Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with I should like to rise to a question of privilege. Last night's ten o'clock news bulletin of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation contained an item which reflected upon members of the House of Commons. The news broadcast stated that Canada's largest war appropriation bill, amounting to $3,890,000,000, was given its first, second and third readings within a few minutes during yesterday's session-I believe "ten minutes" was the actual expression used. Such a statement, without an explanatory background, might readily lead Canadian listeners to conclude that insufficient consideration had been given by the House of Commons to this important measure. Actually no legislation of like character in Canadian parliamentary history had been the subject of as close scrutiny and inquiry, or had been as long and thoroughly debated as the resolution upon which this bill was founded.

Hear, hear.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I am glad that government members seem to be satisfied that we have made a good job of scrutiny. It is true that the formal readings of the bill required only a few minutes of the time of the house, but in justice to hon. members in this chamber I think it should be asserted that 44 out of the 117 sitting days of this session have been spent in debating that resolution. I rise to this point of privilege in order that there may be no possible misunderstanding on the part of the public in the matter.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I am pleased that the

leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has

Privilege-Mr. Gray don

raised this point. As a matter of fact I had intended doing so myself if my hon. friend had not done so.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I do not very often get ahead of the Prime Minister.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is true- and I hope my hon. friend never will.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Perhaps this is just a start.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have prepared a memorandum which helps to emphasize what the leader of the opposition has just said.

On February 26 the Minister of Finance moved that the house go into committee to consider the war appropriation bill. On March 3 the Minister of Finance presented a table showing a break-down of the various estimates. Then the resolution was considered in committee on May 13, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31; June 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30; July 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21 and again yesterday. As my hon. friend has said, it has been considered during 44 sittings, lasting over a period of nine weeks. I believe that fact makes it quite clear that, as my hon. friend stated, there has been no financial measure in the history of this parliament which has received the amount of consideration-careful consideration-and full discussion that this particular measure has received.

May I point out at this time wherein I believe the error made in the news broadcast arose. As the house is aware, money bills are preceded by resolutions. I have said time and again to the Clerk of the House who, from my conversations with him, holds a similar view, and so states in his volume dealing with procedure in the house, that the resolution was never intended to be more than a notice to the house that a money bill was being brought down, and that it had been approved by His Excellency the Governor General. I have pointed out, and he agrees, that it was never intended that a lengthy debate should take place on the resolution stage of any financial measure. The resolution is intended to be in the nature of a warning to the house that a financial measure is to be considered. Certainly, until recently, this parliament has passed many such resolutions as a formal procedure. However we have begun to adopt the practice, one to which I have objected time and again, and to which I still object of proceeding to discuss at length on the resolution stage the main features of a bill. This session of parliament, or a very large part of it, has

been taken up in the discussion of the resolution in question. There was nothing further left to discuss on the bill itself that is why no discussion whatever was required when the bill was presented, and why there was no delay in passing its second and third readings. I hope these points will be made clear to the public, because they are in explanation of why the bill itself, which was based on a resolution, passed through the house as rapidly as it did. The whole subject matter was very fully discussed on the resolution stage.

Mr. GRAYDON:

The Prime Minister has discussed the point in some detail, and I believe I might be justified in adding something further. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of the public, and that we may not have the criticism which from time to time is offered to the effect that large sums of money are passed through parliament with what, to some, is regarded as inadequate consideration, may I add a word with respect to the civil estimates we are now considering. I believe hon. members will agree that the principles embodied in the estimates for civil expenditures and the subjects covered thereby were in most instances dealt with at length when we were discussing the war appropriation resolutions. I believe therefore it would not be in the interests of the country or of parliament that in the discussion of the civil estimates there should be any great measure of repetition.

True, there are some matters which do not come within the purview of the war appropriation, and to 'these we as the opposition intend to give the greatest care and scrutiny as they are presented. But I think it would be the wish of parliament and of the country that there should be no unnecessary repetition of discussion in a war time period. I make this statement as complementary to that which has been made by the Prime Minister.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Again I should like to thank the leader of the opposition for having directed the attention of the house and the country to a very important matter. I agree entirely with all that he has said. With respect to the ordinary estimates, they have been before 'the house from the moment the debate on the address was completed. They differ little in any particular from the ordinary estimates which have been voted year after year by this house during the last four years. They relate to the necessary business of government, hon. members have discussed similar items in previous sessions, perhaps not the exact amounts that are here, but the subjects that are indicated, and hon.

Toronto Shipbuilding Company

members know whether the items have changed in a significant way. Moreover, the government has sought to ascertain from the different parties any particular items in the estimates which any of their members feel should be brought forward for consideration before other estimates are taken up. In other words, if there are any estimates which hon. members who have given special study to 'the estimates feel should be considered before others, the government will try to meet the wishes of hon. members in that regard. But it is true that the war appropriation bill has dealt with practically all departments of government and there has been on that measure the fullest opportunity for discussion of practically everything bearing upon the various subjects which appear in the ordinary government estimates.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That the name of Mr. McGregor replace that of Mr. Boucher on the war expenditures committee.