1957-02-26

PIPE LINES


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to announce that all advances made by Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to finance the construction of the western section of the all-Canadian natural gas pipe line have been repaid. Although under the provisions of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act the corporation has been authorized to make loans to Trans-Canada of 90 per cent of the cost of construction of the western section or $80 million, whichever was the lesser, the actual advances made pursuant to the indenture of mortgage dated June 7, 1956, amounted to $49,750,000. The amount repaid to the corporation was $50,716,603.03, made up as follows: advances, $49,750,000; interest at 5 per cent on advances, $880,071.40; costs of the crown corporation relating to the advances, $86,531.63, making a total of $50,716,603.03.
The Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, in addition to administering the loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to finance the western section, is responsible for the construction of the northern Ontario section of the pipe line which will extend approximately 675 miles from the Manitoba-Ontario border to the vicinity of Kapuskasing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs let the Canadian people know what stand Canada is taking in reference to the question of the imposition of sanctions? This is now before the United Nations. A decision may have been made this morning. Whatever the decision was, I think it should be brought to the attention of parliament.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me notice of his intention to ask this question and I will 82715-105
have to speak from recollection. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was to address the general assembly this morning. He had anticipated doing so yesterday afternoon but the assembly postponed its deliberations in the expectancy that, as a result of negotiations that were then under way, the situation might have improved somewhat.
In the statement which he proposed to make the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined the desirability of considering the position of all parties involved, and I believe it would be best at this stage to wait and see the result of the suggestions which he proposed outlining in a general way before we make further observations, particularly in the light of discussions that may be taking place now. But, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself indicated clearly, Canada thought that before taking final action in this matter along the lines suggested in my hon. friend's question every attempt ought to be made through negotiation to bring about a settlement that would take into account the interests of Israel and other countries.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, evidently my colleague has not yet seen the dispatch which has just come through and which is a summary report of what took place this morning. Perhaps I might read it into the record. It is the last word we have received from New York:
External Affairs Minister Pearson placed a four-point plan for settlement of the Israeli-Egyptian deadlock before the United Nations today. However, he conceded that it was not completely satisfactory to either side. Russia immediately labelled the plan as pro-Israel and joined Asian-Arab demands for quick action to impose economic, financial and military restrictions on Israel.
It may very well be that others will say it is pro-Arab. We think it is pro-peace, and that was the objective that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was and is pursuing. The dispatch goes on:
External Affairs Minister Pearson's plan to get Israeli troops out of Egyptian territory was suggested today at a meeting of the general assembly. As a solution, he proposed that Israel and Egypt formally abide by the 1949 armistice agreement. Mr. Pearson also proposes that United Nations police units deploy along the demarcation line to prevent raids from either side. He suggested it should be agreed there would be no interference with the innocent passage of ships through the gulf of Aqaba. Mr. Pearson further proposed that United Nations units be deployed in the Gaza strip and that the United Nations gradually displace the Israeli civil administration in the area.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that still does not answer the question. Provided that this plan is not accepted, can we have the assurance in this house that was given by the Prime Minister of Great Britain that Great Britain will not support sanctions? I asked that question two weeks ago, and the answer given then was that the matter was being considered. What is Canada's attitude going to be? Is it going to accept sanctions or it is going to do that which I believe the realities of the occasion demand, and that is not support sanctions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the dispatch I have just read clearly indicates that we do not think sanctions are justified at this moment. If a plan such as this, which seems to take care of the realities of the situation with respect to both parties, is not accepted by one or the other, that would create a different situation. But we do not think at the present time, with only what has taken place up to this time, sanctions would be justified.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister inform the house as to whether or not we shall be given an opportunity to debate this matter if Canadian policy is changed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think there are not many matters that hon. gentlemen have not found an opportunity to debate since this session started.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise us what the present situation is with respect to the work of the commissioner on the Polymer strike at Sarnia?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member notified me that he intended to ask a question on this matter and also the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has indicated his continuing interest. Perhaps my reply could provide both them and the house with the information.
A strike deadline in this dispute was set by the union for 7.30 a.m. yesterday and at that hour plant operations started to shut down on a progressive basis as previously arranged between the union and the company in the event that a settlement of the dispute


was not effected by that time. Under this arrangement, the strike does not become fully effective until March 4.
However, by the time the strike deadline had been reached, Mr. Eric Taylor, the commissioner whom I had appointed to mediate the dispute, had succeeded in narrowing down the disputed issues from approximately sixty to seven. This had been accomplished by almost continuous negotiations over a period of several days prior to the strike deadline. Yesterday morning, after an all-night session, negotiations were adjourned until ten o'clock this morning when Mr. Taylor was to make an effort to conciliate the remaining issues in dispute. I have every reason to hope that the full effects of a strike will be averted.



WESTVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA-OPENING OF NEW MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house as to what progress was made in his meeting with the premier of Nova Scotia and a delegation that accompanied him, in regard to the future of the town of Westville in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held in my office but the delegation came primarily to see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). It comprised the premier of Nova Scotia and the mayors or the wardens of the various municipalities in the area. However, it did not include an official authorized to speak for the Dominion Coal Company. The delegation expressed itself as wishing to lay before us the seriousness of the situation and we were very happy to obtain their views. But it was felt by all concerned that we could not proceed further until there is some understanding of the intentions of the Dominion Coal Company in this extremely serious matter.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works regarding the visit of a delegation from Nova Scotia on behalf of the town of Westville. What steps are being taken to find out from the Dominion Coal Company whether that company will participate in the very constructive plan laid before the minister by the premier of Nova Scotia for the relief of the town of Westville?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on what my hon. friend refers to as the very constructive plan laid before

the government by the premier of Nova Scotia. I am quite sure that in due course the premier will comment on that in his own way. I understand that the premier has now undertaken to speak to Dosco to And out to what extent they are interested in opening this mine. I have told the premier that either I or my appropriate colleague would be prepared to participate in any such conversations if they wish us to do so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister make a statement regarding the claim that is being given wide circulation on the lower mainland of British Columbia, that a cook has been fired at the refugee camp for Hungarians at Abbotsford, B.C., for failing to sign for ten sacks of Idaho potatoes, and that there has been no curtailment of the staff at this camp, as has been said to be the official reason for dismissal?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to give a statement on this extremely important question. It is quite true that the second cook at Abbotsford was fired, if that is a parliamentary word. He was fired for laziness, for persistent and consistent drunkenness, and because there was a strong suspicion that he did not know how to cook anyway.
I am not quite sure whether he knew how to read or write, but he had no authority to sign for anything, Idaho potatoes or anything else. I thought these potatoes were from Oregon and not from Idaho, and I am still not clear just where they were supposed to come from. In view of the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) perhaps I should read a press release which was issued by the B.C. coast vegetable marketing board on February 15, 1957, and which should have disposed of this question at that time. It says:
The B.C. coast vegetable marketing board today announced that a full investigation has been completed in respect to reports of American potatoes being utilized at the Abbotsford B.C. Hungarian refugee camp, operated by the Canadian department of immigration.
The board investigator reported that full cooperation had been received from all camp officials-
I do not know whether the second cook was there at that time, but I suspect not.
-and, further, the report states that only five sacks of Oregon potatoes had been used and these only as emergency replacement for frost-damaged potatoes.
82715-105J
Inquiries of the Ministry
All other potato purchases were Canadian products and, at present, the camp is using Fraser valley potatoes exclusively.
The B.C. coast vegetable marketing board would point out to all growers that sales to camps, stores or institutions are only permissible with the proper authorization from the board.
I am an old-fashioned free trader. While of course I would hope that British Columbia potatoes would be used as long as they could compete, and I am told that they can compete very successfully indeed, I would not like to think that in a United States camp for Hungarians they could not eat Newfoundland fish.


Frederick George Hahn: Possibly the minister would
explain how this good cook was named to the position he finally achieved?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not hire him myself.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Sluarl (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government of New Brunswick informed the federal government that it is prepared to construct or participate in the cost of constructing a highway bridge between Campobello island in Charlotte county and Lubec, Maine?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a letter dated February 18 from the premier of New Brunswick in which he states that the government of New Brunswick might be prepared to pay the cost of constructing the approaches to a bridge at Campobello island, but he did not indicate that the government of New Brunswick is prepared to go beyond that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: A supplementary question. Would the Minister of Public Works indicate if he has replied to this letter and, if so, will he table the correspondence.


Robert Henry Winters: I have replied to the letter and I will table the correspondence subject to the usual reservation of obtaining the consent of the province.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the case

Inquiries of the Ministry of James Carey, who is now facing the death penalty. In the British Columbia court of appeal four judges said he should have a new trial, one said he should not; in the Supreme Court of Canada two judges said he should have a new trial and five said he should not, making in the aggregate a six-six judges' opinion. Will the minister use his discretion and authority in view of these circumstances to order a new trial?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question but, at the same time, to express regret that he did not send the notice sooner. It reached me after I came into the chamber this afternoon. In a matter of this kind I would like to examine the file which is now under the consideration of my colleague, the Solicitor General, Senator W. R. Macdonald, with a view to commutation before expressing any views such as the hon. member has suggested.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaiie (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government yet reached a decision on the request of British Columbia to assist in the construction of a highway north from Stewart, B.C., to give sea access to the part of British Columbia at present cut off by the Alaska panhandle?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. In reply, I can say that the government has reached a decision after having had a careful study made of the project by the various departments interested.
Normally the federal government does not assist with construction of roads within a province, except for the trans-Canada highway. Here, however, there is an international aspect since a large section of British Columbia is blocked off from the sea by the Alaska panhandle. It is because of this factor that the federal government has agreed to share in the cost of constructing a highway north from the port of Stewart to Cassiar to link with the Alaska highway system.


Mr. Green:: May I ask if this is on the basis of the dominion and the province each paying half the cost?


Jean Lesage: That is right, sir.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Has the inquiry into the air crash at St. James, Manitoba, about ten days ago been completed and, if so, what are the findings of the court of inquiry?


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the inquiry is complete or not. I will take the question as notice and endeavour to obtain the desired information.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: May I direct
a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the fact that according to press reports the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made a statement or statements in the city of Red Deer with respect to the development planned by Polymer Corporation in that area, is the minister now in a position to make a statement to the house with respect to the plans of that corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
generally known that the Polymer Corporation requires a supply of butadiene which is not available in the locality. The corporation has been exploring the possibility of manufacturing that substance in Alberta, and for that purpose it has bought certain property in the area of Red Deer. When these plans are completed I assume an appropriate announcement will be made, but in the meantime I have reported all I know about the situation.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a
question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. How many provinces does the federal government now regard as having agreed to the federal government's proposal for hospital insurance, and which ones are they?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National an interim report possibly this week, I Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I assume think I understood him to say-at any rate that there are now five provinces, including at an early date-and that he would study the province of Ontario, all of which have the report and then communicate with me. accepted in principle the proposal made by
the federal government.	WATER RESOURCES


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the five provinces which have agreed have a population amounting to over 56 per cent of the population of Canada, would the Prime Minister not agree that the spirit of the conditions laid down by the government has been met, and that it is time to introduce the legislation to which reference was made last Thursday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has not decided
to modify any of the terms of the proposals that were put forward a year ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Mr. Fleming:: Would the Prime Minister
tell us what province he expects to be the sixth province to accept?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are
ten provinces, and the offer is open to each one of the ten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to answer my question, then?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister has no special information about the intentions of those who have not officially indicated their intentions to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he anything further to report on Manitoba in this connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Clarence Gillis: May I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister meet with the premier of Nova Scotia during his visit here on Friday last and, if so, was any progress made in the matter of an agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government with respect to national health insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice yesterday of his intention to ask this question today. I may say that the premier of Nova Scotia did come to see me on Friday morning when this matter, among others, was discussed. The premier of Nova Scotia advised that a committee set up several months ago by the previous administration to study the matter of hospital insurance was expected to make



CHICAGO DIVERSION-STATEMENT ON DECISION OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Lambton West asked a question concerning a United States supreme court decision permitting an increased diversion through the Chicago drainage canal. The question was whether the extra flow of water permitted through that drainage scheme had been discontinued at the end of January. I assume that the hon. member refers to the additional diversion authorized by the supreme court of the United States on December 17, 1956. If so, the answer is no.
However, perhaps the hon. member will recall that on December 17, 1956, the state of Illinois applied to the United States supreme court and obtained an increase in the diversion at Chicago of some 7,000 cubic feet per second for the period from December 17 to January 31, 1957. During the month of January the state of Illinois asked for an extension of the increased diversion and the expiry date is now February 28, 1957.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Was it necessary for Canada to acquiesce in that decision or was it simply a case of an application being made by the state of Illinois to the United States supreme court and that court making a decision with respect to the diversion?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is my understanding that Canada had no part in that decision. The decision was made entirely by the United States supreme court.



MERCHANDISING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the representations made recently by both the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the interprovincial farm union council calling for an investigation into price spreads and merchandising methods, including premium stamps, with regard to

Inquiries of the Ministry food products, has the government taken any steps to launch such an investigation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has not taken any steps to launch such an investigation as that referred to in the hon. member's question.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister consider this matter important enough to recommend that a special parliamentary committee take on the job of making such an investigation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister comment on statements to a Calgary service club by Mayor Donald Mackay of Calgary, who also happens to be the Liberal candidate for Calgary South in the forthcoming election, calling for radical reforms in finance by the federal government to create credit for public works and more specifically-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I submit that a member may ask if a statement made by a cabinet minister outside of the house represents government policy but I do not think that should extend even to candidates in the forthcoming election.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister table in the house the number of books, together with their names, censored in the last year and which as a result have been prohibited entry Into Canada?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will give the matter consideration.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Public Works now in a position to answer my

questions of last Friday regarding the new and old post office buildings in Winnipeg?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. On Friday the hon. member asked when the new post office building in Winnipeg would be ready for occupancy. The answer is that it is contemplated that the general contractor will have just about completed his work by the end of May. This being the case we anticipate that some of the departments that will occupy the new premises will start moving in June. There will still remain certain equipment to be installed for the Post Office Department. It is planned that this work will be completed during November, and that the building will be fully occupied by December of this year.
He asked also what plans we have for the old building. The answer is that no final decision has been made but we expect it will be turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 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, and that the provisions of standing order 67(1) limiting the number of members on special committees be suspended in relation thereto.


John George Diefenbaker: This motion provides for the setting up of a committee on estimates, the original of which was set up two years ago. It is in the light of the experience of those two years that I intend to direct my remarks today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Leader of the Opposition proceeds any further, may I ask all hon. members who wish to vacate the house to do so immediately so that the Leader of the Opposition may be heard in an orderly fashion.


John George Diefenbaker: I think, in the light of that experience, it can be stated that on the basis of the present powers provided for within this resolution this committee will not discharge the responsibilities that it could discharge if given the opportunity. The indications are that this year, when the sup-plementaries are introduced, Canada's expenditures will exceed anything in our history. This committee was set up for the purpose of making recommendations and suggestions as to economies, if any, that might be secured by reason of examination and discussion.

We can go back to 1921 when a similar matter was first suggested, and at that time Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux pointed out that there was a very pronounced need on the part of this parliament to examine into expenditures; that the ordinary media for the examination of expenditures were insufficient for the purpose and had been proven more or less ineffective over the years. He said this at page 2193 of Hansard for that year in introducing a resolution in the following terms:
... in order to co-ordinate and expedite the business of parliament in a more intelligent and practical way, the estimates of the various departments should, before being laid on the table, be scrutinized by a special committee of the house, where officers would be summoned to appear with plans and reports bearing on each appropriation.
I particularly emphasize the latter words of the resolution, "where officers would be summoned to appear with plans and reports bearing on each appropriation." As I see the situation today there are three controls on expenditures. The first is the cabinet, the second is the treasury board and the third is the committee of supply. The experience of all of us, I am sure, has been that no adequate examination is possible in the committee of supply; it is almost totally ineffectual. Today expenditures are fabulous in amount and, except for ministers in the government, there are no adequate research opportunities whereby parliament may properly discharge its responsibilities. There is no adequate, indeed, in many cases, no examination of the expenditures of that vast, sprawling empire of crown corporations which is in existence today. When I say that, I am not unmindful of the fact that there is an examination of the C.B.C. from time to time, the Canadian National Railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines. But outside of these, and an auditor's examination by the Auditor General, there is a completely ineffectual examination of crown corporations whose expenditures run into the millions and millions of dollars.
The first estimates committee was set up in 1955, as I said a moment ago. Has it proven effectual? What have been its shortcomings? It has had no power to call for persons, papers or records. It has had placed before it the evidence permitted by the minister of the crown for the particular department being investigated. Some might say this committee could go into details. No one is so naive as not to realize that the evidence is not given, whenever an examination is commenced that in any way may lead to politically detrimental circumstances in so far as the government is concerned. What evidence has been brought before the committee in the past few years
Committee on Estimates has been that which the government was prepared to present. I am not going into details. The experience of the previous year was set out by a number of our members in 1956, and in particular I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, at page 1639 of Hansard for February 28, 1956. He set out the difficulties in connection with the committee and its operations. What the committee has done, in effect, is to get the people as a whole to believe that effective work is being done when, in point of fact, being unable to call witnesses, it is completely ineffectual in the achievement of its purposes.
In so far as an examination of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was concerned the minister himself set cut in detail on February 24, at page 10 of the committee proceedings for 1955, his ideas as to the powers of this committee and the manner in which those powers should be exercised. He said this:
The view 1 have taken on what I should do is to use my own judgment when a question is asked as to whether it is the type of question I should take the responsibility of answering myself or the type of question I should ask one of the officers of the department to answer.
I do not intend myself to answer questions which do not involve policy and which do involve detail, because I think it would be quite ridiculous for me to turn to one of these gentlemen here and ask him to whisper the answer to me. He is far more capable of giving the answer himself because I do not pretend to be an expert on the details of the department. However, I would like it clearly understood that any question which I wish to answer myself X have the right to answer exclusively.
Well, Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a committee effectually examining expenditures when a question is asked which, in the opinion of the minister, he ought to answer, and while the civil servants have the information, the answer is given by him. It is because of that fact and the attitude taken by the government in the past few years that the committee, which was born in circumstances of hope, has not achieved anything like the position of responsibility that its opportunities provided. You say to me, what is the alternative? Well, I do not intend to go into particulars regarding the United Kingdom committee, but that committee was set up in 1912 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George. That committee consists of 36 members. It is broken up into subcommittees, and it examines departments without warning them in advance, and it does not allow the minister to prevent witnesses coming before it. I would ask, sir, does anyone in the practice of law agree that if a court was convened-and I see a difference between this and a court-and the only evidence that could be introduced would be

Committee on Estimates that which one or other of the parties decided was the type of evidence which would not be hurtful to him, that indeed would be the evidence? That is the position here. The minister sits on the committee, or at least the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) sat on the committee; whatever questions were asked that in his opinion might be construed as detrimental, or at least bore that suggestion, a reading of the evidence before the committee indicates the degree to which its powers of investigation were emasculated. I believe that, in the light of the experience of the last two years, the criticisms of this party have been proven to be correct.
We suggest that the estimates committee should be empowered to do those things which the committee in the United Kingdom has discharged now for some 45 years. It is an effective job that the United Kingdom committee has performed. It has made examinations year by year; it has investigated various departments of government without notice in advance. After all, if auditors are sent in to make an examination no notice is sent in advance in order to provide an opportunity for glossing over circumstances which otherwise would be revealed.
I wish that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) were in the house today. Last year he set out in very great detail, and most wisely, the terms upon which the committee should be set up and indicated how ineffectual it would be unless it had the power to send for documents and secure witnesses.
All of us desire to make parliament effective. All, I think, realize the degree to which parliament has changed in its attitude in the last 15 years, or particularly following the first war and since the second great war.
I do not propose to quote from the articles in the Queen's Quarterly, the winter of 1957 edition, the focus on parliament, in which a series of contributors have given their views on parliament. It must be authentic because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is one of those who made contributions to the article. However, it is not from him that I intend to quote because what he dealt with does not apply to the question of an estimates committee.


Mr. Harris:: Yes, he dealt with the estimates committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I will allow the minister to deal With that when he speaks. I am going to quote an independent witness,-


Mr. Dickey:: Like Michener.


John George Diefenbaker: -not one who is biased in any way, but one who still enjoys to a

high degree the appreciation of the government and who within the last few days has received an appointment on a commission to investigate the situation of Newfoundland in confederation. I refer to John Deutsch who over the years held high positions in the civil service of this country. He has written an article entitled "Parliament and the Civil Service", and has shown the difficulties of parliament and the degree to which in the passing years ministers of the crown have become, as they read those daily statements, simply the means of articulating someone else's preparations. He says this:
Traditionally parliament's ultimate control over the civil service and the executive has lain in its power respecting expenditures. The power remains, but its exercise has undergone important changes. There has been much comment on the fact that in practice parliament finds it convenient to spend a large part of its time on general debates and the consideration of broad objectives and issues which are congenial to the talents of the members and arouse some measure of public interest. There is little or no manifestation of general public interest in the details of technical operations which today constitute so large a part of the work of government and the civil service.
In a paragraph further on he goes on to say:
In order to bring parliament into closer touch with the operation of the civil service it has been proposed that parliament should set up a considerable number of functional committees each of which would make it its business to become thoroughly familiar with, and to exercise surveillance over, a particular area of government activity.
Having said that, he sets out the obvious answers that such a system might not be effectual under the British form of parliamentary government, but he says that something must be done to bring about an improvement in the information available to parliament. He goes on to say:
One step to this end, which would be in harmony with the principles of our parliamentary system, would be the development of a procedure for a regular annual review of the administrative operations of government by a suitable parliamentary body.
That is exactly what we have been asking for over the years. Today, with the estimates being brought in in the latter days of the session, it is possible if not probable that millions of dollars that have no justification in the estimates pass in the rush that takes place at the end of each session. There is today no way whereby it is possible for parliament properly to discharge its functions in the examination of supply. If you go back to the debates of 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872, when the total expenditures of Canada amounted to from $7 million to $14 million, you will find that there was an intense examination of detail. That is past today. For one reason, the volume of expenditures, the mass of detail in the Auditor

General's report and the extensive nature of the estimates preclude any careful examination. Mr. Deutsch who occupied some of the highest positions in Canada's civil service and who today is a professor in the University of British Columbia-a man who knows- realizes that something must be done, but not through a committee such as this estimates committee which is to be the watchdog of the treasury and is muzzled in advance by being denied the right to call witnesses. His suggestion is this:
Under this proposal a committee of the House of Commons on which there is wide representation (possibly the existing public accounts committee with some modifications) would bring before it each year during the course of the session, all of the permanent civil service heads of departments and agencies to give an accounting of their administrative operations during the previous year, and to submit to examination thereon.
If that suggestion came from a member of the opposition it would possibly be said that it was an interference with the authority of the cabinet, with their responsibility incident to being Her Majesty's advisers. But here is the advice of a great Canadian, one who has over the years received plaudits from members of the government. He is suggesting that today it is needful that parliament have an opportunity of examining senior civil servants, heads of departments and agencies to give an accounting of their administrative operations. He also said:
The important point is that this review should be conducted regularly, thoroughly and comprehensively . . . While attempts to wring indiscretions from civil servants might be good political sport, concentration on this would quickly degrade the work of the committee. In order to be effective the committee would have to make a purposeful effort to review, comprehend, appraise, and finally to prepare a useful report on the administration of government activities. If this were done members of parliament would have an opportunity to get a much better appreciation of what they are expected to control.
In other words there would be parliamentary control in the examination of estimates and parliament would be made aware of the basis upon which the various estimates had been recommended. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is one of the most challenging recommendations that anyone connected with the civil service has made heretofore. Mr. Deutsch speaks not as a partisan of any party but as a partisan for a rejuvenated parliament that will discharge its responsibilities.
Throughout the years I have said-and I repeat it now-that there is today no means whereby expenditures can be examined. There is no means available. In the first place, members of the opposition naturally have not that research knowledge which is necessary; they have not available to them the civil
Committee on Estimates service. They are obliged to depend on information that comes in that desultory way that has existed throughout the years. Gladstone once said: It is more difficult to save a shilling than to spend a million. An estimates committee, properly set up, could bring about savings in this country which would be beneficial not only to the departments concerned but above all to the taxpayers.
Up to the present time, with the exception of that committee which was set up during the days of the war-I refer to the war expenditures committee-there has been no serious endeavour through the years to meet this problem of a careful examination and scrutiny coupled with the necessary recommendations as to the achievement of savings. During the war the committee on war expenditures was set up. It met throughout the years. It saved Canada tens of millions of dollars. The members of that committee worked not for any political purpose but in order to discharge their responsibilities. That committee had power. That committee called witnesses before it. That committee became effective.
The committee that is now being set up under this resolution is but a copy of the one that has been in existence for two years. In the light of that experience I say that unless it has the power to call witnesses and to ask for papers, it is nothing but a sham and a delusion. It promises great things but it is shackled in advance by its lack of powers. In the light of that experience, Mr. Speaker, and in order to make it effectual, it is my purpose to move an amendment as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
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."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to establish once again the estimates committee. We are also pleased that the leader of the official opposition has moved an amendment which I believe is identical with an amendment that was moved last year when the same motion was before the house. Even as we supported the amendment last year we shall support the amendment that has now been proposed because we feel that this committee should not be denied a power that is enjoyed by all the standing committees of this house, namely the power to send for persons, papers and records.
We think that the last word has not been said, Mr. Speaker, on the question of how parliament should operate in pursuit of Its

Committee on Estimates functions with regard to public expenditures. We have a public accounts committee, we have the committee of supply and for the last few years we have had the estimates committee. Yet I think that no one on the government side or on the opposition side of the house would be so foolish' as to assert that we have yet got on top of this terrific problem of managing the huge expenditures which come under the jurisdiction of parliament.
We hope that the government, complacent though it may be about some other matters, will not take the view that it has done all it needs to do in agreeing to the appointment of this committee. We believe that serious study should be given by the government to suggestions such as those made by John Deutsch, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred already, and to suggestions in other articles on the question of parliamentary control of expenditures which appear from time to time and which are written by those who have studied this whole question, particularly some of those in our universities.
As John Deutsch points out in the article to which reference has been made already, the problem facing parliament today in this respect is indeed a tremendous one. I was going to cite certain quotations in Professor Deutsch's article but the ones I have marked are the ones the Leader of the Opposition has quoted already and I will not take the time of the house to repeat them at this time. However, I would point out that he does say on page 568 of the current issue of the Queen's Quarterly that the difficulty confronting parliament lies essentially in the problem of how to control this vast machine, including the executive which directs it. It is on the basis of that premise that Professor Deutsch made the suggestion which has been quoted already, namely that there should be set up in parliament a committee which would make it possible for senior civil servants to be called before it for proper examination, not just for the purpose of ferreting out tidbits that are interesting to political parties but so that members of parliament generally might get a better grasp of the problem that is ours in controlling the huge expenditures of a federal government.
I was interested in the interjection made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the current issue of Queen's Quarterly. The Minister of Finance assured us that he had had something to say in his article about the estimates committee. That is right, he did. It is not very long so I think I can put it on the record. I find that the minister referred to the estimates committee in two places. At pages 544 and 545 he had this to say:

During the last two sessions the proceedings (questions and answers) in the estimates committee have covered eight of the twenty departments of government, taking approximately 1,700 printed pages. The proponents of this system have argued that it would reduce the time taken in the house for the consideration of these departments, but experience has shown that the opposite has been true. However, it is still too early for a final judgment, particularly as the departments which have been examined in detail by the estimates committee have been in some cases quite contentious. One may be able to judge the results better when more departments have had detailed scrutiny.
The other reference which the Minister of Finance made in his article to the estimates committee is on page 547 as follows:
The estimates committee will also have to prove its worth either as a time-saver or as a more efficient check on public spending.
We cannot help but agree with the proposition the Minister of Finance lays down that the estimates committee should prove a check on public spending and I suppose from the standpoint of personal convenience we should go along with the idea that the estimates committee should be a time-saver. However, it seems to me that that is the fundamental fallacy in the approach of the Minister of Finance to the whole question of the business of parliament. His preoccupation seems to be to get the sessions over. It seems to me that that is quite contrary to the conclusion that John Deutsch comes to at the end of his article. He recognizes that the committee structure which he proposes will not have the effect of shortening the session. In fact he says this:
The adoption of proposals along these lines, would, of course, mean more work for an already burdened parliament. However, this is basically a matter of the most effective allocation of time. What is needed is an allocation of time and an organization of work which is in harmony with the realities of government today. These realities have to be faced if parliament is to maintain its proper relationship to the executive and the civil service.
It seems to me that that is the basic difference between the approach of the Minister of Finance and that of Professor Deutsch, namely that the Minister of Finance as house leader thinks in terms of ways and means of getting the sessions over with as little discussion as possible. Professor Deutsch thinks in terms of the problem on the doorstep of parliament as being such a gigantic one that we need a more up-to-date committee structure to cope with these matters. I think we would all go along with Professor Deutsch's suggestion that one of the needs is the establishment of a committee structure which will acquaint all members of parliament more fully with the functions of various departments and the job that we have in hand.

When one looks at these articles by professors dealing with the job confronting parliament he realizes that the committee structure we have falls short of what is needed. However, we welcome the attempt at least to move in that direction by having a committee such as is now proposed, namely an estimates committee. Most of us have had the experience of serving on this committee at one time or another. In fact I suppose more hon. members have had a chance to serve on the estimates committee than on other committees by reason of the fact that the tendency of all parties is to rotate their members on that committee as different departments come before it.
It was my experience to be a member of the committee for a while last year when we had the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare before us. To me it was a good committee, but hardly an estimates committee in the terms of the meaning of that word. Actually it was dealing with the estimates of that particular department last year shortly after the federal government had made its proposal to the provinces for a national hospitalization insurance scheme. I understand that this has now been agreed to by five provinces. For the most part in that committee we were discussing this proposal. I have no complaint that we dealt with health insurance while I was on that committee; that was what some of us wanted. While we did deal with some other matters, mainly it was that subject that was before us at that time. That was all to the good.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt to ask the hon. member before he sits down what he would have discussed if that matter had not been chosen?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance knows that I am not complaining that we had the committee and were able to use it for that purpose. What I am suggesting is that partly because we do not have the power to send for persons, papers and records, partly because we have not yet looked seriously at the practice in the United Kingdom where the committee is more evenly balanced with a member of the opposition party acting as chairman, we have not moved in the direction of a committee the purpose of which would be a parliamentary duplicate, if I may call it that, of the treasury board. It seems to me that something like that is needed in our parliamentary set-up.
I recognize the constitutional arguments that will be put forward based on the fact that the government is responsible for all expenditures and therefore the treasury board has to do that job under the aegis of the government. But if parliament ultimately has to pass the
Committee on Estimates estimates, and even though the recommendations are made by the government parliament has to take the final responsibility in all financial measures, it seems to me that we must find ways and means of becoming more fully informed in order to be in a better position to do our job with respect to these estimates.
I say quite frankly to the Minister of Finance that this is not criticism of him or of the government itself, it is simply stating the plain fact that we in the parliament of Canada have not yet thought in these terms in relation to public expenditures the way they have in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I hope that further thought will be given to the nature and to the set-up of this committee. Maybe it is an experiment -an idea that will not work out. Maybe what we need is to revise the structure of the public accounts committee; maybe we need to put the two together. But it would be my hope that further thought might be given to this question so that we might yet find a better way of investigating and scrutinizing public expenditures than we have at the present time either in the public accounts committee or in the estimates committee.
The estimates committee would be a little better if the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) were adopted, and we shall therefore support it. The estimates committee is to be set up again this year, and even on the old basis certain departments are to be referred to that committee. We suggest that all of us in this house, both on the government side and among the opposition parties, should be giving further thought as to what might be a still better way for parliament to scrutinize and supervise public expenditures.
Mt. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, very briefly, on this subject. We were very glad to see that this committee would be set up again this year, and I will say at the outset that we are also pleased to see the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition. I had intended to make, and I will include in my remarks, a few suggestions to that effect.
During the past few years it has been my privilege to sit on this committee, and I do believe it has proven a worth-while instrument by means of which parliament can make a closer and more careful study of the spending of the money entrusted to it. After all, I believe one of the most important functions of parliament should be to see that money taken from the people of Canada to finance their government is

Committee on Estimates spent in a way that will serve their best interests. Today, when our yearly expenditure is in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, it is doubly important to do this. We heard in this house in the not too distant past the words "What is a million?" and I think that a little more careful scrutiny would make sure that that phrase is not taken too literally by the departments administering the affairs of this government.
During some of these committee meetings I have been, at times, beset with a feeling of frustration. We realize the shortcomings of the procedure, and we realize that there is room for improvement. However, I think an improvement is quite possible, and that with more experience we shall be able to get down more effectively to the job which is entrusted to us, and become more efficient in discharging it.
We must come closer to the problems of administration within the department under review, and I believe we should get to know any flaws in the method of operation and in the handling of public funds. I believe we should be able to come to certain conclusions as a result of our work, and that we should be able to make suggestions with reasonable assurance that those suggestions would be listened to by the officials of the departments under review.
There is another thing which troubles me, more perhaps than anything else-the fact that these committee meetings have sometimes tended to become a sounding board for what might be called political discussions on policy. I do not believe that the functions of this committee are to discuss policy, and this is something which we should bear in mind as we enter upon another period of the work of this particular committee. It should not be used as a political medium in order to try to embarrass the administrators of the department under examination. After all, Mr. Speaker, these administrators and departmental officials are merely carrying out the laws and regulations laid down by this parliament, and if we believe it is necessary to change those laws or regulations the place to talk about that, and the place to have such action recommended and taken, is in this house and not in the estimates committee.
I would, therefore, suggest that the committee, after it has completed its work in examining the estimates of any department, should present certain recommendations to parliament in accordance with its findings, and that those suggestions should be accepted by this house and by the government as indicating a need for definite action along the lines recommended by the committee.


As to the terms of reference, I would suggest that this committee be given very wide scope, and that in accordance with the resolution it be "empowered to send for persons, papers and things." Then, Mr. Speaker, once this committee has been set up, and once the terms of reference have been set forth, I suggest that the committee should carry on strictly within the limits of those terms of reference, and that the members should do their utmost to make a careful and thorough study of the expenditures presented to them by the departments under review.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I will take a few moments in which to express my views in connection with the setting up of this committee.
In the short time during which I have been a member of the House of Commons I have sat on a good many different committees and I have spent many hours in committee work. I have heard members of the official opposition proposing, week after week, the setting up of committees for particular purposes, I have sat on some of the committees whose establishment was urged by hon. members of the opposition, and my own experience has been that after the committees are set up it is almost impossible to get a quorum. The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McLeod) will, I think, agree with me that only last year it proved a problem on many occasions to get a quorum in our committees, and I think it will be found, if you look back into the records, that the quorum of every committee has been quite substantially reduced in the last two or three sessions of this parliament.
The criticism in connection with this particular committee, of which I have been a member, is the fact that the minister himself is dealing with his own estimates. With that I agree 100 per cent because I believe the minister is the man who should be dealing with his estimates, and from my experience of that committee I can say there has not been one iota of evidence withheld from members; any information they have requested has been provided without any hesitation at all. Great emphasis has been placed on the fact that these committees can save millions of dollars for the taxpayers. I must again speak frankly and say that I find that the opposition members do make every effort to create the impression among the general public that their job here is to save dollars for the taxpayers, but if you take Hansard you will find that what they are actually doing is recommending the expenditure of a great deal more money than is covered by the estimates. We have been sitting here for

a very short time, six or seven weeks, and I have gone over the records hurriedly. If the suggestions already made by the official opposition were taken seriously by the government they would amount to $2 billion added to our expenditures this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No nonsense. I can give the hon. member the exact figures if he would like to have them. I pick up today's order paper and look at notices of motions. There is one to increase the pensions of civil servants. There is another to accelerate activities in the field of research. Every single item under notices of motions involves an increase in expenditure and nine out of ten of them come from the official opposition.
I believe it is nearly time that we took this matter seriously and those who really believe we should save dollars should practise exactly what they preach. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke a few moments ago he said that it was harder to save a shilling than to spend a million. I agree with that statement. If the records of those who have been members of these committees dealing with the estimates are checked it will be found that when they take part in discussion in the House of Commons-and I defy any member of the house to find anything that will contradict this statement-for every suggestion of lesser expenditure there will be 100 recommendations for greater expenditure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were never more ridiculous in your life.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) to get up and show me one case where he ever asked that expenditure be curtailed in his own constituency.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just last year-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just get up and I
will give you the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that if he gives the floor I will recognize the hon. member for Eglinton.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not believe the hon. member for Eglinton wants the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will be very glad to take the floor if the hon. member is prepared to yield the floor on the terms indicated.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member who has just interrupted is the very same gentleman who stood before the Tory convention held a few months ago where everything that could be thought of was promised the people of Canada. That was the start for the election, and that same gentleman
Committee on Estimates will stand up on platforms all across the country and say that the people of New Brunswick are not being treated fairly, the South Saskatchewan dam should be built, and anything else that has been suggested involving the expenditure of money he will endorse. But at the same time we have a very serious obligation in connection with the taxpayers' dollars. If those in the official opposition are really serious in what they are saying then when the estimates come before the house again, whenever it is, let them get up and say, for example, here is an expenditure of $250,000 in my constituency and I believe it should be cut out. Let them say that they are prepared to save the taxpayers' dollars. In my experience extending over 12 years I have yet to hear one member of the opposition even suggest the saving of a single dollar.
I remember that when we were dealing with the estimates in the last session of parliament I sat here day after day until I got disgusted and got to my feet. There was one item in the agricultural estimates and the hon. gentleman who is the agricultural expert of the official opposition took 15 minutes of the time of the house to find out why an expenditure had been cut from $165,000 to $150,000. He was bitterly opposed to a cut of $15,000 in that item. If it had been an increase he would have endorsed it.
I believe we must take this matter more seriously. We must be honest with ourselves. If we set up this committee to save dollars, then let us take the same attitude when the estimates are before the house as we take in the committee because while the public reads Hansard and the press publishes what is said here the public do not read the records of these committees. Why go to a committee and slug it out day after day and try to make the people believe they are saving money and then get up on their feet when the estimates are brought back to this chamber and say that they are very sorry because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) has neglected to supply the cash to build this building in a certain constituency or a breakwater somewhere else or a railroad somewhere else?
They are disappointed that the government has not announced an increase in old age pensions. On public platforms and the radio they accuse the government of neglecting to increase family allowances. If they really want to save money let them get up on their feet and show us where we can save it. If I am a member of the committee when it is set up I hope we will be able to get a quorum without keeping the minister and others who want to get the work of

Committee on Estimates parliament completed sitting there hour after hour waiting for enough members of the official opposition to make a quorum.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of
Finance.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I realize I am holding up business in the house which is, I know, unsatisfactory to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) -


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all.


Walter Edward Harris: -who wants speed when he is not particularly concerned with affairs but does not want speed with respect to anything else on which he might feel he should take more time. If I may, let me refer briefly to the debate which has occurred on every occasion when this matter has been before the house. I know that hon. members do not want to re-read what I said when I moved the appointment of an estimates committee two years ago. If they will do so, however, they will find that I set out there what I thought the principles of an estimates committee on an experimental basis should be which would result in the obtaining of information such as hon. members said they did not have the time in the house to obtain.
I repeat that because that was the basis on which we thought the estimates committee might start, namely, that hon. members said that late in the session they did not have time to consider in detail the estimates in the blue book. They said that they did not feel like embarrassing themselves or the minister concerned by asking questions about a very small item which might only apply to their particular riding and not to the country as a whole but that if they had the time in a committee room they could take all the time they wanted on little questions of that kind that were of considerable moment to them but not perhaps to other members of the committee of supply.
In addition, I am free to confess that hon. members opposite, particularly in the official opposition, thought that if they had another chance at a fishing expedition they might conceivably find some basis of complaint against government spending, this despite the fact they had gone through three or four years of trying to do it in the Department of National Defence and had got absolutely nowhere with their fishing expedition.
We have had two years' experience with this committee. It is not doing anything that


it was thought it possibly might do except to-place on the record a lot of information which would not have been placed on the record if questions had been confined to the committee of supply. No member opposite, except the last member who spoke for the Social Credit party, went so far as to say that he was reasonably well pleased with the committee. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is pleased with it to some extent but it would appear that the official opposition is not pleased at all.
The reasons are clear. Last year, when the national health estimates were considered by the committee, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concentrated his attention on an item of $124,000 out of a total of $900 million for the purpose of talking about something that was not in the estimates, namely, health insurance. This is the kind of action that is probably all right if one understands the rules of the game, but if this is intended to be a critical examination of estimates rather than a demand for a change in policy that kind of action ought to be taken in the House of Commons and not in a committee which asserts to be an estimates committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask the question not to deny what he has just said at all, but will he not admit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) desired a discussion of health insurance and that it was he who started it in that committee?


Walter Edward Harris: I have no doubt whatever that ministers tend to lean over backwards to accommodate opposition members of the committee on estimates and also anywhere else.
But let us then look at the 1800 pages of record that we have so far managed to make available to hon. members through the estimates committee. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was good enough to refer to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) and the proceedings on the estimates of that department before this committee. As I recall it that was the first department to go before the committee because the official opposition thought the department was vulnerable, if I may use that word, certainly contentious at any rate, and as I remember it the committee spent several weeks seeking not only information about expenditures but seeking

to debate policy with respect to immigration and with respect to the Indians and other persons represented in that department.
The very people who argued for the estimates committee did so on the basis that in a committee upstairs there would be no policy discussion; there would be a seeking of information on the basis of which there could be a more informed policy discussion in the committee of supply when the items came back for discussion here. Yet we find, on the basis of experience, they decided on a debate on policy in the committee itself. As I recall it we have gone through eight departments at one time or another, and some were contentious. As a matter of fact, most of them were put before the committee for that reason, so that the opposition could have more time to discuss matters that were currently interesting them. This year, if we have time and I take it that this resolution might carry, it was our intention to send at least two more departments to the committee. I had thought that perhaps during the session this fall and perhaps during the session next year, we might have been able to get around to almost all the departments at least once in that period of about four or five years.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, what is happening. We had thought, in our naive way to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, that if hon. members had a month or a month and a half of discussion, say three times a week, in a committee room upstairs, there would be some time saved in the committee of supply when we came to discuss the estimates of that particular department. As I said, in the article in the Queen's Quarterly, without really trying to prove it by a reference to hours which I could do, the result has been that we have had a longer discussion in the house in connection with every department which has gone to the estimates committee than we had the last time that department was considered in the committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe that is all to the
good.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not arguing that this
is either good or bad. I am reporting, for the moment, as I did in the Queen's Quarterly. In the Queen's Quarterly I said that this committee could prove its worth by saving time in the committee of supply or it could prove its worth by acting as a better check on government expenditures. When I moved the motion to appoint the committee two years ago, I included that as a reason why I thought there ought to be an estimates committee, and I went on to say that there
Committee on Estimates were members in every party who thought this committee would be a waste of time and would do nothing more than could be done in the committee of supply. I believe there are people in every party in the house who still feel that way on the basis of the experience we have had.
What is there to be done about this? Are we to adopt the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should have a committee of the house which would, as he said, call before it the leading members of the civil service, the deputy ministers I take it or at least the chief treasury officers of the various departments, to have an annual survey of the expenditures of the government such as would suit him and suit the purposes outlined in the amendment? We have that now, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing different in the statement which was made by the Leader of the Opposition from what can be done through the public accounts committee. He has been confused himself by the difference between an estimates committee considering expenditures for the forthcoming year and a scrutiny of the expenditures which have been made in the past. When I moved the motion to appoint the estimates committee, I reminded the house they ought to keep the distinction clearly in mind. I am sorry that I have to continue quoting myself at such length. I do that because I feel a little bothered by the fact no one seems to have paid any attention to what I said at the time.
I pointed out that the kind of estimates committee hon. members seemed to have in mind was a public accounts committee on a scale which would make it all-inclusive rather than a current discussion. I gave examples of what they did in the United Kingdom. As I pointed out at that time, they appointed a committee to go to Africa to consider the peanut situation there. This took about two years. I pointed out that they selected a small item of four million pounds with regard to broadcasting and took some 18 months to make a report during which time they toured the United Kingdom. That is not what we are trying to do here; that is the work of a public accounts committee. The public accounts committee can summon people and examine them about whether or not these expenditures were properly made; whether there was waste in them and whether or not it might have been proper to do something else. All that is in the past, and we are talking today about expenditures which may be voted for the current year; whether or not the item represents a true and proper expenditure for that purpose; whether or not another item

Committee on Estimates ought to be included in the estimates. I take it that is the purpose of an estimates committee. Certainly, that is the purpose of the committee of supply. The committee of supply is set up each year for the purpose of providing money for the next fiscal year. If hon. members feel that they have the time and that as the constitution permits them to decide on what expenditures ought to be in every year, then let us concentrate on the committee of supply and do the work there. If, however, hon. members want to examine the past history of things, the public accounts committee is there for that purpose.
In between, however, there seems to be another field which I take it the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. I suppose it would mean that you select one department at the beginning of the session, take time to concentrate on it and make a report some time towards the end of that session after a careful scrutiny of the items for that department as to whether or not the expenditures ought to be as they are in the blue book. If hon. members feel that they can conduct the business of parliament in that manner, I suggest they be more specific as to how it can be done than we have heard from them so far.
I should like to say one word to follow up what has been said by the hon. member for Charlotte. I appeared before the estimates committee with my department. It is true that the Department of Finance spends something over $900 million, a large part of which is statutory. But let the house realize that that committee disposed of my $900 million in something over three and a half hours of consideration. I answered every question that was asked of me. No question was asked which would indicate that any opposition member thought there was information that was not available to him and, indeed, there is not because what information was not available at the committee hon. members can easily obtain by telephoning the officials in my department, as they know quite well. This seems to be an effort, if I may say so, by the opposition to substitute themselves for the government in taking responsibility for expenditures. If that is their purpose, it is at least a legitimate cause for discussion and recommendation. But when they recommend that, let them bring forward the appropriate amendment to the Financial Administration Act and remove from the treasury board, if you will, the authority it exercises over expenditures and substitute some other body; set up the machinery which would permit them to turn themselves into accountants and the like instead of members of parliament representing the whole of the people of Canada. The

result would be that some day we might have what happened in Washington recently, and I only mention this for information, not by way of criticism, when the budget went to congress with a statement by the secretary of the treasury that he hoped something could be done about it. This is not the policy of this government or any government that conducts itself in accordance with our constitutional procedures. The crown, through the cabinet, takes responsibility for expenditures, submits them to parliament and is ready to accept suggestions and amendments with respect to them, but in the long run accepts the responsibility for recommending them in the first place. If we make a mistake in the recommendation, then the public will visit the proper punishment upon us for that mistake. But I do not think that in the foreseeable future we shall come to the point where we shall vest in parliament as such or rather a body of parliament authority over the retaining or the ultimate passing, except with the consent of the whole of parliament, of all items to be spent in the ensuing fiscal year.
I mention what the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) said. He said he thought this committee ought to have the privilege of recommending to civil servants present expenditures other than those referred to, or suggestions as to better administration of particular items. Surely that is the privilege of the hon. gentleman on all occasions. Surely that is what he is sent here for. We do not have to create that right by an amendment to the motion to go before a committee. I am sure my hon. friend has never been lacking in a desire to get on his feet to recommend things to cabinet, and we do give consideration to it. There is nothing mystic about it. It is part of the job, and we do not have to set up a committee and send civil servants there to listen to my hon. friend who has a telephone in his room. I did not understand him at all. I think the purpose of the committee of supply is to hear those complaints, and to hear the complaints in the estimates committee, but in the end the complaints are directed to the government and not to a particular civil servant, because he can only recommend or not recommend to his minister. In the end the minister accepts the responsibility for deciding what is done. I see my hon. friend wants to say something.


Mr. McLeod:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, what I did say, or what I intended to convey, and I believe it will come out that way in Hansard, is that I thought that was one of the functions of the committee that we should concentrate on.


Walter Edward Harris: Then, I apologize. I must say I was carrying on another conversation at the time that my hon. friend was complaining. He has indicated the function of the committee, and I accept what he has said it is meant to be.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I took the responsibility for starting the estimates. committee two years ago. I would like to see it continued for at least another session, and perhaps for one or two more, to see whether in fact the providing of additional time to obtain additional information has been useful to hon. members and to the debates in the house. I did not contemplate at the time, and I do not contemplate in the immediate future at least, any alteration in the terms of reference because it would appear to me that hon. members opposite have not tried to work this committee in the manner that they might have under the terms of reference laid down two years ago. I was conscious of the complaints that have been made about attendance; I was conscious of the fact that hon. members found it inconvenient to attend the committee on many occasions and I did encourage others to attend in order that the committee might go ahead with the work it was doing.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the minister a question? Did he find that in the meetings of the committee which he and I attended there was any lack of a quorum? I have no recollection of there being a want of quorum or a want of attendance.


Walter Edward Harris: No; I am free to confess that on the one day I appeared before the committee we had a quorum a short time after we met. There is no question about that. But I am a little afraid that a serious desire to limit expenditure is not shown either in the committee or in the house. We are spending about $5 billion. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) has made more than one speech in the house with respect to cutting down the expenditures on publications, as I recall it, of various kinds.
Hon. members opposite have tended to speak in general terms about waste in expenditures, and I have never yet known them to rise in their places to move that a particular item be reduced, with one or two minor exceptions that I shall mention in a moment. Nor do I think, although I have not read all the 1800 pages of evidence before this committee, that very much time is put in trying to show that a particular item should not be spent. On the contrary I join with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) in saying that almost the whole of the discussion has to do either with a search for error in
Committee on Estimates judgment, which probably is part of the purpose of the committee, or alternatively with an expenditure which is not provided for.
Now, if the house genuinely feels that large sums of money are being spent which could be saved, I can assure them that I shall be the first to hear their views thereon. We have gone to a great deal of trouble in setting up the accounts, in publishing the sheets that I hold in my hand, that are in the blue book. An obvious complaint, of course, can be the one made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre that we should not spend so many millions of dollars to publish reports; that there is a duplication here and there, as there is bound to be in any institution spending $5 billion. But when I hear hon. members opposite advocate quite large expenditures far beyond what are now being made, and in the same speech, indeed in the following sentence almost, complain about the great expenditures of government, I often wonder whether they could not put a price tag on what they are advocating and at the same time put a price tag on what they would take out of the expenditures to make up for it, or alternatively accept the responsibility for increased taxation, which would be the only result.
Now, looking at my friends of the C.C.F. party I immediately say that they have on every occasion said in the house that they are in favour of higher taxation. They have told me that they believe that government is for the purpose of certain distributions of wealth by taxation, and I exempt them from what I have said. But the official opposition, who talk about expenditures running at an unheard of rate, and at the same time recommend other expenditures, are, if I may use a colloquial term, talking out of both sides of their mouth, and it seems to me they have proven that by the use of this committee and by the evidence taken before it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, judging by the tone of the minister's remarks, it is evident that we are not going to have very much co-operation from the government or from the minister in efforts to pare unnecessary expenditures. I am afraid it is evident also from the tone in which the minister has spoken today that there is going to be very little co-operation extended by the government to members on this side of the house, or in any quarter of the house, in their efforts to obtain information and also to scrutinize expenditures in accordance with their duty.


Walter Edward Harris: What do you call the 1800 pages of the record except information?

Committee on Estimates


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I am talking about the minister's attitude today. The minister did not put 1800 pages of material on the record, today.


Walter Edward Harris: No; I am talking about the evidence in the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But he did, I think, exhibit an attitude in his remarks today which does not reflect any co-operation or a co-operative approach to the matter I have reference to.


Walter Edward Harris: Hoping that you will improve your ways.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope the minister will improve his attitude and do the job that a Minister of Finance ought to do in these matters and encourage members of the house in the performance of the duty that rests upon all members of the house, government supporters as well as the opposition, to scrutinize all government estimates of expenditure.


Walter Edward Harris: I have been criticizing you for not doing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will give you chapter and verse where I have done it, and received small thanks from the minister for doing it. However, if the minister wants to carry on a dialogue, I suppose we shall have to adjourn and find another vehicle for continuing the dialogue.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember these words:
If the order of reference is not wide enough and does not go far enough I suggest to the minister that it should be widened. This is something new; it is an experiment. If in the government's mind it is a reform let us treat it as reform and see that it is properly framed so that it operates. If it is only a concession to my hon. friends of the opposition then let us make our concession freely and willingly, not grudgingly.
And further:
Nevertheless the control, criticism, and scrutiny of the estimates is one of the bulwarks of the opposition. The opposition should, if it is doing its duty, take every possible step to see to it that these expenditures are appropriate and in the interests of the country. May I say as one who enjoyed being in the opposition for two parliaments that I have great sympathy for the opposition, and believe it is the duty of the government and the house to give the opposition every opportunity to scrutinize these estimates.
Mr. Speaker, you will realize that those are not the words of any member of the present government. Those are words uttered by the former hon. member for Quebec South, now Senator Power, in speaking in a debate in this house on February 8, 1955, on the first motion to establish the committee on estimates. Those words will be found at pages 953 and 954 of Hansard of that year. I commend them, for their sound common sense

and ripe parliamentary wisdom, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and those associated with him.
The resolution now under debate is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the one which was submitted by the government on February 8, 1955 and again on February 28, 1956. It is true that there are some words added at the end relating to the provisions of standing order 67(1), but that has to do simply with the number of members serving on the committee. In its essence and in its powers the committee is to be precisely the same as that which sat in the sessions of 1955 and 1956.
I do not need to remind the house-and I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister of Finance-of the fact that for years I have been one of the really enthusiastic advocates in this house of the appointment of a committee on estimates. Long before the government acceded to this proposal in 1955 some of us had been advocating it for years. Notwithstanding the not too satisfactory experience with the 'limited committee that we have had in the past two sessions, Mr. Speaker,
I am still a believer in the necessity for an effective committee on estimates to be set up by this house. It should not be set up as a special committee. It ought to be a standing committee of the house and it ought to be a regular feature of the legislative program of every session that the committee should be established, that it should be appointed early in the session and that it should be set to work with adequate powers to conduct a thoroughly effective scrutiny of the estimates and to obtain all information that the committee deems to be essential for the discharge of its duty.
There is no more important function discharged by this House of Commons than that of the control of public expenditure. There are matters of high importance in legislation. The matter of preserving a correct relationship between government and the elected representatives of the people is also of the highest importance. But no function of parliament is more important than that of the control of public expenditures. After sitting in this house now for 12 years my firm conviction is that in this respect this House of Commons does not effectively discharge its duty.
Part of the difficulty is attributable to a lack of adequate machinery for the purpose. By and large the country must still depend upon the functioning of the committee of supply for the discharge of parliament's duty to control public expenditure. That committee is one of the clumsiest features of all our House of Commons machinery, being a committee of the whole house consisting of

265 members, if they all wish to attend, carrying on under a procedure which effectively prohibits the obtaining of information directly from sources within the department except through the minister himself. Sometimes the minister is a satisfactory vehicle of information; sometimes he is not.
The committee of supply has not effectively discharged its duties. Indeed, by its very nature, it could not effectively discharge it. It is too big. It is too clumsy. It has not the opportunity of bringing necessary witnesses or officials before members to be questioned by them. It is for that reason that the committee on estimates or a committee like a proper committee on estimates is needed. There is undoubtedly useful work for such a committee to do. But if it is to function effectively and to discharge its important responsibility, the committee must have powers commensurate with its responsibilities. This committee of the 1955 and 1956 sessions has not had powers adequate to discharge the responsibility of effective review and scrutiny of the estimates of such departments as have been referred to it for that purpose.
Last year, when a similar motion was introduced we in the official opposition introduced two amendments, one in the same terms as that which is now under debate by which we propose that the committee should be given power to send for persons, papers and records. Surely that is a minimum of power and authority to be given to such a committee if it is to make even the barest pretence of giving effective scrutiny to government estimates of expenditure. The government is still opposed to clothing the committee with such powers. I may say that such powers are given to every standing committee of the house without question and that it is our almost invariable practice to confer such powers upon any special committees that are set up by the house. Yet for some reason or other this committee, which is charged with a responsibility which is no less important than that with which any other committee of the house is charged, is denied these minimum and essential powers. It just does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, and it does not suggest on the part of the government any sincere desire to make this committee really effective for the purpose of scrutinizing government estimates of expenditure.
The other amendment which we introduced last year was one which would have given to the committee broader powers to select the departments whose estimates it should review and not be confined simply to those selected by the government. The government opposed that amendment also as it opposed the other one.
Committee on Estimates
We are making here today, Mr. Speaker, an earnest plea to the house to make this committee really effective and to give it powers necessary for that purpose. Such powers are badly needed if it is to discharge the kind of responsibility that the Minister of Finance today seems to suggest that the committee ought to assume.
I now wish to make a brief reference to several of the matters mentioned by the minister. I realize that these are subjects that have been discussed frequently both in the house and between the minister and myself, certainly in the committee on rules for several sessions.
First of all is the matter that he mentioned or that other members mentioned, namely the burden that is created for members by the establishment of such a committee. Unquestionably this committee has not relieved the house of a great deal of its responsibility or its burden in connection with the detailed review of estimates of expenditures. The review in the committee has in some cases taken quite a good deal of time. One cannot say that that review has resulted in any appreciable reduction of the time that the house found it necessary to devote to the same departments in committee of supply when the estimates were returned to the committee of supply by the committee on estimates. However, I will say this. Such discussion as ensued in the committee of supply was a more informed discussion as a result of the information which had been garnered in the meetings of the committee on estimates by members who applied themselves to their duties in that regard.
Then there is the matter of saving time. I am sure that hon. members would be glad to find a more effective way of reviewing the estimates.
It would commend itself to them if at the same time a more effective procedure could be combined with the removal from the house of the search for extraneous details or abstract matters or items of information which might be gathered up in the committee and presented to the members of the house when they sit in committee of supply in the form of a report or in the report of the proceedings of the committee. That is important.
It is an unfair charge which the Minister of Finance has made today that time was wasted in the committee or occupied unnecessarily while members of the committee pursued political will-o'-the-wisps. That is not a fair statement. If the Minister of Finance will take the trouble to read the report of the minutes and proceedings of the committee last year and will take the trouble to

Committee on Estimates review in particular the pages devoted to the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare he will see that a great deal of time was taken up, not by anything extraneous but by interminably long speeches by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The Minister of National Health and Welfare is always a pleasant companion and he was usually a most pleasant member of the committee. He added not a little to the good humour of the committee, but 1 will say that he added greatly to the length of the record of the committee. If the Minister of Finance has time to spare I invite him to read some of the perorations which his colleague delivered in that committee. If he does that he will not find it difficult to decide that a great deal of the time of the committee was spent in that way. I am sure he is not surprised at that observation.
Then there is the suggestion which the minister made this afternoon that members of the opposition really wish to use this committee for fishing expeditions. If the purpose of the expedition is to obtain information which will add to the sum total of necessary information on the part of hon. members of this house so that they may do their duty and scrutinize government estimates of expenditure, then there is no time wasted and the expedition has a very salutary effect. A fishing expedition is justified if it has for its purpose the more effective discharge of duty by hon. members in scrutinizing government expenditures and government estimates of expenditure.
I wish to say again, sas I have said I am sure to the weariness of hon. members of this house on past occasions, that there is much in the experience and accomplishment of one of the standing committees of this house to guide us in this matter. I refer to the standing committee on external affairs. That committee has not been denied the power to send for persons, papers and records. It has had that power and it has not confined itself in its review of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs over the last twelve years to the officials of the department. It has gone outside, although not widely; nevertheless it has gone outside. There is not an hon. member of this house who would dare to say that the reference of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to that standing committee has not been a good thing for the committee, for the department concerned and for the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Was it not as result of setting up that committee that my hon. friend moved that certain other expenditures should be made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister elaborate?


Walter Edward Harris: My understanding is that my hon. friend recommended to the committee certain expenditures that were not being made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know to what the minister is referring because I certainly have not recommended expenditures. If the minister will look at the record of the committee he will find that I tried desperately hard to get some reductions. I wish he would take the trouble to read last year's proceedings where, for instance, he will see reference made to the extravagance of the government in connection with its acquisition of embassy property at Rio de Janeiro and my efforts to expose its wastefulness in connection with expenditures on furnishings for that building and others. He will see also a record of my amendments which were voted down in the committee. I commend a reading of that record to the minister because I think he will find it instructive. It would help to clear his mind of the mistaken impression under which apparently he is labouring.
That committee is not denied the power to send for persons, papers and records when it is reviewing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. By what logic then does the government say that the committee on estimates ought to be denied the power to send for persons, papers and records? There just is no sense talking as the minister did this afternoon. The minister referred to talking from both sides of the mouth at the same time. If he wants an example of talking from both sides of the mouth at the same time he should look at the record of the government in this particular, a government which does not cavil at all about giving to the committee on external affairs the powers to send for persons, papers and records but which stands here today and says that the committee on estimates ought to be denied that minimum power essential to its own effectiveness.
Mention was made of the quorum and the matter of assembling a quorum in the committee. I have been a member of the committee in both years for part of the time, according to the practice of rotating membership on the committee as the estimates of different departments are brought before it. In my experience I have not observed any difficulty in obtaining a quorum, but if any such difficulty has been experienced at any time it is certainly not peculiar to this committee and is certainly not peculiar to any party in the house. On the contrary, that is a difficulty which all committees of this house seem to encounter.
I will tell you one or two reasons why I think we encounter that difficulty. One is

that we need very badly a complete recasting of the committee machinery of this house. We have many committees, some of which have not met for years. There are committees of this house which could effectively assume the task of reviewing the estimates of particular government departments associated in their interests with the subject matter of such committees. There are other committees that are needed but are not established. That is one thing.
Another factor is that we have not yet- and here the government must bear the principal responsibility-adequately arranged the business of the house so that we are spared the annual experience of having a whole lot of overlapping in committee meetings late in the session. We have this experience every year and every hon. member of the house knows it. I have had the personal experience of being expected to be in four different places at the same time, in the house and in three different committees. No hon. member can pretend that that is a satisfactory situation, nor can it be said that it is an unusual experience. I hope the time is coming when those who bear governmental responsibility, who bear the responsibility for the leadership of this house and of the government will take serious note of this problem of arranging the business of the house so that we have not a multiplicity of conflicting committee meetings proceeding simultaneously.
Another problem with respect to this particular committee is that it holds so many of its meetings while the house itself is in session. One has seen situations where hon. members find it absolutely necessary to be in their places in the house and for that reason are not able to be in their places in the committee.
I mentioned earlier that last year one amendment introduced by the official opposition, one which it was my privilege to introduce, sought to give the committee itself the power to select the departments whose estimates would be reviewed. I think we made a strong case to the house in the light of the long experience at Westminster for giving to the committee that power. As it is now, there is no element of surprise anywhere in the selection of the departments whose estimates are to be referred to the committee. Nothing is left to the wisdom or experience which the committee has gained in this regard. No, the departments whose estimates are going to the committee are selected by the government here in the chamber, and the committee has no voice whatsoever in the selection of the departments which it is to review.
The estimates committee in the United Kingdom was established 45 years ago. It
Committee on Estimates has attained a degree of effectiveness that the kind of cbmmittee the Prime Minister is proposing here today can never hope to attain. There the committee is given an infinitely freer hand in the selection of the department whose estimates it is to study. It has power to divide itself into subcommittees, and it has five subcommittees. It operates suddenly. It does not necessarily go through the estimates of a whole department; it may select a particular branch of a particular department. It may select a crown corporation or some government agency, and call the officials of the department or agency before it with very little notice.
Government control in a matter of this kind is, in my submission to the house, to be deplored. This is one area in which parliament should seek to proceed without any interference or control on the part of the government, because it is the estimates of government departments that we are seeking to scrutinize more effectively by means of the committee on estimates. How can it be expected that that work will be effectively discharged when the government itself selects the particular work that the committee is to do and maintains a stranglehold upon such business as will be permitted to go before the committee together with this denial of effective powers to the committee?
I recall that when the committee was set up two years ago the minister was frank enough to say it was an experiment. We have now had an opportunity of observing this experiment for two years, an experiment with a limited, truncated committee, a committee with inadequate powers, having no control over the business that is to come before it. Sir, the time has come to carry the experiment a step forward and say that now we shall really give this committee a fair opportunity. The time has come to carry it further by giving the committee powers adequate for the purpose for which it was set up; by giving it, at least, the power to send for persons, papers and records, and to invest it with some measure of control over the work it is to undertake.
We are functioning in this house, today, Mr. Speaker, with virtually the same machinery as was set up immediately after confederation, when our estimates, our government expenditures, were just one-fifth of one per cent of the expenditure this year. Expenditure by government since those days has multiplied five hundredfold, and yet we are going along with the same creaking, old, inadequate machinery as was used then. Surely in the face of the need for doing an effective service in the interests of the people of this country by scrutinizing all those

Committee on Estimates estimates efficiently, the minimum we must do now is to give this committee on estimates adequate power so that it may thoroughly and effectively undertake this task.
Some of us have had a feeling that the Minister of Finance himself does not disagree -could not disagree-with the point of view put forward by the opposition with regard to this matter in their effort to make the committee really effective, but that he has been restrained by some of his colleagues who just do not like the idea of anybody having any better opportunity to scrutinize their estimates. Surely this experiment has now advanced to the point where it should be given a really fair opportunity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to that other matter with regard to which the minister directed some taunting remarks this afternoon in the direction of the official opposition. This is the matter of finding the waste, the task of eliminating wasteful expenditure. One would have thought, listening to the minister this afternoon, that the members of the official opposition had not approached this task, even within the very limited powers of this committee, with a determination to find waste wherever it might be exposed and, having found it, to eliminate it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the government's antagonism with regard to giving this committee powers adequate to enable it to do effective work in this respect seems to stem from the antagonism which the government shows at all times toward any effort to bring about any elimination of waste or extravagance. They are always on a very belligerent defensive, a very offensive defensive, whenever matters of this kind are raised in the house; and because the minister is evidently not aware of the efforts of members of the opposition on that committee to bring about a reduction of expenditure, I am going to invite the attention of the Minister of Finance, with apology for the circumstance that this is a motion with which I was associated, to the fact that an effort was made in that committee to bring about the elimination of a quite unnecessary estimate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I refer the minister to page 252, and following pages, of the proceedings of the committee last year.
He will find there that I brought in a motion to chop $100,000 off the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the appropriations for what is euphoniously called "educational and informational publicity" under which the minister would have been given still more money that he had expended the year before, for even with the most resolute determination on his part to make full and effective use of everything parliament placed at his disposal he

had not been able to spend nearly as much as parliament had voted in that year. Yet he came back asking for a very large amount, $631,000, for this purpose. I tried to reduce that by $100,000, which would still have left him with a great deal more than he had expended the year before.
But did I receive any encouragement from the minister? Did he say, "This is a commendable effort on the part of the opposition to assist the Minister of Finance in his task of reducing expenditure and eliminating waste"? No. One encountered the same unvarying attitude which the government, and members who support the government, always display; a bristling hostility to any suggestion that any member of the opposition should propose the elimination of unnecessary and wasteful expenditure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it is short.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not true that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the hon. gentleman's action in that particular was "sheer window-dressing"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I don't think so. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows better than to be the father of so utterly senseless and inane a remark. On the other hand, the fact that it comes so readily to the memory of the minister suggests to me that that inane and senseless remark was his own child.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We must get this question of paternity straightened out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I point to the proceedings of the committee on external affairs, and remind the minister of other occasions on which I brought in motions to reduce the estimates. But one never receives any encouragement; one never encounters anything but bristling hostility. The Minister of Finance comes here and in the most pleading tones summons all members of the house to assist him in finding waste, in finding all this water that is to be squeezed out of the estimates. He tells us that he himself has burned the midnight oil in such efforts, and is, generally, overflowing with good intentions in this regard. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish he could communicate to his colleagues in the house some of these pious claims to virtue in this respect, for so far as my experience is concerned I have encountered nothing but inveterate hostility on the part of the government whenever one seeks to reduce so much as a single estimate in an endeavour to curtail waste or extravagance.
What is needed is some continuing machinery. Mr. Deutsch, in the article that has

been mentioned this afternoon, draws attention to the need for something in the nature of an annual review. He has, in this article, pointed directly to the fact that the multiplication of boards, commissions and crown companies has had the effect of establishing what he calls "a high degree of administrative independence from parliamentary and political control." Then he quotes this remark of Professor Laski at page 570:
Everyone with the least acquaintance with government cannot but be aware that there is a give and take between every minister and his chief officials which makes the latter unseen partners, as it were, in the purposes he seeks to implement.
Mr. Deutsch adds, "It cannot be otherwise." He says that in drawing attention to the need of supplying to the opposition all possible assistance and all information to enable them to discharge effectively their duty in the matter of control of public expenditure. In' looking over the present machinery and the present practice he says:
Because of the advantageous position of the executive in these respects, the frustration of parliament is further aggravated.
In the light of that penetrating comment by Professor Deutsch I wish to say that what the government is seeking to do in opposing this necessary amendment is to aggravate further the frustration of parliament, at which they have proved themselves so adept and ingenious in the past.
On the matter of the need of an annual review I quote a short passage from Professor Deutsch's article. At page 572 he says:
One step to this end, which would be in harmony with the principles of our parliamentary system, would be the development of a procedure for a regular annual review of the administrative operations of government by a suitable parliamentary body. Under this proposal a committee of the House of Commons on which there is wide representation, possibly the existing public accounts committee with some modifications, would bring before it each year-
I emphasize those words "each year".
-during the course of the session, all of the permanent civil service heads of departments and agencies to give an accounting of their administrative operations during the previous year, and to submit to examination thereon.
There is much that the public accounts committee might be able to do in this regard although it is difficult there to come to grips with matters that are so stale as matters are by the time they have reached the public accounts committee, both due to the arrangement of our fiscal year and the time that elapses before the Auditor General has completed his report for the next following year. But, sir, what is required is machinery created for an annual review.
Committee on Estimates
It may not be possible-in fact, it is quite evident that it is not possible-in one committee to review all estimates of all departments in one session, but there are other committees that could be associated with the committee on estimates for that purpose. But it is undeniable that no committee can pretend to discharge effectively the tasks that are being laid on this committee unless it is given powers of review adequate for the purpose; and I say, sir, at the risk of repetition, that these powers must include the power to send for persons, papers and records.
Therefore, sir, I say in conclusion that our amendment will undeniably increase the usefulness of the committee, that the power we ask the house to confer upon it is a power with which the house clothes every standing committee of the house and which it is the invariable practice of the house to confer also upon its special committees. The committee should have the power to send for officials. It should also have the power to seek advice in the public interest outside the public service on matters where that advice would be useful. Therefore in putting this amendment before the house today we are seeking to give the house the opportunity to discharge, really effectively and thoroughly, this high duty of scrutinizing the estimates of public expenditure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we not on an amendment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I
stand corrected. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition read with approval a resolution on April 18,	1921, by Hon. Rodolphe
Lemieux, and in order to make my answer to it I think I had better read it again. It is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, in order to co-ordinate and expedite the business of parliament in a more intelligent and practical way, the estimates of the various departments should, before being laid on the table, be scrutinized by a special committee of the house, where officers would be summoned to appear with plans and reports bearing on each appropriation.
He read that with approval, and that is and has been for many years the attitude taken by members of the opposition groups in

Committee on Estimates this house, that there should be the system that exists in the United States where estimates-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I cannot draw-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The United Kingdom.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -any
other conclusion from the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion with approval of the language of this resolution than that there should be done something which is contrary to the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary practice. Had the hon. gentleman taken the trouble to turn from page 2193, where the resolution is found which he cited to the house, to page 2203 where Hon. Sir Henry Drayton made his answer, he would have found a demonstration by Sir Henry Drayton of the unconstitutional practice that was thus suggested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the Prime Minister suggest there is anything unconstitutional in the practice of this house, followed in every year since 1945, of referring the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on external affairs with power to send for persons, papers and records?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, but
that was not what was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The suggestion was that there be called before a committee the officials of the departments with plans and papers to justify each item they were recommending. That is something which perhaps they can do in the United Kingdom, where their constitution is not written.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Deutsch suggested it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. Mr. Deutsch suggested that they examine expenditures, and not estimates for the amounts to be expended the following year. The hon. gentleman read his article. He can read it again and he will see that what Mr. Deutsch recommended was that each year there be an examination of the expenditures that had been made, and that in order to make that examination the chief officials of the departments should be called. He suggested that should be done through the committee on public accounts, as it could be done through the committee on public accounts.


John George Diefenbaker: Why could it not be done through this one?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because this has to do not with expenditures but with appropriations, and there is quite a difference between appropriations and expenditures. The one has to do with the future and the other has to do with the past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but it is 5 o'clock and the house must proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, respecting the Life Underwriters Association of Canada.-Mr. Carrick.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Leonard Bloom. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Helen Mary McEachran Cole.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 71, to incorporate Oblate Fathers of Assumption Province-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the sponsor of the bill indicate what amendment was made in the committee?


Mr. Hunter:: The only amendment that was made was in clause 7 of the bill, the last sentence at the bottom of the page. It says, ". . . and generally promote religion, charity or benevolence." It was quite obvious there was a misprint there and it should have been "and benevolence". It was so amended.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Henderson) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 18, for the relief of Dorothy Frances Auger Delacobis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say just a sentence or two with respect to this bill. I noted with interest the remarks on a former occasion by the hon. member for Kingston with regard to changes forecast in the rules regarding divorce bills in the other place. If these changes were put into effect this case would

not be before us. I understand one of the proposed changes which Their Honours in the other place have in mind is to refuse to study cases where the corespondent is not named. In this case the corespondent is not named. In other words, at the next session this divorce would not come before parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Patricia Jean Jones Robinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Gwendoline Stedman Adrain.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Joyce Bernice Good Taylor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Jessie Pearce Meti.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Maud Lenore Wheeler Lanctot.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Patricia Anne Wylie Houstoun Patience.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Anita Marinier Shaver.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Mary Matilda Chatfield Eldridge.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Phyllis Minnie Reid Foster.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Robert Allan Taylor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Eta Krupnick Caron.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Catharina Lassahn Schwartje.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Lewis George Joy.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Harvey Clifford Yetman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Marie Rose Lina Patricia Guertin Theberge.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Jean Prefon-taine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Emma Rosetta Rule Fuglewicz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Joan Monica Evans Schwarz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Diana Mary Beatrice Glassco Cumming.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Edith Chatfield Gossage.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mary Frances Crosbie Kirkham.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Elizabeth Trefry Cahusac.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Dudley Nurse. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Aldo Ermacora. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Anastazia Suchodolska Matiosaitis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Joan Simonne Ghent Brooks.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Philip Tam-borino.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Muriel Martha Margaret Wilkins St. James.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Boris Varvariuk. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Stefania Stella Rosiu Nahorniak.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Douglas Pinkney.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Doris Amelia Carter Nicolle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Aldona Dodon Kulczycki.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Elizabeth Catherine Baggott Allarie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Edwin Alfred Le Corney.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Margaret Mary Ellen Morninge Hartwell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Charlotte Ellis Elkin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Shirley Anne Julian Boyd.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Georgette Paquette Senecal.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Pierrette Beaudry Dennis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Catherine Phyllis Reid MacDonald.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Grace Alice Williams Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Olga Helen Descyca Eckford.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Patricia Mary Shewan Chalmers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Edith Beryl Jewett Gagnon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Gwyneth Owen Young Douglas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Beverley Carol Wilson Barnes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Katharine Kimball Little Blake.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Frances Elizabeth Lyon Rose.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Sylvia Elizabeth Goodfellow Rief.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Anne Griffith Brown.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Dorothy Ellen McCulloch Ritchie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Marie Rose Elizabeth Giroux Lefrancois, otherwise known as Colette Giroux Lefrancois.-Mr. Henderson.

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 29, for the relief of Harry Leo Metham.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I am
sure hon. members who have read the evidence in connection with this case will feel that this is one of the tragedies about which hon. members worry a good deal when they have to pass judgment on these divorce bills. The applicant went overseas to serve his country, and all the time he was overseas he failed to receive any letters from his wife. When he returned he found that the children were in an orphanage in Halifax. The wife did come back to see the children on one occasion, but she could hardly believe that those were her babies; they had grown during the interval.
According to the evidence, the son appeared to give evidence in support of his father. I think some responsible agency in Canada should have some jurisdiction in connection with these problems which arise. I do not feel that hon. members in this chamber have the facilities to make a full and thorough investigation into the factors which led up to the break-up of this home.
The senators gave very careful consideration to the details which were brought before them. I notice that the counsel who appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Lieff, prepared his material very carefully. There are two Ottawa lawyers whose names appear before the different committees from time to time. Mr. Duncan MacTavish seems to be retained to handle quite a few of these cases, and I notice that Mr. Lieff had a busy two days. He was in charge of this case and the next one about which I wish to say a few words.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 30, for the relief of Dorothy Cumming Ryan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, here is a marriage that broke up after one week's trial. It would seem to me that the members in this chamber have not the facilities for a family counselling service, but there is a child involved in this bill
[Mr. Knowles.)
which is now before parliament. Again the senators spent a good deal of time. This question was asked:
Q. How did you get along with your husband immediately after the marriage? A. We got along pretty well for one week. Then he started going out every night, and drinking, and never came home until after twelve or one o'clock.
Here is a home where liquor again apparently is the important factor in the breakup. She was asked this question:
Q. How did he provide for you? A. He did not provide at all. There was one week I didn't have any money, and did not have any food.
There was one week, apparently, when she had just a can of peaches. As I said previously, Mr. Lieff of Ottawa appeared for the petitioner. It would seem to me that this chamber should have counselling facilities if we are to review the problems in connection with a great many of these cases that come before us, to decided whether or not divorces should be granted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 33, for the relief of Camille Emile Bunlet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to point out that there was some doubt in the minds of some of the senators who dealt with this case as to whether or not it should be entertained. The reason for that doubt, as is indicated in the evidence, was that the petitioner, although having lived in Canada for six years, had not applied for citizenship. One of the senators expressed doubt as to the petitioner's domicile in view of the fact that he had not applied for citizenship, and another senator shared that doubt. Still another senator was called in to rule on the point. On the basis of his opinion the subcommittee decided to go ahead. However, I felt we should be aware of the fact that in this instance we are being asked to deal with a case concerning which there was considerable doubt in the minds of the senators who dealt with the case in the other place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 44, for the relief of Francoise Yip Lim Lesage.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have ever risen to speak on a divorce bill. I have not spoken in the past because I think our divorce laws are archaic and barbaric and that they should not be handled in the House of Commons and in the other place anyway. However, if we are going to continue to handle them, then I do think there should be an insistence on decency and correctness in the evidence upon which a divorce is granted.
In this particular bill Francoise Yip Lim Lesage is asking for a divorce and, in accordance with the rules, she had to submit and did submit a petition to the other place. It is interesting, first of all, in reading the petition to note that Francoise Yip Lim Lesage humbly sheweth:
That on or about May 24, 1956, In the city and district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, the said Marcel Lesage committed adultery; and that adultery was committed at about 5.15 a.m. at the Campus hotel in Montreal, by the respondent and a woman unknown to your petitioner.
The first interesting point to me is that the petitioner knows the exact hour and the exact minute of the adultery, but she does not know the date. It strikes me a little bit peculiar to start off with. But the petitioner appeared before a subcommittee of the divorce committee and gave evidence. In the transcript of evidence, of which we all have a copy, she is asked a question by her solicitor, a well-known lawyer in the city. The question is to be found on page 10, and is as follows:
Q. You allege in paragraph 6 of your petition that your husband committed adultery with a woman unknown to yourself on the 24th of May, 1956. Do you have any personal knowledge concerning that act of adultery? A. No.
Q. You allege this as a result of what you have been told by others. Is that right? A. Yes.
So in the evidence we have the admission that as far as the petitioner is concerned she has no knowledge of the adultery, but now it comes out that the date is the 24th. We have to proceed to the evidence of the person who gave the petitioner the tale of the adultery, and there are two of them. The first is an investigator by the name of Gilles D'Avignon. Under oath this man is questioned by the solicitor. He is asked the date on which the adultery took place, and his answer is found on page 11 of the transcript as May 25. If you turn over the page you will find in the transcript a question asked two minutes later by Mr. Wright as to the date that he saw the adultery take place, and he says that it was on the morning of May 26. Therefore we have in this one case of one charge of adultery the dates of May 24, May 25 and May 26.
82715-106J
Private Bills-Divorce
Obviously the solicitor knew that something must be wrong, so he asked this investigator this question:
Q. Mr. D'Avignon, the petitioner has alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that this occurred on the 24th of May, 1956. Are you sure of that date? You have testified that this took place on the 26th of May-
A. That is my mistake. Am I permitted to use my notes?


William Alfred Robinson: Yes, you may.
Then the lawyer asked this question:
Q. All right. Would you refresh your memory then?
A. Thank you. I just came out from another- I am sorry.
It is May 24th in the morning.
Senator Hawkins:	I think you better submit
your notes to the chairman.
Then we have the chairman, Senator Burchill, saying this:
Where is the date there?
The Witness; I haven't got it on here.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a transcript of evidence first of all of a petitioner not knowing the date but knowing the hour and the minute of the alleged adultery, admitting under oath that she did not know anything personally about it herself but only what she was told. Then when we have this investigator under oath in the subcommittee on divorce in the other place being asked as to when this took place he says on the 25th; two minutes later he says on the 26th; then on being corrected by the lawyer he says it is the 24th; and then on being asked to check his notes he looks at his notes and says, "I am wrong, it is the 24th." Then when the chairman of the subcommittee says, "Let me see the notes", it is found that there is no date there whatsoever. Then if you go even further and get the evidence of the next investigator, he says the 24th but he has not any notebook with him at all.
That is all I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, except this. Right in what I have read there is clear evidence of out and out perjury. I do not think the Senate and the House of Commons should be asked to pass on a case on the basis of this kind of evidence. As I said, as long as we are going to insist that divorce bills can come before parliament I think we should insist that they be in correct order and that there be a sense of decency in their presentation and honesty in the evidence itself. Therefore in this particular case I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 44 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Walter Edward Harris: Carried.

Private Bills
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
Those in favour of the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
In my opinion the yeas have it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not appeal it because I agreed with the yeas.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Applewhaite):
The amendment is carried on division.


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.
Amendment (Mr. Winch) agreed to.



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairey for the second reading of Bill No. 15, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 15 which is now before the house has as its purpose the proposal to divide each of its 5 million shares into five shares so the company will be set up on the basis of 25 million shares without nominal or par value. It was pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, and this information is also contained in the explanatory note, that the shares of this company have gone up considerably in price. Indeed, they have gone up from an initial price of $10 to a price of about $115 or $120.
The sponsors of this bill contend that the high price of the shares at the present time inhibits trading, and also that it discourages investment by so-called little people. The expressed desire therefore is to divide each of the shares into five, on the theory that the price of the new shares will be one-fifth of the price today, a result which it is supposed will have the effect of encouraging more people to invest in Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.
I am sure it is no secret that stock splitting is usually proposed as a means of making money. The hope is, and it is a hope based on experience in other instances, that when shares worth $115 to $120 or $130 are broken into shares worth one-fifth that price there will be more trading on the market and that the price of the new shares will likewise move up so the holders of all the shares, whether on the old or the new basis, will profit as the result of such a transaction.
In the speeches that have been made by other members of this group we have already

pointed out that we feel that the real purpose of this legislation is to enable those who already are making money out of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company to reap further profits. I confess that we do not accept as the real reasons the reasons stated by the people who came to parliament and asked for this bill.
When Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company first came to parliament in 1951 and asked for an act of incorporation, we were told that the initial shareholders were Mr. S.	D. Bechtel of Oakland, California; Mr. S. M. Blair of Bolton in Albion township, Ontario; Mr. I. G. Wahn, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. A. D. McAlpine of Toronto, Ontario; and Mr. R. L. Bridges of San Francisco, California.
One does not know whether those five gentlemen are still shareholders, although there is evidence that some of them are. Indeed, I believe it is reasonable to assume that all five of the gentlemen whom I have named are still shareholders of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. I make that point for a reason I shall give in a few minutes. According to the 1957 version of "Western Canadian Oils", which includes the "National Gas Review" published by James Richardson and Sons, the officers and directors of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company are as follows:
President, D. M. Morrison Secretary, J. H. McQuarrie Treasurer, R. F. Taylor Assistant secretary, E. G. Sheasby Assistant treasurer, K. M. Leask Administration manager, E. C. Hurd Operations manager, E. S. Davis
Those are the officers, according to the information contained in the bulletin to which I have referred. I find that the other directors of the company are:
W. M. V. Ash, Toronto, Ontario R. D. Baker, Burnaby, British Columbia R. L. Bridges, San Francisco, California E. D. Day, Los Angeles, California J. W. Hamilton, York Mills, Ontario J. K. Jamieson, Toronto, Ontario I. G. Wahn, Toronto, Ontario W. J. Wilkins, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I put those names on the record because I think it is reasonable to assume that they are all shareholders in this company, namely Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. I think it would be interesting to note a few facts about some of the gentlemen who are shareholders in this company. S. D. Bechtel, who was one of the original shareholders mentioned in the act of incorporation in 1951, is on the board of many corporations in the United States, including among others J. P. Morgan Co. Inc., Continental Can Co., and so on.
Mr. R. L. Bridges is a lawyer who is connected with Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line

Company and Alpac Construction and Surveys Limited. He is a director of Canadian Industrial Corporation; Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation and Panama Pacific Tankers Inc. He is director and general counsel of Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco.
Let us take another one. R. D. Baker of Burnaby, British Columbia, is president and managing director of the Standard Oil Company of British Columbia. He is a director of Crown Zellerbach, Canada, Limited; Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company; Alpac Construction and Surveys Limited and White Pass-Yukon Corporation Limited.


Mr. Enfield:: What has this to do with the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend has asked a very good question, to which I will come in a moment. Let me say to my hon. friend that I am simply laying a basis for what we believe to be a major point so far as this bill is concerned. I welcome the interest of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
Mr. J. K. Jamieson is another of the gentlemen listed, and I find he is vice-president and a director of Imperial Oil Limited. He is of course a director of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company as well as of Alpac Construction and Surveys Limited, Portland Pipe Line Corporation and Esso Research and Engineering Company.
I think I have made it clear that the gentlemen who are shareholders in this company, the gentlemen who are asking that the shares be split five ways, as a result of which they will stand to profit, are gentlemen who are pretty well set up in the financial and economic affairs of the United States and Canada. They are not exactly needy citizens; yet the effect of this bill and this sharesplitting operation that parliament is being asked to endorse will be to put extra profits into the hands of those people.
If anyone were so bold as to come before parliament with a bill proposing an income tax or any other kind of tax on the people of Canada for the purpose of turning over additional money to these well-fixed gentle-ment whom I have named he would be laughed out of this house. Yet that is the proposal now before us; that is what this bill does. We have tried to point this out on a number of occasions, but our friends in all the other three parties in this house are either unable or unwilling to grasp this fundamental economic fact, namely that a profit which is taken out of the economy of this country and put into the hands of certain people is just as much a tax on the gross national product as
Private Bills
is the kind of taxation imposed by the Minister of Finance by way of income tax, sales tax, corporation tax or what have you.
My hon. friends in the other three parties are always ready to complain when we ask for an expenditure which we feel is justified but with which they are not prepared to go along because they contend it means a tax on the taxpayers of Canada. Our point is that the sweat and toil of the workers and farmers of this country, the production that comes from the toil of the workers and farmers of this country is taxed just as surely by transactions of this kind that drain off profits as it is when the Minister of Finance levies taxation by legislation in this house. My friends in the Social Credit party fail to understand that, as do those in the Liberal and Conservative parties.


Mr. Blackmore:: How do you know they fail to understand it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because when I enunciated this principle yesterday my hon. friends in the Social Credit party applied some epithet to it which was not exactly parliamentary. We pointed out that when people like Mr. Bechtel and Mr. Bridges and the gentlemen we were talking about yesterday are able to drain off great wealth by stock transactions, that wealth comes out of the gross national product of this country and is just as much a tax on what our people produce as is any tax imposed by the government of Canada or the government of any province.


Frank A. Enfield: Can the hon. member explain just why a stock split, which is all the bill contemplates, would drain off huge profits for the shareholders concerned? It is merely a method of reducing the denomination so market transactions by those who wish to purchase smaller amounts of shares in smaller denominations will be facilitated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just as simple as that, says the hon. gentleman. Does he not realize that so far as the promoters are concerned the purpose of splitting these shares and getting them down to smaller denominations is so that in trading on the stock market the new price will again start to climb with the result that the shares will be valued at still higher prices?


James Joseph McCann: How does that work out in the case of a decline in the market price?


Stanley Howard Knowles: These companies do not ask for a splitting of shares when a decline is in prospect. Stock splitting is asked for when an increase in the price of the shares is in prospect, and hon. members opposite know that is precisely why this is being done. That is the history of these shares. Their

Private Bills
value has gone up from $10 to $115, or whatever the figure is now. Maybe it is a little higher than that. These gentleman have reason to hope that if these shares are split so they are valued at around $25, the new price will climb as the result of trading to $50 or perhaps $100 again, thus resulting in increased holdings in the possession of those who own these shares.
Does the hon. member for York-Scar-borough imagine that these profits come out of thin air? Surely he knows that money does not grow on trees. Surely he knows that profits do not come out of thin air. Surely he knows that if there are pieces of paper, money or cheques in the country which indicate a certain total amount of wealth, they have value only if there is behind them real production of goods and services. And if you give to some of the people in our country or, as in this case, to people in another country as well, claims on the wealth that is produced by the workers and farmers of this country, I say again that you are taxing our workers and farmers; you are taking away from them a portion of the wealth they produce as surely as if taxation had been imposed by the Minister of Finance.
We feel that this is a source of confusion in this country. People get all worked up and hon. members of this house get all worked up about the imposition of taxes by the government, but some of the people who complain loudest about taxation by the government, or who complain if taxation resources are spent in certain ways rather than in other ways, are indifferent when by means of this other process a real tax is imposed upon the gross national product, which means that just that much less of the gross national product is left for the workers, the farmers, the old age pensioners and others. That is a different story; and when we express our opinions about it we are told we are trying to smear these people, or the people we were talking about yesterday.
It is nothing of the kind. We are asking for social and economic justice. We are asking that when the workers and farmers of this country produce real wealth they should get it back. The Minister of Finance said today that the C.C.F. party favoured high taxation, and favoured taxation as a means of redistributing wealth. I did not interrupt him on that point, because I took what he said as said in good faith. What he meant was that we favour reasonable taxation for the purpose of distributing wealth, and we do. But this, Mr. Speaker, is unreasonable taxation for the purpose of getting a corner on some of the wealth which the workers and farmers produce so it will get

into the hands of people who happen to own these share certificates, people who now want their certificates split five ways so their value will be further enhanced.
So, Mr. Speaker, because in our view the purpose of this bill is other than as stated in the explanatory note appended to it by the company that brought in the bill, we feel that it should not be passed by this house. That is the reason why there is an amendment before you, moved by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think I should make at least a passing reference to an article which appeared in the Financial Times under date of February 22, 1957, entitled "The Stock Option Battle, or: Who is making Money?" I mention this article because it happens to refer to a "Nation's Business" broadcast over the television network which was made a short while ago by my leader, the hon. member for Roset'own-Biggar. The writer of this article, Mr. E. J. DeSeau, begins by saying, "Oh dear, somebody has been making money again." Of course he goes on in that fashion and suggests that we in this party fail to understand the situation because we do not like it when a few individuals make private gain out of the work and the toil of the population as a whole.
The reason I mention this article in particular is that the writer referred to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as having made a mistake when he said that the stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which insiders got at $10, was selling at $130. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, as one who heard my leader's broadcast over the television network and as one who has seen the script used on that occasion, that he was not referring at that time to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. This was before certain new items had appeared which we discussed yesterday. Rather he was referring to this company whose application is now before us, namely Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, the price of whose shares has gone up from $10 to $130.
Well, we say to the writer of this article, who does not like our criticism of this kind of transaction, that' we do not complain because people are making money or because people as a whole are making wealth. That is what we want for our people out of the economy of Canada. We want all the people of Canada who work and toil to get the wealth, to get the goods and services, to get

the better standard of living which they have made possible by their labour and toil. But when we are confronted by this kind of thing, which drains off large portions of the wealth which our people produce, we rise up and object as we are doing with respect to this bill.
I accept the statement made by the Minister of Finance earlier today, that we do not object to reasonable taxation by the people themselves through their government for the purpose of redistributing the wealth of our people, creating social security benefits and so on. But we do object to this unreasonable form of taxing the gross national wealth which our people produce, for the benefit of a few such as those I have named in referring to some of the shareholders of this company.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is unfortunately away at the present time, and he has asked me to refer to one or two points concerning this measure. My information leads me to believe that this company are prepared to spend upwards of $40 million to increase the capacity of their pipe lines because it is now impossible for them to carry all the oil that is available for transmission. I think the details of this expenditure could be dealt with more properly in committee. Again, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, maybe the bill as it is outlined does not give the whole background behind the bill. If that be true, then I think the proper place to discuss the bill is in committee.


Mr. Barneil:: Do I take it the hon. member is speaking in support of our amendment to send it to the committee?


Herman Maxwell Batten: No. If we were to follow the regular procedure laid down in standing order 105 the bill would finally go to a committee, and I believe there the details of the bill could be discussed much better and those who have questions to ask would be able to get the answers. But if the subject matter of the bill is going to be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that means to me the killing of the bill. Therefore I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute on this matter. When the bill was first introduced I spoke on it. I said at that time that we would reserve our judgment until the bill had been sent to a committee, and that therefore we were in favour of the bill being sent to a committee where we could get proper
Private Bills
and true information. There have been a lot of things said in the debate on the bill, particularly since the moving of the amendment, which I personally cannot take to be true. I am convinced that some of the statements that have been made have been grossly exaggerated.


An hon. Member:: What, for example?


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: My friend here asks me, "what, for example?" Let me tell him that it has become very evident since speakers from the C.C.F. party have been taking part in the debate, and particularly since the moving of their amendment, that they are definitely against anybody making a profit, except themselves probably. They have certainly pointed out in a way that cannot be misunderstood that there should be no profit made by a few individuals from the development of our resources. That means that any time a group of people undertake to develop our resources the members of the C.C.F. party are against any profit whatever being made.
That was made quite clear by the member for Winnipeg North Centre just a moment ago. Certainly if people are going to develpp the resources of the country they are entitled to a profit under a private enterprise system. Maybe that is why the industries which were started by the government of Saskatchewan never prospered under socialism. That province has a socialist government, and the only industries that have prospered have been those that have been operated by private enterprise. It is because the development of their resources by private enterprise has been accompanied by the making of a profit, with the agreement and sanction of the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, that their resources have been developed. Certainly I could not associate myself with the remarks that have been made by members of the C.C.F. party since the amendment was moved.
When the hon. member for New Westminster spoke on the amendment he said, as found at page 1140 of Hansard of February 8:
I would refer to what the hon. member for Bow River had to say the other day in respect to the bill. He said he hoped the bill would be sent to a committee where it could be given more complete study, and that is the reason we are supporting the amendment at this time.
Since then it has been made quite clear by C.C.F. speakers that that is not and never was their intention but that it was and is their intention to kill the bill. As has been pointed out by the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, the amendment will result in killing the bill;

Committee on Estimates therefore we cannot see any reason to support the amendment, particularly when we know the intention behind it.
May I point out a fact or two to the socialist members. They referred to the Social Credit members being opposed to the Canada Council because it might take away something from our old age pensioners and so on. That could be very true, because the money in that case is coming out of the national treasury. But are they so-I was going to say "stupid" but I will not use that word because it may not be parliamentary-lacking in judgment as not to know that when the resources of the country are developed, even though there is a reasonable profit made by private enterprises, that is the only possible way in which old age pensioners are going to obtain increased benefits? How otherwise would we be able to raise old age pensions or pensions to the blind or the disabled if not through the development of our resources? Yet the action the C.C.F. are taking would prevent old age pensioners, the disabled, veterans and others from getting increased benefits. Certainly that is not our purpose. We want to see the old age pensioners benefit in every respect. Therefore we will not support the amendment but will support the bill being sent to a committee after second reading so we can get the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River with your consent, discussed Saskatchewan crown corporations and it is only proper that I should have the opportunity before the debate closes to make some reply. However, since it is six o'clock I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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, and that the provisions of standing order 67(1) limiting 
the number of members on special committees be
suspended in relation thereto;
and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, just before this
debate was interrupted by the hour that has to be devoted to private and public bills, I was pointing out that the Leader of the Opposition had referred with approval to the terms of the resolution proposed as a private members' resolution by Hon. Mr. Lemieux in April, 1921, as reported at page' 2193 of Hansard for that year. Had the hon. gentleman turned to the response made by Sir Henry Drayton 10 pages farther on he would have seen the demonstration by Sir Henry Drayton that the proposal was quite contrary to the constitution. Sir Henry Drayton cited what he said was a very excellent authority, Colonel A. J. V. Durell, in his book "Principles and Practice of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the Prime Minister the page number?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Page 2203. The writer discussed the pros and cons and then had this to say:
The most obvious way for securing parliamentary control over the estimates is that a select committee should examine them in detail before they are presented and while they are still in a stage where reductions can be made on non-party lines without such proposals being considered as motions adverse to the government, as is the case when the estimates have been presented to the house as the policy of the government.
But he goes on and adds:
Any procedure of this sort, however, strikes at the root of the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility.
A little farther down he says:
Another authority . . . declared that the adoption of a proposal to submit the estimates to a committee for preliminary examination and approval before presentation to the house would diminish the proper responsibility of the executive for the public expenditure and would interfere with the constitutional relations between the government and the House of Commons. The duty of the House of Commons is to decide whether the expenditure which the various departments propose is absolutely needed for the efficiency of the public service, and to see that all money is wisely spent and that the nation gets the full equivalent for the outlay. The latter duties are post mortem and may safely be delegated to the public accounts committee without the breach of any constitutional principle being involved.
He goes on:
By the English arrangement of examining the estimates, ministerial responsibility is increased as the proposals which form the ensemble of the budget are altogether the work of the cabinet, whose liability is undivided . . . No proposals subversive of this important fundamental principle of the constitution could be embodied in any scheme for securing closer parliamentary control

and it was for this reason Gladstone did not proceed in the matter when considering the possibility of referring the estimates to a committee to be gone into as a matter of business.
The discussion went on and Hon. George Foster also took part in opposing the proposal. In the course of his remarks he was asked by Mr. Mackenzie King if that objection would not be eliminated by substituting for the terms of the resolution the words "the estimates of the various departments should, after being laid on the table but before being discussed, be scrutinized by a special committee," and so on. Sir George Foster went on to discuss that saying that was not practical in his view under our constitutional system.
It will be said that for a number of years the British parliament has adopted a system of a committee on estimates which selects some one particular thing and investigates it in the manner described this afternoon by the Minister of Finance. Sometimes these investigations require a long voyage to Africa to examine peanut fields. In other cases they require trips through the United Kingdom and so forth. However, the hon. gentleman will know that under the British system there are a certain number of days allotted to the consideration of the estimates, and when those days have expired all the remaining estimates are adopted in the block without any consideration at all being given to the various items which make up the block.
Under the British system there is no written constitution and parliament can depart from the practice if it sees fit. We have a written constitution which expressly provides in article 54 of the British North America Act:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not just the same as the British system in every particular?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is the same as the British system by tradition at the time the British North America Act was passed, but it is within their power to depart from that tradition if they see fit to do so, while it is not within our power to depart from the terms of the written constitution. That is the law under which we have to operate, and which makes it necessary to do as is done, to bring down estimates with a recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General on the responsibility of 82715-107
Committee on Estimates the government, and of all the ministers, for each and every individual item recommended in those estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: That is identical with the system in Britain today, unchanged.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They still bring down their estimates, but they can adopt the procedure to deal with them as they see fit, without being required by the written determination of a written constitution to follow any special procedure. It is for that reason it is not possible to have the system the hon. gentleman seemed to be recommending this afternoon, on the strength of a resolution proposed in 1921 by Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, to have the estimates considered with the officials who make the recommendations to their ministers before they are presented as recommendations of the crown on the responsibility of the government.
I was asked if there is anything unconstitutional in what is being done by the committee on external affairs. I do not think there is. But the hon. gentleman knows that in the committee on external affairs the policy of the department in its diplomatic relations with the rest of the world comes up for examination, whilst on the general estimates the officials have no part of the responsibility the cabinet has to take for the recommendation of the estimates that are placed before parliament.
I do not think it would be a good practice to bring forward the officials of the department and ask, "Now, did your minister follow your advice in making up the estimates for his department that then went to the treasury board for scrutiny, and very frequently for reduction, before they were brought before the house?" When information is being sought about facts it is quite all right to get those facts, and they have never been refused. Those who have taken part in the work of the committee know there has been no tendency whatsoever to refuse any information	that	has been	asked for;	but
there is a tendency-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, there is; that is exactly the objection.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, that is a disputed question of fact. It has been asserted on	the	one hand	that there	hasnever been	any	refusal to	secure for	the
members information about facts-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -but there is refusal to bring to the	committee	the
opinion of anyone but the minister who is responsible for the conclusions that are put

Committee on Estimates before parliament. The purpose of this amendment is to find out whether the officials of the department agree with the conclusions their ministers reached after they had given them their advice.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Our view of constitutional government is that we require the best advice we can get, but that after having received that advice we take the responsibility for decisions, and those who want to remain public servants are then required to carry out the decisions that we take. We do not wish to have the system that prevails in a neighbouring country where officials are brought before the committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate to try and maintain opinions they may entertain different from those that form the conclusions of the heads of the departments; because there, as hon. gentlemen know, the members of the cabinet are responsible only to the President and the President is responsible to public opinion. He has no special responsibility to the House of Representatives or to the Senate and they are not competent to dismiss him from office, as this House of Commons is competent to dismiss us from office if we do not make the kind of decisions that are satisfactory to a majority of those who represent the electors who have sent them to this House of Commons.
That is the system which had gone on before 1921 and since 1921, and I think the results of every government that has been in office have been results with which the Canadian public have reason to be satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the difference between the estimates committee dealing with estimates which are on the responsibility of the ministers and, let us say, the banking and commerce committee dealing with a bill which has been referred to it and which is the responsibility of a minister? The reason I ask the Prime Minister this question is that the difference, of course, is that the banking and commerce committee has power to send for persons, papers and records; yet the estimates committee has not that power under the terms of the Prime Minister's motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When a bill is referred to the banking and commerce committee, that committee has authority to send for persons and papers to investigate facts. But the committee has not, to my knowledge, ever taken upon itself the

authority to send for officials of any of the departments to ask them whether their opinions agree with that of their minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that. Would the Prime Minister not agree that the estimates committee should have authority to send for persons, papers and records at least under the same terms as the banking and commerce committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There
would not be the same constitutional objection, but I do not think there would be any practical advantage in having a statement of fact made by an employee rather than having it made by a minister who is responsible, unless the hon. gentleman wishes to suggest that he would not trust the word of the minister who has a constitutional responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? What is the objection on the constitutional basis, having regard to the system of parliamentary government, when what we are proposing is something that has been in effect at Westminster in the mother of parliaments for the last 45 years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whether it has been in effect in the mother of parliaments for 45 years or not does not change the article of the Canadian constitution which was adopted in 1867.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member should have been in at eight o'clock and he would have got a lesson in constitutional government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the most spurious constitutional argument that we have heard around here for a long time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments on this question. First of all I wish to read the resolution:
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, and that the provisions of standing order 67(1) limiting the number of members on special committees be suspended in relation thereto.
The amendment reads:
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."
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand what we are arguing about. What we are proposing-as I understand it, it has not been contradicted by the Prime Minister or anyone else-is exactly what has been done in the Department of External Affairs for twelve years. I believe the Prime

Minister does not contradict me. I have listened to the constitutional argument, and I shall not undertake to go very far into constitutionalities with the Prime Minister; but this I can say. The last thing in the world we are trying to do on this side is to deny the principles of responsible government. I think we understand them. We have plenty of reason to understand them; we have plenty of evidence of the fact that responsibility is in the cabinet, with the support of the majority in this House of Commons.
We do understand the difference between that and the United States plan where, as I understand it, the President prepares the estimates and sends them across so to speak, to Congress, and Congress can deal with them pretty freely. Then they are sent back to the President and as a matter of practice, as I understand it, it usually happens that the President, in order to get the thing done, gives way. At any rate they arrive at a working arrangement. If it were not that they are sensible people with practical views they might run into difficulties, but they get them through.
So far as we are concerned, the present Leader of the Opposition and his predecessors have stated again and again that we recognize the principle of responsible government. We are not trying to infringe upon the responsibilities of the cabinet. What we are asking for is information.
I come back and say I do not yet understand what we are arguing about. All that is here are three words, "persons, papers and records". If what the Prime Minister described was really happening, if we were trying to get civil servants to put them into a position of embarrassment by trying to find out whether there was a difference between them and their ministers, then I would say the Prime Minister would be quite justified in feeling critical about the suggestion.
The Minister of Finance can contradict me if he wishes. He mentioned this afternoon that his estimates had gone through fairly quickly; I think he said, "in three hours".
I was not quite sure whether he was giving us praise or blame for that. Whether we were sensible people, in his opinion, for accepting the work of himself and his colleagues so quickly, or whether we were not doing our duty, I was not quite sure. At any rate, my recollection was that there was no difficulty there. My recollection is that we did not run into any violent disputes. I think the fact that it was done in two or three hours probably proves that fact. Maybe figures speak for themselves. Maybe figures are more impersonal than the subject matter of other 82715-1071
Committee on Estimates committees where there were some differences. But I come back-


Walter Edward Harris: Would my hon. friend then admit that, in so far as the examination of the Department of Finance was concerned, the committee was a success?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I would want to go back and look through the records and see whether there were points of dispute. However, I do not remember any at the moment. On the other hand, I remember very well that there were points of dispute in the other committees. The reason I raise the question on finance is that it may be that some of the other ministers should be inoculated by the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether or not there is anything in that.
I should like to come back again to the committee on external affairs. As my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton reminds me, it has been carrying on for 12 years. That is not just a fly by night experiment; that committee has been going on and there has been no suggestion-and I repeat this, Mr. Speaker-there has been no suggestion that I have heard that it is not working properly and effectively. No constitutional difficulty has arisen and the thing has worked out, as I say, effectively.
I think in general one would be obliged to admit that a small committee is more efficient than is a large committee. I was a little bit slow to come to that view, but my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton I think persuaded me. We have tried this committee and, surely we agree.
In the second place, surely we also agree that there are things which need to be improved. There is no doubt about that. We had an instance where that was brought out not so long ago, in the autumn of 1955, by a writer in the Winnipeg Free Press who pointed out the tendency for government departments just to multiply themselves without much critical sense being applied to the matter. I am not going to bother with that quotation now because I cannot lay my hand on it.
I want to come quickly to what was said by Mr. Deutsch, and perhaps that is the reason I am speaking at all. I want to put on the record two things said by Mr. Deutsch. He seems to me to have introduced a new element into this situation, that is to say the idea that there is a duty on the members of this parliament to concern themselves with the efficiency and enormously increased scope of government operations. Some of the things he says reminding us of the increase in the scope of government operations

Committee on Estimates I am going to put briefly on the record because I think it is desirable that anyone who happens to read Hansard should know something about it. I confess that I was amazed to realize the increase in the extent of government operations from the way he has them summarized here. On page 567 of the Queen's Quarterly of December last we find this:
In order to help provide an ever widening horizon of economic opportunity the federal government nowadays conducts investigations, studies, and research into a vast number of problems. To illustrate the scope and complexity of these activities it is not necessary to do more than to refer to such diverse efforts as those being made to improve the techniques of farming, forestry, mining and fishing; to discover the causes of disease in men, animals and plants; to eradicate pests and scourges; to apply the advances in basic scientific knowledge to the tasks of lightening the burdens and discomforts of life . . .
And so on. Farther on I read the following:
In the field of direct service and production the federal government operates gigantic transportation and communication systems, huge mortgage and credit schemes, marketing facilities for one of the country's basic exports, and a large complex chemical plant. Each of these is among the biggest businesses in the country. Related to all this, is an extensive organization for the gathering, compiling, and the publishing of facts and statistics concerning an immense range of economic and human affairs.
Then he goes on to say that the difficulty confronting parliament lies essentially in the problem of how to control this vast machine. He refers to the difficulty confronting parliament. I sometimes wonder whether we give enough consideration to the fact that parliament has a responsibility in this matter. I read further from the article, as follows:
The difficulty confronting parliament lies essentially in the problem of how to control this vast machine, including the executive which directs it. Parliament itself has recognized the increasingly technical and discretionary character of the activities of government in the growing amount of delegated legislation which has been put on the statute books.
I read again as follows:
In many cases parliament has gone further and has created special administrative devices in the form of boards, commissions and crown companies precisely for the purpose of establishing a high degree of administrative independence from parliamentary and political control.
If we needed to be reminded of it, we were reminded the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he told us that it was not proper to discuss a certain subject in this parliament because it was being considered by a committee of civil servants. That shows the extent to which parliament has been shoved into the background. I want to go on and read briefly, because it has already been mentioned and I think it is extremely important. I shall read again part of what
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
Mr. Deutsch says. He speaks about the necessity of parliamentary action, and he says this:
It is necessary somehow to bring parliament more closely in touch with the modern realities of government operations and the work of the civil service.
I believe all members of this house will agree that is so. I suggest that is one of the things we are trying to do, and that it is merely good sense. Then he goes on to say this:
One step to this end, which would be in harmony with the principles of our parliamentary system, would be the development of a procedure for a regular annual review of the administrative operations of government by a suitable parliamentary body.
I am not going to read more because I think part of it was read this afternoon. At any rate we have here an entirely new and, to me, extremely important consideration introduced, not merely the scrutinizing of certain expenditures which are put before us and which we do more or less well, but the idea that we, the parliament of Canada, have a tremendous range of business which is being conducted in our name and that we cannot just sit here and passively take a bunch of figures without trying to know more about them.
Why is this objectionable? With deference I suggest that the Prime Minister attempted to confuse it in a mass of what I thought were irrelevant constitutional points. I think that was a great pity. I think this is a very simple matter. As I say, it is still difficult for me to see why we cannot agree about it. We have in effect agreed about it. I have already said that we are not questioning the principle of responsible government. We would be silly to do that. We believe in it. We live by it. We hope one day to be discharging these duties ourselves. Incidentally, I should like to go back to what Mr. Lemieux said, as reported on page 2194 of Hansard of April 18, 1921, on the page following the one at which appears the resolution to which the Prime Minister referred. He said:
My motion does not propose the alteration of any essential, any elemental principle of the constitution. Of course, in the matter of expenditures the initiative must and always will rest with the executive.
I accept the embarrassment of finding that two previous leaders in my own party appear to argue in some ways against that proposition. But that is what I believe and that is what we believe, namely that we are not infringing on the constitution in any way, that we are not attempting to cut down or tamper with the principles of responsible

government. I find it difficult to know why the ministers are unwilling to let us talk to civil servants.
We are not suspicious of the ministers' honesty; we simply want to be informed further. To me there is something inexpressibly tiresome in having to have information come through a conduit pipe, or having a kind of curtain drawn between us and the people who have the information. When we sit here in the House of Commons in committee of the whole we recognize the fact that civil servants talk in undertones to the ministers and the answers come to us in that way. Surely one advantage of having a small committee would be that we could get away from that procedure.
I do not want to get into controversial things and I should like very much to believe that it is possible to agree on this, but as a matter of fact I suppose one has to try to realize the reason the ministers do not want to give us information. I suppose it must be because of their exercising power in a big way and getting used to it. I remember during the war there was an article in that leftist journal the New Statesman. They were discussing the giving out of military information. They recognized that a certain amount of military information had to be carefully rationed because of security reasons.
We too recognize that there may be security reasons or the equivalent of security reasons that would apply not only to the Department of Defence but to other departments. The writer of that article went on to say that he recognized that there might be information which should be withheld, but on the other hand he believed that a lot of bureaucrats, a lot of people in authority, would say to the public, "You want to be informed about that; parliament wants to be informed about that. Well, damn it, they won't be."
I feel that perhaps unintentionally a certain amount of that spirit has developed simply because we in the opposition want things; therefore we cannot have them. I come back to where I began. I cannot for the life of me see why in the light of what has happened in connection with the Department of External Affairs an amendment which asks for persons, papers and records cannot be accepted. Let us get on with the matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this amendment I should like to remark that the Minister of Finance has not given the house any good reason why we should not be authorized to send for persons, papers and records. While the Prime Minister dealt with this at some length, I think he made a very weak argument. When a similar resolution was before
Committee on Estimates parliament two years ago Senator Power, then the member for Quebec South, made a most constructive speech. Unfortunately it was one of the last speeches he made in this chamber. I should like to quote from page 953 of Hansard for February 8, 1955, where the then member for Quebec South is reported as having said:
With respect to the procedure in the committee, it would appear that all parties seem to be in agreement on one thing anyway, namely, that policy is the business of the government and the responsibility of the minister, and that officers of the department should not properly be questioned on matters of policy.
I think all who have spoken have assumed that to be correct. The former member for Quebec South then went on to say:
Now, coming to the procedure in the committee, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that the business of carrying on by whispering or sotto voce suggestions will be impracticable if not futile in the narrow confines of a committee room. Pretty nearly all the members of the committee will hear the replies that the deputy minister whispers to his minister and naturally the members of the committee will say: "Well, Mr. Minister, ask him this or ask him that", which would be a sort of three-handed form of questioning which would finally finish up by being a bit ridiculous.
I would say that there should be nothing in the order of reference nor in the intentions of the government to preclude officers of the department from being examined and cross-examined. But I would say this: If any minister believes that he on his own can answer all the questions which an ingenious opposition can put to him, well, then, let him try it.
And later on:
With respect to hon. members on the government side, perhaps it should be said that there is no constitutional or legal bar to their scrutinizing the estimates also. Such scrutiny is not by law, practice, or the constitution the sole prerogative of members of the opposition.
And again:
From the standpoint of the government I can think of no better procedure than to have deputy ministers appear before parliamentary committees. Anyone who has been in the government must be aware of the almost intolerable pressure brought upon ministers to increase the estimates of the departments whether it be the natural tendency to empire-building which exists in all departments and which is very difficult to control; whether it be the pressure to have new gadgets in departmental offices; or whether it be only keeping up with the Jones's in some other department, the ministers have only one way of protecting themselves against this pressure from their officials and that is to be able to say, "No, I cannot get by with this in the House of Commons." If the departmental officers are brought face to face with members of the house and made to understand the reluctance of members to give in to their whims and fancies, then perhaps the minister would have a much easier time with his department. Without being derogatory in any way to our civil service, I think it would be a good idea to match bureaucracy face to face with democracy as represented by the members of this house.
I submit that those words of advice from a former member of the cabinet should

Committee on Estimates register particularly with the backbenchers on the government side. I think the arguments which have been made by those who have tried to get the government to accept this minor amendment after two years' experience are reasonable. This afternoon the Minister of Finance mentioned that his estimates went through the house last year in about three hours. Like the hon. member for Greenwood I do not know whether the minister was criticizing or complimenting the house for disposing of his estimates so quickly.
I think all of us must recognize that this year we are about to consider estimates running to over $5 billion, which is more than ten times the amount parliament considered just prior to world war II. I think we all have to re-examine the procedure we have followed of sometimes spending hours on items which appear to be quite trivial and then, as the minister pointed out, putting through the estimates of the Department of Finance in one brief session.
I notice that this year the minister is asking for $52 million for regular expenses and well over $1 billion authorized by statute. He is asking for $163 million more than he required a year ago. I submit that disposing of items such as the one covering the administration of the Bank Act, the very large items for public debt charges, subsidies and other payments to the ten provinces, the tariff board, payments to municipalities, contingencies and miscellaneous, and items to provide for the Gordon commission and the royal commission on Newfoundland, superannuation payments-disposing of all these important subjects in three hours is not good enough.
I think, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance and to all the other ministers, that it is worth while continuing this experiment which was begun two years ago; and I believe in the light of our experience we should be given a chance to have the officials appear before the committee.
I have only served on the one committee, the committee which studied the estimates in connection with the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I would like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this committee apparently acted in a manner contrary to the terms of reference. We had General Worthington before the committee, and the business of asking questions of General Worthington through the minister and General Worthington replying through the minister became, as Senator Power suggested, somewhat ridiculous.
One of the members of the committee asked the minister if any of the officials


had been to Sweden, and the minister replied, "Yes, General Worthington has been there three times." Then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, "Is it possible to hear from those who have visited Sweden?" To this the minister answered, "I have no objection if you would like to hear General Worthington on that subject". The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, "I think it would be most interesting". Then followed a very interesting description of what our civil defence co-ordinator had seen with his own eyes in Sweden.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be censored by his colleagues in the cabinet, or by the house, for suggesting that we ignore the terms of the reference from the house. I am sure the members of the committee were not interested in trying to find out whether there was any difference of opinion between the minister and General Worthington. On the contrary, I think they were interested in finding out what is being done in civil defence, and with all due respect to the minister I suggest he would not have been able to have given the committee the information which was given by General Worthington. I am sure that should the Minister of Finance have his estimates before the committee certain members of that committee may wish to discuss with officials of his department the effect the tight money policy is having on our whole economy. And while the minister is a very outstanding lawyer, I think he would not be able to discuss some of the problems which would be of importance to the committee, just as the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not able to tell the committee the story that one of his officials could tell.
So, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this committee contains an overwhelming majority of government supporters who are invariably on hand to see that the government is not unduly embarrassed, I would hope that this amendment which we have before us might be accepted, and that the committee might have power to send for persons, papers and records.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) agreed to.



FISHERIES


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement a convention between Canada and the United States of America for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, signed at Washington on the 26th day of May, 1930, and a protocol thereto signed at Ottawa on the 28th day of December, 1956, and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the said convention and protocol.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, this resolution will introduce a measure which has been long and eagerly sought, and is now strongly endorsed, by the whole fishing industry of British Columbia, the fishing companies, the fishermen's union, the fishing co-operatives and the native brotherhood. The bill which will follow will extend the jurisdiction of the international Pacific salmon commission to include control over and regulation of the pink salmon of the Fraser river watershed in line with an agreement signed last December by the government of Canada and the government of the United States.
The international Pacific salmon commission has had an extraordinary record of achievement in restoring the sockeye runs of the Fraser river, and our fishing industry knows that this commission, with its skilled band of scientists and officers with 20 years' experience in salmon management, can do an equally good job in restoring the pink salmon run of this area. This is the first time the international salmon commission has been open in the 20 years this commission has functioned, and there are one or two minor amendments which have been found advisable in view of the experience which has been garnered by the commission over these years.
I intend to speak at some length on second reading of this bill to outline the actual achievements of the international salmon commission in restoring this very valuable resource, and to discuss the program they intend to follow in managing the pink salmon fishery. I think members will be able to follow that better on second reading, because

Fisheries
they will then have the bill in their hands and will know exactly what is proposed. After second reading I propose to refer this bill to the standing committee on marine fisheries so members can question our technical experts on every phase of it. We are anxious to have this bill approved as soon as possible in order that the salmon commission can begin to exercise control over these fisheries during the coming season. I might add that President Eisenhower has asked his congress to give speedy approval to the bill which he has submitted to congress.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, never have truer words been spoken than when the minister said, in effect, that legislation to take care of the conservation of our pink salmon on the Pacific coast has been long overdue and has been eagerly awaited, not only by the fishing industry but by the fishermen. In fact for years now the fishermen have been pleading that the pink salmon, which are spawned in our Canadian streams then take to the ocean until they are adult, when they return to these same streams again should be available in fair proportion to Canadian fishermen when they are passing through the waters approaching the Fraser river, where they are caught by United States and Canadian fishermen.
It would seem, however, that for some reason or other the government has been unwilling to take the initiative in introducing such legislation until very recent times. Of course the United States government was not the least bit interested. For years their fishermen have been catching 65 per cent or more of the salmon which have been passing into the Fraser river. Our Canadian fishermen did take such measures as were available to them in order that they might have something approaching a fair share of the Canadian fish. The result was that there developed a cutthroat competition during recent years between United States and Canadian fishermen in the straits of Juan de Fuca and along Puget sound. In order to get ahead of the United States fishermen in Puget sound our fishermen had to go farther and farther out to sea. The result of this move was a need for bigger and more expensive equipment, bigger and more expensive gear and longer hauls. It was an uneconomic process, because not only did larger fishing vessels have to be provided, but floating camps had to be sent out to service that fishing fleet.
Then again, the fish are at their prime when they have finished feeding in the ocean and just before they enter into the fresh water and start to live on their oils and fat. The fish are not at their prime when they still have food in their stomachs.

This resolution, therefore, is welcome. It is welcomed, as I said, by the fishing industry, the fish boat owners and by the fishermen. The federal government has the sole responsibility for looking after our fisheries. In some cases this responsibility may be delegated by the federal government to the province. So far as fishing on the Pacific coast is concerned, however, that is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government has been interested. I am glad to say there has been a growing interest in conservation measures.
The minister referred to the international pacific salmon fishery commission. Yes, there has to be co-operation not only between the industry and the governments, but where you have fishermen of different countries catching the same run of fish, there has to be co-operation between the governments of the different countries. This is very much the case with the British Columbia salmon because, as everybody knows, the British Columbia salmon be they sockeye or pink spawn in our rivers. After the eggs have been hatched some species move at once to the ocean, while others require time in fresh water to develop, and like the sockeye spent two or three years in a fresh water lake before proceeding to the ocean. But as soon as the pink salmon hatch they move out to salt water, and after they have become adult fish and are full grown after approximately two years, they return to those streams where they were hatched.
The Fraser river is the great salmon river of this continent, and the approaches from the ocean to the mouth of the Fraser must be either around the southern end of Vancouver island or around the northern end of that island and down through the Johnstone straits and so to the mouth of the river.
It has been, as the minister says, very largely as a result of the international commission that was set up under the sockeye salmon fisheries convention of 1930, which arranged for the equal division of the catch as between the United States fishermen and the Canadian fishermen, and also an equal division of the responsibilities for the research work and the general development of the sockeye run to the Fraser river, that the Fraser run has been rebuilt. That result was brought about by the painstaking efforts of the international salmon fisheries commission.
I think everybody on the Pacific coast will speak with enthusiasm of the efficient and effective work which has been done by that commission. It consists of a board of some six men, three from Canada and three from the United States. They have been impartial

in all their findings, and have won the respect of the fishing industry and of the fishermen of both countries. Therefore it was only natural that when at last it was considered desirable to take steps to conserve the pink salmon on our coast, the responsibility not only for conserving the pink salmon but also for stopping the competition which had existed, and dividing the share equally between the fishermen of the United States and of Canada in a way similar to what had been done with the sockeye salmon, should be given by the governments of Canada and the United States to the international salmon commission in order to supervise that work.
People sometimes wonder as to the difference between the pink and the sockeye salmon. The sockeye is perhaps better known, and because of its popularity in the past the importance of the pink salmon industry has been largely overlooked. Let me give hon. members some idea of the importance of our pink salmon. The last figures I have for 1955 show that in the area which now will be conserved, that is the area of the approaches to the Fraser river, 63,160,000 pounds of pink salmon were landed. The landed value of that fish was $5,617,000 and the marketed value, after they had been processed, was $15,953,000.
I mention that just to indicate the importance of the measures which will be introduced and the importance of our pink salmon industry; but I am not certain that this importance is fully represented even by those figures, because the pinks are becoming more and more important, and there is every indication that in the future they may even surpass the sockeye in importance.
Let me give one indication of the growing development and the changes which are being brought about in an effort to adjust the conflicting interests of salmon and power in our British Columbia streams. Experiments have been carried out at Jones creek, which is a small stream between Chilliwack and Hope, in locating in artificial spawning beds pink salmon spawn from other beds. The important thing is that the fry of the pink salmon proceed at once to the ocean, and therefore there is not the long delay that is required for the fry of the sockeye salmon to become fingerlings. The result is that the pink salmon may be relocated. It is hoped that it will be possible to replant the spawn in other streams than those required for power purposes and in streams which do not have fresh water lakes readily available, which are so essential for the sockeye spawn.
I think we should bear in mind that there are other species of salmon such as chum,
Fisheries
cohoe and spring. This treaty or agreement which will be introduced as a result of this resolution does not cover any conservation measures for these other species of salmon, although reference is made in the protocol to the fact that there is to be a six-year study of the movements and habits of the pink salmon, and that while this study is taking place the commission is to report on the habits of other species of salmon.
I should like to emphasize the importance of that study. I hope it will be pressed with vigour, because it would seem there is reason to believe that in the course of a few years, and after further study, it would be wise to include at least the chum salmon in a similar convention with the United States.
I quote from the salmon spawning report of 1956. In the first paragraph the Department of Fisheries states:
For the second consecutive year, outstanding feature was the serious decline in the chum run to most sections of the coast.
Then in a subsequent paragraph it goes on to state this:
Despite special protective measures, chums destined for the Fraser were seriously reduced in number during passage through Johnstone straits the Discovery passage by the highly efficient and mobile seine and gillnet fleets there. Other important chum reproduction areas, in common with the Fraser, also suffered from the effectiveness of this fishing operation. These included generally the streams along the east coast of Vancouver island below Seymour narrows as far south as Chemainus river as well as on the mainland streams opposite, including Jervis inlet and Howe sound. Further measures to provide for an adequate progressive escapement through this fishery are imperative immediately.
I am not suggesting that we should include the chums in the present protocol. I am only urging that special attention be paid during the next six years in order to ascertain the movement of the chum salmon, with the prospect in view that it may be desirable then to make some treaty which will include a fair distribution of the chum salmon. The chum do not move through the straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget sound in the same proportion as do the sockeye and pink salmon. There is a considerable run of chum salmon coming around the northern end of Vancouver island and down through Johnstone straits and so approaching the mainland rivers.
Of course nobody is going to suggest that those salmon which move entirely through Canadian waters should in any way be shared with the fishermen of the United States. But still there are numbers of chum that move through the international waters of the strait of Juan de Fuca. I think that fact makes it important that further study should be given to the movement of the chum salmon before any final decision is reached.

Fisheries
I understand that the bill, when presented, will not only be discussed in committee here [DOT]-and the minister has said that he is going to make a more complete statement on second reading-but that it will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. There are certain sections in connection with the protocol which I feel should be discussed at that time, and which would probably be better discussed there than here at the resolution stage.
I shall conclude by stating that I feel that the objectives of this convention are wholly commendable. It is desirable that this great natural wealth in our fish should be preserved. As a result of the success of the commission it is evident that this end can be achieved best of all by combining the efforts of the two countries concerned and working through the medium of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, which has proved to be so efficient in its administration of the sockeye run.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Fisheries
it at that time and, if I may, I would like to read briefly from the speech made by Mr. Neill in this house on March 25, 1937. This is from page 2191 of Hansard of that date. He said:
Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank the government, and more particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who I think was leading the house when he agreed to bring this matter into the house at the request of myself and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It is no lack of modesty that leads me to put my name before his, but simply because I brought it up first by a question in the house and then on the orders of the day, and I suffer no least illusion as to what my fate would have been if it had not been for the powerful intervention of the leader of the opposition. I have only to look at the answer that I got to the question which I asked on March 3, when I was told that the reservations or understandings simply constitute clarifications or interpretations upon administrative aspects and therefore it was not necessary to bring them into the house. That, Mr. Chairman, is another illustration of the ever-growing custom in this house, not under this government alone, but under preceding governments as well, of proceeding to eliminate almost all the power and influence of the ordinary common member and giving us government by cabinet rather than by parliament.
I could not help but think when I read that last sentence I quoted from the former member for Comox-Alberni that it had a somewhat familiar ring, when one thinks of some of the things which have been said during this current parliament.
The reason I quoted that part of Mr. Neill's speech was to indicate that had he not raised the matter at that time the house would not, apparently, have gone through even the formality of passing a resolution giving its approval to this protocol of exchange of ratifications, nor would we have been provided with much indication of what the will of parliament was in respect to that protocol which is now referred to in this present addition to the convention.
Mr. R. B. Bennett, then leader of the opposition, summed up the situation rather well, I think, and actually put the case that I feel I should like to place before the house at this time when he said-and I am quoting from page 2183 of Hansard of March 25, 1937:
I do suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be desirable, from the standpoint of maintaining uniformity of practice, that a short bill should be prepared on the basis of this resolution ratifying, in the terms of this resolution, the three understandings in question. I suggest that only in order that we may maintain uniformity of the practice and procedure which we have initiated in connection with this treaty.
The position may be summarized in a few sentences. A treaty was approved by this parliament by a chapter of the statutes of 1930 and now there has been a modification of it-I will leave out the words "understandings" and "reservations" and use the generic term "modification". That modification is comprised in three paragraphs that are now before us, and I suggest, in order that our position may be consistent, that we should now say,

in terms of the statute, that we are accepting the new offer, and enact it as a statute of Canada, supplementary to the statute which we passed in 1930.
That is the end of the quotation from the remarks which the then leader of the opposition, Mr. R. B. Bennett, made on that occasion. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that while we are at the resolution stage of this discussion it would be appropriate to draw to the attention of the house the existence of what I feel is a rather unsatisfactory situation, particularly in view of the fact that the present protocol makes specific reference to these understandings which, as I have previously indicated, are not in any formal way attached to the convention documents as far as I have been able to ascertain.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, together with other hon. members who have spoken with respect to this particular resolution I am indeed very happy and pleased that the minister has been able to negotiate with his United States counterpart the possibility of bringing the pink salmon under the agreements of the international Pacific salmon fisheries convention.
I must agree with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat in respect to the manner in which the Minister of Fisheries has conducted his office, more particularly in regard to this matter. It was my pleasure to be present at a meeting at White Rock on April 17, 1955, at which certain of the remarks of the minister were brought to the attention of the fishermen's delegates from both the United States and Canada, remarks in which he is supposed to have indicated a desire that the Canadians should out-fish the Americans, and suggested that would bring them to some form of reason. At the time, the fishermen's union and many of the fishermen expressed the view that it was a dangerous undertaking, and I myself admit I was somewhat perturbed. However, the gamble paid off and it was probably well taken at the time.
I must say that in the matter of the conservation of the pink salmon industry it has been my privilege, as the minister will recall, to draw this question to the attention of the house, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley and many others in this chamber have done, and impress upon him the need for government action.
At the meeting to which I alluded earlier, Mr. Chairman, the minister and the house will recognize, I am sure, that not only the Canadians but the Americans, too, were quite in agreement.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni read what was apparently a press dispatch indicating that

fishermen in the state of Washington had passed a resolution agreeing to the inclusion of pink salmon under the jurisdiction of the international fisheries Pacific salmon commission to the tune of 92 votes to none.
The importance of the pink salmon industry and the fishing industry generally is emphasized to a considerable degree in the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. In reading the report I was quite disturbed to find that while the commission recognized the value of the industry to Canada, they offered very little in the way of suggestions with respect to doing something about conservation in the industry. Certainly the fishing industry has proved to be very necessary to the economy of the country, because I find in the report of the commission that some two-thirds of the income from our fisheries is derived from exports.
In my own province of British Columbia the production of the fishing industry is valued today at some $60 million or more, and the fact that two-thirds is exported is of great significance in helping to balance our trade with the United States, something that seems to be so necessary to our economy today. Our fishermen are doing an excellent job in helping to keep our country stable so far as the balance of trade is concerned.
The value of the sockeye salmon commission and the work it has done in past years cannot be stressed too strongly. I am very pleased that the work of the commission has taken such a routine form that they find they have the time to take under their wing the pink salmon industry as well. Inasmuch as they have done such a good job of the conservation of sockeye salmon they should be in a position to expand their work. Certainly with the experience they have had I do not think we can find a better body to which to refer the particular task we are setting out for them.
The minister indicated in his earlier remarks that it was his intention to refer this matter to the marine and fisheries committee. I feel that is very important in the case of this legislation, because it will definitely give us an opportunity to discuss the various aspects of the legislation that now exist and possibly get a more basic understanding of the problem of the fishing industry, more particlularly with respect to the application of the legislation to the industry in British Columbia.
There are many problems of conservation of fish in the Pacific region. Some of them
Fisheries
were outlined by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Certainly there are others, not the least of which is the question of the terms of reference so far as the committee itself is concerned. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the member for Esquimalt-Saanich had to say about the spawning of salmon up the Fraser river. I am fully aware of the small acreage required for the actual spawning grounds, but we do have a problem there that requires considerable attention; and whether the authority of the Pacific salmon commission now extends to the point where we might have a greater degree of control over some of the other factors affecting conservation is something that might well be studied when the bill goes before the committee.
There are certain factors having to do with the Fraser river itself and the part it has played in the conservation of the salmon industry. The fact is, as the minister well knows, that a good number of the fishermen within the area above the Pattullo bridge are fully aware of the problem that faces them in trying to remain in the fishing industry, when at the same time they are being deprived of a good number of fish that they rightfully consider their own. I am thinking more particularly at this moment of the fact that Canadians have made a habit of conserving the salmon while the Americans have depleted the run. That is just one phase of the question.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call it 10 o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lapointe:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with the debate on this resolution. Then we shall take second reading of the bill, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, to amend the Exchequer Court Act; then second reading of Bill No. 46, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act, in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; then second reading of Bill No. 178, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, in the name of the Minister of Labour; and then we shall go into supply and take up the estimates of the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	5. The Sun Publishing Company advertised
The following answers, deposited with the these notices in their subsidiary papers at no Clerk of the house, are printed in the official exPense to the department.
report of debates pursuant to standing *See also page 1699, and revised answer at order 39:	page ms.

Mr. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	How much did the federal Department of Public Works pay the Sun Publishing Company of Edmonton, Alberta, for publication of legal notices for the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956?
2.	In what weekly newspapers published by the Sun Publishing Company did legal notices appear?
3.	How much of the total cost mentioned in question (1) was allocated to each of the weekly newspapers published by the Sun Publishing Company?
4.	How much did the following weekly newspapers receive from the federal Department of Public Works for legal advertising during the year 1956: the Camrose Canadian, the Vegreville Observer, the Wainwright Star Chronicle, the Viking News, the Vermilion Standard?
5.	How much did the Department of Public Works pay the Sun Publishing Company for the legal notices published in the February 1st issue of the Mannville Mirror?
* Answer by: Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	1952-nil; 1953-$98.30;	1954-$62.80;
1955-$66.12; 1956-$133.86.
2.	Camrose Canadian; Mannville Mirror; Vegreville Observer; Wainwright Star Chronicle; Viking News; Lloydminster Times; Surrey Leader; Medicine Hat News; Vermilion Standard.
3.	Camrose Canadian, $56.26; Mannville Mirror, $47.10; Vegreville Observer, $17.50; Wainwright Star Chronicle, nil; Viking News, nil; Lloydminster Times, $29.52; Surrey Leader, $178.20; Medicine Hat News, $32.50; Vermilion Standard, nil.
4.	Camrose Canadian, $41.01; Vegreville Observer, nil; Wainwright Star Chronicle, nil; Viking News, nil; Vermilion Standard, nil.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 137
Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Were revised assessments for 1950 and 1951 income tax issued by the Department of National Revenue in the last month of 1956?
2.	If so, how many were issued from each of the district offices?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
1. Yes.
2. District	1950	1951Belleville 	
17	28Calgary 	
83	127Charlottetown 	nilEdmonton 	71Fort William 	
11	11Halifax 	
7	9Hamilton 	
22	39Kingston 	
3	5Kitchener 	
35	50London 	
66	102Montreal 	
169	253Newfoundland 	
17	22Ottawa 	9Quebec 	
55	74Regina 	109Rouyn 	
12	14St. Catharines 	
15	23Saint John 	17Saskatoon 	73Sherbrooke 	
10	14Sudbury 	18Sydney 	nilToronto 	
95	135Vancouver 	142Victoria 	8Windsor 	22Winnipeg 	
54	85Whitehorse 	1
Wednesday, February 27, 1957