Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I think it concerns all hon. members in that they will want to adjust their schedules throughout the coming months. Does the Prime Minister care to give the house some idea as to when we might reconvene? Can he say whether it will be in the late fall or the first part of the next year?

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. gentleman any information about that matter, Mr. Speaker. The question has not yet been considered by the government.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Have arrangements yet been made for stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government in the Ottawa area to be put on the five-day 40-hour week? If not, how soon will such arrangements be made?

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):

The hon. gentleman sent notice of this question to my office but I did not arrive at the office until two minutes to eleven.

Oh, oh.

Did you sleep in?

Mr. Pickersgill:

I did not have time to inquire about the matter. I find that on May 3 I said, in reply to a question, that this matter was under consideration. I imagine that as the hon. gentleman is asking the question, it means that the consideration has not been concluded or he would have

known about it; therefore I can assume that it is still under consideration. As the hon. gentleman well knows, it is not the custom of the government to anticipate announcements of things the government is going to do.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. May I say that I had the question drafted and ready to send to him but I did not arrive at the house until the bell was ringing; consequently it was not sent. Perhaps he can take it as notice and answer the question later. I may say that I intended to send him the clipping upon which the question is based. Has the Minister of National Defence any comments to make on a reported interview given by Lieutenant General Guy G. Simonds, in which he stated that "the vast majority of Canadian officers share his view that every youth in the country should receive two years' military training"? Was the subject of the interview discussed with the minister at any time before such a statement was made publicly by the head of our defence forces?

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):

When I noticed this report, Mr. Speaker, I naturally caused inquiries to be made, and I received from General Simonds a telegram explaining the circumstances of his statement and also stating more fully and perhaps more accurately what he said. He was at a meeting of officers of the Canadian Army in Saint John, New Brunswick, and after a talk he gave them he was asked a question which is quite frequently put on similar occasions. I myself have been asked it a great number of times. He was asked what his views were on the subject of national service. He made a reply which I think you could expect almost any officer to make, namely that he would be glad to see every youth in the country receive two years' military training. Then he went on to say:

I believe the vast majority of experienced soldiers would agree with me. But such training was impossible unless it received the wholehearted support of the people of this country and that was a matter for judgment and decision by political leaders, not soldiers. In any event experience tended to show that a period of universal military service of less than two years increased rather than diminished the problem of meeting commitment overseas. Further a system of universal military 83276-412J

Supply-Privy Council service was not a substitution for voluntary service, it could only supplement and never replace the voluntary system.

Mr. Coldwell:

I think it is rather regrettable that, in the press as I saw it last night, that statement was not reported more fully.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Mr. Drew:

Has the Prime Minister any statement to make?

Mr. St. Laurent:

No, I do not think there is any statement I could make about the privy council that would be of real interest to the house. If there are questions I will be glad to attempt to answer them.

Mr. Drew:

I merely asked the question in view of the fact that I have certain comments to make and wished to know whether the Prime Minister intended to say anything. It does seem to me that on this first item of the privy council estimates it is appropriate to mention certain subjects which are of concern to all of us and in regard to which the Prime Minister of necessity under our system must assume responsibility. I propose to direct my remarks to four particular subjects that it seems to me have emerged as extremely important subjects during the course of the present session.

I now wish to place these before the Prime Minister at this stage of the session in view of the fact that it is within his power to deal with them while the house is not in session. Moreover, I believe these things are things which should be dealt with before we meet again some time later this year. The first of these subjects is the business of parliament itself; the second is the judiciary; the third, a conference between federal and provincial governments; and the fourth a commonwealth conference. It is to those subjects that I propose to address my remarks because of my belief that all of them are subjects that can be, and under our system must be, dealt with upon the responsibility of the government itself. I have no intention of reviewing the extended comments there have been on different occasions about the business of the house during the present session, beyond such reference as it seems to me is appropriate to emphasize my belief that much can be done between now and the time we meet again to assure that we shall not have another session such as that which is now drawing to a close.

Supply-Privy Council

I know that there may be little occasion to emphasize the role of the prime minister under our parliamentary system. Sometimes, however, it does seem that even in this House of Commons there is a tendency to disregard the fact that the position of prime minister under our parliamentary system and similar parliamentary systems within the commonwealth is very different from that of a prime minister under any other system or even the head of state under a republican system. In Canada, in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or any of the nations of the commonwealth, in Asia or in other parts of the world, the prime minister has a measure of power and authority which has led some writers to speak of the position as a democratic dictatorship.

I refer to that description, used in textbooks which express complete approval of our system, with no suggestion of criticism but rather merely to emphasize the extent of the authority that is conferred upon the prime minister under our system. He is the individual called upon by the representative of the queen or the king, as the case may be, at any given time in the history of our system to form a government. Within this country we have had the good fortune to have nearly always a clear and satisfactory majority on one side or the other. In a country where the responsibility of office has been shared for almost an equal number of years by two parties, and only two parties, it has contributed greatly to the maintenance of our system that we have not found ourselves dependent upon an uncertain association of parties without a common purpose.

Where there is a clear party majority, no matter what may be said about the large majority on this occasion, the fact remains that as long as there is a working majority the result is very similar in any event. The government takes the responsibility for initiating legislation. The government rides or falls upon the confidence of parliament expressed in the legislation to which the government commits itself. Therefore any prime minister must of necessity be very careful to consult the sentiment of the members of his own party after having carefully canvassed the sentiment of the cabinet in the first instance. That is the strength of our system. That can also be the weakness of our system if the authority and power conferred in that way are not exercised in the manner that will produce the best results from both the administrative and the legislative points of view.

I come back to the position of prime minister. Having been called upon to form a government, he names the members of the

[Mr. Drew.l

cabinet. To that extent it is definitely a government of his choice. There are historic cases where prime ministers in other countries decided to have a general consultation respecting the composition of the cabinet with some disastrous results, as all students of constitutional history will recall. From that point on the prime minister by virtue of his office has, under our parliamentary system, a unique responsibility not only for legislation, for what is done, but also for the business of parliament itself.

During the past session there have been extended discussions with respect to amendment of rules. I do not intend to review the nature of the discussions in those committee meetings. It would be neither proper nor desirable that I should do so. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that much discussion has been devoted to the matter of rules which would expedite the proceedings of the house. At any rate, that much has been openly discussed in the press with full knowledge of what has taken place in the meetings of these committees. On different occasions when reference has been made to the manner in which the business of the house is dealt with and presented to the house, the comment on the other side has been that our sessions would not be so long if members of the opposition did not talk so long.