1958-05-30

PUBLIC SERVICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the governor in council has appointed Mr. John English to be deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. English has served in the department for over 30 years since he entered the trade commissioner service in 1926. He has risen through the ranks, having served for many years in various appointments abroad as well as in responsible positions in the headquarters in Ottawa. He became director of the trade commissioner service in 1953, and in 1956 was made assistant deputy minister.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in the act at the moment requiring individual candidates to file returns showing the source of their income and the expenditures that are made on their behalf. The purpose of the bill is to extend the same principle so it will apply to the central committees or national headquarters of the political parties, with the result that they will be required to file similar returns showing their sources of income designated by amounts. It is also provided that the Secretary of State shall file a detailed report of such returns in parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read for the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether 57071-3-431
he will comment on a report that a NORAD master plan for defence has been or is being approved during the present visit of General Partridge to Ottawa.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, General Partridge, commander of the North American air defence command, is visiting Ottawa to discuss matters having to do with the note which has been tabled in parliament respecting NORAD operations. There will be an opportunity in the very near future to discuss all aspects of that note, as the Prime Minister has already indicated. No master plan will be approved as a result of the consultations which are taking place now. They are preliminary consultations with General Partridge.



NORAD-REPORTED STATEMENT BY SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that the NORAD arrangement is part of NATO, may I ask him if his attention has been drawn to the observation made the day before yesterday by Mr. Spaak, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that NORAD is not a part of NATO and that NORAD has never been referred to or discussed in NATO? Would the Prime Minister care to comment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in this case my hon. friend has come second, notice of a similar question already having been given by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The important thing is the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member expressed a desire yesterday to ask that question. As far as the report is concerned, I have seen it and, having regard to what actually took place, it is apparent that the interpretation given in the press is not in accordance with the statement made by Mr. Spaak.
As far as I am concerned there is nc change in the viewpoint expressed respecting the position of NORAD. It would take a considerable length of time in order to cover this matter in the necessary detail. I do not intend to deal with it piecemeal because, as

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Defence has stated, the whole question will be available for debate in a few days. Whenever this matter is debated a full and complete explanation will be given which I am sure will reconcile the interpretation of the statement by Mr. Spaak with the statements that have been made and the interpretations given by members of this government.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: With all respect and humility 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. The Prime Minister mentioned "within a few days". Could he tell us within what reasonable length of time we could expect an opportunity to fill in the blanks in this, parliament's greatest crossword puzzle?


John George Diefenbaker: If it were a crossword puzzle, of course, it would not be submitted to parliament. However, when those matters of legislation that are of immediate importance, requiring immediate attention, have been dealt with, then the debate on the question will be arranged. I hope it will be possible by agreement, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, to determine a date which will be generally satisfactory.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would he now consider informing the house and the country why the government stopped, so suddenly, agency mortgage lending?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I explained to the hon. member for Laurier yesterday that the small home loans plan had not been stopped, but that the loans were being put out directly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation rather than through lending institutions, at least for the time being.


John Richard Garland: May I be permitted a supplementary question? What is the position of the borrowers who have applications already on file with the agencies?


Howard Charles Green: Those applications are just dealt with directly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I am referring to the ones which are not being dealt with by the lending institutions under the ordinary provisions of the National Housing Act.


John Richard Garland: Can the borrowers depend on that undertaking? I know some prospective borrowers, Mr. Speaker, who have made application. Will they definitely be facilitated?


Howard Charles Green: Their applications will be considered. Mind you, an applicant might not meet the requirements, and I cannot guarantee that every application will be accepted.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. Inasmuch as these loans are being made directly through Central Mortgage and Housing, can we expect that there will be a reduction in interest rates to a rather sensible level?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; there is no intention to reduce interest rates. As I pointed out during the discussion two weeks ago, any such move would be detrimental to the best interests of the country at the present time. If the hon. member wants more housing built may I say to him that following his suggestion would be a very good way to prevent it.


John Richard Garland: In view of the importance of this subject perhaps I might be permitted to ask another question. Has the minister received any information with regard to the reported $500 million to be invested in Canada in home building by the house of Rothschild? If so, was this the reason the government stopped agency loans?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, we have had no notification of any such plan. Frankly, we should be very glad to see money invested by anyone in housing in Canada.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question on May 28 which is reported in Hansard at page 578 as follows:
With all parties in this house and people throughout the democratic world paying tribute to Colonel George Flint for his courage, devotion and integrity, would the Prime Minister state whether active consideration can be given to posthumously awarding him the first Canada medal?
There has been no consideration given in this regard. With this description of the service of Colonel Flint, whose funeral is taking place today, all in this house will be in agreement. The Canada medal, as the house knows, was constituted in 1943, but there have been no awards made since that date. Whether or not it can be awarded posthumously, in any event, is a question of some doubt. Apparently the practice has generally been that posthumous awards are dependent

on either statutory or other declarations permitting them to be made. I can say that while I am altogether in agreement that this man performed an heroic and self-sacrificing act, at the moment no consideration has been given to the matter which the hon. member has raised.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is planned to establish a floor price for strawberries in the Fraser valley this year. If not, is there some other plan whereby growers can get a fair price for their crop?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Processors in California are currently paying 13 cents a pound for strawberries-and it was the imports from California last year which created difficulties-which price is 4 to 5 cents higher than that paid last year. Imported fresh strawberries on the Vancouver market are being sold wholesale at $3.75 to $4 in 12-pint crates, which price is 50 cents to 75 cents a crate above prices for this time last year.
We are informed that the British Columbia strawberry growers expect to negotiate a price for processing at 2 cents to 3 cents higher than the price received last year after fair market value was made effective on imported berries. Present price levels would indicate that British Columbia strawberry growers will receive a fair price for the 1958 crop unless production is unusually heavy, which does not appear likely in view of the exceptionally hot, dry weather which has adversely affected production.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can anything be done for the strawberry growers of eastern Canada? I refer to those in Ontario and Quebec.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From all the information in our hands at the present time it would appear that there will be no necessity for taking any particular action to support the price for strawberries this season.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is consideration being given to creating a national park in Qu'Appelle valley, including particularly that area known as Regina beach?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be obliged to take the question as notice. However, I might inform the hon. member for Regina City that when the federal government sets up a national park the general procedure is that the provincial government offers the land to us free of any encumbrances. To my knowledge no such offer has been made, at least recently, by the Saskatchewan government. I will take the first part of the question as notice and see what I can find out about it.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house when Dr. Robert M. Clark's report on the United States social security system may be made to the government, if it has not already been made? I believe four months have passed since the Prime Minister said the report was likely to be made. Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to act during this session on any such report?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, in the commission that was placed in the hands of the commissioner he was directed to bring in a report at the earliest possible date. The hope expressed was that the report would be available within a period of four months or so. As yet no report has been received. The matter is still being gone into exhaustively by the commissioner. As soon as the report is received the house will be made aware of it.
As to whether or not action will be taken at this session of parliament, I must say that having regard to the tremendous amount of work yet to be done as set out in the speech from the throne I would not expect it would be possible to give consideration to the report, even if received now, to enable any legislation to be brought in at this session.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Prime Minister does not think that the economic position of old age pensioners in this country requires immediate action on any such report to improve their position.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speakers Order. That scarcely seems to be a question seeking information but is rather an argument.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it not a fact that Dr. Clark returned from his visit to the United States this week, and that the report is now in the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker. The first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East is correct, in that Dr. Clark has returned, but the report certainly is not iri my hands.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Could the minister inform the house if consideration is being given to adjusting more frequently the rates of exchange on postal orders purchased in Canada to be sent to foreign countries?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The answer is no, as there seems to be little advantage in doing this. At the present time changes are made each time a variation of one-half of one per cent occurs; and while that may seem a fair sized spread in relation to the practice followed by banks, they are dealing with large sums of money whereas the post office handles foreign money orders of an average value of about $11.25. The change therefore is made each time there is a variation of some 5 to 6 cents in the payment for such average orders. Despite that changes are quite frequent. Last year there were some 24 made in the case of United States orders alone, and on some occasions they have occurred on subsequent days in order to follow the market up and down.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the postal clerks who will be dealing with this matter in a position to inform the buying public, let us say, that there is this sort of adjustment in the rate, or do they just refer to it as something that is decided at Ottawa?


William McLean Hamilton: The procedure which is followed, Mr. Speaker, is that immediately a change is decided on at Ottawa the postal districts
tMr. Argue.]
across Canada are advised by telegram and they in turn advise each post office in the district of the new rate.



RAILWAY COMMITTEE ROOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and through him to Your Honour. My question arises as a result of the very poor acoustics in the railway committee room and the great difficulty experienced by hon. members yesterday in hearing the most important statement of our distinguished guest, Hon. Paul Henri Spaak. Will the minister make the necessary inquiries to ascertain whether it would be possible to instal a suitable public address system in the railway committee room?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer is that the difficulty in hearing properly in the railway committee room is known to the Department of Public Works. At various times different public address systems have been tried but without success, due to echo. The problem is basically one of poor acoustics, and to correct this it would be necessary to cover the walls with some non-reflective material.
As the hon. member knows, there are scenic paintings on the walls, and there has been some reluctance to have these covered. The trouble therefore is the conflict between the decorative aspect of the walls and whether or not they are to be disturbed to provide better acoustics. If the latter is the more important to members of the house, action can be taken to effect correction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[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 Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a press report that war criminal Krupps of Essen, Germany, is in the U.S.S.R. attending a conference on co-operation between industry in the U.S.S.R. and in Germany? In view of the fact that the same individual, or companies controlled by him, have invested very heavily in Canada during the post-war period, has the Prime Minister given consideration to the possibility of such companies

or men playing both ends against the middle, and to what would be the position in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure I understand the question that has been asked, but it starts in Russia with Mr. Krupps, which seems to be beyond the jurisdiction or at least the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Unless the hon. member can clarify his question, I am afraid I cannot allow it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a question; it is just a statement.


Harold Edward Winch: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a question. In view of the fact that the Krupps organization of Germany has made heavy investments in Canada in the post-war period, has the Prime Minister noted the press report that this individual is now in Russia developing or trying to develop co-operation between Germany and the U.S.S.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I am afraid the hon. member has not improved it, and I cannot allow it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the representations which have been made both to him and to his colleague the Minister of Transport concerning the route of the Great Slave lake railroad, can the minister tell the house whether a decision has been taken as to the route of the proposed line?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We were
very glad to receive representations from the people in the territory and in the Peace river area. The Minister of Transport and myself heard this delegation. No decision has been reached.
I should like to point out to the house that the bulk of the money going into this railway is being put up by the railways themselves, and their economic considerations are paramount, I think, as far as their individual investments are concerned. We are primarily interested in protecting the national interest, and to that extent we will take part and give to the railways what advice we think necessary.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: In view of that answer I wonder if the minister could table the report of the railroads for which I asked on May 20.
Additional Standing Committees


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the minister to have dealt with that question on at least one occasion. If he wants to attempt it again, it is his responsibility.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing new to add.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I wonder if the Minister of Finance has anything new to add as to the date on which the report of the royal commission on the revision of the terms of union with Newfoundland is to be available to the government?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have no precise information oh the subject. I was asked this question earlier in the session. I have made inquiries, and I believe the report may not be long now in coming, but I have no more precise information than this.



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS TO SET UP ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES

John George Diefenbaker: That standing order No. 65 be amended by adding the following paragraphs to subsection (1):
(m)	On estimates, to consist of 60 members, 20 of whom shall constitute a quorum;
(n)	On veterans affairs, to consist of 40 members, 15 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in making this
motion I direct the attention of the house to the undertaking that was given in the speech from the throne, as follows:
You will be asked to set up a select committee on broadcasting, a standing committee on estimates and a standing committee on veterans affairs, all with power to send for persons and papers.
This amendment to the rules is designed as one of those things which will make parliament, we hope, more effective. The rule in question is standing order 65 (1), which reads:
At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of five members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the house:-
The committees are set out and I am not going to refer to them. There has not been

Additional Standing Committees in the past, in my experience, that examination of the tremendous expenditures that parliament makes which is consonant with the degree of responsibility that should rest on members of the house. Billions of dollars come before the committee of supply. With its membership of 264 it is too large to be effective in its examination, too cumbersome to examine in detail the various estimates that are laid before it. That has been the experience not only of successive parliaments in our country but also of the United Kingdom parliament.
I am not going to belabour this question, but I am going to quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, in which he sets forth the situation very clearly and effectively. He says:
Our committee of supply consists of 264 members who can hardly be expected to consider effectively the details of finance. It cannot examine witnesses: it has no other information than the list of estimates, the answers of a minister to questions addressed to him in debate and such casual facts as some private members may be in a position to impart. A body so large and so ill-equipped for inquiry would be a very imperfect instrument for the control of expenditure even if the discussions were devoted entirely to that end. But these discussions afford the only opportunity in the course of the year for the debate of grievances and of many questions of policy. The United Kingdom house seems however to have realized that that practice was not in consonance with the conditions of the day, and it has found a way to make a change without infringing any of the fundamental principles of parliamentary law. They have got around the difficulty by adopting the following course: the estimates when tabled are referred in the usual manner to the committee of supply and they stay there, but a committee on estimates is immediately appointed on a special motion-[DOT]
Then the motion is set out. I continue:
Under this motion, estimates are not referred to the committee on estimates, which could not be done unless they had been previously withdrawn from the committee of supply. Estimates cannot be in two places at the same time. This committee on estimates is ordered to examine the estimates and to suggest economies.
I am sure the experience of members in this house throughout the years has been this; that in so far as the committee of supply was concerned, it was impossible for the house to examine, in that detail that is necessary to bring about recommendations for economy, suggestions for the stopping of waste or improvements in general, because of the size of the committee and also by reason of the fact that it is not possible to examine witnesses. So members of that committee are in the position of having asked questions- and, in general, we have all done this-and made lengthy speeches on various items. The ultimate result was that the estimates placed before the house were simply a record of 
the intentions of the government without there being that examination which would assure economies.
A special committee on estimates was set up and some examination was made in several sessions, but because of the fact that the committee in question had no power to call witnesses before it and examine those witnesses and bring papers before it, its effectiveness was greatly diminished.
One of the major responsibilities of parliament today, as it has been all through the years, is the examination of expenditures in committee of supply. How to control unnecessary and unjustifiable expenditures, without at the same time converting the responsibility of ministers into irresponsibility, is a problem that has been before parliamentarians under our system for many years.
I have said that consideration in committee of supply is not in fact control of the estimates. This is not only my view, it is the view of the select committee in the United Kingdom in its ninth report as far back as 1918. Treasury control is invaluable up to a point, but is not a substitute for parliamentary control. Control by ministers, however effectual that control may be, must on occasion be a control that is insufficient to meet the needs of a meticulous regard for economy.
During days of war we found how effectual a committee could be. There are members of this house who were members of the committee on war expenditures. We had our disagreements in that committee but in general, as one who was a member of the committee for a very long period of time, I found a general desire on the part of members, whatever their position in the house, to deal diligently and effectively with the expenditures that were placed before them without, of course, interfering in any way with the responsibility for policy on the part of the executive.
I know of particular instances in which large sums of money were saved. I recall one occasion when in the examination of certain air expenditures we were able to achieve a saving of many millions of dollars. That is the purpose we have in mind in bringing this amendment before the house. We want to set up a committee of watchdogs whose purpose will be to assure to the greatest possible extent that moneys shall not be wasted and that economies shall be effected.
The experience in the United Kingdom in the operation of an estimates committee has been referred to in a number of textbooks. Some regard it as having been most effectual. Others say weaknesses have been revealed,

that while in general the committee has been successful its effectiveness has been subject to that frailty we all have, that once there is the opportunity to have our curiosity satisfied attendance at the committee is not always as large as it is at the beginning of the session. Jennings sets out the situation in his second edition, 1957, page 303, in these words:
At no time since 1902 has it been suggested that the committee of supply has been an effective means of controlling expenditure, or even a body concerned primarily with expenditure. ... In the main, however, the estimates have been regarded as presented for information, and, as usually happens when information is provided, most members have neglected to inform themselves.
Subject to that-and that is a weakness of all parliamentary institutions, in fact all institutions-very effective work has been done and savings have been effected. In setting up this committee we do so with the desire to make parliament more effective. When we set up this committee we make possible the opportunity for private members, who often do not have that opportunity, to make a personal contribution, one that will pay dividends in the realization of a service performed. To use the words of Basil Chubb in his book, Control of Public Expenditures, it will "stimulate the departments to avoid waste and give the house what is most needed, more knowledge about the conduct of business and a handy weapon for control".
Expenditures today for defence and also to meet the current situation respecting unemployment are and will be tremendous in amount. Our purpose is not to blindfold members but to give them an opportunity, by careful examination consistent with the maintenance of responsibility of the executive, to go into those expenditures that are anticipated in the estimates and in a community of counsel to bring about recommendations which will be helpful in reducing expenditures that are unnecessary or that, as I said a moment ago, are wasteful.
In other words, the setting up of this committee and the submission to it, for instance, of the defence department estimates and those of other departments which are not specifically allocated to existing committees will provide a probing vanguard to the committee of supply. All these estimates ultimately will come back to the committee of supply, but I hope they will have been so meticulously examined that the time of the house will be saved, and economies and savings effected for the people of this nation. The object is to enable members of the house to examine the estimates carefully instead of following the present practice in committee of supply, where we mainly browse through the estimates but do not investigate carefully.
Additional Standing Committees
The only forbidden field, and it must remain so, will be that of government policy. Beyond that and within those limitations which are of the essence of constitutional government under our system, we want this committee when it is set up to apply itself in such a way that whenever there is anything wrong, whenever there is extravagance revealed, whenever there are improprieties that would otherwise remain concealed, the committee will make its recommendations without regard to any other consideration than the welfare of our country.
In other words this is one of the means whereby members of the house will be enabled, if they apply themselves with that diligence which I know they will, to do something to relieve the people of the country from unnecessary expenditures. They will keep departments on their toes if they discharge their duties properly. They will also make parliament a more effective agency than it has been; for after all, changes take place and must take place in parliament to meet changed and changing conditions. The essence of our tradition remains in our parliamentary system, but that system must develop and expand progressively from year to year and from era to era if it is to meet the enlarged field of governmental responsibility and parliamentary consideration.
As far as the committee on veterans affairs is concerned, this constitutes another of the promises made by those who today constitute the government of the country. Over the years we advocated the setting up of such a committee to enable the representatives of the veterans of Canada to yearly place before the members of the House of Commons their views, their recommendations and their suggestions for the betterment of conditions with respect to those who served and their dependants. I am sure this committee, comprised as it will be of members from all parts of the house who know the problems of our veterans, will provide a necessary medium and a closer relationship between parliament and the responsible veterans organizations of our country, to the end that justice and equity to those who served and their dependants will be at all times assured.
Sir, I place this motion before the house, expressing the hope that it will receive general support, and that when this estimates committee is set up the membership of that committee will, in a spirit of self-sacrifice- for it will be that-devote themselves to the tiring, routine but none the less effective examination of expenditures, thereby giving private members of this house a medium whereby they can assist in discharging a

Additional Standing Committees major responsibility of the House of Commons, which is the voting and examination of supply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion I should say at once that the opposition intends to vote in favour of it. But I should like to put on the record certain observations which will give our understanding of the possible effectiveness or otherwise of the changes which are proposed, and which will indicate also certain possible dangers which in our minds, unless great care is taken, may result from these changes. I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to ask certain questions which will no doubt be answered by a spokesman for the government in the course of this discussion.
So far as the establishment of a standing committee on estimates is concerned, perhaps this committee, with its enlarged membership, will now be able to discover some of the $500 million of waste and extravagance which we were told not so very long ago could be easily discovered if a committee of this kind were set up and operated in the right way. If this $500 million of waste and extravagance has already been discovered by the members of the present government, perhaps the estimates which will be referred to this committee would not have reached an all-time high.
So far as the veterans committee is concerned, it has in the past met regularly as a select committee, but as a select committee it was also given the power to ask for persons and papers. The veterans committee, which is now to become a standing committee with an enlarged membership, will be able to secure in its meetings firsthand evidence of the farsighted fairness, wisdom and generosity of the veterans charter which has been developed by previous governments. I hope that in this respect at least we will not be told that nothing happened before the year 1957.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? Will he not admit at once that the veterans charter was the result of the work of members of all parties, working very closely together?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course I will admit that without any qualification. I am pointing out that while the veterans charter and veterans legislation received support from all parts of the house, it was the work of previous governments. We have been led to believe in recent days that these previous governments did very little in connection with some other matters, and I am just pointing out that this perhaps will not be said in regard to veterans affairs.

So far as the estimates committee is concerned, and most of my observations will be directed to that particular committee, the motion changes the practice of the house so that the select committee on estimates which has met since 1955 will now become a standing committee. Of course if we follow the normal practice this change will have the effect of enabling the committee to send for papers and persons, and I will have something to say about significance of that particular change later. The motion also increases the membership of this expert and technical committee, because that is what it is and that is how we all hope it will operate, from 26 to 60. Of course this change will cause the opposition certain difficulties, about which I do not complain, especially if steps are taken to have this and other committees sit while the house itself is sitting.


John George Diefenbaker: What is your opinion on that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it will be very difficult, Mr. Speaker, for the opposition with its present membership to do effective work on all the committees that will be set up if those committees meet while the house is sitting. Perhaps we will be able to ascertain that as developments occur.
This increase in the membership of the committee on estimates from 26 to 60 has as a purpose, according to newspaper reports, the provision of constructive work for new government members. In that sense, perhaps I can call it a make-work program. We have no quarrel with it because it is good for parliament, good for its membership, to utilize to the full the abilities of all the members. I feel sure that this make-work program will be more effective than some other make-work programs which have been put forward by my hon. friends.
The first motion for a select committee on estimates was made in this house on February 8, 1955, as my friends opposite very well remember. This constituted what was described at the time, and rightly, as an experimental change in the committee system and in parliamentary techniques for ensuring the effective control by parliament over expenditures, which is the primary responsibility and obligation of parliament.
In the United Kingdom-and very often reference is made, and rightly made, to the United Kingdom practice in these matters- the present position in regard to this control was reached after a long history of evolution, of trial and error. I ask, is the standing committee on estimates to be patterned on the British system with subcommittees-I am now talking about the committee on estimates -operating under the authority and direction

of the main committee? Whatever may be the answer to that question, and perhaps we will get it during the course of the discussion, the pattern cannot be the same here as in Westminster, because the British committee on estimates has a membership of only 36 out of a total membership of the house of approximately 750.
However, British parliamentary practices in these matters have been tried and tested. We should not, of course, hesitate to benefit from them, to adapt them, when it is desirable to do so. At the same time there is no reason why we should follow them in every detail. I should like now to express a word of caution, Mr. Speaker, about two related aspects of the change we are now proposing, the extension of the committee system.
I suggest-and I am sure there will be very general agreement with this suggestion-that in making this extension of committee work and putting it on a permanent basis we should be very careful indeed to avoid doing anything which would lead us into the adoption of certain features of the United States congressional committee system.
The whole committee system in Washington is, of course, fundamentally different because the constitutional system there is very different. There, for instance, an appropriations committee can and does propose expenditures itself. But there are other differences than those based on the constitutional structure. It seems to me that very often United States congressional committees-this does not apply to all of them, of course; perhaps we do not hear very much about the committees down there that operate in a different way-act with a maximum of publicity and sensationseeking, with charges and countercharges before television cameras, and in an atmosphere more of party and personal politics than objective, scientific, expert inquiry.
In our system, Mr. Speaker, the most respected member of a committee is surely the industrious, painstaking individual seeking to widen his knowledge and understanding of governmental processes and operations and in that way to make a more effective contribution to parliamentary government, particularly in the bringing about of economies. That approach, based on responsibility and restraint in committee activity, is surely the best guarantee that our committee system, in its now enlarged aspect, will operate with good and constructive results. That has essentially been the British approach in the past, and it is one of the reasons why the British committee system- which has not been above criticism, as the Prime Minister has pointed out-has on the whole worked well.
57071-3-44i
Additional Standing Committees
But we should be making a mistake, I think, if we felt that we could apply the British committee system to our somewhat different parliamentary system. The British committee system, which has so slowly developed, has been broadening down, if I may use that expression, from precedent to precedent. We are certainly not going to be able to adopt that system, even if we were desirable to do so, merely by the passing of a motion of this kind.
As an illustration of the difference between the British committee system and our own, I might perhaps use as an example their public accounts committee, which is very closely related to their estimates committee, as indeed I suppose the public accounts committee here will be closely related to our estimates committee. It has been indicated in the speech from the throne-and we were rather surprised to see this in it-that there may be a change in the parallel committee of this house in so far as its organization is concerned. In the British public accounts committee there are 15 members only, chosen in proportion to their voting strength. That committee meets 30 times or so every session. The chairman of that committee by custom- and custom is sometimes more important over there than law-is always a senior member from the opposition but he is also invariably a financial, banking or accounting expert.
The work of that committee, in so far as I have been able to study it, has always been conducted in a non-partisan atmosphere. Its procedure has been almost judicial and its decisions have always been reached in an expert, technical and objective way. In the twenties, in referring to this committee Sir Austen Chamberlain once said that the public accounts committee operates as a committee of judges putting aside for the time all party considerations, something which is not always so easy, even in committees. Questions asked in that committee are rarely if ever along party lines and the very rare divisions, as I have found from my research into the work of the committee, are never on party lines. The report of this committee is invariably approved by the House of Commons without a division or is not formally approved at all. It is never debated but its recommendations are invariably implemented, even without discussion in the full House of Commons.
The chairman of that committee works in very close collaboration with the auditor general there whose reports are the basis of the committee's work. Indeed, the auditor general sits with the chairman of the public accounts committee. He advises him on the questions to be asked and on the points to be

Additional Standing Committees taken up. He is in a sense a technical and expert adviser to the chairman, and is not himself a witness.
Another difference, in so far as our procedure over here is concerned, is this. With regard to that committee and also with regard to the British estimates committee, the chairman's decision is never overruled because there is no appeal from it. The chairman, the comptroller who is a civil servant, and the auditor general prepare the work of this committee, the accounts to be taken up, which usually are those of the big spending departments, and further items which are advised by the auditor general to be suitable for examination. The other accounts which appear before the committee are usually passed as a matter of routine without discussion.
That committee in Great Britain can call any witnesses it may choose to call, but in practice it nearly always limits its choice of witnesses to the accounting officers of each department, usually the permanent heads, and the ministers are very rarely called. In fact the committee operates in practice, in so far as the calling of witnesses is concerned, in a manner not unlike the way in which our committee on estimates operated here, even when it did not have the formal power to call witnesses. The chief function of the public accounts committee is to ensure that money is spent as parliament intended it to be spent, namely with due economy and with propriety.
I have been mentioning the British system as something that has been tested and tried over the years. But even that system, as the Prime Minister has said, does not operate to everyone's satisfaction in Great Britain itself. When in 1955 we were discussing in this house the setting up of a select committee on estimates the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in debate on that occasion' had this to say about the effectiveness of the British committee, quoting the United Kingdom auditor general of that time, Sir Malcolm Ramsay. As found at page 967 of Hansard tor February 8, 1955, he quoted Sir Malcolm Ramsay as follows:
The estimates committee has, I am afraid, failed to realize the expectations of those who advocated its establishment. It is true that it has helped to secure certain useful improvements, generally of a minor order, but it has effected no substantial economies and its results have surely been achieved by disproportionate expenditure of time and labour by members and witnesses, and some at any rate of the matters on which it has made recommendations might equally well have been handled by the public accounts committee-
Hence even in Great Britain there is the possibility of duplication of effort with regard to these two committees. Sir Ivor Jennings, who was quoted by the Prime

Minister a few moments ago,-and he is a great constitutional authority in this connection-said that the British committee on estimates was not entirely useless, so perhaps we should not rely too much on British practice in all aspects of committee work in our house.
The other note of caution which I should like to sound with regard to this change was referred to in the debate in 1955, with which my hon. friends opposite will be familiar. They made certain reservations, entertained certain misgivings and sounded certain warnings when they were in opposition, which perhaps might be recalled at this time. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell), who played a very active part in the discussion, had this to say as reported at page 945 of Hansard of February 8, 1955:
-but I wish to repeat that we should be on our guard against its being used

That is, the proposed select committee on estimates-
-as a method to get away from the House of Commons. Ministers being human-
He was referring to us then, but we are referring to hon. gentlemen opposite now.


Howard Charles Green: But we are different.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, you are different, but you are still human. I continue:
Ministers being human, do not let us be sentimental enough to believe, as I said a moment ago, that they do not have that in their minds. Of course it is in their minds.
He then went on in the same debate to quote with evident approval a statement made in the House of Commons at Westminster by the Right Hon. Walter Elliot, a minister of the crown in the British government, in these words:
I am very jealous of any projects to take discussion away from the floor of the house.
This is Sir Walter's view as given to us by the hon. member for Greenwood and as reported at page 942 of Hansard for February 8, 1955. The hon. member continued quoting Sir Walter as follows:
I am uneasy about sending too much to select committees of members specializing on particular matters ... I will refer in a moment to the committee stage of bills, but I would say that the overuse of the specialized committee is a great danger.
There is this possibility of danger, then, and the Prime Minister has adverted to it, that matters may be taken away from the House of Commons by this proliferation of committees which should be debated and settled there. In that same debate and dealing with the same point the present Minister

of Trade and Commerce had this to say as reported at page 966 of Hansard for February 8, 1955:
Those of us who are not on that committee-
He was referring, I think, to the committee on external affairs, which has been operating pretty effectively over the years.
-never have the opportunity to examine the external affairs estimates here in the House of Commons. We have no opportunity of putting questions to the minister. That is all done in committee.
That was not an entirely accurate statement because of course our estimates did come back to the House of Commons and I can recall being examined in the house on those estimates, but that was the fear expressed at that time by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. To remove the possibility of that happening the hon. member for Greenwood, on that date in the same debate, made a further statement, and I must say I entirely agree with what he said at that time as reported at page 944 of Hansard:
There must be the complete right of debate when the occasion arises in the house referring the items to the committee, and equally the right of debate when the report comes back, as there has been in the case of external affairs.
I mention these things to try to put this change into what I think is proper perspective. In complaining about the effectiveness of committees in the past the Prime Minister in this present session during the debate on the address, on May 13, as reported at page 34 of Hansard, had this to say:
In the past the effectiveness of committees has been nullified because on all occasions the government of those days denied to committees the power, as I said a moment ago. to send for persons and papers.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that statement is not in accordance with the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: The standing committees are in that position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are, but the Prime Minister said:
-on all occasions the government of those days denied to committees the power ... to send for persons and papers.


John George Diefenbaker: I should have made it clear that I referred to standing committees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he had said that the statement would have been accurate, but in the form in which it now appears in the record it is not an accurate statement. I would also point out that the select committee on veterans affairs was given power by the house to call for persons and papers. Reading from the order of reference of the committee on
Additional Standing Committees veterans affairs of 1955, under date of Monday, March 7, we find the following:
The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the reason the government of that day in so many cases denied the committees the right to call for persons, papers and records? Could he reply to that question? It would be most interesting to hear this revelation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not familiar with all the details but no doubt we can get them in the course of this debate. However, I do recall that in the case of the select committee on atomic energy the reason was entirely one of security.


John George Diefenbaker: But the others?


Lester Bowles Pearson: With regard to the select committee on estimates it was felt at that time by the government and the minister particularly concerned that the committee could operate effectively without running the risk of getting into some of these dangerous areas I have mentioned in connection with committee procedure elsewhere. With regard to the other committees it was felt that the appropriate minister was available. He would have with him in the select committees the officials from his department who could be directly examined in committee by the members. Therefore I am suggesting that in this change in the committee on estimates from a select to a standing committee with power to send for persons, papers and records, the change is greater in theory than in practice.
In any event, Mr. Speaker as I see it the effectiveness of the committee on estimates was not nullified by its inability to send for persons, papers and records, and a reference to the proceedings of the committee over the three years during which it operated would verify that statement. Certainly some hon. gentlemen opposite did pay tribute to the work of the committee during those years, and perhaps in this regard I might refer to a witness of unimpeachable impressiveness and integrity, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), who had some complimentary things to say about the committee at that time, which I am sure were deserved.
As I understand it, the change from select to standing committee on estimates is hardly likely to be a revolutionary one. Perhaps the change will be most noticeable in the increased membership. When this change from select to standing committee was proposed
68S	HOUSE OF
Additional Standing Committees in 1956, as it was by hon. members opposite when they were in opposition-and they will recall this-the hon. member for St. Paul's described it as a "very minor" extension of the powers of the committee. He is reported at page 1645 of Hansard for February 28, 1956, as follows:
The proposal introduces a very minor extension . . . because basically the committee will be a committee of the house constituted in the same proportions as the house is with the supporters of the government in the majority and therefore the basic decisions of the committee under the control of the administration.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps he was just trying to persuade you to make the change.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps he was, indeed. He was a very persuasive member in those days, as he is a very persuasive Speaker today.
I suggest that without further changes the basic decisions of the committee on estimates will remain under the control of the government, and I propose to ask certain questions in this regard which may clear up some of my worries with regard to this matter. Who, for instance, will decide what is to be studied by this committee? Will items be selected by the government and by parliament for reference to the committee, or will they be selected by the committee itself; and if the latter, if they are selected by the committee, will the situation in future be that described by the Prime Minister when he took part in this debate on February 8, 1955 and had this to say at page 964. No doubt he will recall his words.
I am not optimistic about its success-
That was the committee on estimates which was proposed at that time.
-for the committee system being what it is, with the committees having an overwhelming majority of the representatives of the government-
The majority will be even more overwhelming in this session of parliament.
_there is no real incentive on the part of the
majority in the committee to permit matters to be brought before it that may be injurious to the government and the party to which they belong.
I recognize the importance of this. The Prime Minister has indicated today that he and his government will not be guided in any way by these considerations in so far as the work of the committee is concerned, but perhaps I may go on to quote the next few lines of the Prime Minister's statement. He said:
Human nature being what it is, I am not saying the situation will be any different under another government.
Well, perhaps it will be different. We will see. The same worry was expressed by the


present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming') when in the same debate he had this to say:
It seems to me that if there is to be a fair experiment on this basis-if we intend to give a fair and reasonable trial to the suggestion-
That was a select committee on estimates.
-which has been seriously put forward in this house over a period of some years, the opposition should have some voice in the selection of the department whose estimates are to go to this committee for review.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he suggest now what departments he would like brought before the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not suggest that now; but if the Prime Minister would like to get in touch with me when the committees are set up perhaps I will have something to say on it.


John George Diefenbaker: It is easy to generalize.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The past master speaks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The excerpts I am reading from the debate of 1955 do indeed show how easy it is to generalize without regard to the fact that such generalizations may rise up to cause embarrassment at some future date. In the following year, 1956, the Minister of Finance went a little further in this regard when he said, and I am quoting from Hansard, page 1652:
I say, in the first place, that there is much to be said for the idea of having these particular departments selected by the opposition. In the United Kingdom, the practice in the public accounts committee is to allow the opposition to select the particular accounts or departments which are to be reviewed by the committee.
No reference is made there to the appointment of a chairman from the opposition. Attention is directed to the importance of having the opposition select the departments and the subjects which are to go before the committee. In the circumstances, perhaps there is no need for us on this side to press the present government any further to allow the opposition the right to select the items which would form the basis of the work of this committee on estimates.
In conclusion may I repeat that we will support this motion, but we do not anticipate that it will make any substantial change in the factual procedures which have been followed in these matters since the select committee on estimates was set up in 1955, apart, of course, from giving work to members on the government side whose numbers have been so greatly increased. We will do what we can with the means at our disposal not only to play our part responsibly and constructively on these committees, but to

ensure that any change in committee structure, organization or action which does take place will not interfere with the effectiveness and the rights and privileges of the most important committee of all, the committee of the whole House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. group will support this motion because it contains some of the things we have been advocating in this house for many years, particularly with reference to the appointment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. We are most pleased with regard to this proposal.
We realize that the veterans affairs committee has met in the past as a special select committee. It has met quite frequently and done excellent work, and as to the length and timing of its meetings it has met with the approval of the veterans organizations of this country. However, I feel that veterans generally will consider their position to be more secure when they see that the committee on veterans affairs is to become a standing committee of this house.
As to making the estimates committee a standing committee, we feel that much good could come of this provided certain things are done. We do not think that simply changing the name from select committee to standing committee will necessarily do very much, but if the government is sincere in wishing that the estimates of all departments be examined as meticulously as possible, and if, in consultation with the opposition groups in this house, the work of these committees is to be arranged to this end, we think a great deal could be accomplished. If, on the other hand, this is merely a move, as we have seen it suggested in the press so many times, to give the government's preponderance of members something to do so they may keep out of mischief and so the danger of their embarrassing the government might be partially removed, then we think this may not accomplish very much.
Since this parliament opened we have seen some encouraging signs. Without a doubt, in this session so far there have been more private members on the government side of the house putting forward views which are their own, views which are at variance with the views of the government, than we have seen in many sessions in this house over the years.


Howard Charles Green: Over 70 of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Disagreeing with the
government?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not going over the
debates for the last 70 years-
Additional Standing Committees


Howard Charles Green: You missed my point. I
meant private members who spoke on the government side.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I missed your point,
but I did say that this session more members on the government side of the house have expressed publicly views which differ from those of their government than I have heard in this house since I came here in 1945. I congratulate those members who have shown some independence of views, because if anything has been noticeable in this house since I am here it is that over the years the government members have been discouraged from showing any initiative; they have been discouraged from showing any imagination and, in words that have been uttered so often by Conservative members in the past, they have had wraps kept on them and have not been encouraged to say some of the things which were nearest to their hearts.
However, I think the opposite current is also noticeable in this session so far. I noticed just yesterday that the Prime Minister himself seemed to view with a great deal of alarm any possibility that members might look on any motion that was voted on as a free vote. The government will be making a very grave mistake in the future if on every occasion they look on every vote as a vote of want of confidence in the government.
We shall see in the days ahead, when these committees are set up, what the government really intends to do. We shall see what the private members on the government side of the house will do in these committees, and I hope there will be less desk thumping in the committees than there has been in the house. I hope there will be less inclination to say that all is well and that nothing needs to be changed. We have had much too much of that in the past. If these committees are set up in such a way and meet at such times as to make it difficult for members to do the work of the committees and of the house, they may accomplish the very opposite to what has been outlined today as the things they should accomplish.
I think the question put by the Leader of the Opposition was most important, when he asked if these committees would be meeting while the house was sitting. He might have asked whether all the committees that are to be set up will be meeting at the same time the house is sitting. I know many hon. members have a great deal of ability, and the Prime Minister is one of them. He has developed that ability in the opposition over a period of many years. I have seen the Prime Minister attend many committee
688	HOUSE OF
Additional Standing Committees meetings during a day, but I have never seen him attend more than one at a time.
Therefore if a member is on two or three committees which are meeting at the same time, and the house is sitting on the estimates of some other department in which he is interested, will this procedure necessarily mean that the estimates will be examined more carefully and that the business of the house will be expedited and more thoroughly considered, or will it be just another way of making it more difficult for parliament to function? What the house must remember at this time is that the opposition is very small in numbers compared with the government members; and if we are to have our time spread over so many committees that may be meeting simultaneously while the house is sitting, will the government's program result in a better consideration of the estimates and of the business of the house?
The whip of this party, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), has just handed me a list of the standing and special committees that are to be set up during the present session, and I have added up rather quickly the total membership of these committees. That total is 713. Perhaps all the committees will not be set up; I am not sure that they will be. Perhaps they will not all be meeting, but to have 713 positions on committees filled by 265 members, with members of the cabinet generally unable to find time to maintain their attendance at those committee meetings, is to demonstrate how very difficult it may be for members to perform their duties on those committees.
I have heard something else, and I am going to say quite frankly that I have not heard it from members generally. I have heard around this building from many people who occupy important positions the suggestion that the session should end very quickly; that it should end in July. When somebody says, "I do not see how it could end before the end of August" they seem to think it would be a terrible thing if parliament sat for three or four months. Well, I hope the government will not set the objective of making this a very short session of parliament. I am not saying that we should make it a long session of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to restrict the hon. member unduly, but I think he is beginning to stray from the subject matter of the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if we can be certain that the opposition will be given consideration when the government considers the work of the committee, the departments that will be referred to it, and how many of


the committees will be sitting at one time, perhaps the fears that I have been expressing may be groundless and I hope they are. I repeat, it will be impossible for members of the two committees that are now under consideration to be set up as standing committees to do an effective job if the majority in the house is used to keep so many committees meeting that it will be impossible for us to do the work we have to do in this house.
In this connection, members on the government side of the house have expressed rather strong opinions over the years as to the work of those committees. As a matter of fact, in February, 1956, the present Minister of Finance, in relation to the work of one of those committees, had this to say as reported at page 1652 of Hansard:
In these committees, in the case of the public accounts committee, in the case of the estimates committee, indeed in the case of a good many other committees, it is the opposition members on those committees who do the work. Government members as a rule are not interested in probing into expenditures or estimates. It is left to the members of the opposition to do that investigatory work. We have not reached the point here, of course, where the opposition is permitted to make the selection, even in the interests of a strict review of proposed departmental expenditures.
I express the hope that when the Prime Minister asks the Leader of the Opposition what departments he would like referred to the estimates committee he will include, of course, all of the members of the opposition, but I hope he will go one step farther. I hope he will ask the members of the opposition what departments they wish referred to all the committees, because surely it is a very important consideration whether or not the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, for example, are to be referred to a committee; whether the estimates of other departments of the government are to be referred to other committees, since it is possible for a number of committees meeting at the same time to be dealing with estimates of departments but not the estimates committee itself.
The members of the C.C.F. group are here, Mr. Speaker, as I believe other members are here, to make parliament most effective. We hope that whatever is done the work of the committee of supply and of the house will be kept to the forefront, and that the work of these other committees will only be used to help the committee of supply and the house so that parliament may maintain solid control over the passage of the estimates, and so that members in fact may be able to use their time to the best advantage.

There is something else that was very dear to the Prime Minister when he was in opposition with respect to the work of members in committees and in the house. That was his feeling that members on both sides of the house should have research help made available to them so they could get the facts necessary to do an efficient job in committees or in the house. I express the hope that during this parliament, when opposition members are reduced in number and when committee work is being expanded very greatly, the Prime Minister and the cabinet will consider the oft-repeated suggestion of the Prime Minister himself in former years that adequate research assistance should be made available to all members of the house.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very few remarks I should like to make on this motion. I regret that under the rules the motion does not come before the committee of the whole house, because the nature of my remarks is such that they would be more properly made in the committee stage if there was one.


Mr. Hodgson:: Make them over again then.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member. In any event, if my remarks appear at times to be in the form of questions it is because there is no committee stage on this motion.
The first thing I should like to comment on is what I took to be one of the Prime Minister's basic reasons for setting up a standing committee on estimates, the experience with the war expenditures committee. To some degree at least he likened the estimates committee to the war expenditures committee and suggested that the reasons for setting up an estimates committee were the same as those which necessitated the setting up of a war expenditures committee.
My recollection of the reason for setting up the war expenditures committee in 1941-I think the Prime Minister will agree with me on this-is that there were no estimates of the vast war expenditures. There was merely one war appropriation bill with one item in it, and the basic problem that arose then was the inability of hon. members to get anything in the nature of estimates to cover those vast expenditures. There was another reason for setting up the war expenditures committee, namely that to a considerable extent the expenditures concerned security matters and there was a problem involved in giving certain details of information in the House of Commons that one would ordinarily expect to be given in the case of expenditures. For that reason many of the sittings of the war expenditures committee were in camera.
Additional Standing Committees


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? My recollection was that all the sittings were in camera.


George James McIlraith: In the early years of that committee they were all in camera. The committee did very good work. I wanted to clarify that point, because while the Prime Minister used the war expenditures committee as a reason for setting up a standing committee on estimates I do not think he intended to mislead the house in any way by his remarks on that point. I think he would readily agree that those were the two main reasons for setting up the war expenditures committee.
There was another interesting thing about the war expenditures committee. While it was dealing with a vast subject it was a much smaller committee than usual. My experience in dealing with committees of the house over the same period the Prime Minister has been here leads me to the view that committees should be much smaller in numbers than is the practice with our standing committees. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would consider reducing the membership of the estimates committee from the suggested figure of 60. It seems to me the committee is too large. I recognize that my views as to the proper size of committees are perhaps not wholly in accord with those of the majority of members of the house, but I have come to the view that small committees of approximately 20 members are much more effective and much more likely to achieve the desired results. All I wish to do now is to ask the Prime Minister if he would consider, before the motion is passed, a reduction in the membership of the estimates committee from 60 to some considerably smaller number.


John George Diefenbaker: What number would the hon. gentleman suggest?


George James McIlraith: My idea would be about 20.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the proper number in the hon. gentleman's experience?


George James McIlraith: Well, one can argue about it. Different members have different views. I recognize that perhaps I am out of step with most of my colleagues in the house, but I do like a smaller number very much. The Prime Minister has asked me a direct question as to my personal view, and I would say about 20 members.
When the Prime Minister referred to making parliament more efficient in dealing with the estimates, a motive which all hon. members share, I was tempted to interject and I could not help but reflect a bit on the matter. One way to make parliament effective with
690	HOUSE OF
Additional Standing Committees regard to estimates is to have ministers who know their estimates well and are willing to give information to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The only experience we had in that connection was with the former ministers now on the other side.


George James McIlraith: As I looked across at the ministers now occupying the ministerial benches I was tempted to interject, because I share the Prime Minister's desire to make parliament more efficient. When dealing with estimates,, in the final analysis thorough preparation by the minister is the key to the whole situation, and I am quite sure the government leader in the house will agree with me. If ministers really have the information and are willing to give it, it is a great help. I am one of those who really believe in the house itself dealing with these matters. I hold the view that to the greatest extent possible estimates should be dealt with in the House of Commons. I do not want this estimates committee to become a substitute for the committee of supply. I think we must be careful about that.
A lot of things have been said about keeping busy the vast army of new young members supporting the government. Perhaps it is not necessary to comment too much on that, but I hope the estimates committee will not become merely a committee of study for those hon. members in order to keep them busy. There is a real danger of that happening.
I would hope that care would be taken to see that it does not happen, because if that were to happen it would tend to lessen the effectiveness of the committee of supply on estimates. I believe that is an undesirable thing. I am old-fashioned enough to believe very strongly that control of expenditures by the House of Commons is very basic to our system, and something we must carefully preserve by all possible means.
Another interesting feature about embalming this new subsection (m) in standing order 65 is this; it prevents debate on this subject each year. I am not sure that in the last three years during which the special committee on estimates has been set up the experience gained has been sufficiently great to warrant taking the subject matter we are now debating out of the House of Commons. In other words it is probably a good thing to have a motion to set up the special committee brought before the house for debate each year, at least until we get a bit more experience on the subject. However, I am prepared to go along if the house wishes to adopt this other method.


I should like to return to what I was saying about the committee. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister that the reports of the committee should be presented to the house and a debate take place when concurrence is moved in those reports? He did not deal with that subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member suggest his answer to that? What is the proper course?


George James McIlraith: Well, I want to find out what the Prime Minister has in mind for this committee, because it is quite a departure from our procedure. I want to find out what the Prime Minister intends to do.


Howard Charles Green: What do you think?


George James McIlraith: I will be quite willing to explain that very fully when the Prime Minister is willing to put me in the position of having responsibility for his job.


Howard Charles Green: We would not risk that.


George James McIlraith: I do not believe it is good enough to attempt to extract from me a point of view on that. If the Prime Minister expresses his view on exactly how he believes the work of this committee should be handled, that is whether it should be by reports back to the house which are debatable when concurrence in them is moved by the chairman or just how that is to be handled, I would be glad to tell him whether or not I concur in what he has put forward. If I have any different views I shall be glad to expound them.


John George Diefenbaker: I can give my hon. friend-


George James McIlraith: I will just be a moment-


John George Diefenbaker: I was going to answer the question right now.


George James McIlraith: Just bear with me-


John George Diefenbaker: You don't want the answer.


George James McIlraith: Just bear with me for a moment; I believe this matter is basic to the whole operation of this committee. Rather than have the Prime Minister give me a quick answer I would ask him to carefully consider the matter and give a careful answer. If in the light of what I have added he wants to give me an answer now, it is all right.


John George Diefenbaker: There is going to be no departure from the ordinary rule that has prevailed in respect of this type of committee throughout the years.


George James McIlraith: That raises the very point I was seeking to raise. There is no ordinary procedure under the rules of this house for an

estimates committee, and that is the point to which I was seeking to draw the attention of hon. members. There are two or three ways in which the matter can be handled. It can be by the committee presenting reports and the chairman moving concurrence, as is done with some committees, or it can be by way of merely referring the estimates back to the house without moving concurrence in those reports. There are other procedures that could be followed. I think the answer the Prime Minister gave to my question expounded the precise difficulty more adequately than I was able to do in my somewhat inept remarks on the point.
I want to raise two other points, one of which is in connection with this whole matter of committees sitting while the house is in session. This is a new practice which has been adopted within the last few years. I recall well that when such a request was first made by committees there was always a debate on it and an explanation by the person putting forward the request. All I am saying now is that if it is going to become the practice, I hope great care will be taken by the government to not ask that committees sit while the house is sitting unless there is some special need for it, as there is when the Canadian National report is before the committee on railways and shipping, and as there is when the wheat board report is before the committee on agriculture. I hope, however, it will not become the general practice to permit committees to sit while the house is sitting, because that is not a good departure.
There is one other point I want to mention very briefly, and that is in connection with this matter the Prime Minister raised about the power to send for papers and persons in the atomic energy and research council committees. I can tell him that the power was not given those committees because the two bodies being investigated were concerned with a very considerable area of security.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take much of the time of the house on this motion which, like my leader, I am only too happy to support. However, before I sit down I am going to join in the appeal that was made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) to the Prime Minister
Additional Standing Committees (Mr. Diefenbaker) to consider the possibility of reducing the size of the committee on estimates.
I happen to have been the first minister-
I do not know whether I should say victim -who appeared before the estimates committee when it was set up for the first time by this house in 1955. As a result of my experience, at that time I formed certain impressions about that committee, about the way in which it could function effectively and about certain ways in which I did not think it could function effectively.
I do not think the Prime Minister, when he introduced the motion today, was altogether clear in his own mind as to precisely what function this committee could really be expected to perform. I am not surprised, and this is not meant as criticism. Unless I am mistaken, one of the reasons is that the Prime Minister himself was never a member of the committee and had no direct experience of its working. Of course, until certain regrettable events last June, the Prime Minister had never sat on the treasury benches and therefore had looked at the committee from only one side of the house. I can now look at it, perhaps without too much enthusiasm, from both sides.
In the consideration of the estimates in the house or in the committee-and I tried to think this matter over during the lunch hour-it seemed to me that there were four possible objectives which hon. members might have in mind. The first is one that was traditional in the days when parliament really represented the taxpayers against the crown and when the purpose of parliament was to keep down expenditures-and that was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker-when the purpose of examining the estimates was to see whether any unnecessary demand by the crown could not be cut down. I am afraid that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), who has been here as long as have most of us in this house and who sat on this side of the house for a long time,-


Howard Charles Green: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -could count on the fingers of one hand the occasions on which he or any member of his party when they were in opposition ever suggested the reduction of any specific expenditure. Oh, they were all for reducing the total but never any of the elements that made up the total. The only thing I can ever remember the Conservative opposition suggesting should be reduced was the amount of expenditure on public information, on information officers and public relations officers. We see what a transformation there is when hon. gentlemen
\
692	HOUSE OF
Additional Standing Committees move across the floor. For the first time in the history of Canada we have a Prime Minister who employs a public relations officer. However, I must not digress from the serious subject that we are discussing.


Howard Charles Green: You had better not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In what I am saying, I am merely reflecting what men of great experience have said in this house on more than one occasion. I am sure the Minister of Public Works will recall occasions when Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Abbott pointed out that they felt that they were the only members of the house,-they did not include even their colleagues-when they were in the position of minister of finance, who were really interested in economies. I do not think there is any more likelihood of getting any effective reduction of the estimates from the estimates committee than there is from the committee of supply of this house. The fact of the matter is that under modern conditions the taxpayer is an anonymous person but the people who are advocating expenditures are certainly not anonymous and are often extremely vocal. The pressure in modern times on all members of parliament, wherever they may sit in this house, is for more and more, not less and less expenditure. I recall my own experience in the estimates committee. As a matter of fact, I had a sneaking feeling that some of the expenditures being made by my department when I was the minister were unnecessary.
I had certain hopes when my estimates went before the committee. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you were a member of that committee, how frank the officials were and how more than frank I was at times in answering every question put by members of the committee. You will recall that far from any suggestion being made that there should be any reduction in expenditures, quite a number of suggestions were made that expenditures should be increased.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not cut them down yourself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did cut them down. But that was done in silence as the hon. gentleman knows, in the same way as he has been doing it in silence since he became a minister, and I daresay doing it well. In fact, in one case I thought he had done it a little bit too well and I was able to get him to see the error of his ways, as he will recall.


Howard Charles Green: Don't forget the Wesleyville post office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what I was alluding to. The second purpose that hon. members may have in mind in considering


the estimates either in committee in this place or in a special committee or a standing committee, is to secure information. For this purpose I think the committee is admirable. There are many hon. members who are not particularly interested, and properly so because none of us can hope to encompass all the encyclopaedic matters that come before this parliament, in the details of this or that department. If all the estimates are going to be considered in all their details in this place, it means that little discussions with perhaps 15 people or 20 people on one side of the house and a similar number on the other will go on for great lengths of time. As the Prime Minister, I thought wisely and properly, pointed out this morning, the objective could be much better achieved in another place in a smaller committee to the satisfaction of the members particularly interested. I think that perhaps the most useful function the estimates committee can perform is that of providing this information in detail-I refer to information about detailed and specialized sides of the manifold activities of government that can be given in the committee-with the time of the vast majority of members who are not and need not be especially interested in it being thereby saved to the end that other and more important business can be transacted in this place.
Then there is another purpose that hon. members have in taking part in the discussions in the committee of supply. That purpose is to make representations on behalf of their constituents about the activities of departments and agencies of government. I would hope that there would be some members who would feel content to make those representations in the relative obscurity of the estimates committee. I would also hope that the estimates committee would be relatively obscure. But I do not think the Prime Minister ought to cherish the hope that that would be done by very many members. The average member who wishes to make representations on behalf of his constituents-and I am afraid I must admit that I am no exception-wants to make them in this place so that they will be on Hansard and will be readily accessible to his constituents. That is an understandable attitude. I do not think that we shall ever get that function performed in any committee, however large and however much spotlight there may be upon it.
Then there is the fourth purpose of the consideration of the estimates, and that is to discuss the policies of the various departments. I know that no hard and fast line can be drawn between policy and administration and that in the committee, or in the committee of supply, that line is often going to be crossed unconsciously, but I do think that

what we ought to aim for in relation to this committee is to have the discussion of policy of departments here in the committee of supply and to have the discussion of administration and the seeking of information about administration as largely as possible in the estimates committee. That is an ideal which could probably never be reached.
In the experience of the past three years I do not think a great deal of time has been saved by having a committee on estimates, but I believe the discussion of the departments which went to the estimates committee was very materially improved here in the committee of supply later on because of the preliminary investigation in the estimates committee. I feel that, over the years, if hon. members take their duties in the committee conscientiously that would increasingly be the case.
I was extremely pleased to hear-and as my leader was, I too am very much in accord with it-what the Prime Minister said about ministerial responsibility and the obligation of keeping the responsibility for policy in the ministry and excepting policy questions from the purview of the committee. This is the view which I took when I first appeared before the committee at its very first session at the beginning of the proceedings in 1955, I set out the position of ministerial responsibility that was then taken and I am happy to say that there was no real dissent in the committee from that position.
There is a problem about having the estimates considered in a committee and having civil servants speak directly in reply to questions. That problem was discussed at the first meeting of the committee. I believe that either a minister or a parliamentary assistant ought always to be present at the committee. In my view it is wrong under our system to leave civil servants in the exposed position of having to discriminate between policy questions and questions of administration. Perhaps I say that because I was once a civil servant myself, but nevertheless I think we all have a duty, and the government has a special duty, to see that this is not done. I make that statement because oppositions have a temptation, which I think hon. gentlemen opposite having recently been here will recall, to try to find some contradictions between ministers and their officials, which is perhaps part of that human nature about which we heard so much earlier in this debate. It is really the duty of the minister to see that civil servants are not exposed to that temptation and are not dragged into political controversies. That is very apt to happen unless either the minister or his parliamentary assistant is present in the committee to intervene when questions are asked and to say,
Additional Standing Committees "That is my responsibility and I must accept the responsibility for answering."
Perhaps because some of us on this side of the house recently had ministerial responsibility there will not be so much disposition to cross that line as there might have been at some other time. It is a special responsibility of the government to see that the line is not crossed and of course the discharge of that duty is sometimes open to misinterpretation. Our conduct in this respect while we were in office was quite often misinterpreted. We were often accused of withholding information because we insisted upon giving the answers ourselves, as ministers, instead of having the answers given by officials, when our only motive in giving the answers ourselves was to take the responsibility which under the British system was inescapably ours.
I was reassured to hear the Prime Minister say what he said today about the importance of emphasizing that position. The Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) why it was that in the case of this committee, when it was originally set up, the government of the day decided not to give the committee power to send for persons and papers. Perhaps I might amplify what the Leader of the Opposition said because that matter was discussed directly with me by the then prime minister and the then minister of finance before I went into the committee and I can assure the house it was not through any desire to deny any hon. member of the house any information about the work of the department that he might seek to get.
There was a feeling that the purpose of this committee was to be a "mirror in little", if I may put it that way, of the committee of supply, and we do not call witnesses in the committee of supply and we do have civil servants sit in front of the minister to assist him in giving the answers. It was thought that the only deviation which should be made from that course in order to focus attention on the estimates themselves was that the ministers at their discretion might permit the civil servants to speak directly. There was a feeling that if civil servants appeared as witnesses rather than to assist the minister, there might be an impression created that they were compelled to answer questions which it would not be proper for civil servants to answer. I do not think this is a big point. Indeed, it may be that it was an unnecessary fear.
The other feeling we had-and I think I still hold this view, although perhaps it is because I have not been in opposition long enough-

Additional Standing Committees


Howard Charles Green: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I can assure the hon. member that I expect to be here for a while yet.


An hon. Member:: You will be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I have not been in opposition long enough to have achieved the point of view that one should exploit every advantage possible against the government. Perhaps I still have clinging to me some of the attitudes I had when I sat on the other side of the house. I hope not, but perhaps I have.
I hope it is not contemplated by the Prime Minister or the government that the estimates committee is going to be calling witnesses from the general public. It seems to me that if that course is ever followed it should be a highly exceptional proceeding. If this committee is to do work that would otherwise be done by the committee of supply, and do it efficiently, they will have all their time taken up examining officials of the departments and agencies of the government which directly have to do with the administration. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances, though they might arise, in which it would really be desirable to go beyond that except for the purpose of seeking to create some kind of sensation. I agree completely that we do not want to have develop in Canada the type of committee that is found in the United States congress. I trust there will be no thought of having the proceedings of the committee televised and that it will be free of all the apparatus which accompanies committee meetings in some other jurisdictions.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I would have thought your party had had enough television.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister in his remarks this morning referred to the war expenditures committee of which he was a distinguished member between 1940 and 1945. I was a civil servant in those days but I occasionally sat in the galleries of this house and followed its proceedings with a certain detached interest. I am not sure that the Prime Minister, though he did not say so, did not really give away the real reason why the war expenditures committee was as effective as proved to be and I agree with the Prime Minister that it did very good work.
The war expenditures committee sat in camera; no one could get any advantage in publicity out of its discussions. The only way in which members of that committee could achieve any kind of reputation was by doing exactly what the committee was directed by the house to do, namely to seek

ways of saving the taxpayers' money, and that in a field in which, as the hon. member for Ottawa West has pointed out, there were no precise estimates at all a field where huge sums of money were voted which were spent by the government in whatever ways seemed most expedient for the prosecution of the war. There was a scope there that does not exist in the ordinary civil estimates. But I have no doubt that one of the reasons why this committee did concentrate on its primary function was the reason I have indicated.
I should like to join the hon. member for Ottawa West in the appeal he made to the Prime Minister. I certainly intend to vote for this motion, whether the Prime Minister listens to the appeal or not. The right hon. gentleman pointed out that the committee of supply-and he quoted some important authorities to support this view-was too large to consider the estimates in an orderly and effective manner. I agree with that, but it does seem to me that a committee of 60 would also be too large, and for two reasons, one of which is that the larger the committee the less a personal sense of responsibility may be felt by individual members. An hon. member is going to say: well, there are 60 of us. If I have something else to do, nobody is going to miss me, anyway.
I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that a committee of about half that size, indeed, a committee of the size we had in 1955, 1956 and the first part of 1957, would be very well suited for this task. When I was before that committee the attendance seemed good and the interest seemed to be reasonably well sustained, as Your Honour will perhaps recall. I have a feeling there would be both more orderly discussion and a greater sense of responsibility in the committee if it were smaller.
It may be that the government envisages the committee being divided into subcommittees which could work concurrently. That might to some degree invalidate the argument I am making. But I have a feeling it is going to be very difficult to get the kind of expert consideration which the Prime Minister indicated in his opening remarks he would like to see given to the estimates, if more than one department is before the committee at any particular time. However, that is a point on which there could be differing views. I do feel, though, that to attempt to have all 60 members of the committee, or a substantial majority of them, sitting at one time, would make it very difficult to have the kind of detailed and orderly discussion that we achieved when I was before the committee in 1955 and which, I have been told by others who appeared

later before that committee, was continued after the estimates of my former department had been dealt with.
Hon. members will recall that it was customary in those three years to change considerably the personnel of the estimates committee when a new department went before it, so to have a smaller committee would not mean restricting the number of members who could serve on the committee. I certainly would not wish the Prime Minister or any other member to feel I am suggesting that 60 people are not competent to serve on the committee, but I am suggesting that this is too large a number to have serving at one and the same time if we are to accomplish the purpose which I think both the government and the opposition would like to see this committee perform.
There is one other thing I should like to say, and again I am echoing the words of my leader, about the external affairs committee. I do think that setting up a committee on estimates and having departments come before it has been a very good thing for the departments. I think the mere act of preparing for the work of the committee had a very helpful effect on the civil service and upon the ministers, too. It is so easy-and we know this is true in our personal affairs and in every other way- to leave things as they are and not to change them if we do not have to defend them before someone else. And even though there was nothing wrong-and there rarely was anything wrong-there were often things that were redundant and unnecessary but which went on from year to year. But when it is incumbent on civil servants to explain why these things are being done, and upon ministers to defend the continued existence of such conditions, I believe it had a very salutary effect on the administration of a department. I should like to say that I am not expressing these views for the first time now that I am in opposition; I expressed them long before the committee on estimates was set up, and even before I was a member of this house.
It seems to me it would be a good idea to have a regular rotation of departments so that every three or four years each department would have been before the committee.
I believe we would get dividends from such a practice, not in money savings perhaps, but in better value for the money that is allocated.
I may say, in conclusion, that I am heartily in accord with the purpose of the motion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will agree that this has been a very useful discussion. I am impressed again, however, by the attitude of clinging to the type of thinking which existed on this side
Additional Standing Committees of the house a year ago as exemplified by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and also by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who has just resumed his seat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An attitude of responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: There is about his approach to this question this attitude of hopelessness and of stagnation which was so prevalent under the former administration and, which, I suggest, was one of the main reasons why there have been such drastic changes in the political life of Canada within the last 11 months.
Our approach to this question arises out of many long, weary years of being in opposition and trying to improve the functioning of parliamentary committees, and when it came to being a reactionary on questions of this type-questions having to do with the functioning of parliament-there certainly was no greater or more deeply dyed reactionary than the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.


George James McIlraith: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: He was absolutely against any changes in the rules of the House of Commons. If I remember correctly, from the time I came to the house in 1935, until his retirement from public life, not one substantial change was made in the rules. And now we see his disciple, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, following the same reactionary line of thinking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. gentleman does not object to conservatism.


Howard Charles Green: This amendment is introduced in an attempt to increase the efficiency of the House of Commons, not only by setting up an estimates committee but also by setting up a committee on veterans affairs, which is equally important and about which so far so little has been said. This latter committee has been advocated by the great veterans organizations of this country for many years, advocated by all of the parties in opposition and yet for some reason or other the Liberal government would never make this move. They seemed to be afraid that if there were a standing committee on veterans affairs meeting every year a request might be made for improvements in veterans legislation with which they were not prepared to deal. At all times they resisted the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs. In fact, on different occasions when a special committee was set up during one session, the former government confined the powers of that special committee on veterans affairs to the legislation the government was
SS6	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Additional Standing Committees prepared to submit to the committee, so that there could be no general discussion whatever of the problems facing those Canadians who had been willing to sacrifice their lives for their fellow Canadians or the problems of the dependants of those who did make the great sacrifice. Now we are taking this step of setting up a standing committee on veterans affairs so that each year all the legislation for the benefit of veterans can be reviewed and kept up to date. My understanding is that the estimates of this department are to be referred to the standing committee, just as has been done with great success, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, in the case of the external affairs estimates.
As for the estimates committee, our motives for setting it up are perfectly straightforward and entirely sincere. We believe that it can be of great benefit to the House of Commons; that it will mean greater efficiency in the business of this chamber. By having the committee consider the estimates of certain departments we are not taking power away from the committee of supply, which is a committee of the whole house, not taking away from the house, the right to go into each and every one of those estimates, just as has been done with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
Hon. members who have been here for any length of time must agree that there is no opportunity in this house when estimates are under consideration to go carefully into the details of each vote. Sometimes half a dozen votes will go through without one word being said about them; particularly when the weather is hot and we are near the end of a session when we are sitting in the mornings and on Wednesday and Friday evenings and on Saturdays there is a great tendency to let votes slip through.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That happens in committees, too.


Howard Charles Green: It was in a Liberal committee that that happened. We are going to have a new type of activity in the committee. The Leader of the Opposition, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, has been on the government side too long; he has got stale, just like the other members of the former Liberal government. I agree that if the vast majority of members on those committees were supporters of the former government a great many things would be passed by and a good many other things would be covered up. We are not like that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend misunderstood. I said things were allowed to slip through in committee by the opposition members on those committees at that time for the reasons he indicated.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the opposition members on those committees under the former government certainly did not have very much help from any Liberal members in dealing with the business before those committees. It is a new era, Mr. Speaker. These hon. members do not seem to realize that we are living in new days in Canada. There is hope in this land once more; there is a new and far broader and finer vision than there was when he was in power.
I was somewhat surprised by the attitude of the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), this morning who, in referring to the new members who happen to be supporters of the government, indicated that he was very much afraid that the only reason those committees are being set up is to keep those new members out of mischief.


George James McIlraith: Hear, hear!


Howard Charles Green: And the hon. member for Ottawa West says, "hear, hear!" He is still back in the bygone age as well. He is thinking of the time when they had about 150 or 160 trained seals over here-


Mr. Benidickson:: Look at them flap now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Seals in training.


Howard Charles Green: -on the Liberal side of the house, as it was at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is the purpose of the committee to find mischief for the new members to do?


Howard Charles Green: I thought the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a little more enlightened in his attitude toward this question than the hon. member for Assiniboia. Apparently, he is in the same deep rut. Naturally, one way of making this house more efficient is to give every private member, no matter to which party he may belong, the greatest possible scope in taking part in the government of the country. This is something that should have been done by the former government and why they were not bright enough to see the need for it I never could understand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you not glad they were not?


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad they were not. That is one reason why they got such a defeat on June 10 of last year and March 31 of this year. They were just too smug and
self-centred to see the need of some step of this kind.
We have in this house more than 150 members who have not been members for a year.

Of course, the vast majority of them are supporters of the present government.
These men come here representing hundreds of thousands of constituents across this country. They come here with their ideas of what they can do to help their fellow Canadians and to improve government in Canada. There has never been such an influx of new members at one time in the history of this nation, and I think the hon. member for Assiniboia was being very unfair and unwise-mind you, it is a very rare occasion when I would accuse him of either of these attitudes-in sneering at the new members and saying that these committees are only going to be set up in order to give them something to do, to keep them out of mischief.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He has a lot to learn himself yet.


Howard Charles Green: We believe that the new members, no matter on what side of the house they sit, can make a tremendous contribution to Canada during the next four years and we propose to give them every possible opportunity to do so.
Some hon. members have asked questions about the estimates committee. For example, they ask who will decide what estimates are to be studied by the committee. We believe that the committee itself should be free to decide what departmental estimates it wishes to consider. Mind you, we will be ready to move that the estimates of the Department of National Defence be referred to that committee for the reason that they are very large and involve more money than the estimates of any other department. They are set up in a general way and are not broken down into many small items as is the case with the Department of Transport. As the national defence estimates have never been before the estimates committee in the past, it does seem that it would be common sense to give the estimates committee an opportunity to go over them. That, of course, would probably mean going over the estimates of the Department of Defence Production which is the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence and actually spends quite a large proportion of the defence department vote. In addition, of course, the Department of Defence Production has under its jurisdiction five different crown companies and a study of the work of these crown companies would be intensely interesting.
There is no reason why the work of the estimates committee should be restricted to the estimates of these two departments. We would hope there would be time for them to consider the estimates of some of the other departments.
Additional Standing Committees


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he leaves that particular subject? Is it contemplated, for instance, that when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are up for consideration by the committee the chiefs of staff and serving officers responsible to the Canadian government will be called before that committee to be examined?


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to say that. That would have to be decided at the time. We believe that members of all parties will be trying to do a job on the estimates committee and we do not expect that they will be unreasonable even though they happen to be sitting on the other side of the house.
Some members also asked whether the committees, I presume not only these two but all committees functioning this year, would be sitting while the house is sitting. There again common sense will have to prevail. We have had occasion to complain in the past about being dragged out of the house to committees all over the parliament buildings when we should have been in the house. Sometimes we did not get very much consideration from the Liberal government. We are planning to be so much better than the Liberal government in this and many other respects.
Then there was some question about committee chairmen. The chairman of a committee of the house is quite an important person. He has very wide powers and we do not intend that those powers shall be confined. This is one reason we wonder why Liberal members are so coy about the suggestion that one of their members should be chairman of the public accounts committee.


George James McIlraith: It should not have been in the throne speech.


Howard Charles Green: They back away from it and seem to suspect that here is a Trojan horse. They are not quite sure what is inside it and seem to think that probably it may hold a lot of Tories ready to jump out and bite them. But I point out that the chairman of a committee has extensive powers.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) asked whether the house would be required to concur in all reports of committees.


George James McIlraith: The method of reporting of the estimates committee.


Howard Charles Green: There again it is impossible to foretell the best way to deal with this situation. There may be many committee reports which do not require concurrence. As he himself knows, when a report is

Additional Standing Committees brought in which is unanimous and is not controversial there is no need to have concurrence moved in the house. If I remember correctly, the practice of his own government was to move concurrence very rarely if there was going to be any debate about the matter. I do not remember any occasion when the Liberal government provided for a debate where there was a real dispute in a committee. There may have been one or two but certainly there were not many.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question on this point? The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated that one of the purposes of the committee, and I rather think he indicated it as the main purpose, was to attempt to effect economies. I was wondering how the minister envisaged the mechanics of that. Would the committee itself move that an item in the estimates be reduced or would it merely make a report saying that the government should give consideration to reducing the item?


Howard Charles Green: I do not think the hon. member is a very good one to bring up this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is purely a mechanical question.


Howard Charles Green: While many members would try to make suggestions to bring about economies, I remember how hard he pressed me during the whole of the last session to build him a post office at Wesleyville.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will not be the last pressure either.


Howard Charles Green: To get a post office built at Wesleyville seemed to be his main concern throughout the whole of the last session. We have actually got it under construction and I thought I would be through with him for the next few years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are sadly mistaken.


Howard Charles Green: I am confident that the suggestions made in this committee will lead to economies. In the departments with which I have had short experience-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister understood my question. It was not whether or not there would be economies; it was just the mechanical way of dealing with them. Did the minister envisage the committee moving to reduce an item or did he envisage them simply making a report that the government should give consideration to the possibility of reducing an item?


Howard Charles Green: I would think the committee could only make a report. The committee


of itself would not have the power to reduce items because that jurisdiction remains in the committee of supply.
Then some mention was made of the size of the estimates committee, and here there is certainly room for disagreement. All of these steps that are taken are not, of necessity, the last and final steps. We hope that we are much more ready to make changes than was the former government. If it should be found that the plan does not work out well, then changes could be made. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate came very near the point when he suggested that it might happen there would be some subcommittees set up under the estimates committee. Of course, if there were 60 members on the committee it would be possible to do that. These questions can be looked at in the light of the experience the committee itself has in the days ahead.
I should like to say a word or two about the intention with regard to sending estimates to other committees. The practice has been to send only the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to a standing committee. The Leader of the Opposition knows that practice has not been in existence for very long. We agree with him that the work of that committee has been very worth-while, and part of the credit for that success must go to the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he, his deputy minister and his officials have carried on before that committee. I was a member of the first committee on external affairs and served for several years. It was very informative and interesting work. We see no reason why the same kind of success cannot be achieved by other standing committees, for example the standing committee on veterans affairs. If the house is willing we are considering also, for example, that the fisheries estimates might be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries; that the estimates of the Department of Mines and Techincal Surveys and perhaps northern affairs and national resources, might be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. This standing committee has never met during the whole 22 years I have been a member of parliament and yet mining problems, forestry, conservation and northern development have become of tremendous importance to Canada. They could have been considered by this committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question at that point? In sending the estimates to the estimates committee it is quite obvious that the terms of reference would be very restrictive, namely an attempt to secure economies. If estimates were sent

to functional committees, would those committees really be transformed into estimates committees for that purpose or would they be considering the policies of the departments? There is a question of principle there that I think is very important to our whole parliamentary system.


Howard Charles Green: I come back to the standing committee on external affairs. I think it could not be described as a committee which was only meeting to effect economies. It is designed to have a look at the whole of the Department of External Affairs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a policy committee, in other words.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a policy committee in the sense that it lays down policy, but it does have a chance to go into the activities of the external affairs department. I am trying to be quite frank about our approach to the question, and we are merely trying to increase the efficiency of the House of Commons.
Then, the estimates of the Department of Labour might be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. We are not insistent on this course being followed, but we do hold it out to the members of the opposition parties for consideration, and do suggest to them that if steps of this kind are taken they will probably greatly increase the efficiency of the house and will give far more members of the house an opportunity to take a very effective part in the business of the house.
We must keep a certain number of departmental estimates available for consideration in the house. We cannot refer them all to committees or we might run out of business in the house. Here again, if one is practical and uses common sense, it is necessary that some of the estimates be reserved for consideration here at any time.
This is just a general summary of the situation as we see it. We appreciate the fact that members of the official opposition and of the C.C.F. are supporting this motion. We suggest that if everybody enters into the work which will be sent to these committees there will be a great service rendered to the country and the House of Commons will be a great deal more efficient than it has been.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question before he sits down? He has been very patient and very helpful. Could he inform the house whether it is the intention to operate the committee on public accounts in accordance with the British practice governing that committee?


Howard Charles Green: The public accounts committee is not the type of committee to which you
Additional Standing Committees could send estimates. It merely deals with the accounts for the previous years. I am not in a position to say just what course will be followed in the public accounts committee and that, too, will have to be worked out on a reasonable basis. I realize that the public accounts committee in the past has sometimes been a bit of a political bear-garden-again, under a Liberal regime.
I recall being a member of the public accounts committee-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not look too happy at that observation.


Howard Charles Green: I am not talking about the war expenditures committee, I am talking about the public accounts committee. There is a very big difference. I recall being a member of the public accounts committee, just before the second war, when we investigated the Bren gun deal, when there were no holds barred. We kept on sitting until parliament was dissolved over in the Senate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is not offering that to the new members as an example of how to behave in parliament?


Howard Charles Green: I am offering that as an example of how a Liberal government behaves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am always reluctant to take up the time of the house, but I rise in this occasion to further express our support of this motion and to make one or two very brief observations. First, I should like to correct an apparent misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) of some remarks made by our leader this morning. If I heard the minister correctly, and he always tried to be quite fair, he accused the leader of this group of sneering somewhat about the number of members the government proposed to put on this committee.


Howard Charles Green: I accused the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) of sneering at the new members, and saying probably one of the main reasons these committees were to be set up this year was to keep the new members out of mischief.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to explain the point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He was simply saying it was reported in the press to that effect. There were others who implied that the government were not as lily-white as it was presumed to be on the surface. I might say that it is not our intention in this group to sneer. We always aim to steer.
As one who has been a member of a good many committees during my tenure in this
700	HOUSE OF
Additional Standing Committees house over the last 13 years I am personally pleased to see this resolution introduced. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when members on the government side of the house were in opposition, year after year we with them repeatedly asked for standing committees on estimates and veterans affairs. Personally, I am glad that the government is taking this action and has responded to those pleas that have been made throughout the years. This fact gives me considerable pleasure and satisfaction.
In addition to that, I am quite sure that there will be other people outside this house who will be pleased to know of the appointment of these committees not only on the part of those who are interested in administration and expenditures in general but on the part of those interested in veterans affairs. I am quite sure the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans, veterans and their dependants and all persons interested in the welfare of veterans will be pleased to know there is to be a standing committee on veterans affairs to give, I hope, an annual review to the problems that arise in connection with legislation. While the special committees on these subjects have done excellent work in years past, it is obvious that in a changing and increasingly complex society it is necessary to give much closer and, shall I say, continuing attention to much of this legislation than was the habit in years past. I think the government has responded correctly to the changing situations and circumstances.
The minister made a reference to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters which has not sat, according to his knowledge, for the last 21 years or 22 years. I know it has not sat during my 13 years here. From that reference one could possibly infer that, although we had standing committees, they did not necessarily function every session; that they may be appointed but may not be called together to do any work. As far as estimates are concerned, I am quite sure that there are enough members on this side and on all sides who are sufficiently interested in administration and expenditures to make certain that any government calls that committee to meet annually. So far as veterans affairs are concerned, I am quite certain that the veterans organizations will make certain that they have the opportunity to present their views and to bring evidence to the attention of the standing committee annually.
Before concluding my brief remarks I want to refer to the attitude of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)-I must be careful with that name-on two points. He first of all criticized the number on the committee and, if 

I heard him correctly, suggested that a smaller number of members of parliament on a committee would be more responsible than a larger number of members of parliament on a committee. I thought that was rather a reflection upon the sense of responsibility of members of parliament and, I should think, rather a reflection on the developing processes of democracy. I think we should always be trying to inform more and more people all the time. In addition to that, I am all for a good sized committee for practical and other reasons.
First of all, we all know that it is not possible for all members of the committee to attend every meeting of it. I am all in favour of as large a number of members of this house as possible and practical having the opportunity to hear the officials of various departments, learn of the administration of the departments, make inquiries and so on, so that they are better informed as a result of being members of that committee. For that reason I am personally glad that the one committee has 60 members on it and that the other has 40 members.
The other remark made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was to the effect that he fears abuse of the committee, something after the manner of what he considers is the abuse of committees in the United States, if I heard him correctly, in that there would be too many organizations coming before them or too much evidence presented.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the hon. member did not hear me correctly. What I said was that it seemed to me that the estimates committee would have enough to do to examine the officials, that that should be its prime object, and that I could not see much purpose to be served by having outside witnesses in the estimates committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I ask the hon. member to excuse me, then. The hon. member was referring to the estimates committee only?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; the estimates committee only.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understood him at the time to be speaking of both committees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to say that in my opinion it would be most unwise to deny the peoples' organizations representing any strata in society the opportunity to come before an estimates committee if occasion arises. I would not favour an overdevelopment or abuse of that sort of thing but I think it is something that should be permitted and allowed if it serves the public good and is to the public advantage.

With these tew remarks I propose to sit down. But before doing so I again want to say that we in this group are highly pleased at the introduction of this amendment and the opportunity which it presents for the improvement of increasing numbers of members of this house in their knowledge of parliamentary affairs and government administration.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will [DOT]close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: -I am not going to retrace the steps that have already been taken. In general I think that this has been a very good debate and one in which members participating have shown a realization of the purpose the government has in mind in placing this resolution before the house, namely the improvement of the processes of parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred to the system in the United States and I could not be more in agreement with him than I am. I would not want to see an extension of our committee system to the end that the one in effect in the congress of the United States would be appended to our system. It is quite impossible to give to committees here the same responsibilities as those that are accorded to committees in congress for, as was pointed out so clearly by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), under our system of government the executive has responsibilities that cannot be delegated, abdicated or indeed abrogated in any way. The hope was expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the committee when set up should not be subject to television. I know this house would not be the same without him here. I say that with great respect. I am sure that he is no more desirous than are any of the rest of us to have a projection of any instrument or institution of government through the medium of television or radio.
In speaking of my hon. friend, may I say that I always listen to him with great interest. He has a way of describing the operations of democracy that gives full regard to his academic days and reveals his knowledge of history. In addition he has something that most of us do not have. He has the knowledge and the viewpoint of the civil servant. I am sure during the days when he served while under the distinguished tutelage of one of the masters of constitutional development in our [DOT]country, the late Mr. King, the hon. member
Additional Standing Committees for Bonavista-Twillingate did have more than a platonic interest in the political implications of these matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did my duty.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I do not doubt that you did. Having said that, I wish to make one or two references to what the Leader of the Opposition said today, and with that I will conclude. Apparently his viewpoint-the hon. gentleman also having a background of experience in the civil service-caused him to state that this committee was too large with 60 as its personnel. He suggested that it would not operate as effectively as it would if it had a smaller personnel. As has just been pointed out by the hon. gentleman who preceded me, the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was to the effect that the larger the committee, the lesser the sense of responsibility. I was quite interested in that remark. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the public accounts committee in the United Kingdom was composed of 15 members and apparently in smallness there is strength.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We seek what consolation we can find.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought I would scan the composition of various committees of this house as constituted under the government that was in power for 22 years to ascertain whether the ideas we have heard advanced today were the same as the views held by members of that government in days gone by. I find that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for years has been composed of 60 members. The committee on agriculture and colonization has had 60 members. The committee on miscellaneous private bills, the banking and commerce committee and the public accounts committee have had 50 members each. The other committees, one or two of which have not met for years, have lesser numbers of personnel.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing particularly binding about the size of this committee but I felt it should be large enough to permit it to appoint subcommittees in respect of particular subjects if it so desired in its attempt to discharge the responsibility referred to by the Leader of the Opposition of giving acute examination to those matters referred to it.
While my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was speaking I thought I would examine the records of the past to find out whether or not the proposal we have now placed before the house ever received support from hon. gentlemen of the same political persuasion of those sitting opposite. On page

Additional Standing Committees 956 of Hansard of February 8, 1955, in some remarks I made at that time on the subject of the special committee on estimates, I find reference to the fact that in 1921 the late Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux brought before the house a resolution 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.
Among those who participated in the debate was the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King.
My hon. friend asked, is there something revolutionary about this? There is nothing revolutionary about it because it has been suggested on a number of occasions in recent years by those of us who today sit on this side of the house. It is interesting to observe the reactions of my hon. friends to the recommendations we are now bringing into effect, for after all the things we advocated in opposition in order to improve, raise and augment the sense of responsibility and the opportunity of service of parliament are today being implemented at the first opportunity. On February 28, 1956 the motion made by the then prime minister was in these words, as reported at page 1639 of Hansard of that date:
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.
On that same date it was moved by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the then private member for Kamloops, as reported at page 1641 of Hansard:
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".
These are almost the very same words to which Mr. King had given support earlier. It is interesting to look at the vote on this amendment to the motion which occurred on February 28. I find that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) were among those who voted against giving the committee the right to bring before it persons, papers and records.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell the house what committee was under discussion at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: The estimates committee, the one we are dealing with now, and that is what surprised me. I am not in a provocative mood today at all, nor am I in that state


of mind, after the high level on which this debate has continued, but I am glad to see that the shades of opposition have had an effect on my hon. friends and that the things they were opposed to then they are prepared to support today.
One thing which was made extremely clear by the Leader of the Opposition was that to the maximum extent there should be no interference with the business of the house by the sittings of the committee and I could not be more in agreement with that, because we do not want the sittings of the committee to supplant in any way the operations of the House of Commons whether in formal debate or otherwise.
Someone mentioned that we should not endeavour to rush parliament. In other words, every opportunity should be given for the fullest consideration of the matters that come before the house, and that is true. Our system of parliament is based on the maintenance and assurance of the two party system. I am not speaking of the changes that have taken place in any critical sense at all, but there is no doubt but that one of the reasons parliament has been extended on and on in its sittings has been due to a multiplicity of parties with each party endeavouring to have its say. The repetition has added nothing to clarification of the issues and the debate of them. I would be the last to want to press hon. gentlemen opposite in any way to withdraw any of their rights of debate, and I give them that assurance. That is one of the major objectives I have in mind.
I realize, as I mentioned on an earlier occasion, that someone will say that with the very large majority of the government the rights of minorities might be in jeopardy. I want not only to assure but to reassure both this house and the country as a whole that such a viewpoint does not, and will not, merit the support of members of this government. We wish to make this House of Commons as efficient and as effective as it is possible to do. Normally the estimates take about 20 days in a five month session. It is interesting to note in this connection that in the United Kingdom the period for the discussion of estimates is restricted to 20 days. Throughout the years we have found it to be the case that certain estimates appear periodically and continue more or less throughout the entire period of the session. It is not the purpose in setting up this committee to deny to any hon. member, including the members of the committee, their right to debate fully any item that has been dealt with by the committee when the estimates are returned to this chamber. But I have found, as has the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate

with that dual experience he has had as a civil servant and a minister of the crown, and also I may say, as a most observant political philosopher, that the consideration of items in the committee and the information elicited there does achieve a reduction in the time spent on debate in this chamber. After all, much of the information which has been obtained can then be placed before the committee of the whole in summary form.
I will simply conclude by thanking the hon. gentlemen who have participated in this debate for their contributions. As far as the composition of committees is concerned, provision has been made both by tradition and otherwise as to the proportions of the membership of standing committees and the like. It would, naturally, be difficult for any group with a small membership to have hon. members actively associated in the work of all the committees. But I do say-and I speak particularly to the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition-that our purpose will be to assure to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the achievement of a businesslike examination of the estimates, that those things that can be done in order to ease the load that rests on the private members in a committee who are also desirous of participating in the debates in the house will receive most serious consideration. This is one of the steps we are taking. There are going to be further steps which will be revealed in due course under that general heading in the speech from the throne "Improving and enlarging the opportunities for service in the parliament of our country."
Mention was made of research assistance. I am not going to discuss that at this time. That is just one of the facets of this question. Over the years when we were in opposition we suggested that something of this sort might be brought about. We are now taking preliminary steps toward the improvement of the mechanics for the achievement of reasonable and reasoned consideration of the problems which face us.
We welcome the suggestions we received today, given, as they were, in a spirit of co-operation. We will in the days ahead endeavour to enlarge the field of experiment, if you will, based on the experience of the past, so that parliament may be able to discharge its responsibilities with that sense of urgency which the situation demands. Again, I thank hon. gentlemen opposite for the contributions they have made. It is, indeed, a happy thing to see uniformity of support for a proposition which we on this side of the house advocated in opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hospital Insurance Act HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to authorize contributions being made as of the first day of July, 1958, to a participating province which has a plan in operation; and to make certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the
basic purport of this resolution is to give effect to the announcement which I made to the house during the last parliament on January 10, 1958. It is, I believe, self-explanatory and I will therefore postpone any statement until after the bill has been introduced. I should point out that the latter part of the resolution suggesting certain changes in connection with the administration of the act has to do with very minor adjustments and amendments which are being put forward at the suggestion of the provincial governments. They clarify generally accepted views as to drugs and meals for in-patients and out-patients.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister not intend to make a further statement.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a statement prepared, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be more acceptable at second reading stage.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I would think, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so with a desire to assist the minister, that in a matter as important as this, and in view of the fact that this is the first opportunity the administration has had to report on a subject of such great interest, the minister might find it more convenient to make that statement now. When it comes to the bill we will go into its details, but we should now have a comprehensive statement from the minister. What the minister has said thus far does not give us very much indication of what progress has been made in this important matter, and what amendments, other than the provision for the date of federal payments, are being provided. I would suggest that my hon. friend might find it helpful all around if he took the course suggested.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may add a word at this time, I think it has been normal practice for a minister, in introducing a major resolution such as this one, to give the committee at least the advantage of a brief outline of the main points the government has in mind

Hospital Insurance Act and the main parts of the bill. It is true that an explanation was made in a previous session but that was in a previous parliament. In view of the fact that this is the time when we discuss the whole general question before a bill is introduced, I think the minister will agree, from his own experience in this house, that very often the administration makes a number of changes because of the discussion. I do not see how we can intelligently discuss what the government's intention may be if we do not have the benefit of a statement at this time.
I do not wish my remarks to be taken in any critical way. I believe the government is carrying on negotiations with a number of provinces. From what little knowledge I have, at least in some regard real progress is being made; but surely when such an important question as this is being discussed hon. members should have the initial advantage of a statement from the minister.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have no objection to giving a statement now. I had thought that possibly it would be more convenient to have the bill before us to discuss the clauses which I am proposing to be amended. However, I will say a few words at this time.
It is the government's intention to introduce an amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act at this stage, as reported in the resolution and as set forth in the announcement of January 10 last. At that time I explained that we propose to repeal section 6(2) of the act and to replace section 6(2) with a new section authorizing the dominion government to make contributions as of July 1, 1958 to any provinces which had signed an agreement and which had a provincial law in force.
When the bill is before the house hon. members of the committee will see that the government is seeking at this stage to carry out this commitment to the people of Canada. We are also proposing two relatively minor changes in section 2 of the act dealing with certain services which are provided thereunder. Section 6(2) in its present form reads:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-hall the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement, and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
This clause could prohibit federal financial participation in provincial hospital insurance schemes until at least one of Canada's two central provinces is prepared to put an insurance program into operation. Of these key provinces, only Ontario has agreed to participate, and as of January 1, 1959. The result of this provision as it now stands

could be to postpone the whole undertaking until the first of next year. We came to the conclusion some time ago that such a delay was unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, in view of the fact that a number of provinces indicated that their schemes could be ready well in advance of January, 1959. Because it was obvious that there would not be time to introduce a formal amendment to the act during the last session of parliament and because it was important for the provinces to know our intentions in preparing their budgets for the current fiscal year, the government last January did give notice of its plans in this respect.
In my announcement last January I expressed the hope that at least three or four provinces would try to have their programs ready by July 1. It now appears that I was somewhat pessimistic, since five provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland have indicated their desire to begin operations by July 1. These provinces have been working very closely with the officials of my own and other federal departments which are interested in the matter. Similar consultations have been held and are going forward with other provinces having target dates set for 1959. In addition to Ontario, which has already signed an agreement with the dominion government, two provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, hope to commence operations on January 1 next.
While agreeing to participate in the program, Prince Edward Island has not yet indicated the date on which it will be prepared to proceed.
The degree of co-operation which has developed between the two senior levels of government in connection with the program has been very encouraging. In the past months I have had a series of meetings and discussions with provincial ministers, all of whom have show a whole-hearted willingness to work together in bringing this project to reality at the earliest possible date.
The officials of my department have made trips to provincial capitals and we in turn have had provincial delegations visit us here in Ottawa. In addition, there have been two technical conferences attended by representatives of all the provinces. Throughout there has been an excellent spirit of team work exhibited on all sides which to my mind holds great promise for the program's future success.
The amendment which I have just mentioned in section 6(2) is the major proposal. However, in this resolution we are also proposing to change section 2(f) (iv) which simply clarifies the already generally accepted view to the effect that drugs, biologicals and

related preparations, as specified in the agreement, may be considered as insured services only when actually administered in hospital. In other words, these items will not be covered under the program on a take-home basis.
As for the amendment to section 2(i), this deletes the present exclusion of drugs, accommodation and meals which provincial schemes may provide to outpatients. In detailed discussions with regard to this portion of the act, it is generally agreed that drugs form an essential part of out-patient treatment and should therefore be included among the insure items which provinces may select in this connection. Again, however, they would be for use in hospital only and will not be available on a take-home basis.
With respect to the provision of meals and accommodation to out-patients, it is considered that this would tend to deter admission to hospitals under certain circumstances and thus to reduce the demand for inpatient services.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that covers the intent behind the resolution and I would be glad to hear from the other members of the committee and answer any questions, if I am able to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for giving us at least this preview of the amendments. I must say I am a little disappointed that the minister was not in a position, or did not at this time see fit to give us a more comprehensive review of the state of the negotiations that were authorized under the measure which was passed by parliament in the month of March, 1957 and before the election which was held on June 10 of that year.
Hon. members know the amendment my hon. friend is proposing is based upon the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the resolution for which was presented to parliament by the previous administration on March 25, 1957; a measure which won wide approval in the house notwithstanding certain criticisms of it from some quarters; a measure that represents a very considerable assumption of financial responsibility by the government of Canada on behalf of the taxpayers of the country; a measure which now makes possible on a nationwide basis, if sufficient provinces enter into the arrangement, a scheme of hospital insurance and diagnostic services.
I want to thank the hon. member for Durham, who in his observations in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so generously referred to the leadership in this matter by the government 57071-3-45
Hospital Insurance Act headed by Mr. St. Laurent and for his generous references to my participation in the promotion of hospital insurance. I thank him very much and I am sorry he is not here to hear me in this expression of thanks to him. May I in turn say to the hon. member for Durham that when I was minister of national health and welfare I greatly appreciated the collaboration received from him as a member of the staff of McGill University medical school, notably in connection with the establishment of the cancer institute.
I think it is important that we should bear in mind the reason why this particular amendment is now found necessary. Under the act as it now stands section 6, subsection 2, provides:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-hall the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement, and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
It will be remembered that when that section was introduced some hon. gentlemen criticized it on the grounds that the federal government should pay out moneys at once to those provinces which had schemes of hospital insurance in operation. I indicated at that time that the reason for this particular clause was that we wanted to develop a nationwide scheme of hospital insurance in Canada and that if we wanted to give expression in the form of financial assistance to those provinces that had schemes in operation we should have done so a long time ago. I pointed out that what we were after then was to get other provinces where there were no hospital insurance programs to the point where they would agree to share with the federal government in a hospital and diagnostic services' scheme. I am sure that events have more than justified the course which the government of that day pursued.
If we had not insisted on having at least six provinces we would not now be in the position which the minister is now in being able to report on the extent to which progress even on an apparently limited basis has been made. But the minister will remember that last fall I asked him and the government of the day to give us an explanation as to why no agreements had been signed between any of the provinces and the federal government. The situation was that the present act came into being just prior to the election in 1957 and understandably there was no opportunity during that event for negotiations between the then federal government and the provinces, although during the course of the election campaign the province of Prince Edward Island did indicate its willingness to come into the scheme, making that province the sixth

Hospital Insurance Act to come within the ambit of subsection 2 of section 6 of the present act.
But from the time the present administration took office until this very day we have not had any substantial report in the house indicating the extent to which the government has succeeded in its negotiations with the provinces. As of last October there were three provinces with schemes in being, the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I inquired last fall and I inquire now why no agreements have been signed with these provinces or am I to assume that agreements have been signed with them? I know that an agreement was signed with the province of Ontario during the middle of the last general election campaign. I do not blame my hon. friend for taking advantage of that particular moment to conclude such an agreement. I was glad to see an agreement had been signed with Ontario. I had hoped that it would have been possible to sign an agreement with Ontario, the senior and largest province, long before March of this year. I am sure, as I indicated last fall, that an agreement could have been signed with the province of Ontario not later than the end of September of 1957.
But happy as one may be with the signature of the province of Ontario, what has happened to the agreements with the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why have no agreements been signed with these provinces? Before we went out of office a master agreement was provided to each province that had indicated its willingness and interest and I had indicated to Premier Frost, who criticized this very provision, subsection 2 of section 6, that if by the end of September, 1957 we did not have six provinces in order to comply with this subsection we would, in view of the fact that Ontario was to begin its scheme on January 1, 1959, certainly take steps to modify the existing provision. That was an obvious assurance that had to be given. Otherwise we would have placed the province of Ontario in the very difficult position of starting its hospital insurance scheme on January 1, 1959 and not being able to count on the necessary contribution of the federal government amounting, speaking now from memory, to $60 million or 70 million a year. So I say I cannot understand why no agreements have been concluded with the other provinces and particularly the three provinces that now have schemes in existence.
The minister has indicated today that there is a fourth participating western province, the province of Manitoba. That is welcome news. We were all aware, of course, that for some time Manitoba has been seeking to get concessions from the federal government

which would make it possible for that province to enter into the arrangement. I hope the minister will tell us at some time what particular arrangements have been made with Manitoba.
I hope he will be able to tell us, for instance, whether or not it is true that Alberta is still not satisfied with the financial arrangements. Is it true that Alberta attended a conference here some few weeks ago and the delegates returned to that province without getting the kind of answers or the kind of satisfaction to which they felt they were entitled? I am not saying whether or not Alberta was right. I do not know what the argument was about, but I read a report in the newspapers that Alberta did leave here without any final arrangements being made with the federal government.
The minister has indicated to us that there are only two amendments before the house, one to provide for payments to any province, under certain conditions which will be outlined in the bill, by July 1 of this year. The other amendment is to provide for certain administrative changes which, as I understand, really make clear what was previously intended. These are the only two amendments that the minister proposes to bring before the house at this time. Certainly, so far as the amendment dealing with payments is concerned, there will be no opposition on our part. I suspect there will be no difficulty with regard to the other amendment, but I would prefer to see the actual wording, as would other hon. members, before giving any commitment in that particular.
It is important, having in mind the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite when this measure was introduced, to remind them that the amendments they are making now do not represent to any degree the kind of amendments that they proposed when they were sitting on this side of the house or to amendments that were discussed in the federal election of 1957 and in the election held within the course of the last few months. The argument made against this measure by the present government when in opposition-I do not say by the present minister because he did not take part in those discussions so far as I can recollect-was that the bill was deficient in a number of particulars. First, the federal government was not assuming any responsibility for costs administration, nor was it assuming any responsibility for depreciation; it had excluded tuberculosis and mental illness as insurable items. Those four points represented the main criticisms of the opposition of that day, towards the hospital insurance bill which I had the responsibility of introducing.
We pointed out with regard to depreciation and cost of administration that those were

matters which we felt it was not fair to impose on the federal government in view of the very generous financial contribution it was then proposing to make to the provinces. It was pointed out also that the provinces then had not asked the federal government to bear these particular charges. Nevertheless, the present Minister of Justice and the former member for Lanark, at that time opposition critic in health and welfare matters, and others, criticized the government for not including depreciation and for not bearing a share of the cost of administration. These two items were discussed in the election of 1957. We were charged, in my own constituency with being callous to certain kinds of hospitals because we would not include federal responsibility for depreciation.
Then, with regard to tuberculosis and mental illness, an amendment was moved by the present Minister of Finance providing that tuberculosis and mental illness should be made insurable items under the bill. In answer to that argument of the present Minister of Finance, which was supported by the present Prime Minister, by the former member for Lanark and many other hon. members, we said that the bill was designed to assist individuals in their hospital costs and was not a measure designed to subsidize the provinces in any way. Since tuberculosis and mental illness were substantially taken care of in all provinces in provincial institutions at provincial cost it was illogical and unfair to argue that the federal government, under the hospital insurance scheme, should include those particular items. I pointed out, too, that in those provinces where they had hospital insurance, such as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, tuberculosis and mental illness were treated as separate items under separate accounts, altogether apart from hospital insurance.
The government pointed out also that in so far as any individual having to personally pay the cost of treatment for tuberculosis or mental illness in a non-provincial institution was concerned, that particular phase of the cost would be covered by the bill. I urged hon. members not to argue that discrimination was being made in the case of one illness as opposed to another. Nowithstanding this the present Minister of Finance, of all persons, moved by way of amendment, and his remarks will be found at page 3380 of Hansard for April 10, 1957, that the bill should include tuberculosis and mental illness. He made a very strong speech urging that the bill was deficient because tuberculosis and mental illness were not included. Then, the present Prime Minister, speaking at page 3386 of Hansard for the same date, said that the bill was deficient and that there 57071-3-45i
Hospital Insurance Act was discrimination being made against tuberculosis and mental illness. He talked that way during the two elections, notwithstanding the fact that his argument was not valid. The argument was not valid because tuberculosis and mental illness are now taken care of in provincial institutions and at provincial cost for the most part.
I indicated we were prepared to include tuberculosis and mental illness in so far as the individual had to meet the cost of these illnesses in psychiatric wings of general hospitals or in non-provincial tuberculosis centres or hospitals. Notwithstanding these facts, another amendment in different form was moved and supported by those who were in opposition at that time. This was another parliamentary device adopted to achieve the same end.
Now, having taken that position, and having urged it on the administration of the day, the minister will not misunderstand me if I do express some surprise at this time that the present government now offers only the two amendments. Having taken this strong position with regard to depreciation, the sharing of the cost of administration, the inclusion of tuberculosis and mental illness, hon. gentleman I am sure will not misunderstand my surprise because they have not incorporated these matters in the bill they now put forward.
I do not want anyone to argue from what I am saying now that what we did was not valid. I do not recede one iota from the position we took. I think the position we took was correct. I think the position my hon. friend is taking now is correct. This is a measure designed to assist individuals in their hospital care and not to subsidize the provinces. What I am saying is that my hon. friends, having taken the strong position that they did, a position which the Canadian people had a right to assume during the elections would result in changes, should now do more than bring forward two amendments to this hospital insurance act.
I say to the minister that there is one other point. I am sure that the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have a real grievance against the administration. Why is my hon. friend now proposing that we should pay the share of these existing schemes on July 1? Why wait for July 1? Why should this government not have embarked at once upon a program of paying to those provinces the moneys which it is prepared to pay on July 1? I suggest that the main reason for this move-


Jay Waldo Monteith: No agreements
signed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No agreements?

Hospital Insurance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: No agreements
signed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the kind of information we want. That is an important and valid explanation. Perhaps when the minister replies he will explain to us why there are no agreements signed. I would be greatly interested to know why, with respect to the province of Saskatchewan for instance, a province that has had a scheme for such a long time, it has not been possible to sign an agreement. I am extremely eager to know the answer to that question. The real reason,
I suspect might be found in the fact that Ontario is put in a difficult position because of the fact that at the present time there are not six provinces with schemes in operation and having agreements with the federal government in respect of the federal share; and that the province of Ontario, about to embark on this scheme involving some 6 million people, potentially at any rate, does not want to be in the position of saying that it is going to start the scheme on January 1 and then when it begins that scheme, it would not be able to count on contributions from the federal treasury. If that were to happen it would be put in a position where either it would have to bear the full responsibility or it would have to leave many thousands of individuals without any contractual insurance arrangements. The minister, of course, would be the first to deny the desirability of that situation. I would have thought that was likely the reason why it is now proposed that these payments be made as of July 1.
I want to say this with some reservations until I hear the full explanation from the minister, but my impression all along has been that there has been a great deal of delay since this government came into being in implementing this hospital insurance act. I feel that it will be difficult to satisfy the house as to why agreements could not have been concluded long before now with other provinces. I find it difficult to understand why an agreement was concluded with the province of Ontario only about two months ago. In any event, these are some of the questions with which I hope the minister will deal before we come to the bill itself.
My hon. friend says that five provinces are ready now. Does that mean that five provinces are ready to sign an agreement now? If they are ready to sign an agreement, is the agreement of the same character or are the terms of that agreement the same as those in the one that was signed with the province of Ontario, or are there modifications? Are some of the schemes of some of the provinces less comprehensive than others? If they are less comprehensive, are the

measure of contribution and the formula that was devised to be maintained? Those are questions which I trust my hon. friend will reply to at the earliest possible moment.
I have one passing observation to make. I hope the minister will tell us one thing. He says that there are five provinces willing to enter the scheme by July 1 and he talks about the agreement with Ontario. Will the minister tell us the extent to which the provinces have accepted that portion of the federal offer dealing with diagnostic services? When I had to do with this measure last the province of Ontario was not prepared to accept the full proposal put forward by the federal government in the matter of diagnostic services. It was prepared to accept diagnostic services within a hospital but it was not prepared to embark on a scheme of diagnostic services on a wider basis outside a hospital, somewhat analogous to the diagnostic services scheme in the province of Manitoba.
While the minister cannot force any province into an agreement-and I am not suggesting that course-it will be very interesting to know the extent to which the provinces have accepted the full diagnostic services proposal of the federal government. I should have thought that by now it would have been evident to most of the provinces that this was one of the most attractive features of the proposal and certainly one of the most important ones. If here is anything that is needed today in our country,-I am sure the medical doctors in this house would fully concur in what I am saying-it is that the general practitioner should have at his disposal the greatest possible facilities for diagnosis and that the people at large should not have imposed upon them unnecessary costs of diagnosis that can only be taken care of by the acceptance of the diagnostic services program that was envisaged in the diagnostic services proposal which is now part of the measure before the house.
This is an important measure. It is one to which the previous government attached a great deal of importance. It is a measure which I think all of us on all sides of the house are anxious to see proceeded with as quickly as possible. We shall await with great interest further details which the minister may give. I hope he will be able to tell us that not only are we going to have an agreement that will see in being a scheme with the province of Ontario by July 1 and schemes in preparatory stages with some other provinces, but that by that time, as a result of the introduction of this measure, in co-operation with the provinces we shall see the beginning of a truly nation-wide scheme

of hospital insurance in this country, a measure which I believe will prove to be of the greatest value to the people of Canada.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, last Saturday, May 24, I had the privilege of celebrating my 41st birthday. Possibly hon. members might wonder what that particular event had to do with the measure before us today. I should like to mention the fact that I was at the tender age of two when the matter of health insurance was first adopted by the Liberals in their election manifesto in 1919. Through the bill that we are amending today or that it is proposed to amend today, the first hesitant step in this health insurance program would have been taken 40 years after it was first adopted. This measure which is introduced today, in respect of this first faltering step, is going to succeed in cutting six months off the 40 years that it has taken to try to reach completion. In following the history of this health insurance program, or lack of it, down through the years I cannot help wondering whether the fact that we have had two elections in the last year has not had a good deal to do, both with the measure in its original form and with the amendment that is proposed today. Possibly, with regard to the rough and rocky road to health insurance in this country, it might be better if we had elections every six months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Heaven forbid!


Paul Joseph James Martin: As far as we in this party are concerned we were prepared to introduce this by way of resolution two years before the election.


Murdo William Martin: I will deal with the matter raised by my friend the hon. member for Essex East a little later on. The measure before us is not the great and forward step it has been represented to be. In my view it is simply another of the ragtag and bobtail measures which seem to be the pattern of this government. Apparently the present government is no different from the one it succeeded. It is not bringing in any great new measures but is seeking to patch up the Liberal program with a little amendment here and another little amendment there. The only difference between the present government and the former administration is in the ability of the Prime Minister to convince the people that it is different through the highly developed sense of dramatics with which he has been richly endowed. He appears to be a much better salesman than was the former government in presenting to the people of Canada the program the Liberals started, with only minor alterations.
Hospital Insurance Act
The musty pages of Hansard are filled with words describing the history of health insurance in Canada. I do not intend to deal in any detail with the many chapters and volumes of statements that have been recorded in Hansard in the course of the last 40 years with regard to the subject of national health insurance. I would, however, like to make a resume of a few of the highlights commencing, as I said, with 1919. Mind you, we have come close to achieving it on a number of occasions.
In 1941 the then minister of pensions and national health held a meeting of all the health authorities and interested persons. In 1942 an advisory committee was formed. In 1943 the government struck the House of Commons committee which reported and presented a draft bill in detail. In 1944 a conference was held with representatives of all the provinces. The speech from the throne in the years 1944 and 1945 dealt with the question of health insurance. Four definite proposals were set out in 1945. Of course, many of us can recall the election campaign of that year, when many people in Canada got the impression all that was necessary to have a national health insurance program immediately was to reelect the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is the hon. member aware of the program that was placed before the people in that election in which the leader of the Liberal party indicated very clearly at that time that this could not be done without provincial co-operation?


Hazen Robert Argue: It was promised since 1919.


Murdo William Martin: Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist commenting that the history of a national health insurance program in Canada down through the years reminds me very much of the Saturday evening wrestling thrillers that appear on television. Hon. members will know the kind of program to which I am referring, in which you see the hero being gouged tortured and beaten.


Mr. Lennard:: You watch them, do you?


Murdo William Martin: The hero is mistreated in every way, shape and form and the viewer knows that all he has to do to end the torture is to reach the ropes, but the ropes are always just beyond the reach of his hands and the crowd becomes frenzied. I submit there is quite a parallel between these events and the history of health insurance in Canada.


Mr. Cardiff:: You would make a good wrestler yourself.

Hospital Insurance Act


Murdo William Martin: The measure before us does not make provision for the kind of health insurance program that was promised and outlined by the Liberals in 1919, but is merely a modified and limited form of hospital insurance with all manner of strings and ropes attached. It is not a health plan as is enjoyed by the citizens of Great Britain. It is not a health plan such as I understand has been enjoyed by the citizens of Germany since 1874 or thereabouts. It is not even a hospital insurance plan such as has been enjoyed by the people of the province of Saskatchewan since 1945 and which I have been told by members of the medical profession is the best hospital insurance plan on the North American continent.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, there is no provision at the present time for tuberculosis or mental illness contained in the measure before us. In fact, if one can believe the reports of the federal-provincial conference held last year we were given to understand that at that time the Prime Minister advised that the federal government would advance the money to take care of patients suffering from these two illnesses but it would be deducted from other grants made to the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The normal fiscal grants.


Murdo William Martin: It is also extremely interesting to observe the stand taken by various political parties on this question of a health insurance program down through the years. I think I can safely say that the party with which I am associated is the only one which has taken a consistent stand on this question through the years. If one has time to go back through Hansard one is amazed to see who was on which side at what particular time.
Although some may have held different views at various times, the fact remains that no party today opposes the idea of a national health insurance plan, but I must point out that there are people and organizations in Canada who are actively and vigorously fighting against such a measure. The amazing part of it is that the people who are opposed today and those who have fought it down through the years are without exception people who believe in insurance. They believe in insuring their cars, their homes and their lives. They believe in insuring everything but their health, which in my opinion is the most important of these, whether taken on an individual or a national basis.
Let us examine for a moment who is opposed to the national health insurance plan and suggests that it is an abominable thing. I submit that the majority of opposition to an

insurance plan today is centred around the insurance companies, which, even while they oppose a measure of this kind, attempt to sell a personal health insurance plan. This leads me to believe they are not too much interested in the health of individuals in this country but are keenly interested in the dividends earned by their companies.
It has been said, and possibly it is true, that certain doctors in this country are opposed to health insurance on a national basis. I submit that this may be due to their having been subjected to the vast volume of propaganda against national health insurance plans which has been circulated.
It had been called state medicine. We have been told that doctors are going to become civil servants and so on. Many of us know, by watching similar plans in operation in other countries, that such is not the case. These suggestions are nothing more than propaganda.
We have been told that these plans are too costly, and that they would be abused by certain individuals. But, I would ask, what has ever come about that has not been abused by certain individuals? Parliament itself was subjected to abuses at one time, but that does not mean we should abolish parliament. The fact is that regardless of how good a plan you have, certain people will abuse it. The fact remains that it should not be stopped on that ground when it is going to bring benefit to the vast majority of the people.
With regard to the assertions that the plan will be costly, I wonder if we have made a true assessment of the cost of sickness in the past. I wonder if we have included the cost represented by bills which many thousands of doctors have lying unpaid in their studies because the patients they treated were unable to discharge them. I wonder if we have taken into consideration the lost life savings of people who have been stricken by illness; the homes that have been lost, the businesses that have been ruined through no fault of the owners. Above all, have we taken into consideration the cost imposed by the blight of ill health on our nation. I wonder whether there is any method by which we could assess the cost involved in these directions.
I submit that the health of the citizens of this country is something that should not be measured on a profit basis. Regard should not be paid to whether it is profitable or not to embark on such a course, but rather, to whether it is in the interest of the citizens as a whole to deal with this problem. We are told by those opposed to this plan that it

is not really necessary because so many people have proven that they can insure themselves. The fact remains, however, that people who need help most are not insured at all. Many of the plans in effect at the present time are so designed that in effect they will insure you only if you do not need the insurance.
This government has at the present time almost unlimited power. With its huge majority it is able to do practically whatever it wishes. I suggest it should take a much broader view of the need for health insurance in this country and not take these niggling little steps in the right direction. I agree it may be more suitable for propaganda purposes to take one step at a time and, I will add, full propaganda value has been derived from the step we are taking today. It was announced before the election and during the election, and now we have the job of taking this step which so many people thought had already been taken.
If this government fails to implement health insurance on a national basis in this country the only conclusion I can draw is that they are not so much interested in the health of this country as they would be, possibly, in the business of some of their friends. Progress along this line can no more be held up than it can along the line of automation in this country. The time must come finally when health insurance will become a reality here. Meanwhile, there is no reason why we should let people make as much money as they can for as long as they can. If the measure before us today is all the government can offer I suggest that they should not look upon it with pride but hang their heads in shame when they face the people of this country.


Mr. Bourque:: Speaking in this house a week or so ago, I mentioned how much the mentality of hon. members on the government side had changed since the time they were sitting here in opposition.
When the Liberal government first introduced the hospital insurance act many hospitals argued that the federal government should bear the cost of a large portion of the depreciation of buildings and maintenance costs. At that time the Conservatives maintained that this was a very fair request made by the hospitals, and that the act should cover this depreciation. I am surprised to find that this new bill does not include any provision regarding the cost of depreciation. What has caused the Conservatives to change their minds? Have they changed their minds because they are now in power? Evidently they see this matter from a different point of view now that they have formed a government.
Criminal Code


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Harold Edward Winch: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in this question of capital punishment for a great many years. My attention was first drawn to this subject some 22 years ago at a time when I was a member of the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia.
It was authoritatively reported to me at that time that three men in our province who were guilty of homicide had all been dropped from the trap door at the same time, and as one of the men was lighter than the other two and was in between the other two he was held up by the others and his neck was not broken, with the result that he died a gruesome death by strangulation.
In endeavouring to investigate this matter through the medium of the legislature of British Columbia I was told by the then attorney general of the province that before speaking on the subject of capital punishment I should have a full knowledge from a lengthy study of the question and also that I personally should see a man hanged. Gruesome as that second proposal was, if that was a necessary part of my education on this subject I decided that I would see a man hanged; and so a few weeks later I saw a young man brought to a legal death through a trapdoor at Okalla prison farm in British Columbia because he had been the driver of the getaway car from a bank holdup in which the teller was shot. I mention that as my introduction to this subject.
In the course of those 22 years I have done my utmost to obtain a full knowledge of this question of capital punishment or the abolition of capital punishment. I think I am safe in saying that that education reached its culmination when I had the privilege of being a member of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the question of capital and corporal punishment. I believe I am safe in saying that there are only three of us still in this house who were among the 17 members of parliament appointed to that joint committee.
In the course of that 22 years and with the knowledge I acquired as a result of being a member of that joint committee I can only come to the conclusion that nowhere can

Criminal Code
I find a good and solid argument for the retention of capital punishment. The only arguments that I have heard put up in favour of capital punishment are, first, that it is a deterrent to further homicide and criminality.
I maintain that that cannot be proved.
There is another argument used by many, namely that capital punishment is a protection for the police force of a country. I maintain that that claim cannot be proved. I have been forced to come to the conclusion that capital punishment is retained for only one of two purposes, either retribution or revenge, and they are not good grounds for the maintenance of legal death because of homicide.
Every one of us has the most heartfelt sympathy for and understanding of the feelings of the relatives and the friends of those who are the victims of murder. Even with that feeling and that understanding, I believe we have to delve a great deal farther in order to decide whether or not we should retain it in this country.	.
I should like to present to the house what I feel are good, substantial and factual reasons why we should most seriously consider the abolition of capital punishment in this country. Proud as we all are of our country, we must admit that there are other countries that are humanitarian, that are Christian, that are civilized and that are modern in their approach to justice and social consciousness. If we examine some of the countries outside of Canada what do we find? May I give a few examples.
In Finland there has been no execution since 1826; capital punishment was abolished in 1949. In Belgium the last execution took place in 1863, except for one case during the 1914-18 war, and capital punishment was abrogated by disuse. In Holland there has been no execution since 1860; capital punishment was abolished in that country in 1870. There has been no execution in Norway since 1876; capital punishment was abolished in 1905. It was abolished in Portugal in 1867. There has been no execution in Rouma-nia since 1838, and it was abolished in that country in 1952. I am just giving illustrations from some of the countries of the world. At the same time I suppose I should comment on the country to the south of us.
In the United States of America capital punishment was abolished in Michigan in 1847; in Wisconsin in 1853; in Maine in 1887; in Minnesota in 1911; in Rhode Island in 1853; and in North Dakota in 1895. Now to be absolutely candid and honest, and I always want to be that, I think I should also mention that in addition to those states in the United States there were 10 other states that abolished capital punishment and brought

it back in later years; but there are still the original states that I mentioned that are abolitionist states in the United States. In addition, there are some 17 countries in central and South America that have abolished capital punishment, going back as far as 1863.
I think we lay a good foundation in considering this matter if we recognize what has happened in so many other countries, going back in many instances over a century. We also must recognize that there are many countries that still have capital punishment. The question obviously and naturally arises, what is the comparison in the homicidal rates between abolitionist countries and nonabolitionist countries? To the best of my knowledge there has been only one comparison table ever produced on this matter and that was the one put out by the United Nations in their demographic year book in 1952. They presented a rate table showing comparisons for the year 1948 as between the homicide rate per 100,000 of population in 11 countries that still have the death penalty and in 15 countries that have abolished the death penalty. Here are the comparative figures as supplied by the United Nations. Among the countries that had the death penalty there are such countries as El Salvador, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, and so on. The highest rate of homicide was in El Salvador where it was 44.3 per 100,000 population. The lowest rate was in England and Wales, being 0.5 per 100,000 population.
Turning to the countries that have abolished the death penalty we have such countries as Colombia, Finland, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and The Netherlands. There we find that Colombia has the highest rate, 15.9 per 100,000 population and the Netherlands has the lowest rate, 0.4 per 100,000 population. So it can be shown that there is no considerable differentiation in homicide rates as between abolitionist and non-abolitionist countries.
In referring to such a table I should like to make it clear how it is not to be considered and I think I can do that best by reading an excerpt from evidence given to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on this matter by Professor Thors-ten Sellin, one of the outstanding penologists of the world. When he appeared before the joint committee he referred to the table and had this to say as found at page 724 of the proceedings of the committee:
This table is not presented with any suggestion that it illustrates the virtue of using or not using the death penalty. It does not and cannot do so. What it illustrates is that countries with high

rates of homicides equally like or dislike this penalty, and so do countries with low homicide rates. Behind these two divergent policies there obviously lie other reasons than the extent of criminality of a homicidal nature, reasons of an intangible character, connected with the political, economic and social structure of a country, and buttressed by traditions protected by sentiments and beliefs which apparently are not influenced by the level of criminality.
Having introduced the subject in the way I have by reference to other countries and states of the United States and by giving comparative figures of homicide rates in abolitionist and non-abolitionist countries, I think, Mr. Speaker, that you would rightfully expect me to deal with the situation in our own country. Those members who have not read the evidence of the committee may be interested in knowing that the then minister of justice supplied the committee with information that between 1930 and 1949, 407 persons were sentenced to death in Canada and of those 407 there were 220 who were executed.
This makes it clear that even since 1930 there has been, through the medium of the Department of Justice and the clemency of the crown a progressive desire to get away, if possible, from the death sentence. I know that a lot of people have the idea that if a person once commits homicide the best thing to do is to get rid of him by breaking his neck and that such persons are not capable of rehabilitation. I think those who hold that view do not know the actual facts. In a great majority of cases murder is committed in the heat of emotion, of passion, of fear, of temper, and it is often possible to rehabilitate such a person into a useful social life.


Mr. McPhillips:: In most cases juries bring in manslaughter verdicts.


Harold Edward Winch: The figures I have given have to do with homicide cases where a sentence of death has been imposed. I am not discussing manslaughter. I am sorry I have not the figures for 1930 to 1949 but the Department of Justice was only able to provide them from 1920 to 1939. Between 1920 and 1939, 329 persons were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Of these 111 had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment and of the 111	71 were
subsequently released on ticket of leave.
It is understandable that the 17 members of the House of Commons and 10 members of the other place who formed the committee were interested in knowing what happened to those 71 and the Department of Justice through the medium of the R.C.M.P., I believe, was able to give us a factual report. The evidence was that of those on ticket of leave only one got into serious trouble again.
Criminal Code
As a matter of fact, he committed another murder. We only have one in the known history of such cases and this time he had his neck broken. I should like to read one paragraph in this regard found in the transcript of the proceedings of the joint committee. On page 699 of volume II of the proceedings there is the following:
Nearly all the ticket of leave holders are described in recent post-release reports from R.C.M.P. and social agencies as accepted, re-established and even respected citizens. The special achievements of particular individuals cannot be detailed without identification. A very small number appear to have made only a marginal adjustment.
I raise the issue in this way in an endeavour to cover in a factual manner the statistics and facts as they can be found in other countries and as we know them to the best of our knowledge in Canada. I am not in any way expressing any drooling sentimentality for criminals and especially for murderers. If a person is a danger to society then he should and must be incarcerated where he can no longer be a danger to society. If it is possible to rehabilitate him then he should be rehabilitated. But the key point which I think can be gathered from the facts I have given, facts that can be found in the records of countries throughout the world and the records of our own House of Commons, is that there is no differentiation in the rate of homicides because a country is abolitionist or non-abolitionist.
I should now like to deal for a moment with the argument that the death penalty is a protection for our police forces. We all want to do everything possible for the protection of our police. We want to make sure that we do not take any action that will endanger them. I think I can assure the house that this matter received a great deal of consideration not only by myself but by all members of the House of Commons and Senate on the committee. We were amazed to find that no study, of which there was any knowledge, had ever been made with respect to whether or not capital punishment was a protection for the police forces of the country. Even Professor Thorsten Sellin, whom I mentioned a moment ago, said that he had never heard of such a study. He had never even thought of it but as it was a most interesting factor he undertook, as head of the department of sociology and criminology of the University of Pennsylvania, to have a study made and it was made. It was made in the United States, and I quote from the report which was sent to us some 18 months later by the professor. I quote from page 719 of the committee proceedings:
In the author's seminar in criminology at the University of Pennsylvania during the academic year 1954-55, several studies have been carried on

Criminal Code
relating to various aspects of capital punishment. One of these studies was specifically designed to secure data on the comparative risk of a policeman's being injured or killed by a criminal or suspect using a lethal weapon.
During the middle of December, 1954, a letter was mailed to police departments in all cities with more than 10,000 population according to the census of 1950. This letter asked for data to be supplied on two schedules. One of these requested information, year by year beginning with 1919 and ending with 1954, on each case of a wounding or a killing of a member of the police department by a lethal weapon in the hands of a criminal or a suspect. A brief description of each incident was requested indicating, if possible, the nature of the offence involved.
As a result of this, the first study of its kind made by the University of Pennsylvania under the direction of Professor Sellin, the seminar came to a certain conclusion. Since my time is limited I cannot go into it in detail, but that conclusion is found on page 723 of our transcript of evidence.
It is obvious from an inspection of the data that it is impossible to conclude that the states which have abolished the death penalty have thereby made the policeman's lot more hazardous. It is also obvious that the same differences observable in the general homicide rates of the various states are reflected in the rate of police killings.
In drawing my remarks on this bill to a conclusion I hope that even in such a short time I have been able to bring to the attention of hon. members the experiences of the world, abolitionist and non-abolitionist countries and states; the record obtained by the United Nations and the world's leading penologists of comparative rates of homicide; the factfinding on the position of capital punishment or the abolition of capital punishment as regards the protection of our police forces, to an extent that there will be a recognition that it is time in Canada we moved ahead with modern thought, recognizing that the basis of justice and law in our country should not be that of retribution and revenge but should be that of the protection of society at all times and rehabilitation where such is possible. It should be mentioned that in the report made by the joint committee to this house there was not a recommendation that capital punishment be abolished in Canada at this time.
I know I am correct in saying that in the three years the committee met I did not miss a single meeting, so I think I know the feeling of the members of that committee. I believe I am not being unfair at all when I say that the general consensus of that committee was that they recognized that capital punishment in Canada would have to go; that it would go, but that it might be a few years before action is taken. They did not believe the majority of people in Canada were yet in favour of it. It is my own personal belief that when you have a recognition that a

change is going to be made, a recognition that it should be made, then the members of the House of Commons have a responsibility to give leadership and to take action when that is the correct thing to do.
I want to conclude by saying that I have reached these conclusions only after some 22 years of study of the matter and after an honest evaluation of all the factors and a real understanding of what it means to the family of the victim of a murderer. I cannot help but come to the decision that we should now demonstrate our progress in the field of penology and abolish capital punishment. I feel that if a vote of the people of Canada were taken many might be surprised by the number who would favour abolition. Of course, this is only my own surmise. I do know that editorially almost every newspaper in Canada has consistently called upon the government of Canada to abolish capital punishment. I hope that this matter will not be considered along party lines, but from an individual viewpoint. I hope it will be possible for members to support second reading of this bill, and that we can take what I maintain would be a forward step in our system of penology in this country.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I must express my surprise at the proposal of a measure such as this. Certainly, there can be no question here of an urgent program on which the approval of this house is required. I would have thought that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) would have applied himself to the proposing to the house of measures of a constructive nature which would have included a solution to the economic slump into which the former Liberal administration plunged this country. However, far from this, the hon. member occupies the precious time of the house with a discourse on a subject which is certainly not of an urgent character.


Mr. Regier:: How useful is that?


Maurice Allard: Let me finish, please. If I wanted to be humorous, I might mention that the interest of the hon. member in abolishing capital punishment is the aftermath of the "capital" electoral result of March 31 last. It is true-


Harold Edward Winch: I introduced this bill two years ago.


Maurice Allard: It is true that many faces have disappeared from the ranks of the opposition and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) has had, through his constructive policies, the heads of a good portion of the former opposition. However, the hon. member for Vancouver East here raises a problem of

criminal law which has been prominently featured in many countries during the last few years. In Canada this question has formed the subject matter of an extensive study by a committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) does not seem to meet at all the wishes of the Canadian people. As far as 1 am concerned, I must say that I have never been approached with the request that capital punishment be abolished. To my knowledge, no such request has ever been_ submitted; moreover, after consulting several of my colleagues, I must also say that the Canadian population does not seem particularly anxious to call for the suppression of capital punishment.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a premature request. The bill submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver East constitutes, in fact, a very delicate requirement, as the provisions of the Criminal Code are the result of the accumulated wisdom of our legislators not only over the years, but over the centuries.	[DOT]
The request is made today that a particular-let us say capital-clause of the criminal code be abolished. Well, we should venture on this ground with great caution and with extreme consideration so as to determine whether such demand fits in with our way of life and agrees with public opinion.
At present, our criminal code defines three types of capital offences: treason, piracy and murder proper. However, for all practical purposes, for many years, Mr. Speaker, capital punishment in this country has had to be applied only in cases of murder, thank God!
The criminal code also provides under section 206 the type of punishment to be inflicted in case of murder, and it is death. It also provides under section 642, the method of execution which, in our country, is hanging.
It must not be assumed that present legislators, any more than their predecessors, have lightly allowed such a drastic provision to be written into our criminal code. Far from it, and that is why they have included provisions whereby the carrying out of the death penalty is accompanied by solemn precautions, to avoid miscarriages of justice and to ensure proper regard for human feelings.
That is why, it is a principle of our criminal law that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the crown. We should pay tribute to our lawmakers for
57071-3-46J
Criminal Code
thus preserving the full possibilities of the human being by making it incumbent upon the state to prove guilt.
Things are quite different in France, for instance, where the person under arrest is considered guilty until proven innocent. There is all the difference between inquisitorial and accusatory procedure. Our legislators so fully realized the seriousness of capital punishment that they wanted the preparations leading to a trial and the proceedings after a trial to be surrounded with truly exemplary judicial caution.
Moreover, by virtue of section 658, the condemned person may always invoke the royal prerogative of pardon. In addition, section 596 of the Criminal Code provides that the Minister of Justice can order a new trial. Also, the governor in council may commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
From 1920 to 1949 out of 597 death sentences, there were only 313 executions, which shows that the lawmakers' legislative precautions have allowed for a review of the cases, a review of judicial decisions and of the verdicts of the jury. In this way a thorough analysis is made of the motives of the criminal in order to determine whether there are any grounds for commuting the death sentence to a lesser penalty.
The hon. member for Vancouver East spoke a moment ago of a final report brought down in June, 1956, which contains certain arguments for the maintenance of the death penalty. I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of dealing with this matter in detail and of extracting all that can be extracted from these arguments. However, I do wish to list them briefly so that the house may understand that a number of these conclusions result from sound logic, based on the experience of centuries and on conditions peculiar to the life of this country. This report, among others, decides in favour of the death penalty, as the welfare of the community must come before the welfare of the individual. It states that capital punishment is an efficient deterrent to murder, a just and adequate punishment; it is the wish of the Canadian people and is still less cruel than life imprisonment. It also makes the administration of jails easier and less dangerous. Moreover, the report answers the argument which the hon. member for Vancouver East raised a few moments ago, by saying that capital punishment is a greater protection for our police forces. At page 23 of that report, we find some suggestions.
Obviously, the commission always inspired with a deep sense of justice, decided in favour of the maintenance of capital punishment. It suggests some alleviations in the method of

Criminal Code
execution together with a periodical revision of that important problem by parliament.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, when one speaks of capital punishment it is most difficult to maintain a logical and reasonable opinion because this subjects covers a field where emotions and reason are in conflict. We are apt to ask ourselves if in demanding such a sentence, we are not becoming murderers. On the other hand, in trying to eliminate capital punishment, we discover that it is an excess of sensitivity which makes us wish to do so. We must never lose sight of the fact that the problem of death is a natural one; all of us must eventually face death and we must not show any excess of feeling in this regard. If we really want to mourn those who have disappeared from this life we should instead think of our fellow men who died during war or through accidents of some kind. Individuals who have committed, at times, the most insidious crimes, do not deserve on our part special pity or tenderness.
For many centuries, and in many countries, capital punishment has always been an extraordinary deterrent to murder, and has undoubtedly contributed to suppress the recurrence of crime. Is the criminal not handicapped and limited in the pursuit of his purpose by the menacing spectre of death by hanging? Human nature, deficient and imperfect, is such that in order to become frightened it must face a punishment proportionate to the crime committed.
To suppress capital punishment is almost to tell criminals that they need only fear minor reprimands; it would only serve to increase the number of professional criminals who would not only perfect their crimes but would eventually only see in the grim pursuit of their deeds an element of risk and eventual punishment which could be quite acceptable.
The average criminal, whether he be the perpetrator of a crime of passion or of a professional crime, is somehow rejected by society. A French writer of great renown has declared that he kills for want of imagination. If he were intelligent he would accept the reversals and deceptions of life more willingly and would acquire a moderate philosophy with regard to the emotional changes which the human being must necessarily encounter.
A criminal is an unbalanced and a sick person, led far beyond normalcy by passion and feeling. I am therefore convinced that any easing up in this regard would only contribute to the criminal surrendering himself completely to this unequilibrium and deficiency.
You may be sure that should it be known tomorrow that capital punishment has been

abolished there would be a considerable increase of criminals who would give free course to their feelings of hatred and jealousy. We are, after all, not like other animals. We are reasonable animals. Always a night lamp of conscience shines within us restraining our desires and instincts. In this case, once capital punishment has been abolished, this lamp will not shine again.
Usually those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment suggest that the state or government strengthen its protective system in order to protect the citizens and prevent crime. Does that not constitute, Mr. Speaker, far too heavy an atmosphere for a citizen who, as a free man, needs a certain liberty and, I might add, a certain casualness in his way of living? The policing methods so far introduced in many countries have made man unhappy and have forced him, too often, to move within too limited and inadequate a scope. Moreover, a developed system of policing and complicated protective measures would be most unfair to our Canadian society, as this would mean considerable expense and additional charges to honest people. Why should honest and law-abiding people always paV for the carelessness and turpitude of undesirables who might eventually become fatally dangerous? No, Mr. Speaker, the adoption of such preventive measures would constitute a serious injustice to the majority of our Canadian citizens.
I must admit that whenever this subject is discussed the possibility of a judicial error is mentioned. At first this argument seems to carry a certain weight and we have a tendency to either ignore it completely or become indifferent to it. I will limit myself to one simple observation. How is it that we are so anxious to deplore a judicial error while we almost never complain about the so-called errors caused by life itself? Sickness, for instance, is so much more injurious and detestable, striking indiscriminately left and right, much more so than judicial error. How often do we see the sole support of a family removed from his loved ones through the vagary of a germ or an accident, while nature spares the life of a miserable and useless person.
Moreover, with regard to this argument of the judicial error it must be pointed out that there have been very few such errors through the years. Here in Canada we know of not one single error and should one or two have occurred it would have proved to be, as in many phases of life, the exception which proved the rule.
The retaining of capital punishment in our Criminal Code comes from an instinctive and natural justice. It is the law of the old testament which advocates "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If you kill someone I, or

the society to which I belong, will kill you. This radical menace hanging over man has proved itself to be most effective through the ages. It is a sort of Damocles sword suspended over the heads and consciences of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the actual composition of our Criminal Code, calling for condemnation to death for murder, is the result of the wisdom and experience acquired through time and that therefore section 206 of the Criminal Code should not be amended as long as our habits and institutions so dictate, and as long as public opinion in its great majority does not make such a modification imperative.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) on presenting to this house a very interesting statistical talk on criminology and also express appreciation to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) for his comments. I, however, find my thoughts travelling two completely divergent paths. First is the natural abhorrence we all have to violent death whether that violence be the legal violence of authority or the illegal violence of the criminal. The second is the responsibility of this parliament to protect the public against wrongdoers. In my thinking I have tried to follow both paths to a conclusion. I have tried to do it without permitting emotions to influence my judgment for I believe the approach to the problem of capital punishment must be an objective one and emotion should have no part in it.
Past parliaments have devoted much time to this problem. Committees of parliament have heard many witnesses both for and against it. There has been no unanimity of opinion. By and large this opinion can be summed up as follows. Those charged with enforcing the law are of the opinion that capital punishment should be retained as a deterrent. Those who oppose this opinion say it is no deterrent, that the person who in the heat of passion slays a fellowman would have done that killing regardless of the law. They say the man who goes out armed with a revolver to commit some illegal act and who uses that revolver during the course of the act is not deterred from using it by the fact that our Criminal Code contains a provision for hanging such offenders. They say that the cold, calculated murder will still be committed whether the penalty for that murder is death or life imprisonment. In other words they argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent and is justified only as a form of punishment. They say its retention in our Criminal Code is justified only if we
Criminal Code
believe in the philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They say, too, that as long as capital punishment remains a provision of the Criminal Code there will remain the possibility that by due process of law we, the people of Canada, may put to death an innocent person. Protagonists of the law say that the Canadian system of administration of justice protects the innocent and is a guarantee against such a miscarriage.
I have opinions on all these arguments. I am not convinced, for instance, that capital punishment is of sufficient value as a deterrent, if that were the only consideration to justify its retention. Neither am I convinced that the administration of justice, as it is practised in Canada, precludes the possibility of an innocent person being convicted. For instance, recently in the Toronto area three youths were convicted of the robbery of a service station and a part of the case against them was an alleged confession they gave to the police. As hon. members may know, I believe the real perpetrator of the crime was subsequently arrested.
I have talked recently with a man who, in the course of his duties has had to be in attendance at three executions. I was struck, particularly, by one comment he made. This was that any person who had ever witnessed a fellowman being put to death by the due process of law would no longer be a proponent of capital punishment, a process which he described as a degrading and brutal revenge extracted by society from the wrongdoer. I make no comment on this except to say that the man whose opinion I quote is a man in whose judgment I have a great deal of confidence.
If, as is claimed, capital punishment is a deterrent to murder, I often ask myself: why do we not take full advantage of the opportunity that hanging provides to hold up the malefactor as an example to as many persons as possible. For instance, in the old days they knew how to exploit such an occasion. The accused person was trundled through the streets to the place of execution in a cart. The scaffold was erected in a plubic square. The condemned man was given an opportunity to speak to the crowds. As many as 40,000 persons attended such public hangings in England. But did this deter those who witnessed the hangings from committing crimes which would make them liable to the same penalty?
Let us take a look at "The History of Capital Punishment" by George Ryley Scott, a book in the parliamentary library I commend to all members. Mr. Scott quotes a writer describing the execution of a man named John Lechler. It was an execution

Criminal Code
attended by thousands of persons. Immediately following that execution, according to the newpaper reports of the day, 28 persons were committed to jail for offences such as murder, larceny, assault and battery, and so forth. In addition, many lost their pocket books and the pickpockets escaped. Bear in mind that in those days the 28 offences committed while the execution was taking place all carried the penalty of execution upon conviction.
If hanging is a deterrent to murder, why would it not be equally a deterrent to other crime? Could we not establish a completely crime-free Canada if we extended the list of crimes for which death is the penalty? For instance, at the time of the great Sir Edmund Burke no fewer than 222 criminal offences were punishable by death. If an accused man shot a rabbit, forged a birth certificate, stole a pocket handkerchief or adopted a disguise, it could mean he would end his life dangling at the end of a hangman's rope. At one assize alone, early in the nineteenth century, 13 persons were sentenced to death for associating with gypsies.
Indeed, the mere intention to commit a crime was, on many occasions, punished with death. But it is established that the incidence of all types of crime in Britain was never higher than during this period when 222 offences carried death as the punishment.
Evidence before the joint committee on capital punishment which reported on June 27, 1956 is still too recent for quotation from it to be necessary, but one thing that has impressed me in the report of that committee is the evidence of Professor Thorsten Sellin, who came to the committee with exact statistics in regard to murders in the United States, both in those states which had abolished the death penalty and in those which had retained it. I am not going to quote these statistics, but his findings definitely were that the incidence of murder was not increased by the fact that the death penalty had been abolished. In fact, all his evidence would seem to support the statement in the preface of Mr. Scott's book to the effect that the only real deterrent in the death penalty lies in its incontrovertible effectiveness in preventing the repetition of a similar crime by the same person.
As a medical man, I find myself in agreement with another submission in Mr. Scott's book. This is that although there are many types of murder and many varieties of murder, this particular offence rarely ranks as a professional crime carried out by professional criminals in a professional manner. Mr. Scott says it may be described as the crime of the amateur, and that most murderers commit the crime only once.
There is no doubt at all in my mind but that the people of Canada are growing away from a desire for justice based on the creed of "an eye for an eye". More and more, I believe, they are looking towards a day when sentences imposed on those convicted of crime will have a double purpose, to restrain the criminal while the process of rehabilitation is being carried on.
As a private person and a medical doctor, I find much in this bill that commends itself to me. But as a member of parliament with a responsibility to the Canadian people I cannot forget that as recently as two years ago a committee of this house and of the other place, after intensive study, brought in a report favouring the retention of the death penalty in cases of capital offences. Without a greater opportunity for study, and without the benefit of the expert evidence that that committee had before it, I cannot, at this time, vote in favour of a measure which would nullify the recommendations of a committee of this house made such a short time ago.
I believe the time will come when Canada will abolish the death penalty as the punishment for murder. But I do not believe it should be abolished by the motion of a private member on the floor of the house. The procedure, I suggest, should be the procedure of the twenty-second parliament, and any action taken should follow intensive study by a joint committee and a favourable recommendation to this house by that committee. To the end that we may evoke one of the finest and most effective deterrents based on justice and hope for our fellow citizen who may find himself in the unfortunate position of a murderer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the leader of the house if it is intended to go on with the supply motion on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The supply motion will be taken at 2.30. Perhaps the house should be reminded that the President of the Federal Republic of Germany will be speaking to both houses of parliament here on Monday at eleven o'clock.


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

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	With the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway will the Soulanges canal be closed to traffic?
2.	How many employees, permanent and casual, are there on the Soulanges canal?
3.	How many such employees have been in the employ of the department for (a) 25 years or more; (b) 10 years or more; (c) 5 years or more; (d) less than 5 years?
4.	Will any of such employees lose their jobs by the closing of the canal? If so, how many?
5.	What is the government doing to find employment for these men?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Permanents 108; temporaries 24; casuals 80. Since October 1955 all new appointees to the operating and prevailing rates staffs have been informed when they reported for assignment that in view of the construction of the seaway their employment would in all probability cease when seaway construction has been completed. Since the beginning of May 1956, vacancies in prevailing rates positions have not been filled. As required, casuals have been employed.
3.
25 years or more .. 10 years or more .. 5 years or more .. Less than 5 years ..
Per- Tempo-manent rary Casuals
24	..	..41	..	..23	..	..20	24	804.	Yes. It is anticipated that all positions will be discontinued.5.	In December 1955 the civil service commission was informed of the situation which could be anticipated in order that they would be prepared to meet the problem of lay-off of employees.
Representations were made in November 1955 to the St. Lawrence seaway authority that preference for employment with the seaway be given to displaced employees of the canals branch whose services during their employment with the department have been satisfactory.
The names of Soulanges employees under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, whose positions are expected to terminate when the seaway comes into operation, were submitted to the civil service commission in March 1957.
Questions
The commission was requested in June 1956 to permit Soulanges employees to compete in competitions previously restricted to the Montreal area and agreed to do so.
Soulanges employees may apply for leave without pay to try out in other positions elsewhere in the service and outside the service with the option of returning to their positions on Soulanges as long as the canal is in operation.
Consistent with vacancies being available, Soulanges employees whose qualifications permit will be absorbed within the department. If there are not sufficient positions available within the department, permanent employees, who come under the civil service commission lay-off regulations, are eligible for lay-off privileges and the civil service commission will also endeavour to place qualified temporary employees elsewhere through their Montreal district office.


ONTARIO-ST. LAWRENCE CANALS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Will the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals or any portion thereof be affected by the opening of the seaway?
2.	How many employees, permanent or casual, are there on the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals?
3.	How many such employees have been in the employ of the department for (a) 25 years or more; (b) 10 years or more; (c) 5 years or more; (d) less than 5 years?
4.	Will any of such employees lose their jobs by the opening of the seaway? If so, how many?
5.	What is the government doing to find employment for these men?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	Yes. All of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals will be affected by the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway; the portion from lock 15 to lock 19 will remain in operation to a reduced scale and the remainder of the Ontario-St. Lawrence will no longer be used as a canal.
2.	Permanents 174; temporaries 41; casuals 137. Since October 1955 all new appointees to the operating and prevailing rates staffs have been informed when they reported for assignment that in view of the construction of the seaway their employment would in all probability cease when seaway construction has been completed. Since the beginning of May 1956, vacancies in prevailing rates positions have not been filled. As required, casuals have been employed.
3.
Permanent Temporary Casuals
25 years or more	37	-	-10 years or more	66	1	-5 years or more	47	17	Less than 5 years	24	23	137
Questions
4.	Yes. It is anticipated that the Williamsburg canals positions will be discontinued. At the present time, it is estimated that approximately half the operating staff positions of the Cornwall canal will be discontinued. On the two canals the total is approximately 115. No decision concerning the Ontario-St. Lawrence head office staff has, as yet, been taken.
5.	In December 1955 the civil service commission was informed of the situation which could be anticipated in order that they would be prepared to meet the problem of lay-off of employees.
Representations were made in November 1955 to the St. Lawrence seaway authority that preference for employment with the seaway be given to displaced employees of the canals branch whose services during their employment with the department have been satisfactory.
The names of Cornwall and Williamsburg operating employees under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, whose positions are expected to terminate when the seaway comes into operation, were submitted to the civil service commission in May 1957.
Arrangements were made to allow Cornwall and Williamsburg employees to apply for leave without pay to try out in other positions elsewhere in the service and outside the service with the option of returning to their positions as long as these canals are in operation.
Consistent with vacancies being available, displaced employees of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals whose qualifications permit will be absorbed within the department. If there are not sufficient positions available within the department, permanent employees, who come under the civil service commission's lay-off regulations, are eligible for lay-off privileges and the civil service commission will also endeavour to place qualified temporary employees elsewhere through their Ottawa district office.


LACHINE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	It is expected that the canal will be closed to through traffic.
2.	Permanents 188; temporaries 42; casuals 181. Since October 1955 all new appointees to the operating and prevailing rates staffs have been informed when they reported for assignment that in view of the construction of the seaway their employment would in all probability cease when seaway construction has been completed. Since the beginning of May 1956, vacancies in prevailing rates positions have not been filled. As required, casuals have been employed.
3.
25 years or more -
10	
5		
Less than 5 years
Per- Tempo-manent rary Casuals 32	-	-68	-	-58	7	-30	35	1814.	At this time it is not anticipated that there will be any major change in the numbers of staff required for operation of the Lachine canal prior to its transfer to the St. Lawrence seaway authority.5.	In December 1955 the civil service commission was informed of the situation which could be anticipated in order that they would be prepared to meet the problem of lay-off of employees.	>
Representations were made in November 1955 to the St. Lawrence seaway authority that preference for employment with the seaway be given to displaced employees of the canals branch whose services during their employment with the department have been satisfactory.

Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any applications been made lor insurance under the Export Credits Insurance Act to cover goods to be shipped to, or sold in, China?
2.	If so, (a) how many such applications have been made since January 1, 1952; (b) what disposition was made by the government with respect to each application?

Question No. 11-Mr. Chevrier:
1.	With the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway will the Lachine canal be closed to through traffic?
2.	How many employees, permanent or casual, are there on the Lachine canal?
3.	How many such employees have been in the employ of the department for (a) 25 years or more; (b) 10 years or more; (c) 5 years or more; (d) less than 5 years?
4.	Will any of such employees lose their jobs by the closing of the canal to through traffic? If so, how many?
5.	What is the government doing to find employment for these men?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Six; (b) the Export Credits Insurance Corporation issued a policy in each case but no shipments were made.


IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS, ITALY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Where is the office in Italy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

2.	On May 1, 1958, how many applications for immigration to Canada were on file?
3.	What was the backlog of approved applications?
4.	What number of approved applicants left for Canada for each of the first four months of 1958?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	9 Via Acherusio Sud, Rome, Italy.
2.	65,993*.
3.	59,504*.
4.	Statistics on departure for Canada are not maintained by the department. The number of persons admitted to Canada from Italy during each of the first four months of 1958 is as follows: January, 638; February, 605; March, 3,591; April, 2,644.
*No statistics are available on the number of applications. The statistics quoted are in respect of the number of persons whose names are reflected on applications received. The number of applications would be much lower than this figure. Overseas offices report to headquarters on the 26th of each reporting month; consequently totals mentioned were for the period ending April 26 rather than May 1.


NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the total number of employees of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation?
2.	Where do these employees work?
3.	Do any employees hold any other positions in the civil service outside of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation?
4.	If so, what is the respective remuneration for the positions?
5.	What positions, inside or outside of the government service, do the directors of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation hold?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Five.
2.	Ottawa.
3.	Yes. Two.
4.	(i) Department of Defence Production, $7,020; Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, $960 (per annum).
(ii) Department of Defence Production, $3,150; Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation $390 (per annum).
5.	Mr. D. A. Golden, deputy minister, Department of Defence Production; Mr. H. R. Balls, director, financial administration and accounting policy division, Department of Finance; Mr. J. C. Lessard, vice president, St. Lawrence seaway authority; Mr. J. W. McKee, chairman of the board, Stone & Webster Canada Ltd.; Dr. C. S. Walters, consultant to the treasury, treasury department, province of Ontario.
Questions


LAW OF THE SEA-CANADIAN RESOLUTION AT UN
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Canadian delegation at the recent United Nations conference on the law of the sea sponsor a resolution recommending that all states should, pending the outcome of further conferences and discussions, refrain from extending the limit within which they claimed exclusive fishing rights?
2.	If so, what was the outcome of this draft resolution?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1. Shortly before the conclusion of the United Nations conference on the law of the sea and immediately after the plenary session of the conference failed to adopt any of the proposals put forward concerning the breadth of the territorial sea or the establishment of a contiguous fishing zone, the Canadian delegation, together with the delegations of Australia, Ceylon and Ghana, put forward a proposal concerning the reconvening of the conference. This joint proposal, after referring to the fact that the conference had "already adopted conventions and other instruments with regard to all the matters referred to it with the exception of the breadth, of the territorial sea and the extent of the fishing rights which should pertain to coastal states in the contiguous zone", went on to point out, first, that "it would be contrary to the interests of all states, and could create difficulties in the application of the several conventions and other instruments already adopted by the conference, if agreement is not eventually reached on these important matters", (the breadth of the territorial sea and the establishment of a contiguous zone for fishing rights) and second, that "the prospects of securing general agreement on these two matters would be improved by an adjournment of the discussion of them which would enable the governments of the participating states in the interval to conduct further discussions among themselves". The proposal then called on the conference to take the following action:	(1) "recommend
that all states should, pending the outcome of the adjourned discussions above mentioned, refrain from extending the limits of their territorial sea or the limits within which they claim exclusive fishing rights"; and (2) "request the Secretary General of the United Nations to reconvoke the present conference, at the headquarters of the United Nations, after consultation with the president of the conference and the participating states at the earliest practicable date after the conclusion of the thirteenth session of the general assembly-which will take place this fall-for the purpose of further considering the breadth

Questions
of the territorial sea and the extent of the fishing rights which should pertain to coastal states in the contiguous zone".
2. The joint resolution was not voted upon by the conference. A Cuban resolution which merely requested "the general assembly of the United Nations to study, at its thirteenth session (1958), the advisability of convening a second international conference of plenipotentiaries for further consideration of the
questions left unsettled by the present conference" was submitted to the conference prior to the joint resolution and was consequently voted upon first. The Cuban resolution was adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the conference, and under those circumstances the president of the conference declared that the proposal co-sponsored by Australia, Canada, Ceylon and Ghana would not be put to the vote.

Monday, June 2, 1958