over 40 per cent of the time taken by the committee was devoted ;o one department. In the estimates of the four departments examined there was an expenditure of $347 million involved; yet 40 per cent of the time of the committee was spent in examining 10 per cent of the estimates, so far as amount is concerned, that came before us.
As hon. members will recall, most of the time was spent in attempts on the part of the official opposition members of the committee to bring before the committee and rehash the report or working papers-I forget the description-of the subcommittee of the civil


liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association. Sixteen of the 36 sittings of the committee were spent on that department.
In my opinion the opposition have it within their power to make the committee more workable so that it will do a better job for the country generally. When the Leader of the Opposition is naming members of his party to that committee I suggest that he might well take a look behind him rather than beside him and put on the committee some of the backbenchers in his party, those to whom in our case he refers as following blindly. Incidentally, I do not see much division over there when it comes time to vote. He might give consideration to others than the ones who are involved in leadership over there, although perhaps "leadership" is too strong a word. I want to be fair. I think he might well consider some of those members who are elected to represent his party because of their ability as businessmen and responsible citizens in their own ridings. I am sure that in that party, as in all parties, there are many men who are capable of doing a job on the committee and are anxious to do so. I think he should give that some consideration. Let us forget political significance as far as this committee is concerned.


George Alexander Drew: I am sure this is relevant to the motion.


John Richard Garland: I have often heard it said what a worth-while job is done by the committee on external affairs. For several years now the estimates of the department have been examined by that committee. I think it is a reasonable conclusion that the reason the committee has done useful work is that there has been a degree of unanimity as far as policy is concerned. The members of that committee have taken part in the work of the committee with a genuine desire to examine the estimates.
I think that can be done, and I would urge that more businessmen be given the opportunity to be members of this committee so as to get on with the job. I believe that suggestion will commend itself favourably to the majority of the fair-minded people of Canada.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in support of the resolution and the amendment. Both remind me very strongly of the situation Samson found himself in when his locks were shorn. He had a great name for power and strength, yet he found himself with neither strength nor a mind of his own. I feel that we have somewhat the same situation here. The committee has a powerful sounding name and is going to do wonderful

things but its teeth have been removed, particularly when the power to call for papers and witnesses is not granted.
I am not going to go any further on that.
I would criticize the resolution very mildly, and I should like to make what I hope will be suggestions to improve committees of this type as far as the present and future sessions are concerned. Many of us who are just rank and file members of this committee have for a long time felt frustrated and that we were wasting time because the items came before the committee and went away in the same condition exactly, intact as the government first presented them. We had made very little impact on them beyond, as someone said, the fact that we obtained a great deal of information and we had questions asked and answered. But we got no action as a result of those questions or that information. I have often heard good proposals made by the opposition scorned and turned down because they were not made from the government side.
It is that frustration which I feel is making our committees in general ineffective and almost useless. I would call the committees on which I have sat something much like what President Roosevelt used to call his evening fireside chat. That is about all the effectiveness we have. We are lulled into thinking we are doing something when actually we are only having a pleasant time, and we come back to the house and start the thing rolling again. It seems to me that under the present set-up of committees we are not even told to take it or leave it. We are told to take it. We do not get the chance of leaving it. We are obliged to take it. The government majority see to it that we do, and that is the result at the end of the sitting.
I realize that the government must keep certain control, but I cannot for the life of me see why in committees they should keep the same rigid, strong and overwhelming control they have in the house. I would suggest to them that we would get far more effective results from the committees if the government allowed their followers to have a free vote all through the working committees so the net result would be a consensus of opinion from those committees which would represent all parties.
Failing a free vote in all committees I would suggest, as has been done in Great Britain, that the government, in order to create a balance of fairness in that committee, should ask one of the opposition members to be chairman. I think it has been done in England very effectively and fairly. That takes away that strong bias, that strong tendency to railroad things through according to
Committee on Estimates government plan. It would indicate that the government are anxious to work with the opposition. I have seen good proposals made by the opposition, proposals which when made would carry the majority of the committee, but I have seen the vote withheld until the government side of the committee mustered some members in to vote with them. Those members came in.
I remember one instance two or three years ago. They knew nothing about the subject under discussion. They did not know the pros and cons of it. They did not know whether the resolution was a sound one, because they had not been there for the debate. Nevertheless they voted solidly, reminding one, as has often been said in this house, that they were a bunch of rubber stamps O.K.'ing what the government wanted on that particular item. This committee should have more power. True, it should not have power to pass laws, but it should have power to recommend something tangible to the house. I know that some recommendations have been made in the past, but they were very few and far between.
We are accused of being behind Great Britain by 40 years, but I suggest that we take steps to give more power to our committees, to change along the lines I have suggested. More than that, if the government wanted an effective committee and wanted an effective balance of views from the members in this house, I would suggest that every committee be composed of 50 per cent government supporters and 50 per cent opposition members. Failing that, I would suggest making the proportion 55-45. The present imbalance is not giving a true reflection of the thoughts of the people of this country while their members sit on the committee.
I am not going to say anything more about that matter, but I seriously make the suggestion that we are all anxious to see these committees functioning well, to the benefit of the people of this country. Until you get a better balance between the government group and the opposition group I am satisfied that you will never get effective action from any committee that is set up, no matter under what terms. More power must be given those committees to get the evidence required in order to come to conclusions.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am intervening again in the discussion on this resolution mainly because of the speech made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), a large part of which he devoted to what I think can correctly be described as a personal attack on myself and my participation in the work of the estimates committees last year.
1680	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates
However, I do not intervene solely for that reason, though I shall have something to say with reference to his charges. I intervene because, in addition, from two hon. members who have spoken from the government side we have heard words which make it abundantly clear, beyond any possibility of doubt that in the view of the members sitting opposite, committees of this sort will do effective, useful and acceptable work only so long as they come out with a unanimous report approving every action of the government and every proposal laid before them by way of estimates.
We have that view established out of the mouth of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland). He states his view of a good committee, namely the committee on external affairs. He said they believe-and I took down his words as accurately as I could- that committee does useful work because there is a large degree of unanimity.


John Richard Garland: On policy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the criterion.


John Richard Garland: Unanimity on policy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right; I will accept that limitation. The criterion or the operative principle there must be borne in mind. What they dislike is opposition or questioning. Whether it be on policy or detail makes no difference. We have seen it too often, whether the criticism was with respect to policy or detail. That is when they begin to find the work of the committee unacceptable. It is almost a form of lese majesty; you are daring to criticize the views, the suggestions and proposals placed before you by this omnipotent, all-wise and always correct government.
That is their attitude. We saw it quite clearly mirrored in the statement of the hon. member and in the statement of the hon. member for Provencher. He said that the hon. member-referring to myself-criticized the work done by the committee last year and suggested that it could be improved. He said "If he found it annoying, I wish he would know just how annoying the other members on the committee found his efforts to criticize and to have changes made".
Mr. Speaker, I expected the hon. members of the Liberal party to be annoyed. I know that they are annoyed whenever any attempts are made to expose the fact that the proposals of the government are not sound; and particularly are they annoyed when attempts are made-as they are being made here today and as was done last night-to give the committee the power to make an impartial and independent inquiry into the government's proposals.


I find myself somewhat complimented and flattered by the words of the hon. member for Provencher. To listen to him you would think that, single-handed and alone, I had been able to frustrate the entire work of the committee, and that every other member of the committee was full of irritation over the motions I placed before that committee last year, and as we are now placing before the house this year, in an attempt to free the hands of the committee and make it possible for that committee to obtain independent evidence.
Let us look at the record, Mr. Speaker. I point out to you that last year, out of a total membership of 26, the Liberal party had 16 members, over two to one against the combined opposition. In the committee eight motions were made in an attempt to empower it, first of all, to call witnesses and call for papers. Then an attempt was made to have documents produced, something which was denied to us time after time. There were eight motions. Here is the record of the vote on those eight motions. The first motion was defeated by a vote of 7 to 11. I would ask you to bear in mind the fact that the proportionate membership of the committee was 16 Liberals out of a total of 26 or over two to one.


Mr. Hosking:: How do you get "two to one"?


Mr. Dickey:: You are talking about quality, not quantity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry; I should say over half the committee.


Henry Alfred Hosking: There is a slight difference. It is the usual distortion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right, then; over half the committee. The first vote was 7 to 11. Was that a situation where the Conservative members were alone in that vote? Here are the statistics which show that it was not a singlehanded effort, and it was only the opposition that was putting forward these suggestions. The second vote was 8 to 14. In each of these votes, except where I otherwise indicate, we were supported by members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties on that committee. The third vote was 5 to 10; the fourth vote, 5 to 10; the fifth vote, 8 to 13; the sixth vote, 3 to 13, and that is the only vote in which Conservative party members voted alone against the government. The seventh vote was 4 to 7 and on that occasion only one Social Credit member supported us. The eighth was 8 to 14.
That is the record of what actually took place there. It should, of course, be pointed out that, as we know always happens in these cases, the government members present voted solidly to support the views of the minister,

who was not very backward in indicating the way he wanted them to vote.
But far from it being a single-handed attempt by one member, or even by one party, to expand the powers of this committee so we could get at the facts, the record of these votes clearly shows that in every case but one it was the combined vote of at least two and in most cases the three opposition parties. In each of the votes except one the proportion voting for the motion which we offered was higher than the proportion of the total combined membership of the opposition on that committee. That is the record, sir, and I think it is important that the house should bear in mind that there was a high proportion of the members of the committee last year who felt that efforts such as we are making now in the house to enlarge the scope and powers of this committee should be supported.
Coming then to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) now before us, let me point out that this suggests the committee itself should decide exactly what items of the estimates it will take up. This is in accordance with the practice that has prevailed in the United Kingdom parliament since the inception of their committee in 1912. When Mr. Speaker himself was in the chair at the time the hon. member for Eglinton presented this motion, as I recall it he asked for the authority upon which the hon. member said this was similar to the practice at Westminster. Although I believe that the motion presented at Westminster does vary in some slight particulars from the motion on the basis of which the committee was first set up, in principle it does not vary. Here is the motion introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as recorded at page 360 of Hansard of the United Kingdom parliament for 1912:
That a select committee be appointed to examine and report on such of the estimates presented to this house as may seem fit to the committee.
The motion of the hon. member for Eglin-ton is, of course, entirely in accordance with the practice prevailing over there.
What is necessary, sir, to make the work of this committee useful, to make the work of this committee contribute to a detailed and impartial scrutiny of the estimates presented by the government is not a change of attitude on the part of the members of the official opposition, as suggested by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland). What is necessary is that the government should be willing to release the fetters which it seeks now to place upon this committee. If these fetters are permitted to remain, as we saw very clearly last year when the committee got to work, 67509-107
Committee on Estimates they will be squeezed even tighter and tighter to further hamper the work of the committee.
So far as the statements by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and other hon. members are concerned, which have been read, their effect is that we had before us senior civil servants. They were courteous, yes. They answered questions, yes. All those things were done, but we were not able to get other witnesses whom we wished to have before the committee. So far as those who did come were concerned, and so far as the questions which were put to them were concerned, they answered them in a courteous, friendly and helpful manner. The compliment paid by the hon. member for St. Paul's goes no further than that. To take that and try to say the hon. member for St. Paul's was saying we felt the committee was working in the way it should work is, of course, typical of the way in which my hon. friends opposite have to distort remarks out of their context and meaning in order to bolster their own very weak case.
I invite hon. members opposite to accept their responsibilities as members of parliament, to take an impartial approach and not reject the opportunity of determining themselves exactly what departments or what segments of departments they wish to investigate. If that is to be done, then this motion should be supported so the committee will have some independence of action.
If the motion is not supported by hon. members opposite, what are we to conclude? We are to conclude that they have no freedom of choice; that they have no opinion, no personal preference, no thoughts other than those suggested to them by the government as to which department they desire to investigate and how they wish to conduct the inquiry. They would be refusing to support a motion today, as they refused last night, which would give the committee the power, and that is all that is asked, to conduct its inquiry in the way it wanted. Instead of that, they will say, "No, we do not want to take even that power; we would prefer to conduct the inquiry exactly along the lines which our masters, the government, submit to us."
I urge my colleagues, even those who support the government, to remember that they will always have a majority on the committee. I take it that it is too much to hope that that situation would ever be changed. If they wish to follow the party line to that extent, they can still control the work of the committee, but will they not give themselves an opportunity to exercise a little independence of action by supporting the motion now before the house?

Committee on Estimates


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am not rising to take part in the debate but on a question of privilege. If I understood correctly, the hon. gentleman who has just spoken implied that a document was denied to the committee by the government at the time my estimates were before the committee. As I was the only member of the government there at that time, that is a clear implication that it was denied by me.
I think if the hon. member will take the trouble to look at the proceedings of the committee he will find that he had a copy of the document and I did not. I asked him to lay it on the table of the committee and he refused to do so. If any document was denied to the committee, it was denied by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the same question of
privilege, I may say I am surprised the minister would be so ready-


John Whitney Pickersgill: To state the facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -would be such a stranger to the actual facts. The minister will recall that he admitted in the committee and in this house that on reflection he found his department was in possession of the documents. They were in his possession and they were, therefore, in the possession of the department and the motion I presented to the committee sought the tabling of those documents by the department. We had so much controversy as to whether one set of documents was the same as the other that the obvious and proper way to settle it was to call upon the minister and the department to produce the documents, and a motion was made accordingly. My motion was voted down in the committee at the insistence of the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record is there and it speaks for itself, as the Leader of the Opposition is so fond of saying.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have checked the record, and that is what it says.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for but one purpose, namely to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in whose name this motion appears, to explain why the committee is to be circumscribed by having submitted to it only those departments that have been hand-chosen by the government. I do not know why the Prime Minister has not said something. Lately he has been on a number of sit-down strikes in regard to these matters of such great importance to the country.

If the motion is sufficiently important to merit its introduction by the Prime Minister, surely the house and the country are entitled to know from the Prime Minister, rather than from lesser members on the government side of the house, why so reasonable a request on the part of the opposition is being denied. When one reads the letter of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition it is a strange thing to find the Prime Minister saying that certain departments have been chosen, the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Post Office Department, and that suitable arrangements have been made.
They have made suitable arrangements to appear before the committee. I do not know what these words "suitable arrangements" mean, but it is passing strange to me that departments should be warned months in advance that they are to be investigated, so they can make the necessary arrangements to give evidence before the committee.
What are those necessary arrangements, Mr. Speaker? It looks very much as if parliament is to have a peek into certain matters after those departments have made suitable arrangements to permit us to do so. As I see it, that is not the kind of investigation that was envisaged by the setting up of this committee, unless it is to be a kangaroo committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I prefer to believe that it ought not to be. Surely the Prime Minister can explain why. Is the committee to be blindfolded? It is not allowed to see documents; it is to be denied witnesses, except those chosen by the government. Finally, it is to be restricted to those departments which have made the necessary suitable arrangements. Surely a committee set up in that way will return the kind of report that the government expects suitable arrangements will demand on the part of that committee.


Mr. Michener:: A directed verdict.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no argument
about some of the departments of government that are to be submitted, but why not the Department of National Defence? That is the spending department today; that is the department that more than anything else over and over again is used as the basis for high taxation. The argument is used that taxation is high because of defence costs. Why is the Department of National Defence not included? It is not for me to say whether or not a military authority holding a high position was right when he said recently that

$120 million or more had been poured down the drain in connection with the production of certain aircraft already obsolete and out of date. Surely there was something to be investigated.
I cannot understand why this committee is to be confined to the departments the government chooses as those worthy of being investigated. The committee is to be a watchdog over the estimates, but it is to be muzzled in regard to that department in which the greatest expenditures take place. It is to be muzzled and blindfolded because it cannot call witnesses or see documents. It is to have brought before it such witnesses as the minister of the department, or the government in its wisdom, feels are proper to give evidence before it.
What kind of a verdict will be handed down by a court when one of the parties before that court picks out those witnesses who are to be heard, or if the judge just wants to hear one side, or the evidence of such witnesses as he desires to hear? What kind of a verdict would be rendered by a court of that kind? What kind of an independent verdict will be rendered by a court, the majority of whose members are appointed by and are responsible to the government? What are we trying to do? Is this to be just a caricature of a committee?
What possible objection can there be to allowing the committee to choose the departments it might look into and consider? Surely the government has not arrived at the point where it is afraid that its majority on the committee might choose departments other than those which the government desires? I do not think the government has much to fear in that regard. Then, if it is not afraid, why not at least give the committee the authority even though that authority, having regard to the experience of the past in those committees, may not be exercised except when the government permits the members of that committee who support the government to cast their votes accordingly? Why not include in this list of departments the Department of National Defence?
Again, I ask, what is this committee going to do? Is it going to be effective? The one in Great Britain is. I hold in my hand-and I am not going to fill up Hansard with quotations-"Constitutional Law" by Wade and Godfrey Phillips. On page 109 they set forth the functions of this committee. Without quoting from what is stated there, may I say it shows that the full committee of the house in a single session brought down 14 separate reports. It is effective; it investigates. It does not warn the department in advance by saying now, this is the department that is 67509-1074
Committee on Estimates coming before the committee to be considered after it has made the necessary suitable arrangements.
I ask the Prime Minister, as the sponsor of this motion, will he not himself tell the house and the country why this committee is being restricted to the investigation of the chosen departments rather than permitting it at least the one prerogative right to determine what departments it wants to hear, or at least allow it the right to determine two of the four departments. Otherwise what have you? You have hand-chosen departments, government-chosen departments, placed before a government-controlled committee, and I am afraid it will be in the position of a tape recorder to record the government's wishes.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in view of the remarks made this afternoon in this house by the hon. member for Nipissing, the implications of which were extremely obvious, to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition did not allow any of the backbenchers in this party to take part in the discussions in the estimates committee.
I merely point out to the hon. member that I was a member of this committee last year. The hon. members for Perth (Mr. Monteith), Elgin (Mr. McBain), St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) and Ontario (Mr. Starr) served on this committee. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, they could be described as other than hon. members of the back benches of this party, and I thought I would like to see this matter put straight.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with very great interest when the hon. member for Eglinton is speaking. I listened to him with great interest this afternoon and also last night. I was most impressed when listening to his arguments based on what was happening at Westminster. I even read his entire speech at noontime. However, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon I must admit I am very much less impressed.
Coming back to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Eglinton, he intimated that if this committee is still going to be set up on an experimental basis he would be ready to accept it and he would not be critical. I presume that the hon. member for Eglinton, being so closely associated with the Leader of the Opposition, should have had a meeting with his leader, because the Leader of the Opposition put on record a letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister and the answer he received.
I think that was a clear indication that this government was ready to recommend the
1684	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates setting up of the committee on an experimental basis. How is it that the hon. member for Eglinton, after spending so much time and borrowing a lot of argument from Westminster, could present an argument like the one we now have, in view of the implication of the letter from the Prime Minister and the statement he made last night?
As a member of parliament I am, of course, always fearful to take part in a debate with which great legal minds such as that of the hon. member for Eglinton are associated. However, Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that when we are called upon to vote on a motion like this, parliament by the same token is really called upon to decide what it wants to do to formulate its own procedure.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that parliament is denied the right to carry on its business in the way the Conservative party understands it should be carried on. Of course, it happens that I am a supporter of the Liberal party and most likely I would not be here if I had not supported the Liberal party; my opponent would have been here. But being a supporter of the government, and because I also happen to be a member of parliament, I could not help but be surprised when the hon. member for Kamloops referred to the big majority following up and endorsing the government. How could he be surprised? That is the way the population of Canada wishes it to happen. They would not expect me to divorce myself from the government measures recommended to the House of Commons which are to my own conscience the proper measures which should be adopted. It so happens that while I support the Liberal party I also support the government in putting into realization those policies which the people want.
I was also surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops who, after listening to the hon. member for Provencher, said he did not blame the hon. members of the Liberal party for being annoyed when he suggests ways and means-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said I was not surprised.


Auguste Maltais: You took that word right out of my mouth. I am not surprised that the Conservative party feel rather embarrassed that amongst the departments which this government intends to recommend for examination is the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be rather annoyed if I were to be called upon to give my justification for some estimates regarding social security concerning which I held a widely different view in former years from the view which I am now pledged to hold because of the popularity of
[Mr. Maltais.l

some of the measures. Surely hon. members of parliament who are associated with the Liberal party can understand that very well.
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the remarks I wanted to make following the comments made by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops.
I am always impressed also when I hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South, because he speaks with great common sense. There is no doubt that if the amendment which we now have were to be adopted, it would put in the hands of this committee all the power to bring before this committee any department which it might wish to call upon for examination. If this amendment were to be adopted we would be in a position where hon. members of this house would have to depend on the committee to tell the House of Commons which departments should be called upon to be scrutinized.
As a member of parliament who is not a member of this committee, I am also interested in the different departments. I also feel a certain amount of responsibility when certain estimates are called to be approved by this House of Commons. The right of each individual hon. member of this House of Commons would be denied if such power and authority were given to 30 members of this house who comprise the committee.
From comments made on more than one occasion by hon. members of the Conservative party one would be inclined to think they were the ones who were given the responsibility to lead this country. It has always been my opinion that it was the responsibility of the government to recommend to the house the estimates and the money for the administration of this country, and that it was the responsibility of this same government to take their case to the public to find out whether or not it had been properly administered.
Experience has shown that things have not been too bad in that particular sense. The only role for which I think I could be responsible in approving estimates as a member of parliament is to be convinced, to be justified before giving my assent to the estimates which are recommended to the House of Commons of which I am a member. I do not think I would need a lot of experts in many fields and departments to find out if the money spent on public works, for family allowances and for the assistance of agriculture has been unwisely spent. I do not need experts for that.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out the need for control to check on money spent outside the country in order

to learn if it has been spent wisely. One has to rely on the statements of officials and ministers of the crown. Surely it is rather amusing sometimes to hear the arguments of some hon. members on my left regarding statements which ministers of the crown have made, as they endeavour to discover contradictions in the statements made to the house. But the hon. member for Eglinton makes the statement to the house that if this proposal for the establishment of this committee is going to be carried out on an experimental basis for this year, then it is useless being critical about it. The hon. member can obtain information which he could use to form his opinions. The committee is going to be set up on an experimental basis.
They have not the responsibility of government yet. This is a measure I should say is very important, but there are many more important measures in the administration of this country. On a measure like this the Conservative party within 24 hours might give differing views of what they intend to do.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): I have just a few remarks to put forward on this particular amendment. Before doing so I should say that there was one statement made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat which impressed me more than a little, although it impressed me adversely. That was his indication that he does not need a number of experts to convince him in respect to the items in the estimates. That may be. It may be that an hon. member such as the one who has just resumed his seat is omniscient enough to know all it is necessary to know about government expenditures totalling $4J billion. It may be that an hon. member such as that gentleman knows in detail what is going on in the 20 government departments. It may be-


Auguste Maltais: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is giving a different meaning to what I just said. I said I did not need an expert because I have faith in this government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore you do not need to think.


John Borden Hamilton: That is the point I was coming to. I shall attempt to develop my argument. It may be that the hon. member who has interrupted with his pseudo point of order knows in detail what the 150-odd thousand government employees are engaged in doing. It may be-


Mr. Mclvor:: Order. One at a time.


William McLean Hamilton: It
may be that in his years in this house-or
Committee on Estimates few years as the case may be-he has acquainted himself with all the facets of the government and its operations, but frankly I do not think so. That is my first point.
Since it is obviously impossible for any one individual to have the necessary knowledge and the necessary background information in order to be able to delve adequately, deeply and satisfactorily into the estimates that are put before us, it would seem to me that the only other sound and sensible course of action is to utilize the help and advice of others who may be able to give it. It is not sufficient to say, as the hon. member did, that he does not need a lot of experts to convince him because he has confidence in the government. That is tantamount to saying that if he were in a court of law he would hear only one side of a case. It is tantamount to saying that he does not really need to know very much about a given subject in order to stamp it with his approval because he believes that right or wrong, no matter what the situation may be, the men who put forward that proposition must have his support.
In so far as I personally am concerned, I am quite prepared to confess as an individual my inability to know in great detail all that goes on in the manifold ramifications of this government's operations-


An hon. Member:: I am not surprised.


John Borden Hamilton: -and to say that I shall be very happy, in opposition to the hon. member, to hear at any time as many experts as possible on the subjects that come before this house.
Having made that comment on the hon. member's speech, there are one or two other points with which I should like to deal. I could not help wondering once again this afternoon, as I sat listening to the debate in this hpuse, just what kind of government, apart from one bearing the political label "Liberal", we have at the present time. I have heard it referred to in various ways: as government by rubber stamp; government by fiat; on occasions, perhaps too strongly, government by dictatorship, but I rather came to the conclusion this afternoon that we now have government by letter.
I do want to express my astonishment, my dismay and my disappointment in the right hon. gentleman who heads this government, who holds the title of Prime Minister and is the titular, if not any more the actual, head of the government, in that the only evidence we have had of his connection with this motion, which stands in his name on the order paper, is, first, the fact that his name is attached to it and, second, as was developed this afternoon, the fact that he wrote a
1686	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates letter in connection with the subject to the Leader of the Opposition. It might very well be pointed out that even that letter had to be pried out of him by previous correspondence.
I feel that it is a straightforward reflection on this house that we should be asked to accept legislation of this kind, to debate and vote on it, with no more comment than, I think, from three honourable-shall we call them "ordinary"?-members of the government party. I do not like the term "backbenchers" because one of the members who spoke is a front bencher in the rump. Of course we did have a point of order raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not raise any point of order.


John Borden Hamilton: It
was a point of privilege rather than a point of order. And we had the previous statement of the Minister of Finance. The two of them put together did not make even the basis for decent notes for a speech, much less any adequate comment on this particular motion.
We have watched the Prime Minister sitting in this house since the inception of this debate, with the exception of one very brief absence this afternoon, when I thought he was getting tired of it and had given up completely any connection with it. I must say, however, in fairness to the Prime Minister that he had only this one very brief absence when the debate was going on.
Sometimes he has looked interested and has perked up. There was a moment last night while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking when I thought he might take his courage in both hands and rise and speak to the house. But then he sank back again. When the hon. member for Prince <Albert was making a few pertinent remarks this afternoon there was a moment when I thought the Prime Minister might get up, but again he sat back.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: How smart.


William McLean Hamilton: I do
want to say that while I may not always agree with what the Prime Minister has to say, I appreciate the opportunity to hear his point of view. In fact I appreciate the opportunity to hear any member's point of view, and none more so than those of the cabinet. If for no other reason than to give us that point of view, if for no other reason than to give it to me if he feels he does not want to give it to anybody else-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: -I
want to add my own personal request that before the debate is over he make some contribution. No matter how limited, no matter how erroneous it may be in my opinion, I plead with him to make some contribution in the age-old tradition of decent, responsible government.
The amendment before us suggests that the committee should be permitted to select the departments it will consider. At the present time, under the motion as originally put forward and as further evidenced in the debate this afternoon, the government selects the departments that are to be examined by the committee. It flashes the red light to them a long time before and says in effect: Boys, get ready; the estimates committee is going to have a look at you. It will not be a very good look. We as a government will see to that by hedging them around with restrictions, by loading the committee with our members and by seeing that nothing that will bring about a really deep investigation goes through the house. We are going to do our best to protect you, but you never can tell about those opposition people who are on the committee. They work hard, they dig pretty deep, and even with all the stumbling blocks we put in their way it is quite possible that if you are not adequately prepared they might find out your misdeeds or misdoings.
Therefore the government say to their selected departments: Get ready for the committee. Smooth anything that you think might be embarrassing to yourselves. Prepare figures and make sure that the only figures you prepare are ones that will not be embarrassing to anybody. In effect the government say: We will be very annoyed if you go to the estimates committee and find yourselves caught off base, and that is why we are giving you all this notice. In effect that is the intent, purpose and actual operation under the present system.
Imagine the additional effectiveness of the committee if it made its own decision following its formation and within the matter of a few days called before it a given department and began to ask the minister of the department and, through him, the officials, questions as to its operation. How is it that defalcations in banks, for example, are discovered? As has been the case from time immemorial, they are discovered when the bank examiners walk in unexpectedly and say, "Let us have a look at your books and your operations".


An hon. Member:: Order.


William McLean Hamilton: think there is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gaulhier (Nickel Bell):: You are making your own.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are talking in their sleep.


Rosaire Gauthier: You are looking for one.


John Borden Hamilton: How
is it that in businesses weaknesses, inaccuracies and defalcations are found? They are found when the auditors come in, sit down and examine the operations of the particular business. For a good many years it was my privilege to be one of the businessmen about whom the hon. member for Nipissing was talking. I want him to know that never in my experience did the auditors telephone me or my organization a week, a month or three months before and say, "We are going to come in and examine your books and records, so will you please make suitable arrangements."
I do know that on occasion in small ways- fortunately there have never been any big ones

the element of surprise has demonstrated its advantages in my ordinary business experience. For instance, let us take the case of petty cash from which someone had temporarily borrowed a few dollars to tide them over to pay day and had put in an I.O.U. That is the sort of thing which if you knew what was going to happen beforehand you would cover up by putting the money back in the box today instead of on pay day. However, the auditors walk in unexpectedly, and I have had them come to me and say that there was an I.O.U. in the petty cash from someone on the staff and ask me if I knew that this was taking place and whether I had authorized it.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that some of these business illustrations are difficult for the professional politicians on the government side to comprehend, but I put them forward because I know they are easily understandable to the businessmen in this section of the house. I believe definitely that the element of surprise is lost by warning departments in advance, preselecting them several months before and then having their operations rubber stamped by the government majority. The principle of warning departments in this way is not a fundamentally sound idea. It detracts from the usefulness, vitality and ability of the committee to seek out information.
Another point in that connection which might well be made arises from the reference in the Prime Minister's letter, to the departments making suitable arrangements. To me
Committee on Estimates that indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the Prime Minister and the cabinet in the civil service and the departments under their direction. If I should ever occupy a seat on the treasury benches, where I would listen to the catcalls from this point, it would be my hope to have the kind of department that people could come and look at at any time, a department that would not have to have advance warning. If you have to have advance warning it indicates that something is wrong. It indicates that it is necessary to sweep the dirt under the carpet.
In this connection the last question which I would leave hanging in the air is simply this. What is the government hiding that they have to follow this particular course of action? Why will they not face up to an unfettered committee free to follow where its instinct and intelligence lead? The Prime Minister is still in the house, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he might have something to say on this subject. I hope that he will in some way express his opinion on his own motion. I do not think he would want to bring into this world a baby that was completely fatherless. That seems to be the way it stands at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Just before I put the question, for the information of the hon. member for Eglinton and the house, may I indicate why I said earlier that I had some doubts as to the amendment being in order. I may say immediately that I will allow the amendment. I will allow it, not because I am not sure of my ground but because I believe that the point is a rather difficult one and one upon which I think it is appropriate that I should only enter a caveat before I allow the amendment.
The two grounds are as follows. The first is that whereas the motion which is on the order paper merely proposes to set up a committee without giving the order of reference, the amendment is a major alteration to the notice of motion and proposes what the order of reference will be. According to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 315:
A new notice must be given in the Votes and Proceedings, under standing order 45,-
Now standing order 41.
-when a material change is to be made to a notice of motion before it is taken up by the house.
The second point has to do with the difference between the wording of the amendment or the motion as amended, and the wording which is supposed to have been copied from the United Kingdom order of

Committee on Estimates reference for the formation of such a committee. I was lucky enough to obtain, through the good offices of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops, the book which was referred to earlier in the debate by both hon. members. It is entitled "Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, volume 37, 1912". The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Mr. Lloyd George, in bringing in his motion, moved it in the following terms:
That a select committee be appointed to examine and report on such of the estimates presented to this house as may seem fit to the committee.
The question that I should like hon. members to ponder is this, and it is the reason I am not making a ruling. I have in my hand treasury paper No. 6 of the United Kingdom which is entitled "Parliamentary Supply Procedure" and was issued by the treasury for official use in January, 1949. At page 58 I find the following:
For present purposes the important part of this report-
An earlier part of the report recommended that the house continue having a committee on estimates.
-is that in which the committee reaffirmed the desirability that the estimates should be examined by a select committee, in addition to and if possible prior to, their consideration in committee of supply.
In the United Kingdom I believe they do not withdraw from the committee of supply the estimates that are to be considered by the committee on estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor do we.


Mr. Speaker:: Here our practice has been different. As to the estimates pertaining to government-owned railways, to the Department of External Affairs, or to the departments referred to the committee on estimates last year, it had been the practice to move that these estimates be removed from the committee of supply and referred to the committee on estimates and then, when they are reported back by the committee, there had to be another motion to send them back to the committee of supply.
1 ask hon. members who made that motion to get them from there where they are now and who made that motion to bring them back? That is government business, and must be moved by the leader of the house. If the house wish to accept this motion, as the wording is now it would read as follows:
That a select committee to be designated be appointed to consider such of the estimates as may seem fit to the committee and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Unless the house were assured that there would be made by the leader of the house a

motion to extract some estimates from the committee of supply, saving all the power of that committee to consider them later, and that when they were reported by the committee a motion would be made by the leader of the house to send them back here, it would be absolutely inoperative. That was the procedure until it was altered by standing order 57.
As I said before, I am not going to make a ruling because I am not too sure about the practice of the United Kingdom, and I do not want to deal any further with it because I think in doing so I would be debating a question which has been at issue between the two sides in the house.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Last evening I had some remarks to make on this resolution, but I did not have an opportunity to move an amendment. I would like to do so at this time. Perhaps the house will bear with me for two or three moments while I give the reasons why I wish to move this particular amendment.
Committee on Estimates
I stated last night that I certainly support the setting up of the estimates committee. I think it did good work last year; but certainly no one should assume that if this committee is set up our parliamentary machinery for examining estimates will be brought up to date. Nor should anyone assume that because we set up this committee, parliament is adopting a procedure which is genuinely efficient and effective. At best we are just beginning to come to grips with the over-all problem.
I hold in my hand page 2 of the estimates of this year. As I understand it, when this committee is set up four departments are to be referred to it. But what about the other 15 major departments? I can only assume that they are still to be dealt with by the committee of the whole. I find on page 2 of the estimates not only 19 major departments, but also a good many minor departments which will still have to be dealt with by the committee of the whole.
This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested that he felt it was the duty of parliament to examine the estimates. I could not agree with anything more. Unfortunately, today it is not parliament that is really scrutinizing these estimates; it is the civil service as represented by the treasury board and certain officials of the Department of Finance. I have nothing against the committee of the whole going over the estimates after they have been worked over by individual committees, but I say it simply is impossible to efficiently examine estimates in committee of the whole alone. That committee is too hurried; it is clumsy; it is unwieldy. While you can ask questions of a minister, it is almost impossible to get answers which are satisfactory.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that every single estimate, before it is brought into the committee of the whole, should be reviewed first by one parliamentary committee or another. Early in the session the agriculture estimates should be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization; finance and national revenue should be referred to the banking and commerce committee; perhaps the defence estimates, which the opposition spoke about this afternoon, should go to a special defence committee, and so on. I repeat, every single estimate which is brought down in this house should first of all go to a special committee.
I should also like to say a word about our crown corporations. I for one am not satisfied with the way in which crown corporations are being dealt with in parliament. I have been here since 1945, and as I said last evening
1690	HOUSE OF
Committee on Estimates there are many crown corporations that I do not think have ever come before parliament. I think for a moment of the Polymer Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is repeating almost in exact terms the speech he made yesterday, which I had the pleasure of listening to.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, I do not think I am, sir. I wanted to explain my amendment before I moved it. I ask you to think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Here is a company that is spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Is it not reasonable that some parliamentary committee should look into the way it is spending that money? I think for a moment of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. That agency is going to be spending a good many millions of dollars. Should not some parliamentary committee look into the way in which that money is being spent? I think for a moment of the Bank of Canada. After all, the Bank of Canada directs Canadian financial policy. Surely it is sensible for some parliamentary committee to look into its activities. I think of Eldorado Mining and Refining Company, a company which has so much to do with the production of uranium for the free world. Surely it is sensible for a parliamentary committee to examine the way in which that company is spending its money.
I could mention crown assets; I could mention the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, a company which plays such a role in encouraging Canada's export trade. I say that every crown corporation owned by the people of Canada should be brought before one parliamentary committee or another at least once a year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard):
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"and that the estimates of any department or crown corporation, not already referred to a standing or select committee, be referred forthwith to such a committee for examination and report."
I say, Mr. Speaker, if the house would pass this particular motion, in future if there is waste and extravagance in some of these departments or corporations, parliament would have a much better chance of finding it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the terms of the hon. member's amendment 

and I regret to have to inform him that I cannot accept it. Citation 315 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, reads as follows:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice.
A new notice must be given in the Votes and Proceedings, under standing order 45, when a material change is to be made to a notice of motion before it is taken up by the house.
I would also refer the hon. member to certain rulings which have been made on this subject. I have one in mind particularly, where the house was considering the setting up of a committee for the purpose of considering the accounts of a government-owned railway. An amendment had been moved to empower the committee to also consider the accounts of a private company. This was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker Black at page 642 of Beauchesne's third edition. Mr. Guthrie raised a point of order and said it is a substantive motion and should be brought before the house as such with notice given in the ordinary way. Mr. Speaker Black declared the point of order well taken.
There are other rulings in Beauchesne to which I could refer the hon. member. One appears at page 633 and is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lemieux. Another one appears at page 635, a ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker Fred Johnston. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to challenge your ruling. As a matter of fact I rather expected it. However, in view of the latitude you showed when the last motion was moved I was rather hoping you might let me proceed. As I say, however, I am not going to hold up the house at this time.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief and will endeavour to be finished before six o'clock. I have two or three observations to make, the first one being that the hon. member for Eglinton complained that we delayed the placing of this motion before the house. Surely it is obvious to the house, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation which should have been disposed of first this session was that on which an engagement had been made to introduce that legislation in the house.
When we met here we were under the criticism of previous years that we had interrupted the address debate, and because of the new rules we were asked to continue the debate

until it was concluded. We did that. We then took up the legislation, as I say, on which I had given an engagement to the banks; and it we had not done that I am satisfied that hon. members of the Conservative party would have claimed we were ignoring parliament and not submitting to the judgment of parliament that decision of last November.
I want to refer very briefly to what the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has said about all estimates going to committees. I realize that he is away ahead of many hon. members of the house, but perhaps that is consistent with the attitude he has taken throughout. I might also say he is apparently consistent in trying to save money in the speeches he makes in this house. It was suggested to me by one of my colleagues last night that it would be interesting if we sent to some committee all the suggestions made by opposition members for the spending of money, to have a price tag put on them.
Last night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a remark which I think we ought to examine not now but at some future time. His suggestion, I think, was that we should continue to send before this committee members of the civil service, of whatever rank they may be, ultimately to find someone who would disagree with government policy. Now it is my-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the minister should not put words in my mouth which I did not utter at all. I said we wanted to find out who was running the government of this country.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. And, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say that he wants to find out whose idea a particular thing was. The whole essence of parliamentary government is that the civil servants will carry out the orders of parliament and government policy. Whether or not they agree with it in the first instance they are of course obliged to give their opinion, and once an opinion is given and once a policy is announced it is their duty to carry it out.
I have just one more point, and it has to do with the remarks made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the business of this committee. I have always said that this was an experiment, and I took some pains during my address a year
Committee on Estimates ago to point out the difference between what we thought an estimates committee should be-and when I say "we" I mean parliament and all parties in it, not the government-as compared to that of the United Kingdom. I made the point that we did not expect, and I had never heard anyone in this house suggest, that we would end up with an estimates committee such as they have in the United Kingdom.
In the United Kingdom the committee of supply deals with policy and the committee on estimates deals with detail. Thus far we have not come to a conclusion here as to whether or not the estimates committee should deal with policy or detail. Nevertheless we never did expect-at least I do not think anyone expected-that we would have a committee which would travel throughout Canada, take evidence from sundry people, and publish a report months after the estimates were placed before parliament. The whole purpose of the estimates committee is to deal during the current session with the estimates that are submitted, so that parliament may be entitled to reject them if it feels it advisable during that session.
I have nothing further to add except that with respect to the work of the committee we did as the Prime Minister indicated we would do in the letter he wrote in response to the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition. In this letter the Prime Minister indicated that we had decided to recommend to parliament that four departments come before the committee. It should be noted, however, that in reading that particular portion of my address the Leader of the Opposition did not go on to read the following paragraph in which I said that having done that, and having in mind the amount of time parliament would have, we would do our best to meet the wishes of the opposition and call some other departments if we had time.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with these motions and the business I indicated on Monday night, I think it was. On Friday we shall take the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr, Blair: 1.	What Is the present government selling price of butter on the Canadian market?
2.	What was the government selling price of butter on the market on the corresponding date of last year?
3.	What are the factors entering into the difference in selling prices at present and on the corresponding date last year?
4.	Does the government propose to follow the policy of former years with respect to carrying costs of butter owned by it and the industry including producer co-operatives, as stated or implied by the minister?
5.	If not, does the government propose to compensate owners of butter against loss with respect to such carrying costs?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.	The present selling price of Canada first grade butter in Canada is on the basis of 58 cents per pound.
2.	On the same date last year, the selling price of Canada first grade butter in Canada was on the basis of 61 cents per pound.
3.	By absorbing the handling charges, the government is offering butter in Canada at the lower price for the purpose of encouraging increased domestic consumption.
4.	The board made known at June 30, 1955 that they did not propose to follow the policy of former years.
5.	No, since any storing of butter was done voluntarily.


PEACE RIVER AREA-ECONOMIC SURVEY
Mr. Leboe: 1.	Has the federal government made any economic surveys of the British Columbia-Alberta sections of the Peace river area within the last 10 years?
2.	If so. when, and who made these surveys? Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1 and 2. Economics division, Department of Agriculture made the following economic surveys: (a) High Prairie area in 1951; (b) Wanham-Spirit River area in Alberta and adjoining area in British Columbia in 1953;
(c)	Fort Vermilion area in 1953.


P.F.R.A.-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Brooks: 1.	How much money was spent by the federal government under P.F.R.A. in each of the prairie provinces, in the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955?
2.	What is the total amount spent up to January 1, 1956 under this act?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1. Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta1952-53	$311,742	$3,305,045	$420,2751953-54	486,957	2,944,281	449,2281954-55 1955 to Dec.	227,963	2,964,180	630,79731/55	165,864	2,567,074	400,8842. Total $53,893,950.	P.F.R.A.	to January 1,	1956-
Note: Expenditures for major irrigation and other reclamation and land protection works, administered by the P.F.R.A,, are not included in the above.


CIVIL DEFENCE ALLOCATIONS, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Pearkes: 1.	What amounts have been allocated to the various provinces for civil defence, during the years 1954 and 1955?
2.	On what basis are the amounts allocated?
3.	What amounts, from the funds allotted, have been spent by each province?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1. Amounts allocated for each of the fiscal years 1954-55 and 1955-56:
Newfoundland	$ 45,863
Prince Edward Island		10,827
Nova Scotia	 92,128
New Brunswick	 63,777
Quebec	 603,375
Ontario	 692,036
Manitoba	 117,286
Saskatchewan	 91,490
Alberta	 118,922
British Columbia	 187,272
2. Under the terms of order in council P.C. 1955-30/1240 of August 26, 1955, funds are allocated on the basis of 11 cents per capita of population as reported in the 1951 census, with an additional 9 cents per capita of population in areas that have been designated by the federal civil defence co-ordinator as target areas.

Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ....



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	Has the Post Office Department issued instructions to postmasters concerning the procedure to be followed when a theft or burglary is discovered?
2.	If so, do such instructions, or any others, comment on release of information to the press in connection with thefts or burglaries from the post office?
3.	Has it been suggested or directed in any form that no information in connection with such events be released by the local postmaster?
Answer by: Mr. Lapointe:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.



SMOKED HERRING EXPORTS TO BELGIAN CONGO

Mr. Regier: Thursday, March 1, 1956