1939-03-01

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Maclnnis be substituted for that of Mr. Rowe (Athabaska) on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from the residents of O'Leary, Prince Edward Island, in opposition to any measure to legalize sweepstakes in Canada.



WAR MUNITIONS AND MATERIALS


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, having given the notice required under the rules of the house, I wish to move, seconded by Mr. Rowe (Athabaska):
That a copy of the agreement between the government and the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, Montreal,

War Munitions-Mr. MacNeil.
Quebec, for the machining of billets and forgings in the manufacture of shells, together with all related orders in council, documents, correspondence, minutes of the interdepartmental committee, and statements of claim, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
I consider it my duty very briefly to explain my reasons for requesting the reference to the standing committee on public accounts. I desire to make it very clear that I am actuated only by the conviction, which I hold very strongly, that the manufacture of armaments, or at least the primary implements of warfare, should be manufactured under national auspices. It is also my earnest desire to eliminate all forms of profiteering in the manufacture of armaments. I have had abundant evidence in recent weeks that this desire is shared by a large number of exservice men across the Dominion of Canada.
The reasons for suggesting that the house should refer this contract to the committee are found in the form and substance of the contract itself, which has been tabled in the house. It presents features very similar to those of the Bren machine gun contract, which necessitated a judicial inquiry, and which were found objectionable by many hon. members in this House of Commons.
The contract was placed by the government with the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, Montreal, the president of which company is Mr. A. Janin. The contract was executed on November 17, 1937, and is for the machining of billets and forgings in connection with the manufacture of 20,000 quick-firing 18-pounder shell bodies, and 10,000 quick-firing 4-S-inch howitzer shell bodies. Although this contract was approved, I notice, by the interdepartmental committee, it was awarded on the basis of selection and not on the basis of competitive bids. I refer to the answer given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) as it appears at page 627 of Hansard for February 3, 1939. According to that answer, this is the only contract which has been placed for the manufacture of shells in Canada, in Great Britain or any other country. In his answer the minister indicates that deliveries have not yet been made.
I believe the onus rests upon the government to explain fully, either in the house or before the public accounts committee, just what was involved in the negotiations leading up to the execution of this contract. I would remind the house that the government of Canada was committed at Geneva to a policy of the public manufacture of armaments, and on former occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence assured the house they would

endeavour to follow such a policy. They also stated that the next best alternative would be manufacture on the basis of competition, under a suitable regulation of profits.
I ask the government to explain, either now or before the committee, why in the giving of this contract there has been such a marked deviation from a policy enunciated in the house and accepted by hon. members in good faith. I ask that, and propose that the committee should examine why the contract was awarded to this particular company.
I find, on reference to a directory issued by the Engineering Institute of Canada, that it is not listed as one of the companies in possession of facilities for the manufacture of products of this kind. Other companies are listed, and it is made abundantly clear that they have such facilities. I refer, at random, to companies included in the directory-five, for instance, named by the interdepartmental committee, with reference to the Bren gun, and companies such as Canadian Vickers, Limited; Montreal Locomotive Works, Limited; Ingersoll-Rand Company, Limited; Allis Chalmers Company; Dominion Engineering Works, Limited; Canadian Locomotive Company; Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, and many others. These companies are established and actually in possession of the machine shop facilities required for the manufacturing or machining of the billets and forgings used in the manufacture of shell bodies.
I say that the committee should scrutinize closely the reasons why this construction company, a company interested mainly in the construction of buildings, with a machine shop which I understand is used chiefly for the overhauling of equipment used in construction, should be selected for this contract.
I think the committee should find out to what extent the public interests were safeguarded when the responsibility was assumed by the department or by the interdepartmental committee for the selection in this way of a favoured contractor. The committee should examine carefully the terms of the contract itself.
Under the provisions of the contract the government, the party of the first part, has undertaken to supply free of charge to this company, Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, all billets cut to length, forgings, base plates and driving band rings, special paint and varnish, and packages and boxes required for the said shells. These are all provided without charge. I believe the onus rests upon the government to explain to the committee or to the house from what source the billets and forgings will be ob-

War Munitions-Mr. MacNeil.
tained and if in that connection other contracts have been awarded. If other contracts have been awarded, we should be told upon what basis.
In another clause of the contract provision is made whereby the government shall supply such machinery as is set out in exhibit B of the contract, together with any additional machinery as may in the opinion of the said party of the first part be considered desirable. Referring to exhibit B, I find listed therein the type of machinery that one would expect to find in any well-equipped machine shop, and particularly the shops of those companies to which I have referred. There are listed heavy duty turning lathes, heavy duty boring lathes, ordinary lathes, rivetting machines, production drills, shaping and milling machines, universal tool and cutter grinder, and so on. Such machines are in common use in all well equipped machine shops. The question immediately arises: If the government already had any such equipment, why was it not used for government manufacture in connection with this order?
I believe there will be a responsibility upon the committee to examine closely the cost clauses of this contract, particularly in view of the answer given by the minister on February 3. At that time he said:
The contract was placed on a cost-plus basis at an upset manufacturing cost of $4 per shell for 20,000 shells, quick-firing, 18-pdr. high explosive, and $6.75 for 10,000 shells quickfiring, 4-5" Howitzer high explosive.
Clause 4 of the contract states:
The price to be paid by the party of the first part for the machining of the said billets and forgings shall be as follows:
(a)	The cost of electric current necessary for proper and healthy lighting of the shop, offices, corridors, lavatories, men's rooms and yard, which is hereby fixed in the sum of $1,270 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(b)	The cost of providing comfortable heat in cold weather, which is hereby fixed in the sum of $1,067 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(c)	The proportionate amount of all taxes, business, real estate and special, other than income tax, which amount is hereby fixed in the sum of $900 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(d)	The cost of the water supply in shop, yard, offices, men's rooms and lavatories, which is hereby fixed in the amount of $100 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(e)	The cost of maintenance and repair of railway siding, hereby fixed in the amount of $300 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(f) The cost of power supplied from the machine shop of the party of the second part for the ammunition ship compressor, in the maximum of 50 h.p., fixed in an amount at $1,500 per annum, the party of the first part hereby agreeing that any power in excess of
that herein mentioned which may be required shall be paid by it on a meter basis, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(g)	. The cost of four telephone connections and signal system from office to shop, fixed in an amount of $360 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(gg) The cost of maintaining railway siding yard, roof and entrances clear of snow during winter, fixed in an amount of $1,200 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
(h)	The cost of premiums in respect of fire and riot insurance on buildings, on shops, and of a night patrol, fixed in an amount of $1,200 per annum, commencing March 15th, 1938.
And also the cost of rentals, depreciation on buildings, heating and plumbing, repairs, administration charges, assessments or payments made to the province of Quebec under the workmen's compensation act, and any expenses incurred in or imposed by the observance of provincial or dominion labour legislation. The contract then goes on to say:
(m)	Subject to the provisions of clause (o) of this section, the wages and salaries to be paid, with the prior written approval of the party of the first part, for labour employed directly on-
The various types of labour required are then enumerated. Then the next paragraph reads:
(n)	Ten per centum (10 per cent) of the amount of wages and salaries paid for labour as mentioned in clause (m) of this section.
The next section then deals with restrictions. I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that although this section specifies S4 for the 18-pounder and $6.75 for the 4-5 inch howitzer shell bodies, it refers exclusively to the wages and salaries to be paid. The $4 and $6.75 mentioned as the upset manufacturing prices are somewhat misleading, as it is impossible, in the absence of comparative prices, to estimate what will be the cost of these shells. In addition to the wages and salaries paid in connection with their manufacture, there must be added the cost of the material and other overhead charges, as mentioned in the contract, and to which I have referred.
I think it rests upon the government to explain why there has been delay in connection with the delivery of these shells. The contract states that delivery must begin, in one instance, within nine months of the date of the installation of the machines and commencement of the machining of the shell bodies, and, in the other instance, the 4-5 inch shells, within twelve months. The items of cost have been fixed and are stated in the contract as beginning on March 15, 1938. Almost an entire year had elapsed on February 3 when the minister indicated that no deliveries had been made. Upon computing
War Munitions-Mr. MacNeil.

the charges which are fixed, and which the minister can best explain, I find that the government of Canada apparently is now liable to pay approximately $12,000 in this connection.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Absolutely incorrect.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have totalled the charges for electrical current, heating, taxes, water supply, maintenance and repair of railway siding, telephones, snow clearance, insurance premiums, rentals, depreciation and administration charges, all of which were to begin on March 15, 1938, and I find they total $12,209. I make it that that is approximately 8-27 per cent of the total maximum cost of labour, plus ten per cent. In addition we must take into consideration the expenses under the workmen's compensation act and other dominion and provincial labour legislation, the cost of the material used by the company which is to be furnished free by the government, the cost of wages and salaries-for only wages are fixed by the schedule-and ten per cent of such wages and salaries.
As I say, no deliveries have been made. As I read the contract the government is under an obligation to pay ninety per cent of the costs so stipulated, upon presentation of a claim by the company. I think the minister should take this opportunity to offer to the house an explanation as to the rumour which is in circulation that there is some dispute with regard to this matter, which accounts for the serious delay in delivery.
I refer also to section 9 of the contract which states:
The party of the second party hereby agrees that the machining of said billets and forgings into shell bodies shall commence immediately following the complete installation of all necessary machinery tools, dies and equipment, and that delivery of said shell bodies shall be made as follows-
In the case of the 4-5 inch, within nine months, and in the case of the 18-pounder, within twelve months.
It is not necessary perhaps at this stage to go into further details with regard to this contract, but I think I have indicated why it should be thoroughly examined by the public accounts committee.
There is one other point that occurs to me upon an examination of this contract and other mntracts awarded under the auspices of the Department of National Defence. In view of the fact that they are adopting a policy of assisting in the equipment of these plants -for after all in this particular contract the government has agreed to pay the costs of

installation, the costs of conversion of equipment loan, the cost of transportation of equipment and the cost of additional equipment that may be required-I think the government should explain why they are establishing a virtual monopoly among favoured contractors for the manufacture of armaments in Canada. To pursue such a policy means, I contend, the establishment of a virtual monopoly; for it is to be assumed and expected that the government will be strongly influenced to place further orders with companies which have been established in this way.
I wish it understood that I am fully aware of the fact that Mr. Janin, the president of this company, is an engineer of repute. There is no question about his professional standing, but there is no evidence yet produced to show that at the time of the execution of this contract he was in command of the necessary facilities to manufacture the munitions in question.
It is also known that Mr. Janin is a staunch supporter of the Liberal party. I have no objection to his political convictions, but I contend that that in itself is not sufficient justification for placing a vital contract with regard to defence with a favoured contractor. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the situation, that contracts particularly of the Department of National Defence should be placed with regard only to the national interest and without regard to considerations of political advantage.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I accept with the utmost pleasure the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) to have this contract referred to the standing committee on public accounts. All hon. members of the house who were here a year ago will recall that on two different occasions I offered to have all contracts of the national defence department referred to this same standing committee. If the only desire of the hon. member for Vancouver North had been to have a fair investigation and examination of this contract all he had to do was to indicate this to the committee or to the minister. But he was absolutely compelled in the interests of propaganda and for the sake of creating distrust in the country to make this matter the subject of a debate in the house.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to leave with the house very briefly the essential details of this contract, and in giving the reasons for the contract I should like, with the permission of the house, to lay upon the table two documents from which I am going to quote:

War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
first, a report made by the then master general of the ordnance to the deputy minister, and thence to myself, on October 4, 1937, which gives comprehensive reasons why this particular contract should be effected; and second, the recommendation to council which was signed by myself on November 1, 1937. As I shall quote from these documents I should like, under the rules of the house, to lay them on the table, and I am sure that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and any other fair-minded member of the house upon reading them will be convinced that this contract is definitely in the public interest.
May I first quote three brief paragraphs from the recommendation to council:
The method of acquiring such a plant has been the subject of careful consideration as it is realized that in an emergency very large quantities of shell of different types would be required with the least possible delay. In order to develop the industry of shell-making in Canada, orders have been placed for shell steel and other raw materials required in the manufacture of shell, and deliveries are now being made.
My second reference is this. I quote again from the recommendation to council:
A practice of the war office in connection with such types of plants is to provide special machines required for machining operations and to install the machinery in the plant of a selected firm for operation.
We in this case, Mr. Speaker, followed exactly the practice of the British war office, but evidently that is not good enough for our critics at this time. I quote further:
After full consideration, it has been suggested by the technical officials of the department that the war office practice be followed and that the Department of National Defence purchase the machines necessary for the manufacture of steel billets and forgings into shell bodies, and install the machinery in a plant suitably located for use as a model and auxiliary plant in close proximity to the source of supply of raw material and having available satisfactory transport facilities by road, rail and water, and located in a district where ample skilled labour of the type required is available.
My last quotation from the recommendation to council is this:
A proposal submitted by Montreal Construction, Supply and Equipment Limited, to operate such a plant on a cost plus basis in accordance with the provisions set out in the draft agreement attached hereto, has been considered fair and reasonable by the interdepartmental committee on the control of profits on government armament contracts.
We had the reasons there for taking this step; and we had the safeguarding supervision of a very eminent body of the ablest civil servants in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MANION:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? I know nothing about this matter except what I have learned in the last hour or two, but may I ask, did the interdepartmental committee recommend Montreal Construction Company for this contract?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
probably happened was this, that the suggested agreement with the Montreal Construction Company was referred to the interdepartmental committee, and they referred it back with a recommendation as being a fair and reasonable contract.


Robert James Manion: If I may ask a further question, did any other companies submit a form of agreement such as this which was later submitted to the interdepartmental committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
were two other companies investigated by the departmental officials from the point of view of contiguity to supervision by the superintendent of the dominion arsenal at Quebec, but the propositions they advanced were not considered satisfactory, while this one from Montreal was considered financially and in every other way satisfactory to the department.
As I do not want to detain the house I shall now summarize the various points.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Satisfactory to the Department of National Defence, or to the interdepartmental committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To the officials of the department from the point of view of the preliminary proposals made. I do not think they had the necessary facilities to justify a report being made to the interdepartmental committee.


Major James William Coldwell: There was no representation or report from the interdepartmental committee to the government on this contract?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Robert James Manion: I wish to say a few words regarding this matter. I have listened attentively to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). As a matter of fact, I was not entirely familiar with this question until about noon when I began to look over the contract and I saw the terms of it as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has laid them before the house. I must confess that they do seem rather extreme; practically everything is paid by the government and a price is made-a price which certainly, according to the minister, is very much higher than the price of any such shells would be under mass production. I admit, of course, that in this regard the minister has an argument, because the commencement of production of this sort would naturally be more costly than mass production which would come later. I tried, however, to listen as closely as I could to the hon. gentleman as he read selections from the order in council which he put before the government, and if I understood him rightly he indicated that this company was a selected firm-the term he used in his answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North. By order in council the Department of National Defence selected this firm. I understood him to say that it was passed upon by the interdepartmental committee, and yet in reply to my question- he will correct me if I am wrong-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just the contract itself.


Robert James Manion: The Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Company was chosen by the Department of National Defence, then, and not by the interdepartmental committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Robert James Manion: That is what I understood. In other words this company was selected by the department itself just as the company which was awarded the Bren gun contract was selected-in exactly the same manner. It is true that this contract is not a large one. It is true that it might be termed a pilot plant, as the minister has suggested. Nevertheless there are a number of points about the contract that puzzle me.
I understand that the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Company is the same concern that is building the new Ottawa

War Munitions-Mr. Manion

post office under a contract amounting to $632,500. It is the same concern that is carrying out this work, under another name. Well, why should that company, of all companies in Canada, be chosen to manufacture shells at this time? As the hon. member for Vancouver North has pointed out, there are in this country many companies which are in possession of much more suitable plants for the purpose here intended than the Janin company or the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment "Company, and I do not understand why the Department of National Defence, and through it the government, should lay itself open to the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver North, justly I think, that it is choosing political friends to carry out contracts of this kind. Why should the government lay itself open to that charge unless it had some motive that is not disclosed in the contract?
In Canada in the years to come, I hope in the very near future, undoubtedly there is going to foe construction of munitions on an enormous scale. Why, therefore, should the Department of National Defence select, for the manufacture of shells, a company which, so far as I know-and I presume so far as the government knows-has not in the remotest degree any experience in the production of shells? Why should the government choose this particular company to manufacture the first shells that are to be produced in this country at this time? It strikes me as a most extraordinary procedure.
The minister rose and in a rather indignant manner-he was not as indignant as he was on the last occasion when he discussed a similar subject in this house, but he was indignant nevertheless-he attacked the hon. member for Vancouver North because that hon. gentleman brought out some points which, to use the vernacular of the street, would hit anybody in the eye on reading the contract. The minister attacks the hon. member for bringing out these points, and very vehemently he assures us that he is only too anxious to have all these contracts investigated by the public accounts committee. Yet this very contract to which he is referring was let on November 17, 1937, and tabled here only on January 13, 1939, a year and two months afterwards. Why is that? Why was this contract not tabled sooner?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no obligation to table the contract.


Robert James Manion: Of course not; but since the minister gets so heated about the questions

asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North, I now ask him why all these contracts should not be tabled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that is the will of the house it shall be done.


Robert James Manion: So far as I am concerned it is the will of the house. Personally, I believe that any contract of this sort should be tabled-I am speaking of munitions contracts. These contracts are in a class by themselves; they are in a different category from any other business of the government. It is my desire, at any rate, that every contract let, dealing with munitions or armaments, be tabled at the earliest possible moment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to oblige my hon. friend.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Was it done during the last war?


Robert James Manion: I was not here during the last war, and I do not care now what was done then. If we did things wrongly during the last war, then that is all the more reason why we should do them properly now. I am not going to stand here and say that everything was done properly during the last war. I presume there were mistakes and irregularities. I say that now, with the experience of the last war before us, we should play the game and inspire the confidence of the people of the country, and not allow them to think of the Liberal party and the Conservative party, if you like, as nothing but money collectors endeavouring to win elections. That is what the paper which the hon. gentleman quoted suggests. If I understood him correctly, he quoted from the Ottawa Citizen. That newspaper has made certain statements in the last two or three weeks and I suggest right now to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the editor should be brought before the bar of the house and be required to give, what I know he cannot give, one tittle of evidence that either the party opposite or this party has collected money improperly. He has made that statement, and I thought a few times of saying what I have just said. I might as well "get it off my chest" now. The Ottawa Citizen has been making these statements and I have wondered why the Prime Minister did not stand up on a question of privilege, not only on behalf of the whole house but on behalf of the government of which he is the head, and demand that the editor of that newspaper be brought to the bar of the house and required to give proof of the filthy charges he has been making against the right hon. gentleman and against the Conservative party.

War Munitions-Mr. Manion
I invite the Prime Minister now, when he gets up, to back me up and I will back him up, to have the editor brought here to prove his charges.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody pays any attention to him.


Robert James Manion: I am not so sure. I believe that one of the things that damage democracy in this country to-day is this very type of irresponsible statement that is being made. I believe in democracy; I believe in the present economic system. I am not a socialist and I do not agree with my hon. friends to the left who are socialists. I repeat, I believe in democracy and in the capitalist system, but I also believe that we must correct its imperfections if we are to maintain it. Indeed, I have intended for some days to go across the floor to the Prime Minister and make the suggestion that I have just made. I am making the suggestion in all seriousness. I should like to see the editor of the Ottawa Citizen brought there and invited to prove what he has been charging. I do not think he can prove anything against my right hon. friend; I know he cannot against me, and I do not think he can against my predecessor or the party I am leading. If he can, let him come and do it.
Because of that statement in the Ottawa Citizen, charging the very things that the minister is defending himself against, for that if for no other reason I say that these contracts, all of them, the minute they are awarded, should be laid on the table of the house. During the discussion of the Bren gun contract I took the position, and I repeat now, that in this country there is nothing that should be dealt with with cleaner hands than munition contracts. They should be so dealt with that the government cannot be charged with partisanship or favouritism or improper procedure. They are in a different class from anything else.
I said here in the debate on the Bren gun contract that I understood that there would be a certain amount of political patronage. I suppose it will go on; I do not believe that my hon. friends in either group to my left, if they were in power, would be entirely free from political patronage. It would be a queer group, whether Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or anything else, who would not, where everything else was equal, give a little favour to their friends. I am not hypocrite enough to take any other attitude. Some of that is legitimate. I do not want one sentence from my remarks taken out and used against me, as some of my friends have been doing 71492-91i
in connection with that book I published- picking out one sentence from its context. I do not care about it; it does not interest me.
I have not read the infernal book since it was printed. I have never bothered even checking up the statements which have been made with regard to it; I do not care anything about it. I am sure I could bring up more charges against the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with his two books than he can against me for mine-


Mr. DUNNING:: The hon. gentleman
ought to be proud of it.


Robert James Manion: I am glad the hon. gentleman thinks so. My hon. friend was one of the first to congratulate me. I almost imagine I must have praised him in the book, though I do not think I did.
However, coming back to this serious discussion-because to me this is a serious matter-I submit that, as the minister has agreed, in future all munitions contracts should be tabled as soon as they are made. We had the same experience in regard to the Bren gun contract. I asked the minister why it had not been tabled, and he said no one asked that it be tabled. Suppose we do not know anything about it. Until the hon. member for Vancouver North put this motion on the order paper I did not know there was a contract with the Janin people; how could I ask to have it tabled? I say it is the duty of whoever is in charge of the Department of National Defence in the future to table all contracts of the kind.
Again I ask, why should a building contractor, a man who to-day is erecting the post oifice building in Ottawa, who is not an industrialist-why should he, of all contractors in the country, have been chosen? The hon. member for Vancouver North has very good justification for suggesting, as he did, that it was because Mr. Janin is a strong supporter of this government. I do not say that in the way of finding fault with Mr. Janin; I presume even if a man is a contractor he has to take some side in politics. But I do not think the minister or the government should have left themselves open to that suggestion.
I will tell the house why I am particularly anxious about this. I need only refer to what I said outside the house last Friday and Saturday in Toronto and Ottawa, with no political suggestion. I pointed to the chaotic conditions in the world, not only with two wars actually proceeding, but with the fundamental struggle that is going on between democracy and dictatorship. I pointed this out in my remarks in the Bren gun discussion, and I point out again to-day that there
War Munitions-Mr. Manion

could be no greater prize for any world conqueror, such as Hitler if he should become one, than this great dominion. Therefore as far as I am concerned I supported the right hon. gentleman in his statement placed in the mouth of his excellency in regard to defence. We must have defence forces in this country; we must be ready to defend ourselves. We have no right to depend on either Great Britain or the United States to defend us if we get into trouble; we should defend ourselves. I am told-and the minister can correct me if it is wrong-that for the $70,000,000 spent for defence in the last year or two we have almost nothing-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Robert James Manion: Well, the minister will have a chance to deal with that. I am stating what I have been told by competent military men in this country, men who are much better qualified to speak than the minister or myself -I am not a military man at all and the minister is about the same kind. That is the .statement made to me by outstanding military men for whom I have the utmost respect, [DOT]that we have practically nothing in the way *of equipment for defence in this country. We "have $63,000,000 in the estimates at the present time for the Department of National Defence, which in a sense is the biggest spending department in the government except the Department of Finance, and that is not really a spending department, because it is paying the interest on the national debt. Therefore the business of the defence department should not be handled in a slipshod manner. There should not be any of this business of picking out some friend and giving him a contract.
The minister admits that in choosing this company the proposals of other companies were not submitted to the interdepartmental committee. I ask my right hon. friend when he is on his feet-apparently he is going to speak-to tell me if he thinks it is right that one company, I do not care whether Liberal, Conservative or what, should be chosen, as the Inglis company or as this company was, to the exclusion of all others. After all everyone who has any possessions at all in the country is paying taxes, and many who have not; therefore all who are capable of doing the work should have a right to look into these possible contracts. In the future there should be no more of this hole and corner business- I say that upon consideration-of picking out one company; let us give a fair deal to all. We must have better methods than
{Mr. Manion.]
anything shown in the Bren gun discussion in connection with the purchase of munitions in this country.
Having listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver North, I think he has done a service to this house in bringing this matter up; ne does not deserve abuse lor it. He drew his conclusions as he would have to and as I did. From about 12.30 to-day, except when I was at my lunch, I was looking over this contract and I found a number of things, some of which the minister has explained. But how can an hon. member know what these things indicate until they are explained? This matter should go to the public accounts committee, and I know that the government is willing that it should; but instead of abusing the hon. member the minister should thank him for giving him an opportunity to explain. I do not wish to be unfair or supercritical, but the minister's explanation is not good enough, nor is this method good enough to be followed in future purchases of munitions. A better system must be instituted very quickly if confidence in democracy is to be preserved in this country.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: May I ask a question of the hon. leader of the opposition before another hon. member proceeds? I should like to ask whether it has not been customary to table these contracts, and would it not have been reasonable to ask for the tabling of this one without a political speech being made such as was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), particularly in view of the statements made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) last year?


Robert James Manion: As I said, I do not see how anyone can ask to have contracts tabled until he knows about them. I think the hon. member's motion is perfectly proper. Until the minister spoke this afternoon no one could have known the details of this contract. I think the hon. member for Vancouver North drew conclusions some of which perhaps are not right. But he had nothing to base them on, except what he read in the contract. I say that personally I believe he did a service, and drew conclusions which were just, in view of the information which he had.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the group with which the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is associated, that we object to any hon. member endeavouring to impute motives when we place a matter of this sort before parliament. After all, the people of this country are interested in what is being done with munitions contracts.

War Munitions-Mr. Coldwell


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in what my hon. friends say about them, but in the facts.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, in the facts. Recently we had a long discussion about the Bren gun contract. The contract at present before the house was entered into fifteen months before it was tabled, and to complain that the hon. member for Vancouver North might have spoken to the minister is, in my opinion, entirely beside the point. Moreover, while I was not in the house during the last parliament, I read Hansard, and I think the very last member in the house to make any protest against matters being raised in the house, as this was this afternoon, should be the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I am objecting to that air of injured innocence which he has exhibited today.
We are anxious to know why it is that the government, which through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has laid down a policy, has departed from that policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: We want to keep that continually before the house and the country, because we believe, rightly or wrongly-and I believe rightly-that there is no more sinister force in the world to-day than the private armament industry. We are determined, so far as we can, to arouse public opinion against that danger. This contract, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has rightly said, does in effect begin to set up a monopoly in the making of munitions in this dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes; oh. yes. The equipment is placed in the building. It is there; and when new contracts are to be made, these companies established through government cooperation will have the equipment and be able to have, as it were, an inner track in any competition for such contracts which may follow.
The minister says he is following the British war office practice. I wonder whether that is always a recommendation? When I think of the policy of the present national government in Great Britain in other fields, I would seriously question whether we are right in following blindly that lead. In connection with munitions contracts may I point out that only last week in the British parliament members of the House of Commons criticized the government for such contracts. Charges were made that some of the contractors in Great Britain supplying the government with aeroplanes, and all sorts of war equipment, were making profits as high
as forty per cent. Should we follow the British war office practice in that regard? I certainly think not.
Moreover, as a result of the debate in the British House of Commons a week or ten days ago, the government has been compelled to reduce the amount of some of those contracts. Then we are told that of course there is no political patronage. I hold no brief for the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, or for that newspaper; but I am going to say this on his behalf, that I sat in my place in the house less than one year ago and heard the leader of the opposition of that time discuss political patronage and make statements which, in my opinion, ought to have been investigated. But neither side of the house moved to make such an investigation.


Vincent Dupuis: Did the hon. member?


Major James William Coldwell: We suggested that they should be investigated. May I also say that these suspicions regarding campaign funds are, in my opinion, well founded. When I add up the amount of time used by hon. gentlemen opposite and the cost of that time over the radio, and when I add to that the cost of their newspaper advertising, and add to that the cost of their billboards-


An hon. MEMBER:: Stick to the subject.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sticking to the subject, because it has been said-


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is not imputing motives now!


Major James William Coldwell: were imported from England. The general impression in the house, I would take it, would be that $4 for the smaller shell and $6.75 for the larger shell is the maximum cost. Yet, when we look at the contract, what do we find? We find that is a cost, but there are certain things to be added, which were enumerated by the hon. member for Vancouver North, making a gross cost for those shells higher than the amount placed before the house this afternoon.


Mr. VIEN:: There is nothing hidden; everything is disclosed.


Major James William Coldwell: Everything is disclosed, but in the argument presented there was placed before the house a conclusion which, even under the terms of the contract, I say was not warranted. More costs are to be added on account of the overhead and the administration specified in the contract itself. So I am supporting the hon. member for Vancouver North.
If we look at the summary of the contract we find the government is to supply the company with all billets, forgings, base plates and driving-band rings, special paint, varnish, packages and boxes required for shells, machinery and tools, dies and other equipment. That is to be found in sections 2 and 3.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What is the company
to supply?


Major James William Coldwell: The government is to supply these materials without charge to the company. Then, the government is to pay for the installation of all machinery, tools and equipment. The government is to pay for such conversion of the company's plant as may be necessary for the purposes of the contract. The government is to pay the cost of dismantling and moving the machinery, et cetera, and of replacing the plant in its original condition, when and if the government does not require the company's services any longer. The machinery, tools, dies and equipment are to be the property of the government. The government is to make all minor repairs to the plant and equipment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Worse than the Bren gun contract.


Major James William Coldwell: The 10,000 Howitzer shells are to be delivered within nine months, and the 20,000 18-pounder shells within twelve months of the date on which machining commences.
We have been told of the urgent necessity for this kind of equipment, and for munitions. This afternoon the minister tells us that to this date how many have been

delivered?- between 700 and 800. I believe he said 780 had been delivered, although I may have forgotten the exact figure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it was 740, with an additional 1,860 in process of being completed.


Major James William Coldwell: According to the minister's answer in the house, none had been delivered prior to February 3 of this year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think tests were made after that.


Major James William Coldwell: Then we have the fixed amounts, read by my hon. friend, amounting to $12,209.80. As he pointed out, that amount equals 8-27 per cent of the total cost of labour, plus ten per cent. Some one to my left has asked what the company supplied. I should not care to answer that question until the matter has been investigated by the public accounts committee. I think we may say that the government pays for all supplies, machinery, tools, equipment, materials, installation, repairs, dismantling, overhead costs, depreciation, administration expenses and all labour and salary costs. In addition, the government pays ten per cent profit on all labour and salary costs.
We of this group are anxious that the business of Canada should be done to the best advantage. The minister says that we desire socialization of everything. That is not true and he knows it. I agree with him that there are circumstances under which the government is justified in entering into an agreement with a company for the provision of certain equipment. When we embark upon the expenditure of many millions of dollars for equipment of this type, the government's own policy requires us to manufacture these articles in government institutions as far as possible.
I am not going to discuss the Bren gun contract any further this afternoon; but I should like to point out that when the British government obtained the right to manufacture that gun in the dominion, it specified that they must be manufactured in government institutions. We find here at the very outset of this great program a deviation from that policy. As far as I am concerned, I support the hon. member for Vancouver North and all other mon. members who think as I do on this particular problem. I know this, that if it were not for party divisions we would find in all parts of this house men who thought exactly alike in relation to this particular problem. I urge on those who sit in other sections of the house to bring pressure to bear-

War Munitions-Mr. Walsh


Thomas Vien: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to say what he has just stated. He has said that hon. members in some parts of this house were actuated by partisan politics when voting here. The hon. gentleman has no right to say that, and I ask that he withdraw.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say what the hon. gentleman says I said. If I imputed motives, I would withdraw the statement that imputed those motives.


Thomas Vien: I insist on a ruling. The hon. gentleman has said that if we did not belong to a political party we would not vote as we do.


Major James William Coldwell: If I may state again what I said, I said that I knew there were hon. gentlemen in all parts of this house who thought on this particular matter as I think myself. That is my opinion which has been formed by discussing these matters and having conversations with hon. gentlemen.


Thomas Vien: A gratuitous assumption.


Major James William Coldwell: No, not an assumption, an opinion based upon my knowledge of what has been expressed by hon. gentlemen in all parts of this house. All I did was to urge such hon. gentlemen to forego parties and to join with the rest of us in bringing to the attention of the government the necessity for eliminating private profit and the granting of private contracts in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war. I am glad that this contract is to go to the public accounts committee. I am glad that this discussion has taken place this afternoon. The minister says that the contract should have gone to the committee without discussion, but I say that this House of Commons is a democratic institution. It is an institution for precisely what it has been used for this afternoon. The more airing that can be given to opinions of members of this house-


Charles Avery Dunning: Street rumours.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a contract.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) spoke of street rumours and he has disseminated them all across the country this afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman's interruption-


Charles Avery Dunning: Scattering suspicion.


Major James William Coldwell: -is not well taken, because it is a contract we are discussing, not street rumours.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, but it was.


Major James William Coldwell: Ever since I have been speaking I have not mentioned street rumours.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for Vancouver North did.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Vancouver North based all his argument on the contract. He suggested that in view of certain street rumours it was well that we should look into this matter in order to stop them. I submit that it is in the interests of the government that these matters should be investigated publicly and discussed publicly in this chamber.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this contract was let to a firm in Montreal, and I come from that particular district. Without wanting to cause any offence to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), or to bring about any violent eruptions on his part directed to myself at a later date, I should like to give my support to the motion moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). This particular firm was not in the machine-shop business prior to obtaining this contract. When we have so many machine-shops in Canada so well equipped to carry out work of this kind, I cannot see why a contract for shells should have been given to a firm not regularly engaged in the machine-shop business and not equipped in any way to cany out such work. I do not think there is any particular need to get all " het up," as the Minister of National Defence did. This is a matter of business. The hon. member for Vancouver North placed before this house certain information which would lead anyone with an unbiased mind to feel sure that the Department of National Defence was not being run in a businesslike manner at the present time.
This is one instance where business principles should be put into effect. Such a policy would save the ratepayers of Canada much money and would also give us a more effective and businesslike administration. I am not speaking disparagingly of the minister himself. I made that abundantly clear when I was discussing the Bren gun contract. I recognize the ability of the Minister of National Defence and that he is a man who should have the respect of everyone in the house. I am not gainsaying that point in any shape or form, but I do say that we in this parliament should give the Canadian people a clear understanding that we are proceeding in every respect in a businesslike manner in conducting the affairs of this country. Recently we have
War Munitions-Mr. Walsh

been flooded with ballots. We read daily in our newspapers the suggestion that the conduct of business in this house is not as it should be. The blame is attached to the government where it naturally belongs, because they are the ones who are conducting the business of this house, and it is just such contracts as this that are undermining the confidence of the Canadian people and making them feel that as we are now constituted we cannot give Canada a lead in so far as business administration is concerned.
If there is one place where competitive bids could have been obtained, it was in the manufacture of these shell casings, because there is nothing at all complicated about them. In the Bren gun inquiry we heard a great deal about the delicate machinery required for the manufacture of this complicated weapon; but here is something that requires simply machine shop-skill and precision, and any machine-shop is in a position to tender on the production of shell casings and on complete shells or parts of shells.
I feel that the government in this instance should have established the principle, of which they have frequently boasted, of competitive bids for work of this kind, and then they would have been able to establish what has been referred to in this house as a basic price. It is a generally accepted principle of business that the best means of establishing a basic price for any article in any industry is to have competitive bids on that article, and there were at least seven firms in eastern Canada and there might have been other firms in western Canada which could without any difficulty have submitted competitive prices for the manufacture of these articles.
What do we find? We find no competitive prices. We find no firms invited to give prices or submit suggestions. We find one firm given the contract without any competitive bids. It might have been just a coincidence -I cannot say whether it was or not-that the head of this firm happened to be Mr. Janin, a well knorvn and recognized Liberal in the distinct of Montreal. I say it might have been merely a coincidence that the contract went to a company whose president happened to be a Liberal in politics. But, coincidence or otherwise, the Canadian people are again going to say with regard to this contract: "Here is another case of political advantage operated through the Department of National Defence"-when the Department of National Defence should be endeavouring to get the best possible equipment at the lowest possible price so as to give the people the maximum service in connection with the defence of our country.

I should like to urge that point because I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence say on more than one occasion that which is quite contrary to the principle involved in the letting of this contract. I should like to see them get back to the competitive price system so that we may be able to establish a business in this dominion of manufacturing armaments without having every contract of the national defence department brought up and debated on the floor of this house. What a black eye it is for this government to have debated in parliament contract after contract let in the same way by the Department of National Defence! The government are not withdrawing one iota from the privileged contractors. They are setting up this man and this firm in business, and equipping his plant to turn out this initial delivery of shells. That company is now in a preferred position when it comes to submitting a bid in the future against other firms which are in the field now and are willing to submit prices.
I hope, Mr. Speaker-and here I am directing myself more particularly to the Minister of National Defence-that he will table immediately all contracts that have been let in the past two years, so that we may have a complete investigation into them all, and then consider them a closed book; and from then on start on a new basis with a businesslike administration given by the Department of National Defence, so that the Canadian people will be warranted in having a certain degree of confidence in the manufacture of armaments for the defence of their country.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Te-miscouata): Mr. Speaker, since the departure of the former leader of the Conservative party and official leader of the opposition, I have felt at a great loss, that somebody was missing from this house, and I was looking for someone to replace the right hon. gentleman in my affections. I think now I shall choose the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), who has just spoken, to be my pet colleague, and whenever I have an opportunity to listen to him he will remind me of his dear, illustrious leader, although my hon. friend was not one of the three members of the official opposition who accompanied his late leader to the Union station on the day he left.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Speaker, may I disclaim the high and distinguished honour that my hon. friend is planning for me.


Mr. POULIOT:: I see, Mr. Speaker, that my choice is appreciated, and if it is not accepted, it will be imposed on the hon.

gentleman. If his former illustrious leader had tears in his eyes when he felt at the station that he was like an orphan abandoned there, it was because only three of his former supporters were at the station to see him off.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why bring that up?


Jean-François Pouliot: And the hon. member for the west end of the city of Montreal was not one of them. Then his former leader mumbled a few words, which were understood by those around to be the English equivalent of "Et tu, Brute."


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is not speaking to the motion before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, I am expressing my deep feelings, and now this matter having been settled by agreement, I come to the motion before the chair.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has found something wrong in the fact that the company was chosen by the department itself instead of by the interdepartmental committee. As a member of this house, I do not believe in any interdepartmental committee. I do not see why any group of civil servants should have to do the work of the government. Whenever any contract is awarded, the government has no reason to lean upon the shoulders of any departmental official or upon any group of departmental officials. The government must come to the house and take responsibility for what the government has done.
I do not see who were the experts, and what they were, in that interdepartmental committee considering the profits to be made in the manufacture of armaments. Any one of these gentlemen might have been an expert in his own particular branch; but very few of them were experts in the manufacture of munitions, and the only one of them who knew anything about the manufacture of munitions belonged to the Department of National Defence. Therefore I do not see why one should rely upon such an interdepartmental committee to decide whether a contract should be awarded either to Mr. Janin or anyone else. In fact it was noted by Commissioner Davis that the delays with regard to the signature of the Bren contract were as much on account of the interdepartmental committee as on account of the evident incompetence of Colonel Orde, the judge advocate general. I hope that when this contract is submitted to the committee, the first witness to be heard on the contract as well as any other gun contract will be that same Colonel Orde, and then it will be illuminating to members of the committee to learn what is the
144?
War Munitions-Mr. Pouliot
trouble in the Department of National Defence. My contention is that whenever a man is incompetent, another man should be put in his stead. Any incompetent man in the civil service should either be superannuated or should remove himself gently from the picture, but he should be replaced at once by a competent man, and then we would need no interdepartmental committees of any kind.
There is another statement which was made by the leader of the opposition. He asked, "Why pick such a company? It is an extraordinary procedure." Why is it an extraordinary procedure? What was there wrong about the fabrication of the guns by that company? Nothing at all. In this house we have the reversal of that well known and elementary principle of British justice, that no one shall be considered guilty until he^ is found guilty. From the able speeches which have been delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and others, it is apparent that they assume there is something wrong although they do not prove it. Of course they want to know about the matter, but why put the blame on the minister until everything is made clear to them? The leader of the opposition said, "So far as I am concerned it is the will of the house." Probably that was a slip of the tongue, because it was the practice of his illustrious predecessor to assume that his own will was the will of the house. I know very well that the hon. gentleman who now performs the high functions of leader of the opposition is, as has been said of him, a man of human characteristics, and the expression was probably a slip on his part.
But who is to blame if the contract has not been placed before the house until within the last few days? Every one of us; those sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, as well as those sitting to your right. Nobody asked for the contract. The minister has many things to do. He complies generally with every reasonable request which is made to him from any section of the house. Whenever an hon. member wants information, he has only to put his motion on the order.paper, and very seldom is his request refused. Until now only one minister in the whole cabinet has refused me reasonable information or has objected to my statements about civil servants. All the others, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), the new Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin),

War Munitions-Mr. Pouliot

have always complied with my requests. Very seldom has the government refused any information which was asked for. Of course they have not a faculty apparently possessed by some hon. members; they are not mind readers, and they do not know what is behind the heads of hon. members. But when a member wants any information which can be reasonably disclosed, he has only to ask for it. Then why blame the government for not having produced the contract before? That is something I cannot understand. That is my first point.
My second point is, that as soon as an hon. member gets any information from the government, whether in the form of a copy of a contract or any other material, he looks at it with the idea that there must be something wrong in it, even though on the face of it there is nothing to support his suspicion. That is all wrong. I hope that in all our dealings together we shall come to accept the elementary rules of British practice. They are very easy to understand, and everyone knows them.
Now, sir, is it so wrong to favour our friends? It means in the first place one thing, that we have friends. Then it can be wrong only when that friend does not justify the amount which is paid to him either for work or for services. Moreover, we know our friends better than we know our opponents, because our opponents keep away from us, and we do not have the advantage of knowing them as well as those who support us.
One thing which surprises me very much is the way in which the fabrication of munitions is publicized, not only in the house but in the press. A distinguished soldier told me that it was easy for spies to cable very secret news about the armaments of this country and the United States, merely after having read the columns of some important papers which are published in New York, Montreal, or even Ottawa. I am surprised to see how readily news is released to the effect that a certain kind of gun, which most of the time is described in technical detail, is to be made at this or that particular place, and that this particular kind of shell is to be manufactured at such other place. The same is true with regard to aeroplanes and other kinds of military equipment. Because of this. I would suggest to the committee which will study the Bren gun contract or any other contract regarding the manufacture of munitions, that it should sit behind closed doors when it comes to the specific details of any piece of armament-not to prevent the press from being informed of what has been done by any

statesman or politician, but to prevent the press from knowing intimate technical details about the construction of armaments.
For all these reasons, sir, it seems to me that it is not so bad to award contracts to those we know and to those we trust, in order that no secrets shall go outside. Of course there are many supporters of the leader of the opposition, of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, and of the social credit movement, who can be trusted as regards the fabrication of armaments. On the other hand I have a very strong objection to the publication of tenders, thus giving specific technical details about the production of armaments to anyone who sends a cheque with his tender. This is another suggestion, by the way, but it explains in my humble view, although I have not discussed the matter with any member of the government, why at times it is decided to award such contracts to responsible business firms who are well known to the party awarding the contract. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a tempest in a teacup, and, of course, there is much exaggeration about it.
There is one thing that we must not lose in this house and that is a sense of proportion. It is most interesting to see anyone building a skyscraper on the head of a pin, but the skyscraper will not stand long because the foundation is not very solid, though it may look nice. Nothing is more beautiful than castles in the air, but we see them in dreams and not in reality. Therefore, as my hon. friends to your left. Mr. Speaker, as well as to your right, are practical men, I assume that we shall not attach too much importance to the statements that have been made this afternoon unless any one of those gentlemen, after having heard witnesses, can substantiate any insinuation and prove that something has been wrong in the awarding of the contract to the Janin construction company or any other company.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: I shall take only a few minutes in this debate, but it is only fair to give the members of this house on all sides from a business point of view something in connection with this contract.
During the great war from 1914 to 1918 the manufacturers of Sherbrooke, in efficiency of manufacture, were second to none in any part of Canada. This contract calls for 10,000 18-pounder shells. The Ingersoll-Rand company in Sherbrooke, which was cited by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), produced 10,000 of these shells per day; in other words, the contract would represent on that basis one day's work.

War Munitions-Mr. Howard
This is what I want to say to the house. When there is a question of this contract or other governmental contracts for munitions being given, Canadian industries are willing to cooperate one hundred per cent, should the time ever come, and we all hope that it never will. But they are not desirous of disrupting their natural course of production for the benefit of Canadians in order to take on government contracts at this stage of the game. In fact, when this contract and a similar one were offered the Canadian Inger-soll-Rand, or when the matter was suggested to them not so long ago, their answer surprised me as I am sure it will surprise the house. They said, "To take on a contract for the government on what basis?" I replied that it was on a cost plus basis and they said, "Never under any consideration will we touch a contract on a cost plus basis. Let the government of this country get anybody who is foolish enough to take on such a contract to produce goods on a cost plus basis, but if they want us to manufacture the goods let them tell us what they are willing to pay and we will tell them whether we will produce the goods."
If this contract had been offered to Sherbrooke, which is one of the centres of the steel industry in Canada, they would not have looked at it, and probably the reason why the contract went to this particular firm is that no one else, certainly not in my district, could be got to take it on.


William Allen Walsh: You are right.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. member knows I am right when I say that.


William Allen Walsh: Absolutely. No one would take that contract, no reputable firm.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is only a question of small production, as was stated by the minister a minute ago-practically speaking, a pilot plant to establish the cost of this size of shell.


Robert James Manion: But is it not a natural inference to draw that if the Janin company or the other company succeeded in making these shells they would be given further contracts?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
necessarily.


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily, but that is a natural inference.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Charles Benjamin Howard: I was almost addressing my remarks to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) because I was surprised at his statement. I am giving you the absolute facts. A man who is producing goods in the steel industry, or any other industry for that matter, has his plant at maximum efficiency, and if he should change over and put a thousand employees in any plant on a cost plus basis, then when the small order had been completed and he had to go back to an efficiency basis in order to compete with industry in all parts of Canada, selling to the trade, who buy at the lowest price, he would be out of luck.
I say, therefore, that this contract is one hundred per cent right and was properly handled. More than that, it should not have been discussed from the standpoint of publicity in the House of Commons to-day in the present situation. There are too many matters that are exceedingly pressing at the present time, there is too much agitation throughout the country in connection with many problems that are facing the people of Canada, for us to spend our time as we have been doing lately, discussing these things when the proper course is to refer such matters to a committee and there have them discussed. They should not ibe discussed on the floor of the House of Commons with a view to publicity.
To those who think that the profiteering element enters into contracts of this kind I say this: Do they realize-and the hon. member sitting beside me happened to be a member of the munitions purchasing board at the time-that the price paid for the first contract for the manufacture of shells in those terrible days from 1914 to 1918 was reduced on the second issue and further reduced on the third issue? On the first contract at the highest price I do not believe any manufacturer made a dollar. On the second contract there was a reduction in price of about forty per cent and they did not make very much money, and on the last contract, when the price was below cost of producing the first contract, they made money. When you talk about profiteering in private industry and it is a question of the government fixing the price, Canadian efficiency alone will decide whether there are profits in the contract or not. It is not based on either of the other assumptions.
I think we should not discuss this matter now. I am in favour of referring it to the committee. But I congratulate the minister on the way he has handled the matter. Remember that Canada is not at war. The position would be entirely different if we were
1450	COMMONS
War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie King
at war; then there would be cooperation on the part of the people all over this country. But we are not at war, and the government should not disclose these munitions contracts when they are only test contracts, in order to determine our position in case anything should happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said he thought I should say something in this debate. If I speak very briefly it will be because I do not wish to follow my hon. friend in a course for which I think he is to be criticized rather than commended, that of speaking on an important public matter without either knowledge or reflection. I take the hon. gentleman's own introductory words; he said he had not seen *or heard of this contract until just before the luncheon hour; he had combined his lunch time with thinking over it, and admittedly without knowing anything about it, he has spoken at some length and gone pretty far in criticism of the administration. That course of procedure is entirely wrong, it is against the public interest, it not only wastes the time of parliament, but creates suspicion and disbelief where no ground for either exists. And what I have said concerning the leader of the opposition I think may be said in part with respect to the hon. member who introduced the motion (Mr. MacNeil). If the government were opposing his motion, then I could see why hon. gentlemen opposite should come forward with every argument they could urge in criticism of the government for trying to prevent the hon. member from obtaining the fullest possible information and light.
There are times and places for all things in the arrangement of the business of this house. That is the point I wish particularly to make this afternoon. Parliament has itself laid down certain rules for the conduct of public business, and has appointed certain committees to facilitate intelligent discussion in this house. Where there are special committees and standing committees appointed, the purpose is obviously to give to hon. members who may be members of such committees, and through them to the house generally, the fullest knowledge of all material and relevant facts, and to avoid wasting the time of parliament on matters which should not be discussed at all because they are not relevant.
What is the motion of the hon. member? It is:
That a copy of the agreement between the government and the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment, Limited, Montreal,
I Mr, Howard.]
for the machining of billets and forgings in the manufacture of shells, together with all related orders in council, documents, correspondence, minutes of- the interdepartmental committee, and statements of claim, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
The government is prepared to grant that request. My hon. friend knows it. But may I point out that the motion, if made in accordance with the motive which we would naturally assume, is for the purpose of supplying hon. members with information before we begin to discuss the particular matter here. It asks first for the agreement. I question whether six hon. members-in fact I doubt whether more than two hon. members have read that agreement. The minister himself undoubtedly has read it, and possibly the hon. member who moved the motion, but I doubt whether one other member of this house has read it.


Robert James Manion: I have read it.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I have read it.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the hon. member
for Greenwood (Mr. Massey).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
four hon. members who have read this contract. Yet we are all expected to listen to a discussion of its merits or the reverse before we have had opportunity of perusing it carefully; it is brought up unexpectedly without adequate notice or without any hon. member being in a position to prepare himself to discuss it-


William Allen Walsh: May I ask the Prime
Minister to include my name among those who have read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Coming to the next request, the motion asks for all related orders in council. Has my hon. friend who introduced the motion read these orders in council? I venture to say he has not. He asks for the documents; has he seen all the documents? I venture to say he has not. He asks for the correspondence; has he seen the correspondence?


Robert James Manion: How could he?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He asks for
the statements of claim; has he read the statements of claim? [DOT]


Robert James Manion: How could he possibly
have seen them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
I am asking.


Robert James Manion: Does the right hon. gentleman suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert James Manion: -that I can ask questions only about things I already know, or that a motion should be put and we should never discuss it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will allow me to proceed I think the public will reach their own conclusions very quickly.


Robert James Manion: They are reaching them
about my right hon. friend pretty fast.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will allow his good nature instead of his ill nature to govern him he will be all right.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am sure the right hon.
gentleman does not wish to misstate my position. I did place on the order paper a series of questions and asked for the production of papers some time ago. I have taken advantage of all the opportunities provided to obtain the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon.
friend is asking now for the opportunity which the rules of this house afford to those who wish to get the fullest information, and the government is ready to give it to him, but he is not prepared to wait; without getting the information he makes his speech condemning the contract, or if he does not condemn he has done his utmost, and the leader of the opposition the same, to create suspicion in the minds of the people of this country that there is something wrong with the contract, and this without any investigation whatever. Hon. members opposite are constituting themselves not only prosecutors but judges and jury before there has even been consideration of the matter. That is entirely wrong from every point of view. It is not in accord with the judicial way in which any matter of public importance should be dealt with; it is wrong with respect to the parliamentary method of proceeding as set forth in the rules of this house; it is wrong from the point of view of the interests of the department and the position of the minister. Moreover it is entirely unfair to the country itself that unwarranted suspicion should be created in the minds of the people with regard to one of the great public departments of this country.
This afternoon some hon. members referred to the fact that the press is commenting upon the circumstance that a great deal of time is being taken up in discussing some matters here when we ought to be proceeding with other and more important business. With respect to this afternoon's proceedings I think
such criticism would be wholly justified. Parliament has provided means whereby the fullest information can be obtained by hon. members in regard to a public matter of this kind before it is discussed on the floor of the house, and those means should have been availed of before this discussion took place. If, after the matter has gone to the public accounts committee, and hon. members have had all the information and facts laid before them, and the committee has reported, there is the desire to discuss the committee's report and bring out relevant facts, hon. members are at liberty and it is their duty to do so. That is the time and occasion afforded by the procedure of parliament itself. Now I appeal to hon. members on all sides, having regard to what we must see only too clearly, a desire on the part of some people in this country, who really ought to know better, to create distrust in our democratic and parliamentary institutions, that they give their help to the government by seeking to make the debates in this house what they should be in accordance with the rules of the house.
Hon. members say the government can control the situation. Control? Last night we discontinued the debate on the trade agreement in order that to-day and for the next two or three days, before the senate returns, we might forward to the other house some of the measures on the order paper, so that they might consider them when they meet. What happens? To-day pretty much the entire day has been taken up in discussing a motion which I contend should not have been discussed at this stage at all, unless the government were refusing to grant the request of the hon. member who made it. I see my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) ready to start up, and I know what is in his mind. It is a criticism which is coming from him all the time, and I wish hon. members to see the significance of it at a time like the present. He is ready to say that the Prime Minister is trying to shut off debate.


Mr. REID:: That is what they want.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think something of that kind is in his mind; he will say hon. members ought to have the fullest opportunity for discussion. I am not trying to shut off debate. I am trying to put debate into its proper place. There are times and seasons for all things, and unless we observe those times and seasons we shall be here for a very long time in getting through with the public business.
I now come to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, in regard to an
1452	COMMONS
War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie King
editorial which appeared in one of the Ottawa papers, the paper which has been mentioned this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: Not one, but many editorials.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman referred to one in particular; I shall come to the " many " in a moment. I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that that kind of journalism serves no public purpose, and certainly does credit least of all to the publication which lends itself to that kind of unwarranted criticism.
One of the things I think there is reason to deplore in some of the journalism of our country to-day is that some papers which heretofore have been a guide to the country generally and a help to members of parliament, by their fair comment with respect to public matters, are losing all their influence because they are coming to be recognized not as journals standing for fair comment on public matters but as the instruments of certain powers, interests and forces which wish to present only a point of view of their own contrary to some of the views which others may hold.
I come back to what my hon. friend said. He suggested bringing to the bar of the house the one who was responsible for the particular editorial referred to. I think the place to have him appear is before the public accounts committee, because the matter has been referred to that committee. And I hope the members of the committee will see that the paper in question has an opportunity of substantiating there. some of the charges which have been made in its editorial columns.
But to suggest that we should bring anyone to the bar of the house-well, what would be the effect of it? So far as I can see it, it would simply be playing into the hands of the publication itself. Make a martyr of anyone, whether it be a newspaper, a newspaper publisher, or an editor, and you begin to serve probably the one great purpose he may have in view. I know what would be said in regard to myself. It is this: "Here is the Prime Minister again, trying to suppress public opinion! Here is the government asserting its power and authority to silence criticism of itself!" That is what would be said, in a minute.
Unfortunately in dealing with public affairs the choice is not always between the one course which is going to be wholly right and the other course which is wholly wrong. Too often the choice is between the lesser of two evils. And that is something I am obliged to ask myself every day as I consider what attitude I should take on certain public

measures, or what I should say in the house. I must ask myself whether it would be better to allow some things to pass altogether, and say nothing about them, or whether I should rise in my place and say a word which perhaps would occasion debate which would take up the rest of the day.
So far as concerns trying to keep the press of the country in control, I shall say to my hon. friend that that is a job which I should not like to undertake.


Robert James Manion: I was not suggesting that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the sense in which my hon. friend meant it, I am agreeing with him, in this particular. If I began to raise questions of privilege with respect to statements I see in the different newspapers, or in some of the newspapers of this country, from day to day, I would be on my feet every, afternoon in this House of Commons pointing out where in editorial columns ot in news columns there are statements which are absolutely untrue, the government's position misrepresented, or the position of other hon. members misrepresented. I put some of it down to a lack of an understanding of the question on the part of those who have been writing about it, or reporting concerning it.
I think in the long run the people will judge for themselves-and they usually judge pretty correctly in these matters. Where occasionally some slip takes place in a public journal, and it is noticed, the public understands that it might well be a slip. But when day after day the administration's point of view is misrepresented in news or editorial columns, the public very soon judge for themselves as to whether or not the purpose underlying it is that of fair comment, or whether there is some other objective in view. I say if one does not take exception to much that appears in the press it is for the reason, that one does not wish to take up time unnecessarily in questioning matters, which, as a result of such action, it would probably be impossible to remedy.
May I now for a moment come to the question of these contracts. I must say it is extraordinary to hear different members suggest that this or that should be done, as if it were some new course being proposed, and something the government had refused to do. The minister has told this House of Commons that he was prepared not only to put all contracts on the table, but, as he said last session, to have them all referred to the public accounts committee. That statement is on record in two places in Hansard of last year. Every hon. member knows that to get

War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie King
any contract he wishes, or all the contracts he wishes, all he has to do is to put a notice of motion on the order paper asking that such contracts be tabled-and unless there are good and sufficient reasons to the contrary they will be tabled immediately. The fact that any particular contract has not been tabled up to the present time is probably because it has not been requested. Is it to be assumed that the government has some clandestine motive in refusing to table things, just because they do not put on the table every contract signed in the different departments of government?


Charles Avery Dunning: Hundreds of them have been tabled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has pointed out, hundreds of these contracts have already been tabled. But to criticize the government for not tabling something which has not been requested is a criticism which I think is wide of the mark, altogether. The minister has indicated and I wish to emphasize the government's intention in the matter by endorsing what he has said, namely, that we are quite prepared to have these contracts, individually or collectively, go to the public accounts committee, and the government wants nothing other than the fullest and completest investigation in regard to any matter with respect to which there may be the slightest ground for suspicion.
I ask hon. members of the house this question: Could greater evidence have been given of the government's wish in the matter than that when that scurrilous article appeared in Maclean's, with the insinuations and suspicions it was creating, without losing a day the government ordered an inquiry by a justice of the supreme court into the whole business-into everything that was set out by way of insinuation or otherwise in that article. We referred the thing in its entirety to a judge of the highest court in Canada, and gave him the fullest powers. If that step had not been taken I could have understood the suggestion being made that we were trying to conceal something. But when the government instituted an inquiry of the kind it gave the strongest evidence possible that so far as this administration is concerned we are anxious to have everytihng relating to munitions, armaments and the like -and in fact, all public contracts-just as clean and wholesome as it can possibly be made.
Let me say this: When I caused to be placed before council the order in council
recommending the appointment of a commission I had just the same motives that every hon. member in the house has with respect to questions relating to the Department of National Defence, namely, to see that there should not be the slighest suspicion of wrongdoing in any particular with respect to any contract with which it might be concerned. Had the commisioner named any member of the department or any individual, had he found any wrong-doing in any particular, I would have been the first to take action that would have satisfied every single member of this house with respect thereto. I want to say the same with respect to all contracts existing at the present time. I welcome, and the government welcomes, the fullest inquiry by the public accounts committee. Call every member of the department of defence before that committee and question him as much as you like. If you find any evidence of wrong I will give you my word at once on behalf of the government that we will see whoever has been guilty of wrong is immediately dealt with in the appropriate manner.
I do wish to say, however, that at times like the present it is important not to create a want of confidence in any department of the government, and least of all in the department of defence, unless there are good grounds for so doing. It is very easy one or two years after a step has been taken to say that we should have done this or we should have done that, but I ask hon. members to put themselves for a moment in the frame of mind in which they were one or two years ago with respect to appropriations for increased armaments and munitions and ask themselves what they would have done. I remember the difficult task the administration faced in persuading the house that there was a necessity existing in relation to international affairs which made it obviously desirable and necessary that this country should increase its defences and that some additional appropriations should be made for munitions and armaments. I remember how strongly that program was opposed, and I think hon. gentlemen diagonally opposite remember quite well. It was not opposed on the ground that there was going to be wrong-doing with respect to it, or that it was going to be made an instrument for securing campaign funds and the like; it was opposed on the score that it was not necessary.
Let me put this question fairly to hon. members. It has been suggested with regard to one contract which has been discussed that the work should have been undertaken in the arsenals instead of being given to a private firm. I ask hon. members if at the
1454	COMMONS
War Munitions-Mr. Mackenzie King
time that other contract was being considered the government had begun to open up one of our arsenals, to put in machinery costing a million dollars or more for the purpose of manufacturing munitions and armaments, what would have been the effect upon the minds of the people from one end of this country to the other? Would we have been helping a situation which was extremely critical if we had unduly alarmed the people of Canada by opening up our arsenals for the manufacture of arms and munitions? We all hoped that what was threatening would pass. It is only because we are not yet secure enough to feel that we can afford to do other than make provision for increased defence of this country at this time that we are asking for additional appropriations to-day. We did hope, when we first brought in our increased appropriations, that within the next year or two at least the situation which was becoming extremely critical in other parts of the world would have passed. We found out last September that we had not been far wrong when we took the steps we did one or two years before, and that the information we had been receiving had justified the action we were taking. The information necessitated pretty prompt action in some things, and we are fortunate to-day in having given the information we obtained the attention we did.
I just wish to present this point of view with regard to the whole question of the discussion of munitions and armaments from now on. I ask hon. members-and here I hope I am not to be accused of trying to intimidate the house; that will be the next thing I suppose, because I as Prime Minister have pointed out that there is a critical situation still existing in the world-to realize that we are as yet far from having a clear sky overhead. I think all of us would be well advised to get on with the business of this parliament as rapidly as we can because we may at some moment be called upon to consider questions larger than any we have discussed thus far. I pray that moment will not come, but who can say it will not in the light of the knowledge every man has who reads the press from day to day or from hour to hour? I say, in the light of the world situation being what it is let us have any inquiry we like, but do not for goodness sake, unless it is obviously necessary, let us do anything to create more in the way of suspicion and distrust in the minds of the people of this country in connection with defence affairs and a department which is seeking to do its utmost to make the defences of our country what they should be.

Just this one word in conclusion with regard to profiteering and the like. I hope it is not necessary for me to say that anything in the nature of profiteering would be wholly repulsive to every hon. member in this house. I hope I may be believed when I say that this government can be trusted to do everything within its power to prevent anything in the nature of profiteering. There has been talk about campaign funds. Why bring that matter into this particular discussion? Is there any single member who believes that my colleagues and myself would knowingly lend ourselves for one moment to any contract being given to any man in order that we might get some money out of it for purposes of a general election? I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House of Commons who believes anything of the kind. Why say it? Why raise suspicion with regard to it? Unfortunately campaign funds are necessary.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It happened before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend make the charge that it is happening now?


Angus MacInnis: No, that charge was made before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to say to my hon. friend that when he speaks in this house, while we know who he is, while we know he is prepared to make statements without having authority for them, there are people in other countries who do not realize that the member who has spoken may not be speaking with the same authority as would some member of the administration.


Angus MacInnis: I think the Prime Minister did not mean to say what he said. He said I would make statements for which I did not have proof. Have I ever made such a statement in the house?


Mr. MARTIN:: Insinuations.


Angus MacInnis: I suggested there were campaign funds before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The inference is quite clear.


Angus MacInnis: It is not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to impute any motive to any hon. member. If I have said anything I should not have said with respect to the hon. member, I withdraw it at once. What I wish to say, not only with regard to him but with regard to other hon. members, is that things may be said here in the course of discussion which those of U3

War Munitions-Mr. Woodsworth
who are in this chamber from day to day fully understand. We know who may be saying certain things, we know the extent of the knowledge he may have and we know what reliance can be placed upon his word; but when words are cabled to Germany, Italy and other countries as coming from a member of the House of Commons of Canada, they create a very different impression there from what they do in this country.
At times like this we have to be very careful of what we say and of the discussions that take place. Here again I hope I am not to be accused of intimidating the house. I am only stating what I think is very much in the public interest to be stated, that is, that in dealing with questions which relate to peace and war and to the attitudes of countries toward the great question of defence, hon. members should view with the utmost care every utterance which they make in this house.
Campaign funds are necessary for the purposes of an election. Is there anything wrong with securing funds to help to propagate the principles in which one believes? How are we going to carry on an election unless we get some financial support? Unfortunately the country does not pay all the expenses of an election. I wish it did, and I think a good many others feel likewise. But until we change our laws so that our parliament will provide the money to carry on elections- elections are a necessary part of the business of government because there could not be a parliament without an election-some means must be found of getting money from different sources to enable an election to be carried on. How is it done? It is done by asking those who believe in certain principles and policies to support the party financially in defraying the legitimate expenses of a campaign. Every party does that and must do it. Why, then, should we always seek to decry the necessity of having the wherewithal to carry on a general election, and endeavour to link that up, that necessity, with some question of a public contract?
I want to make this one observation in conclusion. With respect to profiteering, with respect to anything that savours of corruption, with respect to any government contract whether it is in connection with the department of defence or any other department of the government, so far as this administration is concerned we will do all in our power to prevent anything of the kind. If anything of the kind is proven to exist, we will do all in our power to make an example of those who are responsible, in the manner in which the country will expect.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say
just a few words. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested I was about to rise in my place to accuse him of shutting off the debate. I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that he and the Liberals are just as responsible as anyone else for the prolongation of debate, even this one.


Robert James Manion: More.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A few minutes
before the Prime Minister spoke, one hon. member, a supporter of the government, in a cynical defence of patronage, said it was quite right that the government should favour their friends, that when they did favour their friends they were sure of having their friends. Apparently they would not have them unless they took that course. We all know perfectly well that there has been political corruption in Canada before. We all know that. It is all very well for members to rise in their places and say that every party is guilty and that if we had the chance we would be guilty. That gets us nowhere. I urge that while the government has its responsibility- and it is a heavy responsibility-under our system of responsible government every member of the house also has his own responsibility.


An hon. MEMBER:: But some do not take it very seriously.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Maybe, but some
of us are trying to take it seriously, and we do not propose to be laughed off simply because we are taking advantage of the opportunities provided by this house.
My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) was quite within his rights in bringing forward his motion to-day. The Prime Minister rather suggested that it was sprung without notice, but his motion was regularly placed, as it had to be, on the order paper on the 23rd of last month, and I have no doubt the Prime Minister has facilities for knowing what the business of the house will be, just as every member has. So I submit that the hon. member for Vancouver North is quite within his rights. Further, he was not sure what the attitude of the government would be until the government announced it.


Charles Avery Dunning: He was told in the
previous debate, and the minister stated repeatedly that he would table and refer every contract.

War Munitions-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been said
generally that the contracts could be seen; but the fact is that we have not had the public accounts committee meeting in past years, and it was only because of the most vigorous expose we had of the Bren gun affair that we got action from the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no, it was volunteered.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The hon. member is
not sincere.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sincere.


Thomas Vien: It is not a correct statement
of fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry if I
am not correct.


Thomas Vien: From the very beginning-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has the floor and cannot be interrupted except with his consent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My judgment is
that had we not had the very serious challenge of the policy of the government by my colleague who introduced this motion today, I doubt very much whether this matter would have been referred to the public accounts committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my opinion.


Thomas Vien: And that is a fact that we
challenge.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my opinion, and I am sincere in giving it.


Charles Avery Dunning: You just don't believe
what we said with respect to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the hon. member's observation, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) replied to the member who made the motion, and said at once that this contract and every contract could go to the committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To-day, in the debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, after the speech of my colleague.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You say you got the committee only after long debate. The hon. member knew beforehand he could have his committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I went back to the Bren gun just as an illustration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say in regard to the Bren gun, that if my hon. friend looks at Hansard he will see that I stated, before there was any debate at all, that that motion would be accepted by the government.


Thomas Reid: And that if the member would not proceed with it the government would.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we are going to go into the history of the matter, it will be recalled that my colleague spoke on the Bren gun in the debate on the address, and it was, I think, necessary that his indictment should have been made then or the subsequent developments might not have taken place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find on the votes and proceedings of this house a motion by the Minister of National Defence himself to refer the Bren gun contract to the public accounts committee before the motion was even put and before any debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: After the hon. member for Vancouver North had made his statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no, before any statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As my colleague suggests, after the notice of motion was placed on the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my position. As I understand the matter, it has taken all the force which we had to secure the action that the government has now taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: Absurd.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister a few minutes ago went back to what he called the scurrilous attack in Maclean's magazine and suggested that the government was desirous of having the utmost publicity. I have no desire to go back over that ground, but I would remind the Prime Minister that had his own Minister of National Defence given us a little fuller information last year, and a little more accurate information-information in harmony with the real situation-some of us would not have felt so much like bringing the matter up this year. But information was not given last year, or what was given was wholly inadequate. Under

War Munitions-Mr. Woodsworth
these circumstances it is perhaps quite natural that my colleague to-day should feel that he should make a fairly full statement before the matter came to a vote, if it did come to a vote in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: He knew perfectly well that the government had accepted the motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me say that the hon. member for Vancouver North based his whole argument not on rumours on the street but on the contract itself. He did refer in one instance to rumours on the street, but let me say to the Prime Minister that while there is danger of the public to-day losing confidence in democratic government, one reason for its losing confidence in democratic government is the failure of the government to deal with the great problems before the people to-day. That is the serious menace.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It has had no chance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No chance? The
hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) does not really mean that!


Charles Benjamin Howard: This session.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No chance this
session?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What have you done?
Mention your own leadership first.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to the Bren gun, the fact is that we did not get full publicity until that so-called scurrilous article appeared in Maclean's magazine. I have no responsibility for that at all, but I doubt if we would have had full publicity and the reference to the public accounts committee or even the appointment of the commission had not that article appeared. The fact is that the opposition and other groups in this house have their responsibility to the public, and simply because the government is well entrenched and has a large following, is no good reason why we should not take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the rules of the house to discuss these matters.
The Prime Minister has told us that if there was anybody in the wrong in connection with this matter they would be dealt with. But some of us are not particularly interested in tracing down some wrong act to one individual. What we are interested in is in exposing what we believe to be wrong methods of doing things. Those wrong methods will sooner or later, almost inevitably, lead . to particular abuses. I for one-and I think I can appeal to those hon. members who have known me for some years-am not particularly
interested in individuals and individual actions, but I am interested in certain methods and policies. Take our attitude with regard to the armaments program mentioned by the Prime Minister. One reason why our group has been steadily opposed to the armaments program of the government is that the government has distinctly refused to state its foreign policy.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Perfect nonsense.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We shall again have to oppose the armaments program until the government tells us what its foreign policy is. We cannot get this information. There are perhaps other reasons for our opposition, but that is one reason I wish to bring before the house. I have no desire to enter into a general discussion on the motion before us, but reference has been made again and again in this discussion to profiteering. I do not know just what profiteering is. It is, I assume, undue or wrongful profit-making. But I wish to go further than this and ask: Why should we have any profit making at all in the supplying of armaments?


David Spence: How would we eat, if we didn't make a profit?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As far as the people who manufacture these munitions are concerned, they get their wages, whether they are in private factories or government arsenals or wherever they may be. What I object to is the making of profits out of this kind of manufacturing. I believe that most of the people of Canada have some sort of conscience in that matter. What are these armaments for? For purposes of killing. Some of us are bitterly opposed to war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For purposes of preventing killing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister may assert that it is to prevent killing. I am not now going to discuss the whole question of war and armaments. But I would say this, that if war comes-and in this I agree with the Prime Minister-"heaven forbid"- the ordinary man in the street would be either asked to enlist or forced to go to war. There would be no profit in it for him. He risks his life at the call of his country, or is forced by the state to do so. For the life of me I cannot see why any private manufacturer should be allowed to make any profit out of war muntions. If we expect the common man to risk his life in war, the very least

War Munitions-Mr. Woodswortli
that the big manuacturer, the technician, and the big organizer can do is to give his services free to the state.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. members laugh at that. We all may very well laugh at that, because we know that persons of that class do not usually come forward and offer their services.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes, they do. Very many of them did in the last war. That is unfair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of them went to the front; a few of them offered their services; and a great many of them, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) knows very well, stayed at home and profiteered.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend does not want to be unfair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There were some-


Charles Avery Dunning: There were a great number of industrialists, experts and technicians who did give their services free in the last war. That is well known. The hon. member's remark is unfair to them as a class.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not the knowledge that the Minister of Finance has of these cases. I accept his word that there were some.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have reason to know that there were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say that such a practice ought to be made the rule in this country.


Mr. FRASER:: Why does the hon. member take his $4,000 a year?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If that remark is all we can get from the Liberal benches in answer to a serious statement of what I believe the policy of this country ought to be, then I almost despair of parliamentary institutions. Now that this matter has come up, while I am not so much interested in whether there should be a little more or a little less profiteering, I would to-day urge upon the government that the only possible way by which in the long run we can avoid profiteering is to see to it that, especially in this particular kind of manufacturing, so closely allied with war, there is no profiteering or profit-making out of what would involve human lives.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	In what year was the first grant paid to the international institute of refrigeration in Paris, France?
2.	Under what dominion statute is this grant authorized?
3.	What amounts have been paid from year to year?
4.	What material benefits accrue to Canada from such affiliation?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. 1910.
2. None; authorized by 9			order in	council.
Year	Amount			
1910..	.. .. 100 francs	$ 19 00	(approx.)1911..	.... 100	It	19 00	(approx.)1912..	.... 500	tt	96 46	1913..	.... 500	tt	90 00	(approx.)1914..	.... 500	u	90 00	(approx.)1915..	.... 500	tt	90 00	(approx.)1916..	.. .. 500	tt	86 60	1917..	.... 500	H	92 15	1918..	.... 500	tt	90 00	(approx.)1919..	.. .. 2,000	it	328 28	1920..	.. .. 2,000	tt	370 45	1921..	.. .. 6,000	tt	370 46	1922..	.. .. 6,000	tt	238 80	1923..	.. .. 6,000	tt	238 80	1924..	.. .. 6,000	tt	23S SO	1925..	.. .. 6.000	tt	238 80	1926 to	1938 . 6,000	tt	580 80	The	differences in	the	amounts	listed are
due to the fluctuations in the value of the franc.
4.	The principal objects of the International Institute of Refrigeration are as follows:
(1)	to stimulate investigations for the purpose of finding solutions of scientific, technical and industrial questions, of international scope, relating to the refrigerating industry;
(2)	To examine measures for the best solution of questions relating to the conservation, transit and distribution of perishable produce;
(3)	To publish all information concerning the world's frozen food situation, compiled from a triple standpoint: origin of production, circulation, consumption;
(4)	To centralize, for the purpose of immediate publication, all technical, economical and statistical reports and documents related to the production and use of refrigeration;
(5)	To concentrate, in view of finding remedial, administrative measures, all existing laws

Questions
and legislative data that in any way affect international exchanges of produce that can derive benefit from refrigerated transport;
(6)	To organize international congresses of refrigeration;
(7)	To be in constant communication with adherent professional or scientific bodies in order to determine the practical value of conclusions issued and propose suitable measures for their realization;
The department receives a monthly bulletin on the activities of the institute; also copies of any special reports of congresses on refrigeration.


QUEBEC TERMINAL ELEVATOR WHEAT STORAGE STATISTICS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What amount of wheat of all grades was held in store in the Quebec terminal elevator, in the city of Quebec, as at January 1, 1939, and weekly to date?
2.	By what companies was the wheat delivered to the elevator?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information is furnished by the national harbours board:
1.	bushels
January' 1, 1939	 1.895,359
January 7, 1939	 1,894,359
January 14,	1939	
1,890,210January 21,	1939	
1.881,210January 28,	1939	
1,876,710February 4, 1939	
1,870,210February 11, 1939	
1.863,710February 18, 1939	
1,859,7102.	It is not in the public interest or in accordance with government practice to disclose this information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SOUTHAM PRESS CONTRACTS
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	Does the Southam Press Limited, of Bleury street, Montreal, receive orders from the Canadian National Railways for printing tickets, time-tables, folders, etc.?
2.	If so, how many contracts were awarded to the Southam Press by the Canadian National Railways during the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
3.	What was the amount of each contract awarded during this period?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The management of Canadian National Railways take the position that it is not in the interests of the railway to make public information of this sort.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


DROUGHT AREAS-FOOD DONATIONS IN 1938
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Were any donations of vegetables, fruit or fish, made by the dominion government during the year 1938, to drought areas of, (a) Saskatchewan, (b) Alberta?
2.	Did the dominion government assume any of the costs in connection with such shipments to drought areas in, (a) Saskatchewan, (b) Alberta?
3.	If so, how were such costs made up?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No.		
2. (a) Yes. (b) No.		
3.	Cars	
Apples	85	$ 47,102 80Beans (dry)....	11	16.995 00Cheese	22	99,567 11Fish	31	58,450 75149	$222,115 66Distribution	(including freight)	38,698 05


$260,813 71 CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ATLANTIC REGION EQUIPMENT SHOP REPAIRS
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Were any locomotives or railway cars belonging to the Canadian National Railways shipped from the Atlantic region to their shops in other regions for repairs during the year 1938?
2.	If so, to what shops were such locomotives or cars sent?
3.	How many locomotives and cars were sent to each such shop?
4.	For what reasons?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No locomotives were shipped from Atlantic region to shops on other regions for repairs during 1938.
Of twenty-five colonist cars which were selected for conversion to first-class coaches at Winnipeg, two were located on Atlantic region and moved to Winnipeg. To offset this, two mail cars were sent from central region to Moncton shops for repairs.
No freight cars were moved from Atlantic region to shops on other regions for repairs, with the exception of steel coal cars, which were sent to Leaside shops.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Two passenger cars as mentioned above. No record has been kept of the number of steel coal cars which have been sent to Leaside, but this would be a veiy small number.
Questions

4.	Steel coal cars form a small proportion of Canadian National freight equipment, and in order that the work may be done economically and efficiently it is necessary to concentrate it at one shop. For many years this work has been done entirely at Leaside, which shop has been specially equipped with overhead cranes, etc.


BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the board of railway commissioners?
2.	What is the date of the appointment and salary of each commissioner?
3.	Do all of these commissioners give their full time to the work of the commission?
4.	Have the said commissioners any other business affiliations?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The board of transport commissioners is composed of the following:-The Honourable Hugh Guthrie, chief commissioner, William Hugh Masson Wardrope, assistant chief commissioner, Francois Napoleon Garceau, deputy chief commissioner, John August Stoneman, commissioner, George A. Stone, commissioner.
2.	The dates of orders in council covering above appointments, and the amount of salaries, are, respectively, as follows:-August 12, 1935, $12,500; November 8, 1938, $9,000; September 16, 1933, $8,000; March 12, 1929, $8,000; December 16, 1931, $8,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	No information.
4.	How much went into domestic consumption in Canada each week?
5.	What was the duty paid on same?
6.	What was the price paid for the wheat by Canadian millers?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Eastern
elevator
Weeks ending	figures
(bushels)
October 7.1938	 434,891
October 14,	  230,320
October 21	  106,785
October 28		
November 4		
November 11		
November 18	  229,826
November 25	
December 2	  209,827
December 9	
Total	1,211,649
2.	Canadian customs and elevator figures, 565,203 bushels.
3.	Canadian flour milling figures, 266,039 bushels.
4.	Canadian customs figures, an average of 35,527 bushels, or a total of 603,954 bushels for the period from October 1, 1938 to January 30, 1939 (17 weeks).
5.	Canadian customs figures, $72,474.48.
6.	Not available.


*BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT-COPIES OF EVIDENCE HEARD BEFORE ROYAL COMMISSION TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-HAMILTON-TORONTO AIRPORTS SERVICE
Mr. MARSH:: Has the Minister of Transport considered any plan relating to the conveyance of passengers between Hamilton and Malton airports, or between Hamilton and Toronto island airports, for the trans-Canada air service? If not, will he give the matter consideration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Arrangements for
passenger traffic are entirely in the hands of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Corporation.


UNITED STATES WHEAT SHIPMENTS TO CANADA
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What quantity of United States wheat was shipped into Canada each week since October 1, 1938?
2.	How much of said wheat was shipped in bond?
3.	How much of said wheat was milled in
Canada?	.a,!


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many copies of the evidence heard before the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract were prepared?
2.	What was the cost per copy?
3.	What disposition was made of each copy?
4.	Will the government make available three additional copies for the use of the members of the House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to answer this question orally.
To the first question, how many copies of the evidence heard before the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract were prepared?-There were twelve complete copies, plus one extra copy for the last seven days.
What was the cost per copy? S474.32J per copy.
What disposition was made of each copy? One copy was the official record; one was for the use of the Commissioner; three were for the Department of National Defence; two

Questions
were for Colonel Drew and Mr. Hellmuth; three were for the government counsel; one was for the Department of Finance; one complete and one partial copy for the Department of External Affairs.
Will the government make available three additional copies for the use of the members of the House of Commons? My reason for answering this question orally is, that it appears on inquiry that the copies which were made available to the different persons mentioned have been either marked up or cut up to a considerable extent in the course of the inquiry and it would therefore be difficult to get many complete copies. I have found it possible to get two complete copies and will be glad to see that they are placed at the disposition of the committee; but if more copies are required it will involve a considerable expense, because the stencils themselves, unfortunately, have been destroyed. Perhaps we might manage to secure parts of other copies of the report if they should be required.


BRITISH AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN CANADA- CANADIAN INVESTMENTS ABROAD-AMOUNT PUBLIC DEBT HELD EXTERNALLY
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What is the value at December 31, 1938, or nearest available date, of: (a) British investments in Canada; (b) foreign investments in Canada?
2.	What is the value of: (a) Canadian investments in the British Isles; (b) Canadian investments in the United States; (c) Canadian investments in all other countries?
3.	What is the total foreign public debt of Canada, and how much of this debt is held in:
(a)	United States; (b) Great Britain; (c) other countries?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) British investments in Canada, $2,684-8 million; (b) Foreign investments in Canada, $4,080* 2 million; Total, 6,765 million.
The above estimates are as at December 31, 1937.
2.	Estimated Canadian investments abroad as at December 31, 1937. (a) Canadian investments in the United Kingdom, $40-9 million;
(b)	Canadian investments in the United States, $1,097-6 million; (c) Canadian investments in other countries, $619-4 million; Total, $1,757-9 million.
3.	Estimated funded debt of Canadian governments and corporations held outside of Canada as at December 31, 1937. (a) Funded Debt held in United States, $2,031-4 million; (b) Funded Debt held in United Kingdom, $1,382-6 million; (c) Funded Debt held in other countries, $18-8 million; Total held outside of Canada, $3,432-8 million.


FEDERAL INSPECTORS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many inspectors are now employed by the federal government working in the province of Saskatchewan, in connection with the Department of Agriculture, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and relief?
2.	What are their names and home addresses, salaries and nature of their work?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Agriculture, 65; Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, 4.
2.
Production Service
1. W. Lome Rurke, 305-7th St., Saskatoon, $3,240-District supervisor. Supervising the work of this division in Saskatchewan and at times performing the duties of seed and feed inspector outlined below.
Lucien Bell, 43 Kewanee apts., Saskatoon, $2,280

Senior seed and feed inspector, Assisting Mr. Burke and acting for him in his absence; at times performing the duties of seed and feed inspector outlined below.
Gilbert B. Gilmour, 501-5th St., Saskatoon, $2,220-Seed and feed inspector. Inspecting seeds, feeds, fertilizers, agricultural poisons, binder twine, hay and straw; enforcing the acts governing the sale of these commodities; inspecting seed crops and the cleaned seed therefrom for registration and certification; addressing meetings; collecting markets information; carrying out special policies for encouraging the production of improved seed.
Alex. McPherson, 2527 Winnipeg St., Regina, $2,220-Seed and feed inspector. Inspecting seeds, feeds, fertilizers, agricultural poisons, binder twine, hay and straw; enforcing the acts governing the sale of these commodities; inspecting seed crops and the cleaned seed therefrom for registration and certification; addressing meetings; collecting markets information; carrying out special policies for encouraging the production of improved seed.
Arthur Dumais, % Saskatchewan Registered Seed Growers, Moose Jaw, home address not known, $2,220-Seed and feed inspector. Inspecting seeds, feeds, fertilizers, agricultural poisons, binder twine, hay and straw; enforcing the acts governing the sale of these commodities; inspecting seed crops and the cleaned seed therefrom for registration and certification; addressing meetings; collecting markets information; carrying out special policies for encouraging the production of improved seed.
Allan A. Smith, Naieam, Sask., $1,920-Seed and feed inspector. Inspecting seeds, feeds, fertilizers, agricultural poisons, binder twine,
Questions

D. W. McDonald, Y.S., 274 Manitoba St., W., Moose Jaw, Sask., fees-Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
W. F. McDougall, V.S., Nipawin, Sask., fees-Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
J. L. Millar, V.S., Box 134, Asquith, Sask., fees-Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
G.	G. Potter, V.S., Saskatoon, Sask., fees- Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
M.	J. Preston, V.S., Box 323, Moosomin, Sask., fees-Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
Wm. A. Robertson, V.S., Box 55, Norquay, Sask., fees-Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
H.	A. Taylor, V.S., Imperial, Sask., fees- Veterinary inspector, part-time. Assisting in the control of animal contagious diseases; testing cattle for tuberculosis, etc.
N.	H. Nelson, Room 36, Wascana Hotel, Regina, Sask., $1,800-Senior lay inspector, grade 1. Under direction,, supervising the cleaning and disinfecting of stock cars and stockyards in the province of Saskatchewan; inspecting the premises of persons who feed collected garbage to swine.
W. H. Allen, 460-13th St. E. Prince Albert, Sask., $1,620-Lay inspector, under direction, to supervise the cleaning and disinfecting of stock cars, stockyards and premises from which diseased animals have been removed; general sanitation of premises where collected garbage is fed to swine.
J. D. Donnelly, 2133 Rose St., Regina, Sask., $1,260-Lay inspector, under direction, to supervise the cleaning and disinfecting of stock cars, stockyards and premises from which diseased animals have been removed; general sanitation of premises where collected garbage is fed to swine.
Wm. T. Harrison, Empress hotel, Moose Jaw, Sask., $1,320-Lay inspector, under direction, to supervise the cleansing and disinfecting of stock cars, stockyards and premises from which diseased animals have been removed; general sanitation of premises where collected garbage is fed to swine.

W. J. McDonell, 506 Lansdowne Ave., Nutana, Saskatoon, $1,620-Lay inspector, under direction, to supervise the cleansing and disinfecting of stock cars, stockyards and premises from which diseased animals have been removed; general sanitation of premises where collected garbage is fed to swine.
F.	Bucknall, 7 Frost block, Moose Jaw, Sask., $1,620-Lay inspector. Assisting veterinary inspectors in meat packing plants.
A. G. Richardson, 1303 Duffield W., Moose Jaw, Sask., $1,620-Lay inspector. Assisting veterinary inspectors in meat packing plants.
J. C. Temple, Ravenserag, Sask. Fees, ($4A0 per day plus $1.50 per day horse allowance)-Herd inspector, part-time, under direction, inspecting herds of cattle for mange.
N.B. Fees-Veterinary inspector part-time. $10 per day; not exceeding $150 per month.
Marketing Service
C.	P. Eutennier, 1864 Ottawa St., Regina,
Sask., $1,620-Inspector of dairy products. Checking water and salt content, weights, quality and branding of creamery butter, Checking w'eights and branding of dairy butter. Checking weights and securing samples for analysis of processed cheese. Checking branding, fat, food solids and total solids of ice cream.	[DOT]
D.	L. Browne, McCallum-Hill bldg., Regina, Sask., $2,400-Senior poultry products inspector. Direct the work of the poultry products inspection service in Saskatchewan. Application of egg and dressed poultry regulations.
R. G. Laing, 1315 Victoria Ave., Saskatoon, Sask., $1,920-Poultry products inspector. Application	of	egg	and	dressed	poultry
regulations.
L. D. Forbes, Reinhorn apts., Regina, Sask., $1,620-Poultry products inspector. Application of egg and dressed poultry regulations.
Wm. Walker, 608 Queen St., Saskatoon, Sask., $1,620-Poultry products inspector. Application	of	egg	and	dressed	poultry
regulations.
T. J. Adams, McCallum-Hill bldg., Regina, Sask., $1,620-Poultry products inspector. Application	of	egg	and	dressed	poultry
regulations.
J. G. DeJong, Regina, Sask., $1,920. Inspection of fruit and vegetables.
James Grant, Saskatoon, Sask., $1,620- Inspection of fruit and vegetables.

Technical Education
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
J. W. Pennington, Empire hotel, Regina, Sask., $150 per month-Inspection in connection with agricultural assistance in Saskatchewan.
R. E. Gleiser, Estevan, Sask., $125 per month-Inspection in connection with agricultural assistance in Saskatchewan.
C. H. Slack, Oxbow, Sask., $125 per month- Inspection in connection with agricultural assistance in Saskatchewan.
0.	Parker, Valjean, Sask., $125 per month- Inspection in connection with agricultural assistance in Saskatchewan.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What offices and/or buildings in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, are rented or leased by the dominion government?
2.	Where are these offices and/or buildings located, from whom are they leased or rented and what amounts are paid by way of rent or lease for each of such premises?
3.	What is the total amount paid?
"made IN CANADA" ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: 1.	What amount of money was spent by the government for advertising "Made in Canada" goods within Canada: (a) during the years 1931 to 1935 inclusive; (b) during the years 1936 to 1938 inclusive?
2.	What amount of money was spent by the government of Canada in advertising "Made in Canada" goods in countries outside of Canada:
(a)	during the years 1931 to 1935 inclusive;
(b)	during the years 1936 to 1938 inclusive?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
king's ORDERS AND REGULATIONS-APPENDIX 6
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a copy of appendix 6 king's orders and regulations and any orders in council which may have been passed modifying the terms thereof.



ONE PARTY SYSTEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) a question growing out of reports
of a speech he made last night in Toronto at the Toronto board of trade young men's association. It is headed:
Ilsley warns force is the price Canada is to pay; ruthlessly exerted in the fascist style is the only way.
This is as reported in the Ottawa Journal and the Toronto Globe to-day.
Inasmuch as England has had one hundred years of constitutional reform without force, I should like to ask the minister if he is correctly reported; if this is authentic, and if he made the same speech on the radio last night.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am correctly reported, but I
did not speak on the radio.


Thomas Langton Church: Force will not be needed. They will say it with ballots next time.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Technical Education Act to make available, for the purposes of the act, any portion of the unexpended appropriation during the period of five years succeeding the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to discuss this resolution because no doubt a bill will be introduced, founded upon it. Would the minister give some information regarding the provinces that have used the appropriation and those provinces in which there is a balance unused in their appropriation? Has he received any application from the board of education of Toronto this year for a building grant in connection with the work that is being done by thousands of students in aeronautics in the Central technical school? Did he hear their reauest, and if so, what action was taken? The committee ought to know, before the resolution is passed, what balances of appropriations are unexpended and to what provinces they belong. How does Ontario stand? Will the minister bring in other aids to technical education and grants this year?


Mr. ROGERS:: This resolution precedes
the introduction of a bill which is intended to renew for another five years the Technical
Technical Education

Education Act of 1919, as previously amended in 1929 and 1934, for the purpose of permitting the province of Manitoba to take up its original allotment under the act of 1919. The earlier amending acts of 1929 and 1934 were designed for the same purpose, namely, to permit those provinces that had not taken up their allotments under the original legislation, to do so. Manitoba is the only province that is now enabled to take advantage of the legislation, and the amount which may still be claimed by that province under the act is $286,037.59.
As to Ontario, it was the only province which took up its full allotment during the currency of the original legislation, between the years 1919 and 1929. As regards the request made by the board of education of Toronto, it related to some special assistance for the purpose of enabling the board to extend its technical school in order to give courses in aeronautical engineering. I received a delegation from the board and we discussed the matter fully. We canvassed it from their point of view and our own, and I believe they were fully persuaded, at the conclusion of the interview, that there was no fund available from which the dominion could grant assistance for the construction of a building for technical education in Toronto, the province having exhausted its allotment under the original legislation.


Thomas Langton Church: Surely the minister, in respect of this matter will pay some heed to the royal commission's report away back in 1913 that it is a federal problem with regard to technical education and youth technical education, in view of the large number of men and youths out of work. Does the minister contemplate any more resolutions along this same line to help education, youth and unemployment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This matter has been discussed on various occasions. When the Technical Education Act was renewed in 1929 and 1934, it was not contemplated that the provinces which had taken up their original allotments would be enabled to receive further allotments under the succeeding legislation, and under the legislation which will be brought down when this resolution is accepted it is not proposed that grants for technical education shall be made to any provinces apart from the one which has not taken up its original grant.


Mr. MASSEY:: Is it possible without
enabling legislation to introduce a bill similar to the Technical Education Act of 1919.
[Mr. Hogers.1


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that I understand the question.


Denton Massey: Technical education is, of course, a matter for the province, and the Technical Education Act of 1919, the full appropriation under which was taken up by Ontario and other provinces, has now been exhausted except in so far as Manitoba is concerned, so that this legislation is to complete the original design of the act of 1919 in relation to that province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Denton Massey: When Manitoba takes up the $288,000, the act is virtually completed and there is no more act. The introduction of a new act to function along the lines of the Technical Education Act of 1919 would invade, if one wishes to use that word, the educational rights of the provinces. Could such an act be introduced without enabling legislation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If that were the policy of the government, I see no reason why such legislation could not be introduced in this house. That aspect of the matter was considered carefully when the act of 1919 was introduced, and I believe it was the view of the Department of Justice that it was possible for the dominion parliament to assist education in the provinces through grants in aid. It was through this method that the act of 1919 was put into effect.


Denton Massey: The situation has not
changed from 1919 to the present day, and therefore there is no handicap or hazard in the way of introducing an act such as the previous one. Am I clear in that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Subject only to possible interpretations that might be put upon the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council in the unemployment insurance case.


William Allen Walsh: I had previously discussed this matter privately with the Minister of Labour with a view to considering technical education and the possibilities suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), but I realize that the time is short and the government is anxious to have this resolution adopted this afternoon. I refrain, therefore, from discussing technical education at this time. No doubt an opportunity will arise when the bill is introduced, or when some other measure is brought in bearing upon the subject. If I understand the rules correctly, and if I can have another opportunity to urge upon the government the necessity of something being done along the lines

Technical Education
already suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, I shall refrain from discussing the matter further this afternoon. Have I correctly interpreted my position; shall I have such an opportunity if I am present in the house when the matter comes up?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Following the acceptance of this resolution the bill will be introduced. It is a very short bill; but, it will have to go through the usual stages in this house, and I would think that such an opportunity would arise on the second reading of the bill.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is it the intention of the government at this session to extend the provisions of the act by making further appropriations possible for the other provincial governments which have already exhausted the benefits of the act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is really a matter of government policy and, as my hon. friend is aware, government policy is disclosed from time to time as the government sees fit. But when we were considering the program for youth training we had to consider where the expenditure of money for purposes of this kind could be made most efficiently and with the best immediate results. We reached the conclusion at that time that under a program of youth training, a large part of which consists in technical training, results will be accomplished more efficiently and more quickly than by [DOT] renewing grants for technical education. I should add that the annual amounts made available under youth training plans are double those made available under the Technical Education Act.


Denton Massey: Have any communications of recent date been received, other than from the city of Toronto, asking for grants similar to those made under the Technical Education Act of 1919?


Norman McLeod Rogers: From time to time the Department of Labour receives communications from boards of education supporting the view that the earlier grants for technical education should be renewed. I have no doubt that similar requests were received by the preceding administration. I recall a request from the city of Ottawa along lines similar to that referred to by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). The city of Ottawa through its board of education asked special assistance in connection with a building for aeronautical engineering. The same answer was given to them as to the city of Toronto, that there was no appropriation from which such assistance could be given.


Mr. NEILL:: Has British Columbia exhausted its grant under the act of 1919?


Norman McLeod Rogers: British Columbia exhausted its grant in the second period of the act, that is between 1929 and 1934.


Thomas Langton Church: The board of education of Toronto met the minister, and the Toronto members do not like the reception which they received. The government collects nearly $100,000,000 revenue from the city of Toronto-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend taking exception to the reception they were given?


Thomas Langton Church: They have thousands of students there day and night, and with the growth of aviation for commercial, domestic and defence purposes, surely the government can give some money to help put up a building and start work in cooperation with the municipality. But they are not doing it. The people will be very much discouraged with the answer given this afternoon and the answer given to that deputation, although they were received quite politely. Surely the government should do something. In view of the growth of aviation as an industry, these student mechanics and others are needed, and employment can be found for them as fast as they graduate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure my hon. friend is not expressing the view of any member of the delegation when he complains of the reception accorded them. We did have a thorough discussion of the representations they made on behalf of assistance to their school of aeronautical engineering, but it was impossible to give them any answer other than the one that was made. Although they were disappointed, certainly they made no complaint to me that they had not had a friendly reception or that their representations had not been given proper consideration.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Has Alberta exhausted its grants?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Alberta exhausted its allotment in the second period, between 1929 and 1934.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Technical Education Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege-Mr. Slaght
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 2, 1939