[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday the hon. leader of the
opposition (Mr. Bennett) made reference to a question that had been answered in the house the day before, and desired further information. Perhaps I may be permitted to table the information now as the question is no longer on the order paper.
Ottawa, March 12, 1930, Canada.
Memorandum for
The Honourable W. D. Euler,
Minister of National Revenue:
On page 492 of Hansard, March 11, the Hon. R. B. Bennett makes the following remarks: "I observe that the last figures given as to revenues are for the 31st of December, 1929. My assumption is that that covers nine months from the 1st day of April to the end of December, 1929, and not a calendar year."
Answer
Mr. Bennett's assumption is correct. It was not possible to give the figures for calendar years so they were given for fiscal years and for the first nine months of the fiscal year 1929-30.
Privilege-Mr. Bourassa

Answer to question 19
In the hurried preparation of the answers to Mr. Bennett's question a typographical error was made and the word "supplements" used instead of "supplement." The supplement to Forms T. 204 and T. 204A is T. 204B Special Permit, a copy of which was included with the other forms, and appears in Hansard.
Answer to question 20
At ports and outports where the exportation of intoxicating liquors is heavy certain docks have been designated within the limits of the port or outport so that exportations may be properly cheeked and controlled and short circuiting within the province prevented. The docks so designated are as follows:
Sarnia:
Loughead dock.
Courtright:
Johnson dock.
Sombra:
Hertz dock.
Port Lambton:
Bray dock.
Walkerville-known as Riverside and Ford:
1.	Bermuda export dock.
2.	Rumanapp dock.
3.	Border Exporters (known as R. A. Vigneau dock).
4.	Peter Paquette dock.
Windsor:
5.	Nathanson's dock.
6.	Carling's dock.
Sandwich

known as La Salle:
7.	Bermuda export dock.
8.	Major's dock.
9.	Benoit dock.
10.	Waverly dock.
Amherstburg:
Wood dock.
Wigle dock.
Fraser dock.
An officer may be assigned to the dock at Brighton Beach (port of Windsor) in substitution for a dock or docks rendered unsuitable by shipping conditions.
R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BOURASSA

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I wish to direct the attention of the house to a matter concerning the privileges of all members, irrespective of group or party. I read in this morning's Citizen the following message, transmitted by the Canadian press:
Toronto, March 11.-General dissatisfaction *was voiced here to-night respecting the fate of the Ontario Divorce Court bill on its second reading in the House of Commons to-night, by those who had shown interest in its passage.
G. McLaughlin, secretary of the County of York La\v Association, said it was "much to be regretted" that the vote had resulted as it did, but added he had expected far stronger opposition.
"It is unfortunate that Quebec is so solidly against a matter which Ontario seems to favour, and unfortunate that Quebec can determine whether or not Ontario will have divorce courts," said W. J. McCullum, president of the association.
I also find this despatch from Brantford, Ontario, dated March 11:
Commenting on the defeat to-night of the Ontario Divorce Court bill in the House of Commons, W. J. Carson, newly-elected grand master of the Royal Black Chapter, Loyal Orange Lodge, said:
"We don't agree with the principle of the action-.that French Canadians of Quebec province should be in a position to say that Ontario shall or shall not have a divorce court-to dictate the policies of a sister province when the British North America Act provides that responsible machinery of the courts shall be under the control of the province in which those courts are located.
"Ontario does not interfere with Quebec or her code."
There are a few minor points in that despatch to which exception could be taken, but I am not going to discuss them. I have made a count of the votes as recorded in Hansard at page 522, and I find that out of the 78 votes recorded in favour of the bill-


Mr. STEVENS:: This is no question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is simply answering someone who has made an observation outside this house altogether. That has absolutely nothing to do with the members of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends may laugh, but the point is this, that an hon. member is taking advantage of the rule of this house which permits him or any other member to contradict anything affecting his honour or questioning his conduct that appears in the press. He has taken advantage of that rule for the purpose of asserting what some gentleman said outside with regard to his opinions in this house.


Mr. CANNON:: What objection have you to its being contradicted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have none, but he has
a place outside the house where he can contradict it, and I object to the rules of the house being used for that purpose, if we or others affected are not allowed to reply to him.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My sole object, Mr. Speaker, is precisely to assert the privileges of this house, to assert the liberty of members voting as they please. Nobody is questioning that.

Privilege-Mr. Neill


Mr. SPEAKER:: Bourinot says at page
303:
la the Canadian house, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.
I gather from the extracts read by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that he is simply explaining the attitude taken by himself and some other members, which attitude he feels has been misrepresented in the press.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I am not
going to discuss at all the issue raised yesterday. I simply wish to point out that having counted the votes in yesterday's division, I find that out of the seventy-eight votes recorded in support of the motion of my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), twenty-three votes were given by Ontario members in favour of the second reading of the bill, and that twenty-six votes were recorded against the second reading by members elected by Ontario constituencies. With the help of that handy book, the Parliamentary Companion, I found further that of those twenty-six Ontario votes recorded against the second reading of the bill, there were thirteen Liberals and thirteen Conservatives. I well remember the old days when there was talk of "The noble thirteen." Well, this time both parties can claim the honour of having in their ranks a "noble thirteen."
So it amounts to this, that, supposing the whole of the membership representing Quebec constituencies had abstained from voting one way or the other, the bill proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would have imposed upon Ontario, as against the expressed wish of the majority of the Ontario members of this house, a matter which apparently the membership from Ontario, Conservative and Liberal alike, do not want to have. If the members for Quebec are going to be taken to task in papers published in Ontario or elsewhere for giving a free vote one way or the other, because it happens not to please certain people, what may be said of the members from the western provinces in endeavouring to impose a divorce court on the province of Ontario against the expressed will of the representatives of Ontario in this house?
But, sir, claiming for all the members of parliament as for myself, irrespective of creed, race, province or party, the basic principle of British fair play, justice and government, I claim that every man has a right to vote as he thinks and as he wants to. I acknowledge to our friends from the western provinces the
undoubted right to have voted as they did, and I claim for myself and my fellow members from Quebec the same right, without being branded over the province of Ontario as endeavouring to impose upon that province something that it does not want. I leave it to the conscience and the free judgment of all members of this house, irrespective of creed, party or province, whether it is not a basic principle of this house that we should have the right to vote as we please upon any ques tion which comes before us.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. NEILL


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise also to a question of privilege. On page 485 of Hansard is to be found a statement by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) which I wish to correct. His statement reads as followss-he was speaking of myself:
Let me quote a few of his words, in 1926, when he moved a resolution respecting grading of eggs, to see how he stands. He evidently was in favour of the wording of the agreement, hut he did not want to vote against the government. I will just take his own words for it. He said:
I will not proceed further with the quotation. He then quoted a few sentences beginning in the middle of a paragraph by which, diverted from what went before and from the context, he sought to prove I said or meant something not only entirely different from but the exact opposite of what a perusal of my speech or even of the paragraph itself would show. I may say that I was not moving a resolution against the grading of eggs, I was speaking against an amendment as a vote of want of confidence proposing to do away with the grading of eggs. I specifically stated that on that and other occasions I had wanted to vote against the government, but I could not do it on this particular amendment as I believed in the grading of eggs. What I said will be found at page 4177 of Hansard of 1926. I think such misrepresentation, sir, is unworthy of the member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Any more privilege?


Mr. BENNETT:: I should say that at least one or two questions might well be raised as to privilege. The last observation made by the hon. member that " such misrepresentation was unworthy of the members," is certainly not a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: It ought to be expunged from Hansard.


Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say so, there is a good deal-
Privilege-Mr. Neill


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Dew Chaplin: I have the right to speak as a matter of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. member speaking on a point of order or a question of privilege?


James Dew Chaplin: On a question of privilege. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in making the assertion he did absolutely misrepresented the whole thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has a right to say that.


Hewitt Bostock: The word "misrepresentation " must not be used.


James Dew Chaplin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want in any sense to evade the rules of the house, and therefore I d'o not want to use a word that does not conform with the usages of this house. If there is some other word I could use-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Dew Chaplin: If there is some other
word that I could use, Mr. Speaker, that would go to show that a misstatement was made I should be very glad to find that word. Probably you might be able to suggest it.


Hewitt Bostock: There is a proper parliamentary diction.


James Dew Chaplin: I have got the word-
"misstatement"-



DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That Bill No. 20, an act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage be restored to the position on the routine proceedings that it occupied on Tuesday, March 11, 1930.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is out of
order. Notice should be given.


William Irvine: I will give notice. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).



HALIFAX, N.S., PIER 9, STORAGE

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What materials or merchandise were stored on Pier Nine, Halifax, during calendar year 1929?
2.	Who were the owners of said materials? 
3.	For what periods were they stored and what storage rates were charged and paid?
4.	What was the country of origin of said goods or merchandise so stored?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Cement, fertilizer and coal.
2 and 3. Certain portions of the pier were leased in 1929 to Canada Cement Co. Ltd., The Nova Scotia Chemical Co., and A. T. O'Leary & Co. Storage charges not leviable.
4.	Cement, Canada; fertilizer, European countries and United States; coal, Canada and Europe.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any plans for providing useful employment for the great body of the unemployed?
2.	If so, what relief will be afforded?
3.	Will the government accept the offer of the province of Ontario to provide one-third of the cost of certain forms of relief in conjunction with the federal and municipal authority?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1,	2, 3. With a view to affording employment, the federal government has authorized its several departments to carry on, during periods of seasonal unemployment, work or construction which ordinarily, because of extra cost involved, would not be carried on until a more favourable season, and is prepared to meet in its entirety the extra cost of work carried on under federal authority, at additional cost during such time, without requesting either the provinces or municipalities to provide one-third each of such additional cost. In these circumstances it is assumed that the provinces and municipalities will in like manner meet any additional expenditures incurred by them on provincial and municipal works constructed for like purposes. The federal government has also, as a means of avoiding unemployment, authorized its departments to continue in employment, so far as may reasonably be possible, where their services can be utilized, employees whose services on strictly business grounds might be temporarily disposed of during periods of seasonal unemployment. The government has also caused it to be known that it will view with favour the extension of this policy to undertakings in the nature of government owned utilities or projects assisted by public funds.



PELEE ISLAND CABLE

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Have the Pelee island cable, or cables, been out of commission?
2.	If so, since what date?

Questions
3.	Have representations been made to the department for the establishment of aerial service for Pelee island?
4.	If so, what progress has been made?
5.	Will it be established by the close of the 1930 navigation season?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	December 11, 1929.
3.	4, 5. No representations have been made to the marine department for the establishment of a radiotelephone service between Pelee island and the mainland since 1926, *when the matter formed the subject of correspondence between the Departments of Marine and Fisheries and Public Works and the secretary of the board of trade, Leamington.
The position taken by this Department at that time was conveyed in a letter dated the 8th January, 1927, to the secretary of the Leamington board of trade.
(Copy of Letter to secretary of Leamington board of trade).
205-1-6	8th January, 1927.
Re cable service to Pelee island Sir:-
With further reference to your communication of the 13th ult., regarding the installation of a radiotelephone circuit between Pelee island and the mainland, I am directed to say that so long as the Department of Public Works continues to maintain a cable between the island and the mainland, it is not considered that an expenditure of approximately $8,500 on a radiotelephone circuit is justified. Should, however, the Department of Public Works decide to discontinue the cable, then we are prepared to consider the question of installing a radiotelephone circuit.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) A. Johnston, Deputy Minister.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL, TORONTO

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	How many patients were being treated in Christie street hospital, Toronto, during the first 15 days of February, 1930?
2.	How many doctors were on duty in the hospital each day of that period?
3.	How many doctors were on duty during each night of the same period?
4.	How many nurses were on duty each night during the same time?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	The average patient strength during the first fifteen days of February, 1930, was 443, of whom 30 are veterans' care cases, chiefly
there for domiciliary and not active treatment reasons. Approximately 100 of the remainder are being held in hospital for the fitting of orthopaedic appliances, or convalescing, and ready to be discharged in a few days and also not needing active treatment.
2.	Full-time doctors on duty at hospital every day from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.-11.
Part-time doctors, consultants and specialists on duty each day, generally from 9 a.m. until 12.30 a.m.-19.
3.	Doctor on duty at night, who is in telephone communication with the 11 full-time and the 19 part-time medical officers, consultants and specialists, who are on call for any emergency at any time of the day or night.	The night doctor remains in the
hospital building proper all night on call, and the average number of calls during the past six months is a little less than four per night.-1.
4.	Nurses on duty each night (only graduate nurses with several years experience are employed).-9.



WAR PENSIONS-75 PER CENT DISABILITY

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	How many returned men are receiving pensions of 75 per cent and over, for service during the Great War?
2.	What are their occupations or professions and the number in each occupation and profession?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.
Per cent pensionable
disability	Number Total
100	4,109
95	 45
90	 365
85	 199
SO	1,326
75	 1,390	7,434
(.These figures are the standing of pensioners as at 31.12.29).
2.	No information.



BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS-FREE AREA

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Has a bovine tuberculosis free area been established in eastern Ontario?
2.	Tf so, when and where?
3.	What tests have been made in the said
area?	_
4.	What was the proportion of (a) reactors: (b) non-reactors; (e) reactors slaughtered?
5.	What supervision is kept over this area?
Questions

6.	Under what department is the control and supervision of this work?
7.	Is compensation paid to the owners for reactors slaughtered after the second and all subsequent tests?
S.	What are the names of veterinarians in charge of these tests in the said area, and are they all fully qualified practitioners?
9.	What number of herds are in the said free area?
10.	When the census of the said area was taken, what number of owners were favourable to its establishment and what number were opposed ?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The following counties and parts of counties were gazetted on October 19, 1929, as a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis:
Prescott, Glengarry, Dundas, Stormont, Russell, Grenville, and those portions of Frontenac, Leeds and Carleton, east of the Rideau canal.
3.	Twenty-nine thousand seven hundred and twenty-five (29,725) cattle were tested to February 26, 1930.
4.	Number of reactors found-1,326.
Number of reactors slaughtered-1,326. Percentage of reactors-4.4.
5.	The area is in charge of Dr. S. G. Bright, assisted by a staff of veterinarians.
6.	Department of Agriculture.
7.	Yes.
S.	S. G. Bright
E.	Salisbury S. L. Wall J. D. Hogan J. C. Carey R. V. L. Walker A. M. Vining A. C. Wagner G. N. Browne W. E. Nicholl
E.	C. Gaw
F.	Midwinter-Steane Wm. Clarkson
W. F. R. Stubbs
G.	L. Gleason.
These inspectors are all fully qualified veterinarians.
9.	To date 1,983 herds have been dealt with, but the total number of herds within the area will not be known until the initial tests of all the cattle have been completed and tabulated.
10.	The total number of signatures on the petitions is 12,521 and although the department has not been advised of the total number of cattle owners within the area, the provincial government states that over two-thirds signed.
[Mr. Casselman.l



HOG GRADING

Mr. SENN:: 1.	Are live hogs purchased by Canadian packing companies graded by government graders and paid for according to grade?
2.	What are the various grades now in effect?
3.	What is the differentiation in price between grades?
4.	Is the output of hog products of such packing companies for home consumption, or for export, graded by government graders and stamped and labelled according to grade?
5.	If not, will the government take steps to have this done?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	All live hogs purchased by Canadian packing companies that come under the hog grading regulations are graded by government graders. We understand that the bulk of these hogs are paid for according to grade. There are some shipments that are purchased on a flat basis.
2.	Attached hereto is a copy of the hog grading regulations which define the official grades for hogs now in effect.
3.	The differential in price between grades with the exception of the two grades of bacon hogs, namely, " select bacon " and " bacon ", varies according to the law of supply and demand at the various packing plants and stock yard centres from day to day and from week to week. The differential may also vary depending on the quality of hogs in the various loads offered for sale. In accordance with the recommendation of the swine conference and the undertaking given to the joint swine committee by the representative of the Industrial and Development Council of Canadian Meat Packers, when the revision of grades was recommended by this committee at its meeting on December 3, 1928, the principle of the fixed differentials between " select bacon " and " bacon " grades has been adhered to and a differential of fifty cents per hundred weight has been maintained.
4.	No.
5.	Cannot answer this question.



HIDES AND SKINS

Mr. SENN:: 1.	What was the quantity and value of hides and skins imported into Canada during the calendar years 1928-29?
2.	What was the duty collected on the above mentioned importations ?
3.	What, were the quantities and values of hides and skins exported during each of the years 1928 and 1929?

Questions


Mr. MALCOLM:: 


Mr. YENIOT:: 1.	Canada's imports of hides and skins, calendar years 1928-29.
Years	Pounds $
1928	 58.612,800 14,750.051
1929	 44,962,800	8,449,873
2.	Hides and skins free of duty under tariff item No. 599.
3.	Canada's domestic exports of hides and skins, calendar years 1928 and 1929, were:-
Years	Pounds $
1928	 56.556,100 11.530,456
1929	 54,536,300	7,968,244



RIPPLE ROCK, SEYMOUR NARROWS  ACCIDENTS

Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	Since records have been kept by the marine department, what is the number of marine accidents which have occurred at or in the vicinity of Ripple rock, Seymour narrows, between Maud and Vancouver islands on' the Pacific coast?
2.	How many of such accidents have been caused by direct contact with Ripple rock?
3.	Of accidents reported to the department in the vicinity of Ripple rock, how many have occurred to vessels before immediately reaching or after passing the rock?
4.	What is the depth of water at low tide between Maud island and^ Ripple rock, and between Ripple rock and Vancouver island?
5.	What is the depth of water at high tide between Maud island and Ripple rock, and between Ripple rock and Vancouver island?
6.	What is the approximate width of fairway for vessels between Maud island and Ripple rock, and between Ripple rock and Vancouver island?


Mr. CARDIN:: 

POST OFFICE-RENT ALLOWANCES

Mr. COOTE:: What is the amount of rent allowances for each of the following post offices: Okotoks, High River, Turner Valley, Cayley, Nanton, Stavely. Claresholm, Granum, Macleod, Fincher Creek, Bellevue, Blairmore, Coleman?
Office
Okotoks	
High River.. . Turner Valley.
Cayley	
Nanton	
Stavely	
Claresholm.. .
Granum	
Macleod	 Pincher Creek
Bellevue	
Blairmore.. .. Coleman.. ..
Rent per Annum
	 $313
	 594
		375
		156
		406
		250
		531
	 250
		625
	 500
		313
		469
	 594



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION

Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: Who were the respective vendors of the lots referred to in the answer to question number 11, on March 10, 1930?


Mr. CARDIN:: City Lot Number-Names of Vendors
Lot 1, Block X, J. A. Gregory; Lot 1, Block Y, City of Saint John; Lot 2, 3 and 4, Block Y, City of Saint John; North Lot, Block C, J. Fred Belyea; Centre Lot, Block C, Garnet Wilson; South Lot, Block C, Mrs. Mary Parker; North i Lot 27, Mrs. Margaret Morrison; South i Lot 27 Mrs. Sarah Belyea; Lot 29, Joseph C. W. Tippett; Part Lot 30, Benjamin & Edwin F.Tippett; Part 1 and 2,Block A. Emma F., wife W. Chase Thompson; Part 1 and 2, Block A, F. A. Craft; Part 1 and 2, Block A, Edward Woodworth; Part 1 and 2, Block A, John E. Emerson; Part 2, 3, and 4, Block A, Mrs. Margaret Nice (leasehold); Part 3, 4 and 5, Block A, Mrs. Hugh Sloan (freehold); Part 4 and 5, Block A, Mrs. Nellie L. White; Part 5, Block A, Mrs. S. P. McGuire; Lot 6, Block A, James Anthony; Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Block A, New Bruns* wick Power Company; Lots 9, 10, 18, 19 and 20, Block D, Colwell Fuel Company Limited; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block D, Union Foundry & Machine Works; Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block D, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Part Lot 891, Mrs. Sarah Babb; Part Lot 891, Elias & Lucy M. Miller; 890, Theodore Fraser; Lot 888, W. E. Emerson; Lot 887, C. W. Folkins; Lot 892, Estate Charles E. Belyea; Lots 893 and 894, Estate Sam F. Wattens; Lot 910, E. R. Taylor; Lots 909 and 911 to 914 inclusive, Union Foundry & Machine Works; Lot 916, Mrs. Julia Merryfield; Lot 930, M. H. Tufts, Margaret & John Emerson; Lot 931, W. E. Emerson & Son; Lot 932, Dominion Government, Post Office Department; Lot 933, Fred R. Taylor; Lot 950, Frank Garson; Lot 951,

Questions as Orders for Returns
Bank of Nova Scotia; Lot 952, W. B. Nice; Lot 953, Olivia Watters & E. R. W. Ingraham; Lot 955, Estate Ann Coholan; Lot 956, John
H.	Lee; Lot 942, Ellen. M., wife Jas. J. Lynch; Lot 970, W. E. Emerson; Lot 971, Mrs. Leti-tia Keane; Lots 972 to 977 inclusive, Unice Ice Company Limited; Lot 966, W. Henry Rowley; Lots 978 and 979, D. Auriel Duffy; Lots 980 and 981, City of Saint John; Lot 962, John T. Joyce; Lots 987, 988, 989, 994, 995, 996, part of 990, 991, 992, 993, 986 and 997, Canada Nail & Wire Company; Lots 1024 to 1039 inclusive, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Part of Lots 990, 991, 992, 993,986,997 and Lots 982, 983, 984, 985, 998 to 1021 inclusive, City of Saint John; South 4 Lot 2, Block X, Woodworth & Silliphant; Lot 3 and part Lot 2, Block X, J, A, Gregory; Lot 4, Block X, Susan & J. Fred Belyea; Part Lot 27, Mrs. Margaret McCullough; East 4 Lot 28, Mrs. Mary Parker; Part Lot 28, Sterling Realty Company; Part Lot 30, John E. Emerson; East half Lot 33, C. D. Greenslade; East half Lot 31, J. MoM. Trueman; Lot 32, Jean Brown; Part Lot 31, J. Edgar Lamoreux; West 4 Lot 31, Mrs. Mary E. Rotston; Lot 34, Mrs. Sarah Gosline; Part Lot 33, Hairy A. Belyea; Part Lot 33, Frank T. Belyea; Lot 35, George Sweet; Lot 37, Sterling Realty Company; Part Lot 38, Thomas H. McLeod; Part Lot 38, Harry McLeod; Lot 39, Mrs. Margaret Morrison; Lot 40 and Part Lot 41, Sloan Estate; Part Lot 41, Alfred Jones Saunders; Part Lot 16, Part Lot 22, Colwell Fuel Company; Lots 3, 4, 13, 14 and Part Lots 5 and 15, Block G, Taylor & White; Lot 889, Edward Hogan; Lot 896, Alfred Jones Saunders; Lot 918, Mrs. Catherine Young; Lot 927, John Metcalf; Lot 926, Saint John Real Estate; Lot 960, Church of the Assumption; Lot 969, Alex. & Mary J. Wilson; Lot 968, Mrs. Julia Barry; Lot 967, Mrs. L. H. Duffy; Lots 964 and 965, D. Auriel Duffy; Lot 963, John T. Joyce; Lot 925, Estate Theodosia Lcckhart; Lot 927, John Metcalf; Lot 936, W. B. Milton; Lot 938, Daisy K. & Oscar Hanson; Lot 939, Mrs. Emma May Cundiff; Lot 944, Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Tanner; Lot 945, Miss Bridget Donahue; Lot 947, Estate Daniel Kane; Lot 957, Mrs. E. R. W. Ingraham; Lot 959, Salvation Army; Lot 1064, Mrs. Mary C. Ham-mon; Lot 4, Block X, H. A. & Fred Belyea.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	How many post office buildings have been erected, or are being erected, in the province of Saskatchewan, giving the location and total

completed cost of each, (a) in cities, (b) in towns; (c) in other than cities or towns?
2.	What is the total revenue in each of the points where post office buildings have been erected as above, during each of the past three years for which returns are available?
3.	What yearly remuneration is paid to postmasters in each point where post offices have been built or are being built?
4.	What yearly rental allowance was given each postmaster for premises prior to erection of building?


DISTRICT OF PATRICIA
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What is the approximate area of the district of Patricia?
2.	What is the approximate area of each part of the district of Patricia to be included in each of the electoral districts of Kenora, Rainy River, Port Arthur, Thunder Bay, and Temiskaming North, referred to in bill number thirteen of House of Commons?
3.	What is the total population of the district of Patricia and what is the population of each of the areas proposed to be added to each of the electoral districts of Kenora, Rainy River, Port Arthur, Thunder Bay, and Temiskaming North, as set out in question number two, setting out number of Indians, Eskimos, and Whites ?
4.	What Indian reservations are in each of the said electoral districts, and the number of Indians in such reservations?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ERNST:: For a return showing a list of all mail carriers and contractors, rural or otherwise, in the employ of the Post Office Department, in the counties of Queen's and Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, their respective routes, the dates of expiry of their respective contracts and their respective rates of remuneration.



INDIAN RESERVE LANDS

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents relating to a lease of Indian reserve lands at Greenfield, in the county of Queen's, in the province of Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1929.



DUTY DRAWBACKS-NEWSPRINT

Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: For a return showing: 1. The total amount of duty drawback claimed and allowed under tariff item 1060, since the same came into effect.
2. Volume and description of paper imported, and upon which duty drawback under tariff item 1060 has been allowed.



POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: For a copy of all reports, recommendations, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in any way elating to the promotion

Rules of the Home-Mr. Lucas
of one J. H. Russell to the position of assistant-postmaster at Cornwall, including the ratings by the Civil Service Commission of the said J. H. Russell and the ratings of L. G. Tyo, C. V. Tobin and C. R. Farlinger and the dates of the admission of each of said parties to the postal service, at Cornwall or elsewhere.



ARTHUR DONNELLY

Miss MACPHAIL moved:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, and other documents dealing with the release of Arthur Donnelly from the Walkerton gaol.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, much to my regret I find that I must ask the house to reject the motion presented by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. Its adoption would be contrary to the rule that has been in force in England for many years and in Canada ever since the days of Sir John Thompson as Minister of Justice. The question apparently did not arise before that date because up to that time the exercise of clemency was practically limited to capital cases. Since Sir John Thompson's time, however, his successors in office, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick (Hansard, March 1, 1905, p. 1849), Sir Allen Aylesworth, Right Honourable Charles Doherty (Hansard, May 29, 1917, p. 1814), and Sir Lomer Gouin (Hansard, April 18, 1923, p. 1975), have all maintained that documents relating to an exercise of clemency should be treated as confidential and that it would not be proper nor advisable to make them public. Sir Wilfrid Laurier as leader of the government on one occasion and as leader of the opposition at a later date also supported this view. The English practice is set forth by Todd: a quotation from that author's Parliamentary Government in England seems to cover the whole question:
No interference by either house of parliament with the exercise of this prerogative is justifiable, except under extraordinary circumstances. It was said by Macaulay, that he would rather entrust it to the hands of the very worst ministry that ever held office than allow it to be exercised under the direction of the very best House of Commons; and by Sir Robert Peel, that he would leave this prerogative in the hands of the executive considering that it was the right and duty of the house to interfere only if there be a suspicion that justice is perverted for corrupt purposes.
In the case before us Mr. Speaker, which I have carefully examined, I find there is nothing to justify me in making an exception to the general practice. I would, therefore ask my hon. friend not to press the motion.
Motion negatived.



DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO

Hewitt Bostock: Before I call notices of
motion, in deference to the house I wish to declare that owing to a clerical error I cast my vote last evening on the bill moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). As there was no tie that vote ought to be invalidated.



RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the estimates should be referred to select standing committees before being submitted to the committee of the whole.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, unlike some of the
resolutions which have come before this house at this session-and which have been opposed by the governemnt because their adoption would have caused a further drain on the treasury-I should like to say that the adop tion of the resolution which I am introducing this afternoon should be welcomed bj the administration, because it has for its purpose a further safeguarding of the treasury and a saving in the time of the house. It is not my intention to debate this question at any great length; it already has been before the house on several occasions, but for one reason or another, the house never has had the opportunity of pronouncing upon it.
I find that you, Mr. Speaker, introduced a similar resolution in the session of 1921, and at that time you very ably and eloquently placed before the members of the house good and sufficient reasons why this resolution should have been adopted. I find also that on that occasion you were well supported by the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the Liberal party in opposition. The resolution, however, did not come to a vote, as it was withdrawn.
It was introduced again in the session of 1925 by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), but was shelved on that occasion because of an amendment which was introduced referring it to the committee of the house then sitting on the revision of the rules of the house. The report of the committee will be found in the Journals of the house, 1925, at page 360:
Your committee is of the opinion that the question of referring estimates to special committees before being submitted to the committee of supply is one of great importance which.

Rules of the House-Mr. Lucas
does not come entirely within the scope of a committee appointed to revise the rules, and it recommends that the same be considered by a special committee at the next session of parliament.
Nothing further was heard of this question until late in the session of 1928 when, on a motion to go into supply, the leader of the opposition moved an amendment condemning the expenditures of the government as excessive and extravagant. This was regarded by the government as a vote of want of confidence, and in speaking to this amendment the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) intimated that unless we had some assurance that provision would be made whereby we might be able to scrutinize these estimates in a more businesslike manner, the possibilities were that this corner of the house might support that amendment. Speaking in that debate the hon. member is reported as follows:
For several years we have pressed from this section of the assembly that there ought to be a better method of examining the expenditures of the country. We have asked from time to time that estimates be either allocated to various standing committees of the house, or that special committees be appointed to attend to this matter. So far we have not received much encouragement.
A little further on he stated:
But I do insist that the government give us now some assurance that at subsequent sessions an attempt will be made to deal a little more efficiently with the examination of the expenditures of the country.
Following the remarks of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, the Prime Minister is reported at page 4048, revised edition of Hansard, 1928, as follows:
I entirely agree with my hon. friend that the system at present in force, under which a minister of the crown is necessarily dependent in the House of Commons on his deputy for much of the needed information with the deputy, also of necessity, often not wholly familiar with all the details of particular branches, is most unsatisfactory. Speaking for the government I would say that we would welcome a change in the present method, a change which would not only afford fuller opportunity for discussion but which would carry with it an obligation on the part of the heads of different branches of the public service to appear before a committee of the house and explain fully the reasons which have occasioned the recommendations which find their place in the estimates submitted to the house.
Having said this I would like to supplement my remarks further by saying that if we are not voted out of office as a result of this blanket amendment and if when another session comes around we still retain the confidence of the House of Commons, one of the first matters to which we will ask the house to give its attention and consideration will be

the one mentioned by my hon. friend, namely that of arranging some method by which the estimates may to a greater or less extent be considered by a special committee or by the standing committees of the house.
At the last session of parliament another resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), but when the resolution was reached it was ruled out of order, because this matter had been already referred to the select standing committee on standing orders. Early last session the Prime Minister, true to his promise, made the following motion, which is to be found at page 48 of the Journals of the house, 1929:
Mr. Mackenzie King (Prince Albert) moved: That the select standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of amending the standing orders so that certain estimates may be referred to a committee and so that bills reported from a standing or select committee shall be placed on the order paper for third reading after having been sufficiently debated by the house.
You will note that the last part of this motion is a certain form of closure when dealing with the third reading of bills.
When the right hon. Prime Minister made this motion the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) took exception, and referred to it as a double-barrelled motion, as it later proved to be. The select standing committee on standing orders reported on this matter, and their report is to be found at page 78, of the Journals of the house, 1929:
Your committee recommend that, during the present session, the house may refer any of the estimates to a standing or special committee, concurrently with the committee of supply, but that none of the estimates shall be concurred in by the house until reported by the committee of supply.
Your committee further recommends that, during the present session, when any bill, other than a government bill, reported from any standing or special committee, shall have been considered at two sittings and not disposed of, it shall be placed on the order paper for third reading; and when called in pursuance thereof, the question "That the bill be now read a third time" shall be put by Mr. Speaker and decided without debate or amendment.
The trouble we found with this report was that it dealt with two questions, which caused the hon. member for Acadia to term it a double-barrelled motion, the second barrel dealing with third reading of bills and when it came before the house hon. members found that in order to get what they wanted they were compelled to vote for something they did not want, a system of closure on the third reading of bills, which proved very objectionable to a great many members. When this report was brought before the house for concurrence the hon. member for Comox-

Rules of the House-Mr. Mackenzie King
Alberni (Mr. Neill) moved the adjournment of the debate, so that the house up to the present time never has had the opportunity of dealing with it. That motion remained on the order paper during the whole of last session.
I think it is recognized by every hon. member of the house that the present system of dealing with the estimates is far from satisfactory. With our tremendous debt and our annual expenditure continually growing, anything that will enable hon. members to vote supply in a more intelligent and businesslike way, so as to take care of the needs of an expanding country, should be welcomed by all parties in the house. It is estimated that two-thirds of our expenditures are uncontrolled, which is all the more reason why we should give the very closest scrutiny to the small portion over which we have control. I believe that the adoption of the resolution which I have introduced this afternoon will not only effect an economy in expenditure but it will effect also an economy in the time of the house. It would affect also the expenditures made for political purposes. We know that charges are made nearly every session that certain expenditures are made for political reasons, and no matter which party was in power, I feel sure that if the ministers in charge knew that their estimates were to go before a special committee they would be very careful about placing in those estimates anything of a political nature.
In fairness to the ministers, it cannot be expected that they will have all the details of the estimates at their finger tips. At times when a minister has not been able to give a complete answer some hon. member has intimated that he is withholding information and that there is some political motive for that action, and the result at times has been that we get into a very long and tedious debate which consumes the time of the house. Very often an hon. member will ask a question and before a reply is given another hon. member will ask another with the result that the first question is forgotten and has to be repeated. Under our present system at times an hon. member is compelled to vote upon an item for which he assumes responsibility without having full information regarding the same.
The procedure which I propose has worked very satisfactorily in connection with the estimates for the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Steamships. The officers of the department are present in the committee and those estimates are threshed out in a free and open manner, and considerable time is saved in the house when the 2419-34
estimates come up for consideration by the committee of the whole. The same result would obtain with the estimates of other departments. Members of the house could appear before the committee where the officers and engineers of the department would be present to give full and complete information. In that way the members would be more fully informed when the estimates came before the committee of the whole, and the estimates would be passed with a great saving of time. As members of parliament we are trustees of the people's money but under our present system we do not have the information to enable us to vote intelligently upon matters concerning expenditures for which they have to assume responsibility.
Speaking personally as a prairie member, I know very little about the needs and requirements for breakwaters and wharves and such things in the maritime provinces. We find large sums of money voted in the estimates each year, and at times we wonder whether or not they are required. The information we receive in that regard does not always satisfy our curiosity and I feel sure that if members from the west could interview the engineers and officers of the various departments and thus obtain full and complete details they would be much more satisfied.
As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to debate this question at any length. It has been before the house on several occasions and the Prime Minister has stated that he was in favour of the proposal. The select standing committee on standing orders, to which this question was referred, has reported in favour of it and I think that all that remains to be done is for the members of the house to be given an opportunity to pronounce upon it. If that were done I feel quite sure that this resolution would be adopted unanimously.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there does
not seem tc 'be a desire upon the part of many hon. members to participate in this debate. I assume that is due to the fact that a similar resolution has been before the house upon two or three previous occasions, and to all intents and purposes a committee erf the house, though no-t the house itself, has endorsed the principle of this resolution.
As I understand it, the hon. member is interested primarily in having an expression of view from the house as to whether or not certain estimates-I think he will agree to that, rather than all estimates-should be referred either to select standing committees or to a committee appointed especially to deal

530	COMMONS
Rules oj the House-Mr. Mackenzie King
with estimates. I make that suggestion as an alternative because there are some estimates which could not go appropriately to any particular select standing committee. The principle aimed at in the resolution is that the estimates should go before some committee of the house for preliminary discussion and consideration, before which committee officials of the public sendee could be called and .members thereby enabled to obtain more detailed information than is generally possible when the estimates are being discussed in committee of supiply. If that is the desire of my hon. friend, I would say that so far as the government is concerned we are in entire accord with the purpose and spirit of the resolution.
As has been mentioned already by the hon. member, I moved personally on February 15 last year, the following resolution:
That the select standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of amending the standing orders so that certain estimates may be referred to a commitce and so that bills reported from a standing or select committee shall be placed on the order paper for third reading after having been sufficiently debated by the house.
The hon. member has reminded us that at that time some exception was taken to the form of that resolution u,pon the ground that it was double-barrelled. I pointed out that it did deal with two separate subjects, but that the purpose of it was to refer each of those subjects to the select committee and that it did not necessarily follow that the house would have to adopt both of them; it could adopt one or both of the proposals, or reject either or 'both. On February 21 of last year, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin), the chairman of the select standing committee on standing orders, presented a report as follows:
Mr. L. S. R. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) presented the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders as follows:
And then is quoted the order, and the report continues:
Your committee recommend that, during the present session, the house may refer any of the estimates to a standing or special committee, concurrently with the committee of supply, but that none of the estimates shall be concurred in by the house until reported by the committee of supply.
Then there is a reference to the other barrel of the resolution, and the opinion of the committee is given with respect thereto. That resolution was before the house on February 26, and if I am not mistaken., it was the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) who took a rather strong exception to the recommendation in debate. He pointed out that in his opinion the resolution would restrict the

freedom of members in debate in the house. This was, I believe, the last thing in the mind of anyone who wished to have the estimates go before a committee. Indeed, the purpose was quite the apposite. The hon. member cast a great deal of ridicule on the proposal, and then moved the adjournment of the debate. I have in my hand the orders of the. day of last year and from the 26th February until the last day of the session there stood at the head of routine proceedings the following order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) for the concurrence in the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders.
It was open to any hon. member at any time from the 26th February until June 14 to move concurrence in that report. If it were not desired to concur in the report in its entirety, an amendment could have been made accepting the portion of the report which hon. members wish to have adopted. The fact that throughout the whole session no single member, though each one was free to make the motion, moved concurrence in the report or in any portion of it led the government to assume that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) had so impressed the house with his speech that no one else wished to take the matter up, and it was allowed to remain in that comatose condition until the end of the session.
Now the matter in so far as it relates to estimates comes forward as a single resolution. If my hon. friend is prepared to make his resolution a little general and for the word " estimates " to insert the words " certain estimates " and to make it read " a special committee or select standing committees " instead of just " select standing committees "-and I think he would be agreeable to doing this-the government would have no objection to having the resolution carried and, in fact, its members would be prepared to support it. I would wish, however, to make perfectly clear that hon. members are free to vote as they please and also note what the government has in mind in having it made possible to refer estimates to a select standing committee, is simply to provide means whereby hon. members can get more in the way of detailed information with respect to the estimates than is generally possible when we are discussing them in the committee of supply. We believe a great deal of time might be saved if estimates went before either select standing committees or a special committee for the purpose and were considered there, but there would have to be the distinct understanding that in no particular was the right of any member

Rules oj the House-Sir George Perley
to discuss any or all of the estimates restricted in any way when they were before the house in committee of supply. I think it should be made quite clear that so far as the committee of supply is concerned, its rights or the activities of any of its members would not be restricted in any particular.


Alan Webster Neill: W ould the Prime Minister amplify the term " certain estimates " so as to indicate what scope that would have?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would have just such scope as the house would wish to give. If the house, for example, wished the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to go to the select standing commttee on agriculture, those estimates might be so referred. If it were so desired, the estimates of the Department of External Affairs might be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, and so on, regard being had to the particular class of estimates to be considered.
I would like my hon. friend to realize that to put into practice the purpose of his resolution would require an amendment to the rules. The government would wish to wait until there was a special committee dealing with amendments to the rules before acting upon the resolution. We recognize that careful thought should be given to the many considerations of which account should be taken in adopting any new practice in parliament. If, however, the house adopts the motion, when the house decides to have a committee to amend the rules, the resolution could be brought immediately to its attention as an opinion of the house with respect to a certain course which should be adopted in dealing with the estimates. It would then be for the committee to make its own recommendation to the house with respect to any necessary changes in procedure.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I
think the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) should receive the thanks of the house for bringing up this question again this year. It is very important and requires a good deal of consideration. Our first duty in parliament is to see that everything, particularly the estimates, is carefully considered. If we start with that idea, anything we can do that will save the time of the house, it seems to me, ought to be adopted.
As regards what happened last session, what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) says is true about the motion which was brought in and which stood on the order paper for a long time. My hon. friend made an error in coupling these two things together 2419-34*
in that motion. They were entirely different and, as the hon. member for Camrose has said, it is quite evident that many hon. members might support one who would be definitely against the other. The Prime Minister suggests that any member could have gone on with the adjourned motion. That is true, but that would bring up the discussion of both these points, and it seems to me the proper way to deal with the matter is to have a motion with regard to this one point only and if the other point should ever be brought up again-and many members think it should not be-then it could be moved as a separate motion.
I am going to make a suggestion which is entirely my own, and that is that this session we should try out this scheme with the estimates of one of the departments. The Department of Public Works has the greatest number of items in the estimates. It is the one as regards which the members would liketly prefer most of all to be able to ask questions of other officials in the department than the minister only to whom the information is given on the floor of the house by the deputy minister. If we could consider the estimates of the Department of Public Works in a committee, that would go a long way toward reducing the time which the house spends on estimates. Certainly, as the Prime Minister has said, we must preserve the right to discuss anything we like when we are in committee of supply, but it seems quite evident to me that if there are in the Department of Public Works, for instance, estimates about which I would like some information, and if I could get that in a committee by asking the deputy minister or other officials, then I am in a position, if I want to bring the matter up in the house, to do so briefly and not to spend a long time getting from the minister information which he very often does not have and which sometimes he is not very willing to give. If we try this scheme this session in regard to the estimates of the Department of Public Works-and I suppose that would mean a special committee-then we would see whether it would work out in the same way as it has done in regard to the estimates of the Canadian National Railways. The estimates of the Canadian National Railways are brought before a special committee and threshed out there very fully. When they come into the house any hon. member has a perfect right to bring up any question in connection with those estimates, but experience has taught us that as a rule not much time is taken up with the estimate* of the Canadian National Railways for the

Rules of the House-Mr. MacLaren
reason that they have been so thoroughly threshed out in committee and the members have had an. opportunity of asking questions of various officials and getting the information. they want.
The Prime Minister says that a motion made to amend the rules would be the proper way to bring this matter up. I would suggest to him that as he is satisfied to have this done, he should make a motion that the committee on standing orders should consider the question and make a report as to the best way of dealing with it. If he approves my suggestion that we try this out this session with regard to the estimates of the Public Works department only, I do not think this requires a change in the rules. The house has the right at any time to appoint a special committee for any purpose it chooses, and if the question were considered by the committee on standing orders and they made a report that the estimates of the Public Works department, if my suggestion is approved, should be taken up in a special committee this session, and that report were concurred in by the house, that would cover the point and the house could name a committee for that purpose. It may not be found to work out as well as some members hope, but if this session we made the experiment with this one department, which has the greatest number of items in the estimates, we would know better what to do about the other departments another year.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: If this proposal were carried into effect, I think that a good deal would be lost. What would be gained would be a saving of the time of the house, because after the estimates had been discussed by the special committee the discussion in the house would be materially shortened. But there are other things more important than the saving of time. When the estimates are first brought before the committee of the whole, general information is given and as a result the members as a whole are much better informed as to the expenditures and accounts than they would be if the estimates were referred to special committees. We have a special committee now to consider the estimates of the Canadian National Railways It is true that the members of that particular committee have obtained an intimate knowledge of the railway accounts, but the House of Commons has lost so far as the information of the members generally is concerned. I think most members know less about the railway accounts now than they did before this arrangement was made.

It. may be said that the estimates may be discussed in the house after coming from the special committee. That is true; they may be discussed, but they will not be. There woidd be a general feeling that having been discussed and disposed of in one committee they should not be discussed again in the house, except in very exceptional eases. The railway estimates for instance, are not much discussed in the house. So far as those estimates are concerned, I think we have saved time by referring them to a special committee, but we have lost in our general information.
There is one other point. Different groups of members are especially interested in the estimates affecting their own portion of the country, and it is their duty to familiarize themselves with them, and to follow them up. But if a member does not happen to be on the special committee, his life would be a burden trying to keep in touch with the committee so that he could attend when particular estimates in which he was interested came up for discussion and hear what was going on. I presume that he would be allowed to take part in the discussion if he requested the privilege. That is a serious practical objection.
Under the present system I believe that all the members are acquiring a vast amount of useful information regarding the country generally. I think that the advantages of the present system outweigh its disadvantages. I think we would lose more than we would gain by changing the present system. We would save time, but we would lose in knowledge. We would lose our opportunity, as representing constituencies, to be present when certain estimates were under discussion by the committee, because there would be great difficulty in keeping in touch with the committee and ascertaining just when those items were coming up.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I desire to assure my hon friend that while the government, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has stated, is in accord with the general principle of the resolution, it is not desired that the impression should be conveyed that the government is attempting to force this or any other method of dealing with the estimates upon the house. Rather it welcomes the opportunity of discussing such methods as have been suggested 'by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) and by others on previous occasions in previous sessions. Certainly there is some point in what my hon. friend from St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) says. The one experience

Rules oj the House-Mr. Dunning
we have had in this matter up to the present is with the committee dealing with the Canadian National railway estimates. The evidence taken before that committee has been made a matter of record, and is usually printed and is available, but I agree with my hon. friend that it is not quite so easy to gather from a printed record of evidence what you particularly want to know, as if you were present and could ask particular questions, which may not have been asked in your absence.
I have taken a little trouble, somewhat hurriedly, to find what has 'been the British experience, for after all we can learn what is likely to happen in our own case by studying what has happened in other assemblies similarly situated. I find that in Great Britain the creation of an estimates committee has been discussed for upwards of fifty years. In 1912 such a committee was set up. It did not function at all effectually due to the outbreak of the war, and it was not until 1921 that a general debate on the subject took place in the British House of Commons. On a previous occasion this session I quoted what Sir Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Asquith said on that occasion. In any event the result of that debate was to set up a committee to function under somewhat elaborate regulations. I shall not burden the house with the regulations, ten in number, but they do indicate the necessity of careful study on the part of the select standing committee on standing orders as to the kind of rules under which such committees should function if established in the Canadian House of Commons.
There is, of course, the question that occurs at once to everyone's mind:	If this new
method is adopted, what effect will it have upon the rights of members of the house in committee of supply? I am sure that my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Per-ley) and everyone would agree that nothing that is done by way of a special committee in the examination of estimates should in any way impair the rights of members of the house in committee of supply.
The second point which assumed considerable importance in Great Britain was as to the effect of the new system upon ministerial and departmental responsibility for the preparation and presentation of estimates. Looking through the record of the experience of Great Britain, I find that that question grew more and more important as the years passed, and it is very evident from the British experience that it should be made clear that
such committees on estimates, if appointed, would have no authority to increase the estimates or to report favourably for increases along this or that line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the hon. minister sure about the British estimates committee?


Mr. DUNNING:: About what phase of
it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dealing with estimates
at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps it would be
better for me to go more deeply into that phase because there has been an evolution from the original purpose of the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the ministers said that it served no purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a considerable
difference of opinion in the British house with respect to the value of the estimates committee. Be that as it may, the British estimates committee has certainly evolved in a direction away from the original purpose for which it was created. There is, of course, some difference between our situation in this parliament and the situation in the British parliament. In Great Britain parliament is nearly always in session; in Canada the session is usually over in June. In Great Britain there is a rule of the house that twenty days of each session, that is the winter session, shall be set aside for the unrestricted discussion of estimates, and during those twenty days, which are not consecutive, the opposition is given considerable latitude in the selection of the votes to be criticised. But on the other hand the government is benefited by the provision in the rules that after a certain date has been reached all the estimates not already passed shall be at once adopted without further discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The guillotine.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the guillotine. This clears the board for the general legislative program of the session. I feel fairly sure there would be great objection in this house to adopting that procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the committee on estimates?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will come to that in
a moment. The evolution, as nearly as I can follow it, of the committee on estimates in Great Britain is that it has ceased to function with regard to reporting to the house with respect to the estimates of any particular department in any particular session, but has evolved rather along the lines of trying to
534	COMMONS
Rules of the House-Mr. Dunning
cover in its investigations all departments successively, reaching the same department again in a period of about four to five years, and making an exhaustive examination of each department, its manner of preparing estimates, suggestions of economies which might be developed, but not discussing matters of policy at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor items of estimates.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nor items of estimates; but departmental administration generally, and reporting, not to the house, but to what are described as the Lords of the Treasury, which of course means to the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Like our Auditor General's report.


Charles Avery Dunning: Practically the same.
Some of the discussions in the British house of which I have record indicate considerable debate as to conflict of jurisdiction between the ordinary auditing arrangments of the government and the functions of this committee. On the whole, however, there appears in Great Britain to be an opinion that the estimates committee-and I am inclined to think it now has the wrong name; it is not strictly speaking an estimates committee in the sense in which we are discussing the matter to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not consider the supply bill until the money has been expended.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friend says, it does not consider the supply bill until after the money has been expended. But it has evolved rather a-


Henry Herbert Stevens: The same as our public accounts committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friends would allow me to proceed, as I have not much time left. It has evolved into a committee of the house having for its function the examination continuously of the detail operations of the departments of the government, with power to call the officers of those departments before it from time to time, and to report to the government its observations upon the economics of the public service. That is really what the British estimates committee has evolved into, and therefore it is a different thing from what is contemplated in this resolution. I do suggest, however, that this experience on the part of the British parliament points at least to the desirability from our point of view of having the committee on standing orders carefully consider what rules should be adopted for the committees pro-

posed in the resolution now under discussion before we are called upon to extend powers to committees to deal with the estimates.
I merely give this rather sketchy information in order to indicate my belief that a careful study by the committee on standing orders of the operation of this sort of thing elsewhere is desirable before the rules of this house are amended in regard to the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: Are the functions of the committee in the British house which have been described not entirely covered by our committee known as the public accounts committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I can best answer the question by reading what I refrained from reading before, the regulations under which the regular estimates committee was established in the British house:
1.	That an estimates committee of eighteen should be appointed.
2.	That the danger of considerable overlapping of functions rendered it undesirable that the estimates committee should sit as a separate body in addition to the select committee on national expenditure and the public accounts committee, and it is therefore proposed that the estimates committee and the select committee on national expenditure should be merged into one.
3.	That in accordance with the procedure that has been adopted in the past in the case of the select committee on national expenditure there should be one committee only but power should be given to it to appoint subcommittees.
4.	That as in other cases of committees whose functions continue from session to session, e.g., the public accounts committee, the same members, as far as may be possible, should be appointed to serve each session, and leave should be given to the committee to sit during adjournments of the house if they so desire.
5.	That the committee should have no power to deal with questions of policy or to advocate increased expenditure. Their functions should be to examine estimates in the light of the government's policy with a view to discovering any possible economies and any items which appeared to involve or to have involved wasteful or unnecessary expenditure or seemed likely to lead to large increases of expenditure in future years.
6.	That the procedure in the House of Commons in regard to supply should remain unaltered and that on the appointment of the estimates committee no hard-and-fast rules should be laid down with the object of securing the postponement of discussions on estimates in committee of supply pending the receipt of reports from the estimates committee. Rules of this character might create serious difficulties in regard to the business of the house and might also lead, in some cases, to hurried and insufficient consideration of the estimates by the committee itself. It is suggested, therefore, that it should be left to the government, in arranging the order in which the estimates are to be discussed in the

Rules oj the House-Mr. Dunning
house, to bear constantly in mind the proceedings of the estimates committee with a view to meeting the convenience both of the committee and the house as far as possible. If it should be found subsequently that some alteration in procedure was desirable, any necessary change could he made in the light of the experience gained by the committee.
7.	That there should be attached to the committee an experienced member of the staff of the House of Commons, whose function it would be to prepare material for the committee's deliberations and to render advice and assistance to the committee and the chairman in particular. Being a servant of the House of Commons, this official would occupy an independent position in relation to ministers.
8.	That this official should not be empowered to call for information from government departments except on the instructions of the chairman of the committee, nor have the right of access to departmental papers, but the committee shall have the ordinary right of sending for persons, papers and records.
9.	That no further staff should be appointed at the present time, and that the committee should decide by experience whether the creation of any additional staff was required.
10.	That the selection of the chairman should be left to the committee.
Now, those were the original regulations under which that committee was established-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1921-and the committee has been functioning for a number of years. I can best illustrate its evolution by quoting from volume VI of the reports of the committee, page 282 of the records of the British Blouse of Commons. Under head 16 I find the following:
We, are, however, not satisfied with the existing procedure.
This was after a period of years of experience.
We, therefore, recommend that the number [DOT]of members of the estimates committee should be increased next year, which would enable it to subdivide itself into sufficient sub-committees to examine the whole estimates every year. For this purpose we assume that each sub-committee would examine two or three classes according to size, including the revenue departments and fighting services. The reports of the subcommittees would come up for approval by the main committee as at present. As the work *would be onerous and detailed, we further suggest that members of this committee should he excused from service on all private bill committees, and also, if they so desire, on standing committees.
At page 315 of the same volume will be found the ruling of the Lords of the Treasury on the recommendation which I have just read. This is the ruling:
The government do not see their way to adopt the recommendations as to the future size and composition of the committee. It .appears to them that the committee should aim
at reviewing a group of estimates each year so as to cover the full field every four or five years and should endeavour as far as possible to complete this review before the particular group are finally disposed of in supply. This they consider the committee should be able to do without additional members or special facilities.
Since the date of that report, the committee in Great Britain has evolved along these lines, and now -the committee simply takes the estimates of a department as the basis of an investigation of the affairs of that department, and then submits to the treasury, or to the government-the Lords of the Treasury meaning, in this case, the government-for the advice and information of the government when they prepare the estimates for the next fiscal year. The treasury, under the British system, is at liberty either to accept or to reject those suggestions, but as the corrre-spondence is made a public document, the members of the house have the information before them. I have read the textbook by Mr. Durel'l, who is possibly one of the best authorities on this phase of British parliamentary practice. He is quite critical of the work of the estimates committee, but I do not think I can, with advantage, place his views before the house at this stage. They can be easily secured by any member from the library.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I would like to be perfectly clear on one point, that no matter what is referred to this committee it will not silence or prevent any private member from asking questions or discussing matters when they come down to the committee of the whole.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the features which the committee on standing orders would have to consider when the rules were being changed, or the rules of the house amended, to make provision for this procedure. I stated that I did not think that any member of the house would want to preclude members from asking questions, or from discussing estimates in committee of supply.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I thought I heard the
Prime Minister say something to that effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the motion before
the house contemplates the setting up o:f a special committee to consider estimates for the current year, that is, estimates that might be referred to such a committee. All estimates, alike in Great Britain and here, are submitted with a message, and the government of the day, being responsible for the raising of the necessary revenues of the country,

Rules of the House-Mr. Bennett
must, in the final analysis, assume the responsibility for the expenditure. All a committee could do would be to examine into the circumstances under which an estimate was made. It could not determine the question of policy, and it certainly could not lessen the estimate, neither could it increase it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly clear.
I was under the impression at one time-and I see that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is of .the same mind with respect to it-that this committee in the English House of Commons had wider power than it in fact has, and he and I discussed the matter with one of the British ministers at one time for the purpose of ascertaining what the powers of that committee were. In this country, the only effect that I can see of such a committee being set up, would be, (a) to enable the committee to ascertain the circumstances under which a given estimate appeared in the estimates; (b) to determine whether or not the amount indicated would be sufficient for the purpose of meeting the proposed expenditure; and (c) any other circumstances that might be relevant to such an inquiry. But it could not deal, as I have said, with either a question of policy, nor yet could it lessen or increase the estimate.
Under the circumstances, the only utility of such a committee would be to save the time of this house, and that would involve the taking of the notes of evidence, the printing of them, and the submitting of them to all the members of this house, in order that they might read them and govern themselves on the circumstances before the estimate came up in the committee of supply. I confess that at various times I have looked into the matter, hoping that there might be some real merit in what I had always believed to be the committee on estimates in Great Britain, in its application to this country, but after I had made the inquiry, which the right hon. the Prime Minister is aware of, I made further inquiries in Great Britain, and also looked at some of the textbooks to which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has referred, and frankly, the only purpose that would be served by such a committee would be that which I have just indicated, so far as I could ascertain from the study which I gave to the matter.
However, I am bound to say that the committee which was merged with it-the public accounts committee-did serve a useful purpose in Great Britain, and one which I think our public accounts committees should now be willing to undertake. For instance, Great

Britain operates a dockyard at Portsmouth, and I was amazed on one occasion to see the extent to which that committee went into detailed expenditures for the purpose of seeing how public moneys could, in the future, be saved because of what they believed to be excessive expenditures in connection with the payment of wages, and matters of that kind. For instance, suppose we applied that to this country, and had an inquiry before the public accounts committee that would not be partisan in its character-if that is possible before such a committee-as to the expenditures in the Sorel shipyard-and I use that as an illustration because it is a point at which we carry on operations not dissimilar in character to the operations carried on at the Portsmouth dockyard-or in Great Britain where they have many inquiries as to the expenditure in operating the national telephone system. Here we have set up a special committee for the purpose of making inquiries with respect to our national railway system. That special committee is a committee that makes very detailed inquiries as to projected expenditures, but it can serve no great purpose, for this reason, that the estimate of the minister has been made upon the recommendation of the officials before it goes to the committee, and all the committee can do is merely to record-and it always does-its acquiescence in the action of the minister, based on the recommendation of the mangement. What is really necessary, if we are going to deal with that at all, is that there should be an antecedent inquiry before the estimate is made, because once the officials of the railway make their recommendation, and the cabinet accepts it, it is generally assumed that they have given it the best consideration possible, with respect to the recommendations and with respect to the expenditure. I might cite, for example, the case of the Montreal terminals last year. Some of us thought that further inquiries might be desirable or necessary. The government had before it all the information it was possible to have, to enable it to determine whether or not the recommendations made by the railway officials should or should not be made effective, and in the light of the information, given the government concluded to give effect to the recommendations of the officials, and placed in the estimates the necessary money to enable the undertaking to commence.
Now, the idea, I take it, that is in the mind of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), is as to whether or not an antecedent inquiry might not be possible so that the recommendations made by officials might be tested by the committee, and the government would have the advantage of the testing

Rules of the House-Mr. Bennett
of those recommendations by a committee to enable it to determine whether or not the expenditures should be made. The question in the minds of some of us at least, was whether or not it was possible, in a country where you have expenditures on the basis we have in this country, to set up a committee on estimates that could adequately deal with the situation, with the constitutional limitations imposed upon it. I am bound to say, in the light of the knowledge I have, and the information I have, it places me greatly in doubt.
That is as far as I am prepared to go, but I might add one word. I do believe that in the interests of parliamentary government the public accounts committee might more adequately discharge a very important duty to the Dominion if it carried on its investigations, not because one party or the other suggests this or the other thing, but in order that a great spending department should have its entire accounts, as set out in the Auditor General's report, considered by that committee, as a group of business men dealing with expenditures from every angle and determining to what extent they might make recommendations in order to ensure a greater return for the money expended. That is certainly a principle that governs in the operations of that committee's work in England. As I have said, not wishing to repeat myself, they have gone into great detail in some of the recommendations they have made. I have felt, more particularly in recent years, that with the great volume of business this country transacts, as indicated by the Auditor General's report, the greatest service that could be rendered by a member or members of this house would be to take an active interest in the public accounts committee, not swayed by the desire to protect ministerial responsibility, but for the purpose of ensuring the greatest possible efficiency in the discharge of the obligations that rest upon the government in regard to the expenditure of public revenues. The very recommendations read from Mr. Durell's book by the Minister of Finance would involve, if applied here, that the committee on public accounts at the beginning of a new parliament would consist, as far as possible, of members who take an interest in matters of that kind, and that so far as possible continuity should be preserved during the lifetime of that parliament in the membership of the committee, and that it would take up from year to year one department of the public service, and dispose not only of the question of expenditures, but deal also with questions of revenue. I urge that,
because at the moment there is no audit of revenues in this country; there is no supervision by the Auditor General of the revenues of Canada at this moment. In the very nature of things that would become exceedingly difficult and is surrounded by many limitations that would be necessarily imposed upon an auditor in connection with the revenues that are derived from operations of the public service. But I submit, and I think the Minister of Finance will find, in the end, that it might serve a great purpose if the public accounts committee were constituted as I have suggested with power preserved during the lifetime of the parliament to take up at the beginning of each session, and to determine national revenue, for instance, under the headings of (a) sources of revenue and (b) checks upon those sources. Then take up the expenditures, as to the circumstances under which they are made, the methods controlling them and take up definitely as the committee does in England the whole operations of that department. Then recommendations could be made to the house and to the government that would enable the government to check revenues more closely and to supervise expenditures in the department to a greater extent.
For instance, there is great overlapping in the public service of this country which is being prevented in England by the work of this committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: To some extent, only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not attained perfection, of course, but the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in England exercise a power comparable to that of the Auditor General of this country on the one hand and of the Minister of Finance on the other. I submit that such a committee with authority to exercise that power would be able to ascertain this question. As an illustration, why should four governmental departments be buying the same kind of article, instead of buying through a central purchasing department? Why should a tender be called for a dredge, in one instance by the Minister of Railways and Canals, and another tender be called by the Minister of Public Works for a similar machine? Why should the question of specifications with regard to these matters not have the same form, or shall I say uniformity, so as to provide under conditions familiar to all of us the interchange of parts and the difficulties that arise because of repairs.
It is not this administration only, but if any of the hon. members of this house will take the trouble to look into the public

Rules oj the House-Mr. Bennett
accounts and see the goods that are purchased by each department he will realize what I meant when I used the word "overlapping". Knowing, as I do, the business propensities of the Minister of Finance, I am ,perfectly certain he would say that in the management of a great enterprise he would not permit departmental heads to overlap one another in the operations of their respective departments. I think that is clear. How is it to be dealt with? Certainly the committee on estimates would not be able to accomplish a reform in that direction. But I repeat that my own study of the constitution convinces me that if the members of this house who come here with the desire to do useful public service and find difficulty in performing that service would go up to the public accounts committee at the beginning of a new parliament and have it understood that continuity is being maintained as far as possible in the work of that committee, and take up the operations of one department of public service in the first year, and see it through in the way in which it is done by the committee in Great Britain to which reference was made, they would do as great a service for this country as it is possible for members of parliament to do. In that way they could make recommendations as to how we would be able to supervise and make effective and efficient expenditures of public money, while ensuring every available dollar of revenue. I say that in the light of the study I have been ablf to devote to this matter. I say it to the committee of this house with some hesitancy, because I had thought at one time it fight be possible for this committee on eetim, as to attain a wider and greater result than I know now to be possible under the constitutional limitations imposed upon the expenditure of public money.
One word more, and I 'have concluded. There is no reason why we should not in the light of what the right hon. the Prime Minister has been good enough to say as to the attitude of the government, instead of changing the rules, refer the estimates of some small spending department to a select standing committee that we could name. There is no reason why we should not try it out, authorizing to every member the right to attend the committee and the right to ask such questions as he might think desirable in order that the complete record might be prepared. It would be understood, just as in the case of the special committee dealing with the national railways, that such committee would have its proceedings printed, ana every

member of the house would have the opportunity to read and study them before the estimates of that department were under consideration by the committee of supply.
Of course, the observations by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) must prevail, as the right hon. t'he Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance indicated, namely, that that should not be taken as in any sense curbing the right of inquiry or investigation, or the night to question the minister himself when the estimates are under consideration by the committee.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The reason for this resolution, as my friend remarked, and as I understand the sense and spirit of it and the motive which prompted the resolution, was that private members of this house might be able to get better and speedier in-formatiou in connection with the estimates. It has been a remarkable feature to me, as a member of this house for four years, to note the speed with which these estimates go through. Sometimes when we get to estimates the chairman of the committee calls for a vote before we have had time to read the figures; my hon. friends opposite say "Carried, carried", and we have carried millions of dollars in a few minutes. When information was wanted it was found that although the minister and the deputy minister both were there it was almost impossible to obtain it..
Therefore, I consider that the principle of this resolution, however it may be carried out, would enable us to pass these estimates intelligently and not vote millions of dollars in a few minutes. These estimates could be referred to some committee where not only the deputy minister but the engineers and officers of the department would be present, and full information could be obtained. It has been the experience in the past that when the house began to get a little weary and eleven o'clock was being reached, estimates have passed through without any consideration being given to them or without any information being offered as to the requirements of the vote.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member surely does not expect that the adoption of the principle of this resolution would prevent the estimates passing the house quickly; in fact, it would produce the opposite effect. If the experience of the British house is to be any guide, they will pass much more quickly than is now the case.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But with more information being obtained.

Rules of the House-Mr. Coote


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Who would
have more information?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Officials of the department could be required to appear before the committee with any information desired.


John Livingstone Brown: And only those who were
members of the committee would have that information; what about the rest of the members?
In speaking to the subject of the resolution itself and without going into the further field indicated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), there would appear to be a need for a great deal of study in this direction. Two benefits are suggested in the resolution; one is that the house would have further information, and the other is that it would save the time of the house. Like other members of the house, when estimates are being considered I realize how impossible it is to obtain information, and how much we are working in the dark. As has already been pointed out, the adoption of this proposal simply would mean that a few members would have fuller information, and unless the proceedings of the commitees were published and circulated the other members of the house would not have that advantage.


William Thomas Lucas: When the estimates were
before the house those members who possessed that information would be able to carry on a more intelligent discussion and impart to the other members what information they possessed.


John Livingstone Brown: That is quite possible, but
still the great majority of the members would be brought face to face with certain estimates without having the knowledge possessed by the few.


Mr. JACOBS:: Why does the hon. member suggest that there would be only a few members on that committee? What is to prevent every member of the house being on such a committee?


John Livingstone Brown: If every member of the
house were on that committee we might just as well continue as at present. There might be possibly some advantage in having even a few members of the house fully informed as to the details of any particular item and of the circumstances under which it appeared in the estimates.
As to the saving of time, I doubt very much whether that would be accomplished. Complaint has been made that we pass the estimates too hurriedly, but that argument and the argument that we would be saving time do not fit together. I think hon. members of the house will agree that time is not wasted- perhaps that is not the proper word. Time is hot unnecessarily consumed in discussing such items as appear in the estimates. The great proportion of the time consumed in discussing estimates is taken up with items which do not appear therein. That has been the experience of previous years as well as during the present year when the estimates of the Minister of Public Works have been considered. Of course, I do not dispute that hon. members have a perfect right to criticize the non-appearance of certain items.
I cannot see that the adoption of this proposal would lessen in any way the amount of time spent by the house in the discussion of these matters.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I was very much pleased with the attitude taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, and before I close I intend to move an amendment along the lines suggested by him.
I was interested in the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mt. Bennett), and in looking up the debate upon the resolution introduced in 1925 I find that I expressed somewhat the same opinion. I said:
T drafted this resolution last year before I left the house and if I were preparing it to-day I would make the suggested change a little more sweeping than is proposed here. I think possibly the time to cut down estimates is before they are printed and given to the house, and it might be advisable for us to have a committee on estimates who would go over the estimates of the deputy ministers before they were printed and submitted to parliament.
I do not think it would be possible to get the house to adopt anything as sweeping as that, but I think it would be better if the public accounts committee examined the estimates of t'he Public Works department before rather than after the money was spent. I was a member of that committee for many years, and I remember one occasion when we discussed for three weeks the expenditure which had been made on a small harbour in western Ontario. I imagine that the cost of operating the committee for that length of time equalled the amount which had been spent upon the harbour.
I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister that a start be made this year with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Those estimates usually take up from one to three weeks of the time of the house, and if they were taken up before the agriculture committee those members who are particularly interested in agriculture could attend and obtain the information which we have never

Rules oj the House-Mr. Jacobs
been able to obtain in the house. It might be that the heads of the department could obtain some ideas from the committee which would enable them to give the country better value for the money expended.
I do not think there would be very much time saved, but it is possible there might be a little. This is only an experiment which we are making, and it might be conducted along similar lines to the procedure followed with the estimates of the Canadian National Railway. I would prefer to make use of our select standing committees; I do not like to urge the government to establish additional committees because that would likely cause confusion when the different committees tried to meet at convenient times.
I do not want to take up the time of the house any further, because I think the resolution has met with a very favourable reception. I will dose simply by moving the following amendment:
That the resolution be amended by inserting the word "certain" in place of the word "the" in the second line thereof and by inserting the words "or a special committee" after the word "committees" in the second line thereof.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I want to declare at the outset -that I am in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas). I believe this is the first time that I have ever agreed with him, and I am beginning to ask myself whether I am right or not. The resolution, however, on the face of it appears to be -perfectly innocent and there seem to me to be many features about it which ought to appeal to the house. I consider the change, if adopted, is one which will make for efficiency, thoroughness and a saving of time, all of which I think are necessary even in this House of Commons. For the last- fourteen- years I have been present when the estimates have been brought before the house, and everyone admits that there is room for a good deal of improvement. First of all, I do not thinik, speaking in a general way, the ministers are as efficient or as thorough as they ought to be.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: We are agreed o-n that.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have been here since 1917 so that I know both sides and I do not think one side is very much of an improvement over the other.


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend holds up the present administration as an example.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think they are just "run
of mine"-the hon. member for Richmond-

West Cape Breton will understand what that is-and I do not see very much improvement in the offing. Very often a minister who takes charge of the estimates is a new man who does not know very much about the department. Sometimes he is pitchforked in very suddenly, and often he is one of the most surprised of men when he finds himself in the position. He has to lean upon the official who comes here with the estimates. Questions are asked of the minister; he does not know what answer to make; a whispered conversation takes place between him and the official who is sometimes the deputy minister, sometimes the assistant to the deputy and sometimes an aide to the assistant; a discussion goes on between them and finally some kind of answer is supplied. It may not satisfy the committee, and the minister, if h-e happens to be a diplomat, will tell the committee: I shall be able to give my hon. friend the information he wants to-morrow. Then the storm blows over and the minister is allowed to go on for a little while longer. Why should we not send these estimates to a committee which would have the right of examining not only the officer himself who is providing the information for the minister, but those who prepared the estimates? I do not see why the entire house should not be on that committee if the house wishes to be on it. They can sit in the morning; the house can sit in the ordinary way in the afternoon and the evening, and we would1 be having a sort of two-ringed performance. Those who are interested in the estimates can sit in the committee, and those who are interested in divorces and other matters can sit in the house. In that way there would be some variety. I often think, when I hear a question being asked of a minister and observe his inability to answer it, the proper answer being really that of the deputy, it is very much like the ancient story of Balaam's ass: The minister is asked a question and the deputy answers it. All this would be avoided by the suggestion made by the bon. member for Camrose. We would have the right to summon before us the persons we want with the papers, and then everyone would be satisfied.
Moreover there would not be such grandstand play in the committee. Here we are talking to the whole of Canada. We have the entire press listening, taking down what we 'have to say, and the next morning every man expects to find himself famous. We shall do away with that. We do not want that kind of thing, and we shall have more efficiency in the work. Being one of the

Rules of the House-Mr. Evans
oldest members, I have seen time and time again in the house trouble develop 'between a member on one side and a member on the other on a purely personal matter. They call each other all the names which parliamentary procedure will allow and sometimes they go a little beyond it. The matter has nothing whatever to do with the estimates before the house, but they ventilate their grievance. We are considering an estimate, say for the building of a harbour, and before that is allowed to pass, some hon. gentleman on the other side-always on the other side, of course-will get up and want to know why a postmaster's son was dismissed five years ago from a certain department. Then the whole question will shift to the dismissal of the postmaster's son and we shall have two or three hours' discussion on that or the dismissal of the postmaster himself or the postmaster's sister or something of that kind. The serious work we have on hand is diverted when we go in for a discussion of that sort. Such a procedure is not creditable to parliament and it should not be allowed to continue. We know the weakness of the system and we propose to change it, I think very much for the better.
There are many of us who are not interested in some particular estimates which are before the house. I never could work up much enthusiasm over the estimates for repairs to coves and breakwaters in Nova Sootia, and yet we have had to sit here night after night listening to discussions on such matters.


Mr. DUFF:: We have coves and breakwaters in this part of Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend is a very good representative of a breakwater. We discuss these matters sometimes night after night, and the estimates are held up by an hon. gentleman on the other side who will ask what appears to be an irrelevant question, but of course supply cannot be granted to His Majesty unless grievances are corrected, and in that way we have to sit and Listen to these matters. If the estimates went to a select committee, there would not be any grandstand play. A question would be asked; it would be answered and we would be proceeding with our business in the House of Commons.


Alan Webster Neill: The matter could still be brought uip in the house later on.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, but the bloom would be off the peach. Lightning never strikes twice in the same place. When a question has been thoroughly discussed and hon gentlement have called each other all the names they like in a committee, they are not going to come back to the house and repeat the performance here. We cannot play any return engagement, particularly on the estimates, so that altogether I am strongly in favour of the resolution. I think it is high time that we had it. Most of these estimates pass through leisurely until towards the end of the session, and then what happens? On a single night we will pass twenty or twenty-five millions of dollars. We do not know what it is all about, but we are anxious to catch the five o'clock or the eleven o'clock train. We are patriotic so long as we know that the train is not waiting in the station, but when we know it is waiting we lose our patriotism and leave other people to canyon the work. That is not as it should be. If the estimates came before a special committee or a select standing committee, every item would be discussed, and if they were not properly discussed there they would be when they came before the committee of the whole. The entire estimates would have a thorough overhauling in the special or select standing committee, where those interested would have the particular ones in which they were interested ventilated, and finally they would come here to be touched up and made ready for passing in the regular way. I am therefore strongly in favour of this resolution, and although it is proposed by my hon. friend from Camrose, I hope it will be supported nevertheless.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: The
motive behind this motion is to secure more information regarding the expenditure of large sums of public money. It has always been a mystery to me what has been the motive behind certain projects. I think that more careful scrutiny should be made of the expenditure of large sums of money in certain places. I would point, for instance, to the elevator that has been built on Vancouver island for the storage of western grain. Why it was ever built there is beyond our comprehension. There seems to be no reason for it; we are under the necessity of ferrying the grain across, and our own national railway system is put to greater expense on that account. If we could have all the estimates brought before a body such as could be appointed by this house there would be a more careful scrutiny made of such expenditures, and greater care would be exercised in allotting large sums of money for such projects. I believe that we should at least give this plan a trial. I am heartily in favour of the motion.

Rules oj the House-Mr. Campbell


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
take it that the object of this resolution is not necessarily to out down or increase the estimates, but merely that we may secure proper information before a committee where we would have access to the technical officers of the department concerned, and in the light of that information the passing of the estimates through the house would be facilitated.
Regarding the question which has been raised that the work of such a committee would preclude discussion in the house, may I point out that no one is precluded from asking questions in the house simply because the estimate in question has been before a committee. I would point out that all members of the house are permitted to attend the sittings of a committee. The fact that I do not belong to a particular committee does not bar me from attending and hearing the discussion and asking questions if necessary, or asking one of the members of the committee to ask a question for me if I am precluded from doing so myself. I think, therefore, that there should be no objection on that score. However, I would not be in favour of presenting these estimates to one particular committee, as has been suggested here today. I think that the different estimates should be submitted to the committee dealing with that particular business, that the agricultural estimates, for instance, should be submitted to the committe on agriculture. I take it that most of the members of that committee are men who are primarily interested in agriculture, otherwise they would not be on that committee, and these are the men who would be most likely to ask for information on those estimates in the house. Instead of taking up the time of the house, they can ask their questions in the committee of the officers of the department, instead of bothering the minister, who probably has not the technical knowledge to enlighten them. We have a precedent already in the railway committee, which is a special committee of this house appointed to deal with Canadian National railway estimates. So really there is no new departure proposed. It is simply extending a principle that has already been accepted.
There is another reason, and a very important one, why I am in favour of this resolution, and that is that for some reason or other which is hard to understand there is less partisan spirit in the committees than in the house. Perhaps it is because we are seated differently; perhaps because when I attend a meeting of a committee I might find myself, for instance, sitting next to my genial friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). We would not quarrel in a committee as we might across

the floor of this house. There is no party organization in a committee, and I think that is the main reason-party organization certainly has something to do with it. We are sitting here in different groups, and I think we are sometimes actuated by our respective positions. I think that these estimates could be dealt with much better and more efficiently and more information be secured by a committee than in the house.


William Irvine: I am very glad indeed to witness the reception which the resolution moved by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) has met with in the house. I am glad to note that both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as well as different ministers of the crown, have spoken in favour of this proposal.
I am not going to kill the resolution with kindness by extending my remarks, but I wish to say that while I am in favour of this resolution, I am not satisfied with it; I would like to see it go much further. Some hon. members who have spoken have emphasized that while more accurate information may be obtained in a committee under the method proposed here than it is possible to obtain in committee of the whole, it will be impossible for the committee to increase or decrease any particular estimate even if the intelligence of the committee suggested the desirability of such action. I know that to alter the estimates in that way would be interfering with the present practice under our parliamentary system, but that is what I want to do; I want to interfere with it. If this thing called democracy is to have any practical meaning, the members of this house must get control of the expenditure and not leave it in the hands of the cabinet. However, that is not implied in the resolution itself. I am merely stating that while I am glad to see the resolution go as far as it does, it does not go far enough for me, and I hope that in the years to come some hon. member will push that fight to a successful conclusion.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would permit me, I would like to express my hearty endorsation of the attitude which he takes on this question. I thought his logic was perfect when he traced the evolution of the committee in the British House of Commons. As indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), it started off with the idea of considering the estimates. Before it had gone very far it found itself amalgamated with practically the committee on public accounts. Then after some years experience they found

Rules oj the House-Mr. Neill
it was not functioning in the way it was designed to function and they started another kind of policy; instead of looking through the estimates every year they took a certain section and got round to that section once in four or five years. That is certainly a doctrine entirely different from what is suggested here. Then it evolved until it got down to the proposal recommended by the hon. leader of the opposition, that simply greater attention should be paid to the work of the public accounts committee, which has always been very slightly attended, and which has great possibilities even under our rules to-day. He pointed out very truly that this proposed committee, as indicated by the resolution, would have no real power, and that if it was going to have any power it should be dealing with estimates before they are prepared, that after they have received the endorsation of the engineer, the minister, and the treasury department and have been brought down to the house, any comment made in committee would be just as futile as it is when made in the house, with the exception that we would not have the advantage of making our complaints public, because the meeting would be held in a more or less Star Chamber manner, without Hansard being present; and as the hon. leader of the opposition pointed out, we could not add to those estimates, we could not take from them, we could only do exactly what we are doing here, and it would be simply an unnecessary burden. Surely once is enough to wade through these estimates every session.
My hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) dwelt very fully on a certain feature, and some other hon. members took the same line, but their statements are mutually contradictory of each other. The one hon. gentleman would say, "Let us pass this; it would save the time of the house." My friend took that line. He said we could blow off our steam in committee and would not have to do it here. Another hon. member said, "You are not going to lose any of your privileges, you will have the same chance to ventilate your grievances as you have now." Then what is the use of a duplication of what is already admitted to be a long drawn out and tedious performance? It will be rather longer and we will have it all over again in this house. What shall it profit a man if we do that? I agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who opposed the idea that the items would go through so much easier because the house would be informed. But that is the trouble, it will be only the members of a small committee that will be informed, and the member, the interests of whose constituents are at
stake, is not going to be satisfied because some man sitting on his own or the other side thinks it is all right. Only the man vitally interested knows about the particular item, and he is going to talk about it sooner or later when it comes down to this house.
Now, I might briefly dealy with some of the points which have been brought up to-day, and which I see I dealt with somewhat fully last session. It has been said to-day several times, and pointed to as an illustration, what an advantage it was to have the estimates of the national railways referred to a committee, and how well it worked. Yes, my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren), I think it was, pointed out how it really worked; that we no longer knew the first thing about those estimates-we in this house who are not on that particular small committee. We never hear those estimates discussed now, and after all we, the big body of parliament, are supremely ignorant of what those estimates are. The estimates are called, and if anybody does make inquiries the minister hastens to say, "This was fully discussed in the committee;" and then we are supposed to accept that statement. It is suggested that the same procedure would be an advantage in handling these other estimates; but there is this material and great difference between the two. I may quote:
The Canadian National Railway estimates represent what is entirely a national proposition. Broad policies are discused, you have Sir Henry Thornton and his staff in attendance, and the leaders of the various groups in the house can readily agree whether the policy is a good one or not. But the other estimates are local estimates and so to speak, specialized; think of the thousand and one items that comprise the agricultural estimates, or those of the marine and fisheries or the Post Office Department-almost any of the estimates in fact other than the larger ones in connection with the national railways. Those items require local knowledge to illuminate them, as it were. As you know, the procedure now is for the minister to explain the reason for the estimate from the book that is placed in front of him If further information is required, perhaps the over-burdened memory of the deputy minister is drawn on; but in the last analysis when it comes down to the giving of information for or against that particular item, is it not the member for the local district whose particular knowledge is relied on, and in the special committee that local knowledge will be lacking except as it may be furnished by the few members composing the committee.
Owing to the necessity of having members available for other committees, this committee would be a small one. Indeed, the tendency under the rules passed a couple of years ago is to make our committtees smaller and stilll smaller which I think is a mistake. Those four or five, or a dozen, men if you
Rules of the House-Mr. Neill

like, are going to advise and give opinions on matters about which they are entirely ignorant. An item may relate to some place three or four thousand miles away, but to one member of that committee is to be entrusted the duty of getting the item through. The committee cannot rely upon the assistance of the member that represents the district, I do not care on which side of the house he sits. That is one of the essential objections to this principle, and I submit that my remarks fully meet the argument that this proposal is in any way similar to the reference of the Canadian National estimates to a special committee.
The next item to which I wish to draw attention is that the results of these proceedings will be that the overworked minister- because he is busy at this time of the year; try and see any of them and you will find that to be the case-and his equally overworked deputy, who also is very busy, shall be compelled to go over their estimates twice, once in the sessional committee-shall I call it the hole-and-corner committee?-and again on the floor of this house. What use will it be to anybody if the work is done twice? The answer again will be that it will shorten debate in the house. But will it? Allow me to quote again:
That is all right, sir, as regards the estimates of the Canadian National Railways. When the three leaders in this house and the outstanding members of their parties tell us in committee of the whole, "We have looked at these estimates of the Canadian National Railways and are satisfied with them," I for one am quite prepared to accept their view, as I have no doubt are other members. But, as I say, the conditions are totally different with respect to what I call the local estimates. When it comes down to local matters affecting the coal mining, farming, logging and fishing interests of the constituency which I represent, I say emphatically, no; I will not surrender my right to discuss these matters; I will not surrender it to any lawyer from Winnipeg, any millionaire from Toronto, or any business man from Halifax, however worthy they may be; however much abler they are than I am in their particular spheres, they do not know the local conditions of the district I represent. I know that the time honoured gag will be trotted out: "Oh. but you can go before the committee and vcu will be allowed to speak there." How often have I not heard that advanced: You can go to the committee although you are not a member of it and you will be accorded a courteous hearing. Yes, you will be given a courteous hearing once; but when it comes down to butting in-to use a common expression-on every item and arguing the merits and taking an active part generally in the debate you will soon find that you are not wanted. Any member butting in- I cannot use any other word to express the idea 

will find that he has as much weight there as the Hansard reporter has in the debates that take place in this chamber.

There is a great deal in* that that we will be precluded from furnishing the local information which alone the local member
possesses.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Cannot the local member attend that committee and give information?


Alan Webster Neill: He can attend, but as the
hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Mac-Laren) pointed out, he has no means of knowing when that committee meets, he will have to be continually listening around, whispering at doors, so to speak, to find when that committee on which he has no standing meets. It practically means he would be in attendance on that committee nearly the whole time, and then when he is there, he might, as a matter of courtesy, be allowed to make a few remarks, but they would have to be pretty short; he would not be allowed to have any real say in the matter. That would not apply, of course, to the special few, who would be perhaps, ten or twelve. The estimates of those ten or twelve members would be sure to go through, but as for the others, there would be no certainty that they would get even the most casual investigation, that is, investigation by people who knew anything about it. The only man in that committee who would know anything about it would be the engineer, and he knows about it now. I do not see what good there is in holding a private committee-


George Gibson Coote: Why call it a private committee? What does the hon. gentleman mean by a private committee?


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. gentleman is inclined to be captious as to the use of the word " private " I will withdraw it, but I think he will admit that it is necessary to use a different word when you characterize a committee consisting of a dozen men in a room without the press or anybody being present as compared to the public committee of the whole in this house.


Mr. SPENCER:: Why limit it to one committee? The resolution asks for committees.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I think you will find the resolution asks that they be referred to a committee. I will read the resolution;
That, in the opinion of this house, the estimates should be referred to select standing committees before being submitted to the committee of the whole.
That, Mr. Speaker, makes things a little worse, because you would have to be chasing around those different committees, and perhaps you may have estimates coming up in

Rules of the. House-Mr. Neill
two committees at once. What would you do then? Here we know that only one item can come up at one time. I thank the hon. gentleman for drawing my attention to that. In that case, you would have the estimates divided up into several committees, one, for instance, dealing with agricultural estimates, and another with marine estimates, and so on. I am interested in items in both, and I cannot be in two places at once, but if they go through the house, I know that the agricultural estimates will go through by themselves and I can watch them, and the marine estimates will go through in their own good time.


George Gibson Coote: Will the hon. member not admit that he will have that same privilege if this motion is adopted? The estimates will come back here and go through the committee of the whole.


Alan Webster Neill: Then what is the object in having the private committee? It seems to me there is a great deal of truth in what I said last year.
If so soon I would be done for,
What on earth was I begun for?


George Gibson Coote: Under the present system, the minister cannot give the information which is required.


Alan Webster Neill: He cannot do it anyhow, nine times out of ten.


George Gibson Coote: If the estimates go to this select committee, the minister would then have the information, and he would be able to give us the information.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not have the engineer and the minister have their little committee by themselves, so that the engineer might plug the minister full of information?
I then come to a point that has been dealt with by several members, and that is the advantages that will accrue to us by expediting the proceedings in this chamber, and then we will be able to go home earlier. I think I have indicated my belief that it would save no time at all, for the reasons that I have given. But suppose it does save time. I would submit to the house in all seriousness that there are greater advantages by our considering every item in committee of the whole, than by getting through quickly and going home, which is the main bait held out in this case. There are a good many members of this house, myself amongst them-and I am not ashamed to admit it-who exhibited great anxiety to come here and occupy the honourable position we hold, and who by hard-fought campaigns and many promises, secured this much sought boon. We told the people that we would do our duty to the last ditch, and so forth. Now 2419-35
are we getting tired and lazy? Do we want to shirk the obligations which we undertook when we came here? A few days, a week or two longer, would not make any great difference. I would point out also, to put it bluntly, that we are being paid for being here. I admit that the salary is quite incommensurate with the work we do, but at the same time we knew what the remuneration was when we sought the position, and if we are not satisfied to do the work for which we were sent here, we should resign. I know there are scores of men in the district I represent fully as able and quite as willing to represent my constituency.
Another time-honoured gag will be trotted out for our delectation. When the report comes from the select private committee, we shall be told: "Now this matter has been seriously and carefully-almost prayerfully-considered in the select committee and the house would be well advised to accept their just and wise verdict". Let any member of the house try to have a change made in the report of a select committee. The answer would be advanced that this thing has been thoroughly discussed in committee much better than we can discuss it. And it is an argument that has a great deal of weight with a great many hon. gentlemen. Last year I gave an illustration of where I had an important amendment -at least I thought it was-to put into something that was coming through one of those committees, and I thought I had lined it up so that I would be able to carry the thing. It was a small committee, and one of the friends whom I was counting on did not turn up, and the motion was lost. I met him the following da}r and reproached him with his absence. He said he was very sorry but he had gone to have his hair cut; and because that hon. gentleman had gone to have his hair cut, something of material importance to certain interests in the country had to stand over for another year. That is the effect of accepting always the report of a small select standing committee. They say, it went to a committee and we must sustain the committee; in the same way it is popular to say we must sustain the Speaker.
I come to another point, and one of considerable importance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been quite conspicuous, and I think properly so, in dealing with the question of divorce for the last two or three years in this house. As we all know, he began his campaign by dwelling upon the way these divorces were railroaded through, without the slightest attention being paid to them in this house. There is no question that that is so, Mr. Speaker. We knew it was so, but nothing



Rules of the House-Mr. Neill
was done until he insisted on some attention being paid to him, and we all know how unpopular he was when he insisted on that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes he was unpopular, generally speaking. We thought he was a nuisance, especially when he kept asking where the children were in each particular case, and this is just such another condition that we are proposing to create now.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is he not asking to send
those divorce cases to a special committee so that we will not have to deal with them here?


Alan Webster Neill: They do go to a committee
now.


Hewitt Bostock: We are not discussing
divorce bills. We are discussing the resolution presented by the hon. member for Cam-rose (Mr. Lucas).


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to go into the question of divorce at all, but what I wanted to illustrate was this-and I think I am perfectly in order-that we have got into this habit of dealing with divorce cases because we trust the report of that committee to which they are referred. As I say, we trust in them; they may study them or they may not, but when they come to this house we accept them as quickly as the clerk can read them out, because we think they have been dealt with by the committee and we do not need to bother with them. We do not bother with them, and that is an example of what may happen if we create the machinery now proposed. We would say, "The committee dealt with this. It looks rather funny and I think I should ask about it, but I suppose it was dealt with by the committee. If it was not dealt with by them it should have been, and I will let it go." That is the way it would happen, and it would end in a duplication of inquiry, or no inquiry at all. No one will say for one moment that divorce cases are handled properly by the slack system we have adopted. I think the Minister of Finance advanced the argument that it would enable us to get through more quickly in that way, but it is open to the objection I have stated.
There is another feature which has not been touched upon this afternoon. It is not a mere question of passing estimates for this post office or that wharf, or something of that character; what is valuable is the discussion that arises out of the estimates. Sometimes, as -my hon, friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said, at is not what is in the estimates, but what should be in the estimates, that forms the valuable contribution not only to the

knowledge of the house but to the knowledge of the individual members of the ministry. Statements made to cabinet ministers in their offices, or in caucus, if I may refer to them, are almost entirely ex-parte, are they not? But it is in the light of the publicity obtained in this house that the members of the cabinet get the cross current of public sentiment. If they bring down a statement this year, and members of the house show by their attitude that they think it is too much or too little, the ministers have their ears to the ground and say to each other, "The house was a little restive about passing that estimate last year; perhaps we had better not go too strongly on it this year." We had an illustration of that last session, when a private member who sat next to me moved, out o-f a blue sky, that a vote of something like a million dollars should be cut down to one dollar. It was like a bomb shell, especially to the government, and a revelation as to the number of people who inclined to support the amendment. I think the government, being not unintelligent, realized that the sense of the house was generally against any considerable expenditure for assisted immigration. I think the estimates have been framed this year in some regard, with that point of view in mind. If that estimate had been passed in some private committee consisting of five men, my hon. friend perhaps not being one of them, it might have been impossible for the government to get that point of view of public sentiment. If public sentiment is not entitled to make itself heard in the House of Commons, where is it to be heard?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 13, 1930