1941-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) presented the second report of the special committee on the defence of Canada regulations, as follows:
Your committee recommends that the defence of Canada regulations be amended by adding to regulation 26A, regulation 26B (1) and regulation 37A (1) the following:
Regulation 26A-add proviso "and provided further that the provisions of this regulation shall not apply to persons who are nationals of and were born in Czechoslovakia, which, for the purposes of this regulation, means Czechoslovakia as it existed on the first day of January, 1938."
Regulation 26B (1)-add proviso "and provided further that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to naturalized British subjects, who, at the time of their naturalization were nationals of and born in Czechoslovakia, which for the purposes of this regulation, means Czechoslovakia as it existed on the first day of January, 1938."
Regulation 37A (1)-add proviso "Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to naturalized British subjects who, at the time of their naturalization were nationals of and born in Czechoslovakia, which for the purposes of this regulation, means Czechoslovakia as it existed on the first day of January, 1938."

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Last night I spoke about the necessity of having the further supplementary estimates voted before the Easter recess. I should like to add that I think it essential that they be voted either to-day or to-morrow. The reason for this is that accounts are now in arrears, and if these supplementary estimates for the fiscal year just passed are not promptly voted, there will be rapidly increasing inconvenience. The same consideration exactly applies to the supplementary war appropria-
Supplementary Estimates

tion measure. Both these measures relate to expenditures for the fiscal year that is past, not the current year.
I spoke to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) about the matter, and he was good enough to say that he would do what he could to facilitate the passage of these measures in every way possible. I did not have an opportunity of explaining the matter to the leaders of the two other parties in the house, although I had a word with them just as I came to the chamber. I think, however, they will see the necessity for this procedure, now that I have explained it.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We have no objection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall couple with my motion two undertakings for the protection of opposition parties in the house. Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the provision of standing order 28 relative to the consideration of estimates which have not been first taken up on any other day than Thursday or Friday be suspended on Thursday and Friday, the 3rd and 4th of April, 1941.
The reason why it is necessary to pass this motion is that in those supplementary estimates are votes for a number of departments which have not yet been taken up on Monday or Tuesday of any week during this session.
The first undertaking I would make is that we will use this motion only for the purpose of considering these further supplementary estimates; that it will not apply to the main estimates which we have not yet the right to take up.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is satisfactory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The second undertaking is this: Any questions hon. gentlemen would have the right to ask under these further supplementary estimates, but have not the time to ask or do not ask to-day or to-morrow, may be asked on some other item in the main estimates at a later time. I believe if the house understands this undertaking there will be no difficulty.
In view of those two undertakings I would hope that this motion might pass, and that we might pass the supplementary estimates for the past year, either to-day or to-morrow. It is our intention to have them taken up after the passage of the bill now before the house. I should hope it would be passed early to-day, for the reasons I have mentioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, that arrangement is satisfactory to us, but on the further understanding that the chairman of the committee of supply will observe the undertaking.
[Mr. Hsley.l
He is an officer of the house. I do not know what control the government has over him, but I have felt in recent days that perhaps he was just a little bit too anxious.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear the
minister's answer to what the leader of the opposition has just said. Will the chairman give some latitude as well?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be impossible for
the chairman to give an undertaking, or for the government to give one in his behalf. I feel sure, however, in view of what I have said, that there will be no difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What salary, allowances or other remuneration will be paid to census commissioners?
2.	What other officials will be appointed in each constituency in connection with the taking of the census?
3.	What salary, allowance or other remuneration will be paid to such officials?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Not yet available.
2.	Census enumerators.
3.	Form 33.
British Columbia
Tables of Rates and Allowances for Census Enumerators-Census 1941
Enumerators shall be entitled to the following allowances:-
(1)	Population-For every living person recorded on the population schedule (form 1) and for every "closed dwelling card" (form 6) and "absentee household card" (form 7) forwarded to the dominion bureau of statistics, each enumerator shall be paid an allowance of five cents.
(2)	Housing (Form 4)-For every tenth house as enumerated per this schedule, the enumerator shall be paid the sum of eight cents.
(3)	Agriculture-For every farm of five acres and over recorded on the general farm schedule (form 2), the enumerator shall be paid thirty-five cents. For every farm under five acres, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every fruits and vegetables schedule (form 2A) filled as per instructions on the schedule, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every abandoned1 or idle farm (form 2B), he shall be paid the sum of ten cents. For

Questions
every entry of "animals, animal products, fruits, gardens, etc., not on farms" (form 3), he shall be paid five cents per family.
(4)	Merchandising and Service Establishments (form 11)-For every record of merchandising and service establishments entered on form 11, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(5)	Blind and Deaf-Mutes (form 8)-For every record of blind or deaf-mute persons on form 8, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(6)	Allowances for Expenses-In localities outside of cities, towns and incorporated villages, enumerators shall be paid in lieu of horse and motor hire and all other expenses and in addition to the rates provided above, an allowance of $10 per one hundred (100) names of persons enumerated in the population schedule (form 1). But these allowances shall not apply to sub-districts or regions provided for in the following instruction.
(7)	Special Cases-In census sub-districts or regions of sparse population, remote from settlement and deficient in means of communication, the rates and allowances to enumerators shall be such as the dominion statistician, with the approval of the minister, shall direct ; and the same rule shall apply also in sub-districts or regions where the services of an interpreter, a guide or other assistant to an enumerator may be required. But in no case shall an interpreter or guide or other assistant to an enumerator be employed, except within the written authority of the dominion statistician.
(8)	Travelling Expenses for Enumerators- Census enumerators called to receive instructions from commissioners before commencing enumeration work shall be entitled when on such duty to actual expenses of travel by railroad or other conveyance and to cost of living at hotels or other places from the time of leaving home to return thereto, as shown by vouchers, and to an allowance of three dollars per day for time spent in receiving instructions as certified by the commissioner.
Form 32.
Manitoba-Saskatchewan-Alberta Tables of Rates and Allowances for Census Enumerators Census 1941
Enumerators shall be entitled to the following allowances:
(1)	Population-For every living person recorded on the population schedule (form 1) and for every "closed dwelling card" (form 6) and "absentee household card" (form 7) forwarded to the dominion bureau of statistics, each enumerator shall be paid an allowance of five cents.
(2)	Housing (form 4)-For every tenth house as enumerated per this schedule, the enumerator shall be paid the sum of eight cents.
(3)	Agriculture-For every farm of five acres and over recorded on the general farm schedule (form 2), the enumerator shall be paid thirty-five cents. For every farm under five acres, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every fruits and vegetables schedule (form 2A) filled as per instructions on the schedule, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every abandoned or idle farm (form 2B), he shall be paid the sum of ten cents. For every entry of "animals, animal products, fruits, gardens, etc., not on farms" (form 3), he shall be paid five cents per family.
(4)	Merchandising and Service Establishments (form 11)-For every record of merchandising and service establishments entered on form 11, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(5)	Blind and Deaf-Mutes (form 8)-For every record of blind or deaf-mute persons on form 8, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(6)	Allowances for Expenses

In localities outside of cities, towns and incorporated villages, enumerators shall be paid in lieu of horse and motor hire and all other expenses and in addition to the rates provided above, an allowance of $7 per one hundred (100) names of persons enumerated in the population schedule (form 1), provided, however, that there is in the township a minimum of one hundred (100) persons. In whole townships where there is a permanent resident population but it is less than one hundred (100) persons, the enumerator shall be paid $7 per township. In fractional townships where there are less than 100 persons the pay shall be in proportion to the size of the township. But these allowances will not apply to subdistricts or regions provided for in the following instruction.
(7)	Special Cases-In census subdistricts or regions of sparse population, remote from settlement and deficient in means of communication, the rates and allowances to enumerators shall be such as the dominion statistics, with the approval of the minister, may direct; and the same rule shall apply also in subdistricts or regions where the services of an interpreter, a guide or other assistant to an enumerator may be required. But in no case shall an interpreter or guide or other assistant to an enumerator be employed, except within the written authority of the dominion statistician.
(8)	Travelling Expenses for Enumerators- Census enumerators called to receive instructions from commissioners before commencing
Questions

enumeration work shall be entitled when on such duty to actual expenses of travel by railroad or other conveyance and to cost of living at hotels or other places from the time of leaving home to return thereto, as shown by vouchers, and to an allowance of three dollars per day for time spent in receiving instructions as certified by the commissioner.
Prince Edward Island-Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-Quebec and Ontario Tables of Rates and Allowances for Census Enumerators Census 1941
Enumerators shall be entitled to the following allowances:
(1)	Population-For every living person recorded on the population schedule (form 1) and for every "closed dwelling card" (form 6) and "absentee household card" (form 7) forwarded to the dominion bureau of statistics, each enumerator shall be paid an allowance of five cents.
(2)	Housing (form 4)-For every tenth house as enumerated per this schedule, the enumerator shall be paid the sum of eight cents.
(3)	Agriculture-For every farm of five acres and over recorded on the general farm schedule (form 2), the enumerator shall be paid thirty-five cents. For every farm under five acres, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every fruits and vegetables schedule filled as per instructions on the schedule, he shall be paid twenty-five cents. For every abandoned or idle farm (form 2B), he shall be paid the sum of ten cents. For every entry of "animals, animal products, fruits, gardens, etc., not on farm" (form 3), he shall be paid five cents per family.
(4)	Merchandising and Service Establishments (form 11)-For every1 record of merchandising and service establishments entered on form 11, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(5)	Blind and Deaf-Mutes (form 8)-For every record of blind or deaf-mute persons on form 8, the enumerator shall be paid five cents.
(6)	Allowances for Expenses-In localities outside of cities, towns and incorporated villages, enumerators shall be paid in lieu of horse and motor hire and all other expenses and in addition to the rates provided above, an allowance of $5 per hundred' names of persons enumerated in population schedule (form 1). But these allowances shall not apply to sub-districts or regions provided for in the following instruction.
(7)	Special Cases-In census sub-districts or regions of sparse population, remote from settlement and deficient in means of com-

munication, the rates and allowances to
enumerators shall be such as the dominion statistician, with the approval of the minister, may direct; and the same rule shall apply also in sub-districts or regions where the services of an interpreter, a guide or other assistant to an enumerator may be required. But in no case shall an interpreter or guide or other assistant to an enumerator be employed, except within the written authority of the dominion statistician.
(8)	Travelling Expenses for Enumerators- Census enumerators called to receive instructions from commissioners before commencing enumeration work shall be entitled when on such duty to actual expenses of travel by railroad or other conveyance and to cost of living at hotels or other places from the time of leaving home to return thereto, as shown by Vouchers, and to an allowance of three dollars per day for time spent in receiving instructions as certified by the commissioner.


SALT FISH BOARD
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the salt fish board?
2.	What is the normal occupation of each such member?
3.	What salary, allowances and/or other remuneration is paid to each such member?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1 and 2. Dr. D. B. Finn, Ottawa (Chairman), Deputy Minister of Fisheries.
Burke Mclnemey, Halifax, Central Secretary, United Maritime Fishermen.
William Deal, Lunenburg, Captain of Lunenburg fishing vessel.
3. Chairman-nil.
Members-$10 per meeting provided that when meeting extends beyond one day remuneration shall be at rate of $10 per day for duration of meeting. Reasonable travelling and living expenses during absence from place of residence on board's work are also paid.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How much money was spent on the new Canadian National Railways station in Montreal during 1939?
2.	How much was spent on the same in 1940?
3.	What is the estimated amount of expenditure on the same for 1941?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$2,174,590.82.
2.	$3,599,075.82.
3.	$4,100,000.00.

Questions


HALIFAX, N.S., FIEE BOAT
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has ,a fire boat been placed in operation at the port of Halifax?
2.	If so, on what date was it put into commission?
3.	Was the mayor of Halifax or any other city official notified in respect to the boat?
4.	What is the name of the fire boat?
5.	What is the pumping capacity?


Mr. CARDIN:: This matter has been under consideration for some time, and I expect that a final decision will be reached very shortly. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that, pending negotiations, the situation is being adequately taken care of.


Mr. CHURCH:: Call Admiral Duff.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-WELLAND SHIP CANAL
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What was the original estimate of the cost of the new Welland ship canal?
2.	What was the final cost of the canal?
3.	WThat is the estimate of the cost of the work required to be done at the Welland ship canal under the St. Lawrence waterway agreement?


Mr. CARDIN:: 
NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES
Mr. BENCE:: What revenue has been produced by, (a) the individual income tax, and (b) the corporation tax, in each fiscal year since 1917?


Mr. GIBSON:: (a)
Fiscal Year
1917-	1918
1918-	1919
1919-	1920
1920-	1921
1921-	1922
1922-	1923
1923-	1924
1924-	1925
1925-	1926
1926-	1927
1927-	1928
1928-	1929
1929-	1930
1930-	1931
1931-	1932
1932-	1933
1933-	1934
1934-	1935
1935-	1936
1936-	1937
1937-	1938
1938-	1939
1939-	1940
Individuals
Amount
nil
S 7,972,890 33 13,195,313 59 32,532.526 36 39,820.597 01 31,689,392 56 25,657,335 21 25,156,768 45 23,849,474 26 18,043,260 87 23,222,890 80 24,793,448 52 27,237.502 24 26,624,181 12 24,772,845 57 25,959,465 54 29,183,714 52 25,201,391 98 32,983,231 71 35,442,385 27 40,444,838 61 46,937^205 40 45,406,932 39
(b)
Fiscal Year
1917-	1918
1918-	1919
1919-	1920
1920-	1921
1921-	1922
1922-	1923
1923-	1924
1924-	1925
1925-	1926
1926-	1927
1927-	1928
1928-	1929
1929-	1930
1930-	1931
1931-	1932
1932-	1933
1933-	1934
1934-	1935
1935-	1936
1936-	1937
1937-	1938
1938-	1939
1939-	1940
Corporations
Amount
nil


S 1,376,829 47 7,068,426 32 13,849,297 95 38,863,757 79 28,022,145 81 28,546.692 78 31,091,274 37 31,722,487 31 29,343,048 35 33,348,156 59 34,628,874 73 41,783,223 99 44,423.840 93 36,481,554 23 36,107,231 30 27,385,822 22 35,790,238 87 42,518,970 58 58,012,842 98 69,768,605 17 85,185,887 29 77,920,001 83 PRICES OF MEATS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the war-time prices and trade board made any investigations into the retail price of meats?
_ 2. If so, what increases have been discovered in the average retail price of, (a) beef; (b) pork; (c) hams; (d) lamb, in each of the cities
Questions

of Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Saint John, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver ?
3. To what extent, if at all, have such increases enured to the benefit of the primary producer?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	The war-time prices and trade board maintains a continuous surveillance of the retail prices of meats in more than 200 cities, towns and villages in Canada.
2.	Average retail prices for twelve different cuts or types of meats in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Saint John, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver and for sixty other cities and towns are collected by the dominion bureau of statistics and are published each month in the Labour Gazette.
3.	Average prices paid for live stock at all principal live stock marketing centres appear weekly in the Livestock Market Review issued by the Department of Agriculture and are published monthly in the Monthly Bulletin oj Agricultural Statistics also issued by the Department of Agriculture.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the national film board?
2.	'What is the normal occupation of each member ?
3.	What allowances and/or other remuneration is paid to each member of the board?
4.	What are the names, duties and salaries of all officials and employees of the board in receipt of a salary in excess of $1,200 per annum ?
5.	How was each such person appointed to his present position?
6.	What number of officials or employees of the board are in receipt of a salary of less than $1,200 per annum?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Hon. James A. MacKinnon, chairman; Hon. T. A. Crerar, Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Mr. C. G. Cowan, Mr. Edmund Turcotte, Mr. Donald Cameron, Dr. Georges Bouchard, Mr C. P. Edwards.
2.	Hon. James A. MacKinnon-Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; Hon. T. A. Crerar-Minister of Mines and Resources, Ottawa; Mr. L. D. Wilgress-Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; Mr. C. G. Cowan-Managing Director, British American Bank Note Company, Ottawa; Mr. Donald Cameron-Director of Extension University of Alberta; Mr. Edmund Turcotte -Deputy Director, Board of Economic Reconstruction, Province of Quebec; Dr. Georges Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa; Mr. C. P. Edwards, Deputy Minister of Transport, Ottawa.

3.	Payment of travelling and living expenses of out of town members attending meetings of the national film board at Ottawa.
4.	John Grierson, Government Film Commissioner, executive officer of the national film board. Salary, $6,600 per annum.
5.	Appointed by order in council.
6.	None.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. TUSTIN:: Who are the members of the board of trustees of the National Gallery of Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: H. S. Southam, C.M.G.,
chairman; Hon. Vincent Massey, P.C., Elwood B. Hosmer.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What was the total number of employees of the government of Canada, including employees of commissions appointed by federal authority, on the following dates, viz.: July 1, 1930; September 1, 1935; September 1, 1939; January 1, 1941?
2.	What was the average salary remuneration of such employees on each of the above dates?


PURCHASE OF BOOKLET FROM COCKFIELD, BROWN AND COMPANY
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Was the amount $40,147 paid to Cockfield, Brown and Company, Limited, Montreal, in 1939-40 the result of tender?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of those who tendered and the respective amounts of their tenders?
3.	If not by tender, how was the work assigned or arranged, and how much of the total amount was for, (a) lithographing; (b) printing; (c) designing?
4.	What were the names of the firms who supplied half-tones, and at what cost?
5.	Were any firms in the maritime provinces given an opportunity to tender on this work? If so, what are their names and addresses?
6.	What was the name of the booklet purchased from Cockfield, Brown and Company, and how many were purchased?
7.	Was a similar order placed by the bureau in the fiscal year 1940-41?
8.	If so, (a) what was the amount; (b) who received the order; (c) was it by tender or how was it arranged?


RELIEF OF CIIETICAMP, N.S., FISHERMEN
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What sums of money have been expended
for relief of fishermen in the district of Chetieamp, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, since September 1, 1940?	....
2.	Who was responsible for the distribution of these relief funds?

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
3.	Was a committee established to supervise the distribution of these funds?
4.	If so, what were the names of the persons who served or are serving on such committee?


GOVERNMENT-OWNED PRIVATE RAILWAY CARS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many private railway cars are owned by the dominion government?
2.	What was the purchase price of each such car?
3.	What was the cost of maintenance and operation of such ears during the fiscal years 1940 and 1941?
4.	What persons are entitled to use such cars and upon what terms and conditions?
5.	What number of persons are employed by the dominion government to act as stewards, cooks, porters or in any other capacity on such cars?
6.	What was the total amount of the salaries paid to such persons during the fiscal years 1940 and 1941?



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the house that it will be impossible to have the budget prepared and brought down before the Easter recess. Before the recess, however, I will make a statement with regard to the Excess Profits Tax Act. I shall do so for the purpose of clearing up uncertainties in the minds of many taxpayers regarding this act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, the statement will cover what the policy will be in the budget?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not altogether, but it will deal partly with what we intend to do this session in reference to amendment to the Excess Profits Tax Act.


Thomas Langton Church: We will scare the taxpayers soon enough.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 25, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 2-Appropriation.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions I should like to ask in connection with these vast expenditures of money. Some days ago I referred to the
fact that the report of the auditor general did not give particulars of expenditures below $5,000. If a man has several contracts for less than $5,000, or for $4,999.99, no particulars of those contracts will appear in the public accounts. I do not agree with that system. If the electors of this countiy want complete information about expenditures, and members of parliament are unable to supply that information from official publications, then it seems to me our present system is not fair to the electors who are entitled to information. The answer will probably be given that the Department of Munitions and Supply is furnishing monthly statements which give the names of persons, firms or companies which have received payments, and the amounts. For instance, these monthly statements will show payments to Swifts, to Canada Packers and to many other corporations. But this is not satisfactory information. It takes up a lot of space, but no hon. member can tell from the information how much money has been paid, say in six months, to Swifts, to Canada Packers, to the Dominion Steel corporation or to any other corporation or individual. A member of parliament would have to be an adding machine to know all the amounts paid to these corporations or individuals.
Even to supply members of parliament with the amounts paid would still not be satisfactory, because we would not know for what the payments had been made. Take Swifts and Canada Packers as an example. We know that they sell bacon, ham, beef, perhaps vegetables and many other items, and we should be told why money has been paid to them. It is not enough simply to know that such an amount has been paid to a certain firm; we should be told why it has been paid. The only way an hon. member can understand what has happened is to know the quantity of meat or food or clothing or munitions which has been bought from each firm or individual during a certain period. But that still is not enough information for hon. members. We should be told how many soldiers have been fed with that food. We should be told the price per pound in order that we may see if there is extravagance or graft.
We have nothing of that kind. I have a whole library of publications in my room but they mean nothing. I defy the minister to give me the information I asked for. That is the only way we can have a full understanding of the matter. There is no hon. member who would be crazy enough to take this library of books and play the role of an adding machine in order to get information.

2122	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Once there was a great mathematician who used to solve the most difficult problems. One day someone gave him a problem. There was a ship 515 feet long, 55 feet wide and with a depth of 16 feet; it had on board
9,000	tons of merchandise; there were 356 passengers, a crew of 125 men and 25 officers; the vessel had three masts, three funnels, two anchors and two propellers-what was the age of the captain? The mathematician worked on that problem for three days and finally found that the age of the captain was 56 years, 10 months, three days, six hours and ten minutes at the moment he dropped his pencil. It is not possible for members of parliament to make such calculations from the information we have. I do not pretend to be a good enough mathematician to discover the age of the captain from the information supplied to us monthly.
I do not say this in a critical way; I offer it as constructive criticism. For what was this money paid? We are not here to pass legislation, although there are a few bills on the order paper. Everything is being done by order in council by virtue of the War Measures Act. We are informed of what has been done six months after it has been done. We are here simply to vote subsidies, and in order to do that intelligently we should have the right kind of information. We are given what is supposed to be information, but what is only a mass of figures that run together. No one can use them to make intelligent comparisons or to obtain necessary information. How many soldiers are being fed with this food? How many soldiers are being equipped with this equipment? How many soldiers are being supplied with this ammunition, and what is the ammunition? These are not secrets of war. Since we have had no secret sessions I do not see why we cannot discuss these matters in the house.
I suggest to the government that they should change completely their method of giving out information. Instead of supplying us with large books containing information which is impossible to digest, we should be given statements that will convey real information to us and put us in a position to defend the policy of the government. What interest is it to the electors of any constituency to know that so much money has been paid each week to Swifts or to any other company? The people are not interested in that. They want to know how our soldiers are being fed, how they are being equipped, how they are being armed. I do not belong to that legion of superiores and sapientes which has invaded Ottawa. I am just a plain man who wants some information and who wants to be able

to vote intelligently upon these expenditures of money.
There is another thing which is equally interesting. What amount of the money that has already been spent since the beginning of the war has been spent in Canada for the defence of Canada, and how much has been spent in England for the defence of England? That is a fair question. There are, of course, two schools of thought, one proclaiming that the defence of England is the defence of Canada, and the other proclaiming that the defence of Canada is the defence of Canada alone. These are two divergent views and I respect them both. But as representatives of the taxpayers we are interested in knowing how much money has been spent here for the defence of Canada, and how much money has been spent over there or in Canada for the defence of Great Britain. This is a question that any elector may ask of any one of us, and whether you are an imperialist or not you are bound to give an immediate answer. But we cannot obtain that information from the public accounts, and I regret that my hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply is unable to answer that question, because the figures are not disclosed in such a way that even the minister himself could be informed on that question.
I want a hierarchy in each department, and I want a hierarchy in the government. My view is that the Prime Minister of Canada is the boss of this country and that each one of his ministers should be boss in his own department. So long as that condition obtains I am all for it.
But there is something else. It is not necessary to be an expert to study the tabulations and charts which have been furnished to us. I notice, of course, that there have been some changes in the Department of Munitions and Supply. I am not in a position to say whether they are for the better or the worse, but evidently what was done in the first place was not perfect because it has been changed. What has been changed may now be perfect, but I am not quite sure about that. We will see what happens later on. My remarks are made in a friendly spirit.
I have here two charts of the Department of Munitions and Supply. One of them, dated November, 1940, appeared in a periodical published in the queen city of Toronto, and the other was put on Hansard by the minister on February 26 last. A comparison shows that there have been some changes. In the first place Mr. Gordon Scott was financial adviser. After his untimely death he was not replaced. There is no longer any financial adviser. On the other hand there was a Mr. Aubrey Davis, who was technical

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
consultant on leather. He has since been promoted as special adviser to the minister. I wonder why Mr. Gordon Scott has not been replaced by another gentleman as financial adviser.
There are many other things I could mention, but I shall mention only one after a short preamble. The members of the house who sat here from 1935 to 1940 must remember that I protested vehemently when the power of purchase was taken from the Minister of National Defence and transferred to the Minister of Finance. I opposed it for the same reason that I opposed the policy respecting the comptroller of the treasury. It was altogether too much for the Minister of Finance to make the purchases required for national defence, and in fact for a time the Minister of National Defence was unable to purchase even a cap for a soldier or a can of bully beef or anything else because he was not responsible for payment for these purchases. As my hon. friends know who are in the legal profession or in business, no commercial transaction is completed unless there is a payment specified and authorized by one of the contracting parties. Therefore the whole matter of purchases with regard to national defence wras for a certain time put under the Minister of Finance, and it was a real scandal. Some day I shall tell the house all the reasons why I objected so strongly. Finally, when the present Minister of National Defence became Minister of Finance he realized the absurdity of the whole thing, and shortly afterw'ards the defence purchasing board became the Department of Munitions and Supply, with a minister in charge.
That is all right. I have often advocated in this house that we should have ministers in charge of purchases for the war departments. The raison d'etre of the department of munitions was precisely those purchases and the manufacture of munitions under the authority of a minister of munitions, a power which before was under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence.
But when I turn to look at the most recent chart of February 26, I see that purchases are now made in a very different way. There is a purchasing branch. There are two directors general; a director, Mr. John Eaton, and a general purchasing agent; and there are divisions corresponding to a certain extent with the divisions for the production branch of the department of munitions. In law, one of the most interesting matters is the study of comparative legislation; and of course we must proceed by comparison to understand anything in the charts which are submitted to us.
14873-134}
There is shown, at the left, the munitions production branch; then there is shown the aircraft production branch. In the middle is shown the purchasing branch for all materials which the department is not manufacturing itself and which are to be supplied through the Department of National Defence.
I shall not at present discuss the production branch. I shall deal only with the purchasing branch, which is divided into: barrack stores; building and office supplies; clothing, foodstuffs; fuels, paints, lubricants, electrical supplies; government and controlled companies; mechanical tools and hardware; mechanical transport; medical and dental supplies; miscellaneous militia and naval stores. Those are the divisions of the branch. Besides there are the local purchasing offices.
Hon. members may be under the impression that all purchases are made by that branch. We have, however, representatives abroad who are responsible, not to that purchasing branch, but to the deputy minister. We have overseas accounting which is in the comptroller's branch, which has not-on the chart-to do with representatives abroad. I cannot see why the overseas accounting should not be on the chart with the representatives abroad; it is the same thing.
There is something else. In order to be fair to the gentlemen who are in charge of the purchasing branch of the department, all purchases should be made by them. There should be a hierarchy of that branch; the subchiefs should be responsible to Mr. Price, Mr. Price should be responsible to Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Eaton should be responsible to Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Malkin. Well, it is not so, according to that chart, and this seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. But there is more to it. Some other corporations have been consti-tituted to make particular purchases independently of the purchasing branch. They are not responsible to the purchasing branch; they are responsible also to the deputy minister.
These government-owned companies are: Allied War Supplies Corporation; Citadel Merchandising Company, Limited; Fairmont Company, Limited; Federal Aircraft, Limited; Research Enterprises, Limited; Small Arms, Limited; and two new ones, Melbourne Merchandising, Limited, and Plateau Company, Limited. I have no information regarding the composition of these branches, but I have here the names of the gentlemen who form those government-owned companies. I will mention the name of the company, its purpose, the names of the president and the directors of
2124	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
each except the two last ones, which I have not got, and I hope the minister will kindly supply them.
Company

Allied War Supplies Corporation,
420 Lagauehetiere street west,
Montreal, P.Q.
(Plateau 2151).
President-
Harold Crabtree.
Directors-
' C. A. Dunning, Chairman,
W. D. Black,
Beaudry Leman,
Boss H. McMaster,
James Y. Murdoch,
J. S. Norris,
D.	R. Turnbull,
E.	A. Wilson.
(To supervise chemical and explosive programme.)
Company-
Citadel Merchandising Co. Limited,
333 Canada Cement Building,
Montreal, P. Q.,
(Plateau 9051).
President-
Thos. Arnold.
Directors-
L. J. Belnap, Vice-President.
John Johnson,
C. E. Gravel,
F.	K. Morrow.
(Machine tools.)
Company-
Federal Aircraft Limited,
276 St. James street west,
Montreal, P.Q.
(Plateau 7111).
President-
Ray Lawson.
Directors-
A. Sidney Dawes, Vice-President,
Blair Gordon,
Russell Smith,
Allan Aiken,
Miller Hyde.
(To supervise Anson programme.)
Company'-[DOT]
Research Enterprises Limited,
701 Atlas Building,
Corner Bay and Temperance streets,
Toronto, Ont.,
(Adelaide 8817).
President-
Col. W. E. Phillips.
Directors-
G.	H. Rainville,
W. E. Ross,
A. L. Ainsworth,
0. M. Biggar,
G. W. Sweny, Managing Director,
E. E. Burton (Prof.).	_
(To manufacture optical equipment.)
We like temperance streets in Toronto. I do not know what "Prof." is.
Company-
Small Arms Limited,
Long Branch, Ontario, and 1941 Yonge street, Toronto, Ont.
(Mohawk 4319; Mayfair 4537).
[Mr. Pouliot.l
President-
G.	S. Braden.
Directors-
P. G. B.ourget,
N. P. Peterson,
J. I. Simpson.
(To manufacture rifles.)
So we have these gentlemen in charge of companies for purchases, while there is already an organization in the department for that purpose. I do not understand it. Why this duplication? Later on I may show the business connection which exists between these men,-the ordinary business connections of these men whom we are asked to believe are supermen and in a position to handle this business better than anyone else. Well, there is one thing we all know. It is that these people, although they may be public-spirited to a certain extent, have been working until the war, and legitimately so, for personal gain. And this is not an attack, it is just an observation based on knowledge of human nature. No one can blame a man who is in business for trying to succeed as well as he can and to make personal gains which are legitimate. But the question is here. There are those who make real sacrifices for this country. Immediately behind those who are in the theatre of war are the politicians with the right spirit, who, very often, have to sacrifice their own personal interest to do the right thing, to serve their people aright, and to represent them as they are worthy to be represented.
Without casting aspersions on anyone, do you think, sir, that the amalgamation of personal interests can be mysteriously changed into public spirit? It is hard to say. Of course, we must consider human nature as it is; and if we are sitting here now it is because our constituents at the last election gave us a mandate, and the checking of public expenditures is something that we do in our capacity as members of parliament. Therefore we are entitled to all information. Members of the House of Commons ought not to be regarded as country cousins. I have said that once before and I repeat it. Although no one of us of the rank and file pretends to be gifted with superior qualities, we can all claim to be at least of the average, otherwise thousands of people would not have voted for us in the last election. When I say that I pay a compliment not only to my Liberal friends but also to the leader of the opposition and his supporters, to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth group and his supporters and to the leader of the Social Credit group and his supporters. It is a compliment I pay to all.
It is said that there is more wisdom in two heads than in one. How much more wisdom,

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
therefore, should there be in 229 heads than in 16? I should like to have some information from the minister about the regulations with respect to these government-owned companies. We know only that a company has been formed and certain gentlemen are in it. What are the regulations with respect to these companies, and why is it that the purchases have to be made by these people? I find it very strange. There is a good deal of mystery, particularly about the Allied War Supplies Corporation, and I am not the first one to notice it. The Ottawa Journal said so last year and wanted some information, and I have asked for a bit of information. But now that that company supervises the chemical and explosives programme I want to know more about it. I have expressed my views and made a few suggestions, and I have asked some questions. There are many liaison officers in the department. What are their particular duties? I do not say that in a purely critical mood; I say it by way of constructive criticism, for two reasons-so that members may have intelligible information given to them, and so that there can be a check upon foolish expenditure, or expenditure that is not for the real purpose of the war, but just to enrich a few. Such information would give members an opportunity to check what is being done and might prevent scandal and great embarrassment to the ministry. I notice that since I have been speaking the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) has been sitting on our side, but I do not know whether he would be accepted by the party.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is because the hon. member quit that I came back.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I hesitate to take up the time of the committee, but there is a matter which I believe should be discussed under paragraph (c) of section 2, which reads:
(c) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever.
Men everywhere are speaking of the need of cutting down our wheat acreage. Why? Because we cannot use our wheat production. We must stop growing wheat and start growing something else. But what shall that something else be? That is the question, and the answer no one seems to know.
Word has now come from Alberta that Canadian Sugar Factories Limited, with plants at Raymond and Picture Butte, have demanded a reduction of 1,300 acres in the sugar beet acreage in Alberta for 1941. The company says it has 200.000 hundredweight of sugar
unsold; and yet Canadians in 1939 consumed
1,163,000,000 pounds of sugar! Of that amount only one-eighth was beet sugar!
Why should Canada not devote more acres to the production of sugar? This question must arise in every normal mind. People should exact a most searching, candid and minute answer from every minister in the government who is in any way concerned with the question.
Canada is raising each year about three times as much wheat as she can consume. She is storing it. Why should Canada not produce twice as much sugar each year as she is able to consume, and store it? Why is it that this question has not occurred to more people in the country? Sugar to Canadians seems one of the absolute necessities of life. Sugar will keep in Canada for a long time. Sugar can be produced in Canada cheaply, surely, plentifully, and in every way profitably to Canadians. In the name of common sense, why not?
To decrease our wheat acreage, a good method would be to increase our sugar beet acreage.
During the last few years Canadian total consumption of all sugar and Canadian total production of beet sugar have been as follows:
Consumption Production
(pounds)
1936		 1,094,000,000
1937		 1,031,000,000
1938		 1,050,000,000
1939		 1,163,000,000
1940	(estimated).. 1,155,000,000
(pounds)
156.000.	000
120.000.	000
143.000.	000
169.000.	000
In 1939 our beet sugar production constituted 12J per cent of our consumption!
To get a true picture of the beet sugar industry as a potential means of relief to our wheat problem, I point out that at least
300.000	acres of beet land would have to be used to produce Canada's total 1940 sugar consumption. At the same time at least
3,000,000 acres of land would have to be used in raising alfalfa or some other crop in order to provide the beet land.
The 300,000 acres of beets would have yielded the government during this last year, if we had been raising our own beet sugar, $52 an acre in revenue, which would amount to $15,600,000. It would, moreover, have saved the government 70 cents on each bushel of twenty bushels to the acre, at least, on
300.000	acres, or an amount of $4200,000 for the wheat alone. In addition to that, there is the storage yet to be paid.
Some may ask, how do we estimate the amount of land necessary to produce the sugar that Canada would require? Eight per cent of Canada's 1940 estimated consumption
2126	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
required 24,000 acres in my constituency. This I compute from a letter I received from W. F. Russell, secretary of the Alberta Cooperative Beet Growers Association, dated March 14, 1941, stating that 24,000 acres produced last year in the Lethbridge area, 934,664 hundredweight of beet sugar. Now 93,466,400 pounds is approximately eight per cent of Canada's estimated 1940 consumption of 1,155,000,000 pounds. To produce all of Canada's supply on land as good, and under conditions as favourable, as obtained in the Lethbridge area last year, would require 300,000 acres of beets.
What amount of land would have been removed from the production of wheat? How do we compute that? The total amount of land diverted from wheat or other production by the use of this 300,000 acres for sugar beets I arrive at as follows. Mr. Russell in the above-mentioned letter says:
Every acre seeded to sugar beets will take at least ten acres out of wheat with a revenue to the government of at least $52 per acre from every acre seeded to beets.
Computing from these figures, we find that to raise the 300,000 acres of beets would take out of wheat production in Canada ten times
300,000	or 3,000,000 acres. This land would be the choicest of land. Upon it would normally be raised at least thirty to thirty-five bushels of wheat an acre.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the growing of beets on the land take more strength from it than the growing of wheat, or does it benefit the land?


John Horne Blackmore: Growing of beets
greatly improves the land. In the first place, there are, on the beets, numerous little roots *which, when the beets are pulled, are left in the ground. These little roots tend to enrich the soil. Then, again, the beets strike roots deep into the soil, opening it up and admitting the air, this again greatly improving the friability of the soil.
Estimating the wheat yield on our ten times 300,000 acres at only twenty bushels to the acre, so as to be very conservative, we arrive at twenty times 3,000,000, or 60,000,000 bushels of wheat. That much less wheat to worry about should be a considerable relief to the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Could we use all the sugar?


John Horne Blackmore: I am talking on the basis of Canada's sugar consumption. I pointed out that Canada consumes as much sugar as, on the basis of Canada's 1940 consumption, it would take 300,000 acres of beet land a year to produce.

Suppose Canada began to raise her sugar to some such extent as she is raising wheat, and stored the sugar against an evil day, which might easily come. If I might break in here just to say a word to the government, I would say I believe that as a government and as a people we are altogether too lethargic, altogether too self-assured; we assume that because things always have been all right, they are going to continue to be so. What would be the condition if German sea-raiders should get abroad upon the seas to the extent that they were able to destroy the ships that bring our sugar to Canada? There are other things which could occur in Canada which would destroy our present sources of sugar. Would the government not feel altogether blameworthy if it were found, in an emergency of that sort, that there was no sugar in the bowl, no sugar in the bin, and the people of Canada were without sugar? That is quite possible. We take great satisfaction in the fact that we have all this wheat as an assurance against future contingencies; we should be just as glad to have a similar store of sugar; for sugar is almost as near to being a basic necessity as wheat.
I proceed. Should Canada decide, in order to build up a reserve, to raise twice as much sugar as is required to supply her needs for a year, she could reduce her wheat production between 100 and 120 million bushels a year, at a conservative estimate. But, someone will object, the cost of buying and storing the sugar, as we now buy and store wheat, might be prohibitive. Let us turn to that matter for a moment or two. On the 1937 refiners' price basis of $4-006 per hundred, the cost of buying a year's sugar supply would be about $46,200,000 in a year. I multiply by four the 1,155,000,000 pounds which Canada consumed in 1940. Roughly, that is the means of making the computation. We arrive, then, at about $46,000,000 a year to provide Canada complete security with respect to sugar in that year. Storage could be provided at the factories in much the same way as we now provide extra storage at elevators for wheat.
To decrease our wheat acreage, our potential wheat carryover and our wheat storage problem ; to build up a productive machine to provide our sugar supply; and to collect a safe sugar reserve, must surely offer a most attractive prospect to any loyal Canadian who is really interested in Canada's welfare.
Blessed is the nation that does not have to buy abroad. Blessed is the nation that can produce its needs of wheat, sugar, coal, wool, fruits and vegetables, lumber, and animal products. Hon. members will note that in that list the ones of which we do not produce

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
adequate supplies are sugar and wool. Such a nation can be rich and economically free, much as a farmer on a good, mixed, well equipped farm can be economically free.
John Maynard Keynes is reported to have said recently:
Do not be deceived by the bogy of finance. It is no longer what it was. To-day it rears only a timid head. That is not the way it behaved in 1918 and 1919. In post-war reconstruction it is the physical things that will matter most, our man-power and our will-power and our capacity to have the necessary materials. We must go ahead on the basis of the physical realities of the situation.
If that means anything for Canada, it means surely that Canada should provide herself with the means of producing her sugar supply. Lord Balfour, acting as chairman of the meeting at which John Maynard Keynes is reported to have made those observations, is reported to have said that it was-
-like a breath of fresh air to hear Mr. Keynes speak on finance as he did that day.
He was speaking at the housing centre in London, and the excerpt is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 26, 1941.
Surely an attractive prospect is possible for Canada; but Canada thus far has chosen to turn aside from the path to such an obviously sound objective. Her sugar beet acreage has been reduced 1,300 acres for 1941. Let us reflect for a moment upon the loss of finance and income she is to sustain by this ill-advised move. Let us study the meaning of these 1,300 acres of beets to the Canadian government.
What will that move cost the federal government in direct outlay? Those 1,300 acres will go into wheat on prepared, choice land, and will yield at least 35 bushels to the acre. This is in the Lethbridge area, where the record at the experimental farm respecting wheat produced on irrigated land for twenty-seven years has been an average of 52-8 bushels to the acre on one plot and 40-8 bushels on another.
The result will be that there will be produced on that land 45,500 bushels, which the federal government will be called upon to pay for at the rate of 70 cents a bushel, costing that government $31,850 in hard cash. That is the first payment we must make.
By next year there will be ten times 1,300 acres going back into wheat. One-half at least of the 13,000 acres, (the result of multiplying 1,300 by ten) or 6,500 acres will be planted to wheat, yielding 35 bushels to the acre, totalling 227,500 bushels. That quantity, at 70 cents a bushel, will total $159,250
the government will have to pay in 1942. That amount would buy a good many Spitfires.
In addition to that, the government will lose revenue estimated at 1,300 times $52, or $67,600. Besides that, it will lose its income tax and sales tax. It will lose the war savings people would have bought, and the revenues derived from tariffs on goods people in that area would have bought. When the computation is made, I believe the government will find that it is a good deal worse off because somebody blundered over sugar last year.
What will be the cost of that manoeuvre to the farmers and to the people generally? In the first place, there will be a loss of beets. We find that 1,300 acres yielding 14-10 tons to the acre-the 1940 yield-would amount to 18,330 tons. That amount, valued at $6.69 a ton, the 1938 price-and it will be noticed that I am attempting to produce the figures for years before the war-would bring about $122,627.70. This means that in 1941 there will be taken from the hands of the people who might buy war savings certificates an amount of $122,627.70, which might have been derived from beets alone in the Lethbridge federal riding.
In addition to beets there would be by-products-beet	tops, beet pulp and
molasses-equivalent to the meat-producing value of 1,300 acres of corn. The ordinary member of the house indicates quite clearly by his attitude while I am talking that he does not even dream of the possibility of the beet industry in Canada. It has not dawned on hon. members that the value of the by-products alone from an acre of beets is as great in the production of meat as is the value of an acre of corn, a product which has made so many states in the United States wealthy.
The beets, beet tops, molasses and pulp from 1,300 acres of beets will be lost to the people of Canada. Beet tops alone, when fed to lambs in an experiment extending over three years in Wyoming and Montana, where they are using a little better sense than we are using in Canada, were found to be valued at $1.30 for every ton of beets. That, again, is a complete loss right at a time when the mother country needs meats of various kinds.
The loss of sugar on the 1,300 acres, if we figure a yield of fourteen tons to the acre, which is a little less than last year, will amount to 18,200 tons. With a yield of 306 pounds of sugar per ton, which yield was obtained in 1939, this would represent 5,569,200 pounds of sugar. Taking a price of $6.15, which
2128	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
was the price prevailing on March 29 before the government so ill-advisedly raised it, this would amount to $342,505.80.
In addition, as a result of this move, markets will be lost for certain raw materials. In the case of coal this would be worth $6,111. This would be all-Canadian coal, not coal brought in from Pennsylvania. In the case of lime rock the lost market would be $2,222. This also is a Canadian product. In the case of coke the value would be $1,000; boxes, et cetera, $11,666; bags and other essentials, $11,111; freight, $36,666, and labour, $19,444. That is the amount of the payroll of the men who would work in the factory processing the product of these 1,300 acres. Payments to growers and farmers would be $104,444. The figures I am giving are based upon statistics which will be found on page 15 of "Why Canada Needs Sugar Beets."
In addition, there will be lost in that area sales of clothing, shoes and other products cf eastern manufacturers to an amount which no one can conceive.
A still further loss is the'soil improvement which would come by way of increased fertility, increased fibre and increased tilth, as I indicated in my answer to the hon. member for Davenport.
As a result of this move, there will be fed in the Lethbridge riding 2,000 fewer sheep and 500 fewer cattle in the coming year, a year when we shall be needing sheep and cattle produced in the west.
What will be the cost to the Canadian economy? First, there will be increased unemployment; second, there will be less real wealth; third, there will be less price stability. May I stop for a moment to point out once more, as I have done scores of times in this house, that the cause of inflation in a country is the decrease of goods. This move will decrease goods in Canada, and therefore, will endanger the stability of our dollar and will be risking inflation. Fourth, there will be less economic security; fifth, less economic freedom and independence, and, sixth, less effectiveness in the war. These will be the effects upon our Canadian economy. In the case of 1,300 acres they may not be serious, but in the case of 13,000 acres they would be quite serious, in the light of conditions during and after the war.
Who is responsible for this magnificent achievement? He has small cause for pride. He has achieved something that will long stand to his shame. In the first place, the responsibility must rest upon the sugar controller; next, upon the war-time prices and trade board and, next, upon whoever gives
[Mr. BlackmoreJ
them orders: first, in the government; second, through the government and, third, outside the government In order to show that what I am saying is based upon good evidence, I should like to read from order in council P.C. 1983. I quote:
All sugar refiners in Canada shall sell to the sugar administrator as and when required by him, all raw sugar, and all refined sugar, syrups, liquid sugar and molasses manufactured from beet or cane now or hereafter in their possession at such prices as the sugar administrator, under the direction of the war-time prices and trade board, from time to time may prescribe and, to effectuate such power, the sugar administrator, under the direction of the board, shall have power to take possession of all or any such sugars accordingly.
I think the wording of that passage places responsibility directly upon the shoulders of the sugar administrator and the war-time prices and trade board. If they have received instructions from someone else, I believe they are entitled to have the Minister of Labour tell us about it when he gives his statement on sugar. I do not think it is quite fair to let people like them bear the odium of such a mischievous manoeuvre.
What can be the reason for this move to reduce this acreage by 1,300 acres at a time like this? Is it done in order that we may have cheaper prices in Canada? That seemed to be the idea conveyed in the minister's vague expressions we heard in the house the other day. If the move was designed to bring about cheaper prices in Canada, will someone tell me why there have been so many increases in the price of sugar since the war broke out? Why was there an increase of 35 cents on May 20, 1940? It might be said that this was brought about by the sugar administrator of Great Britain; I shall have more to say about that later on. Evidently the object of this scheming in Canada is not to make prices lower for the Canadian people. If it were, why the excise taxes by which the Liberal government has taken away from the people of Canada a total of $11,000,000 during every year of Liberal administration? It has taken it away from the poorest people. The tax is inevitable; everyone must pay. The suffering returned soldier getting $8 a month by way of pension has to pay his share, almost as great a share as that of the fortunate millionaire. Yet we have been talking about equality of sacrifice in this country!
Was this move made in order to ensure a stable supply of sugar? That was the next hint conveyed by the vague expressions the other day. If it was designed to ensure stable supplies, then why this move in the direction of placing Canada at the mercy of a group of bankers and big interests, of outsiders and foreigners who control, directly or

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
indirectly, the sugar establishments in the great sugar producing areas from which Canada is being made to draw her cane supplies? A real stability of sugar supplies for Canada lies in the establishment of a beet sugar industry. Let the government expend
835,000,000 in building factories of 1,600 ton slicing capacity in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta as a war measure. In ten years those factories, without exorbitant prices being charged, will all be paid for out of the profits, and there will be established in Canada a splendid stability, a source of wealth, security, power, financial integrity, good homes, population, prosperity, happiness and independence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask, for information, whether as high a grade of sugar can be made from sugar beets as from cane sugar?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. I went into that at length and with great care in my speech in this house on June 26, last year, and the hon. member will find in Hansard of that date that the evidence is conclusive that beet sugar is in every sense a complete equivalent of cane sugar.


Mr. MARTIN:: From a nutrition point of view.


John Horne Blackmore: From every point of view.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am with you.


John Horne Blackmore: Would such a proposition be a sound one for the government? The government is investing huge amounts of money in munitions plants and, before the war is much older, will be investing a great amount of money in homes, and in so doing, the dominion government are taking a highly commendable step. It is completely right that they should do so. To invest money in beet sugar factories would be to insure not only Canada's war supply of sugar but, as well, her post-war supply.
We can gather an idea of the soundness of the proposal from the record of the Raymond sugar factory in my constituency. It was established in 1925, when wheat prices were high, in the period called the "roaring twenties" in the United States, when not only wheat prices but prices of labour to harvest and handle wheat were high. It was an exceedingly difficult time in which to get people to plant and to handle beets cheaply enough to enable the producers to make a profit sufficient to carry on; but the Raymond sugar factory came serenely through those trying years, notwithstanding the fact that in 1928 in the early days of October a most unprecedented mishap occurred, a very severe frost which froze the
beets into the ground and caused a tremendous loss to the sugar factories. Notwithstanding that, the Raymond sugar factory rode triumphant through the storm. More than that, it not only survived but competed successfully against cane sugar when prices to the refiner in Montreal were at the following rates, and I should like it to be noted that these are prices to the refiner-not wholesale prices-and less excise taxes:
Year
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
Price
(cents)
4-552
4-323
3-832
3-	626
4-	006
3-	895
4-	109 4-754
During all those years the price of sugar in Canada was as low as in practically any other country in the world. Canada was among the lowest in all the low-priced sugar producing countries. Yet the beet sugar factory in Raymond, and later in Picture Butte, competed successfully and came through with flying colours, and it is prepared to-day to be bigger and better than ever, if only there were people in Canada with the necessary intelligence to let them do it.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Who is trying to stop them?


John Horne Blackmore: That is an interesting question which I shall deal with in a few minutes. The Canadian sugar factories have ordered their beet producers to plant 1,300 acres less this year than they did last year, the reason being given that they have 200,000 one hundred pound bags of sugar in their storerooms which the sugar controller, under the terms of the order in council, should have taken from them but which he chose to leave with them, thereby making it impossible for them to produce as much sugar next year, because they feared they would be unable to sell it. Thus it appears the industry is to be strangled to death.


George Hugh Castleden: I am glad to get that statement. Is there any explanation why that action was taken by the controller?


John Horne Blackmore: I am going to examine that question. My hon. friend is asking a question which all the people of Canada should be asking. It was an unthinkable step for the controller to take, and that is the reason for my displeasure. That is why I rise to air the grievance of my constituency before we grant the king this money.

2130	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropiiation Bill
The Raymond sugar factory has a splendid record. Let me read to the committee some figures which will be enlightening to all who are interested to know, and which I have in previous times placed on Hansard. These figures deal with the 1937 beet sugar crop and are taken from the submission to the Rowell-Sirois commission by the Alberta Cooperative Sugar Beet Growers' Association. I quote:
Importance of the Industry To indicate the value of this industry to the agriculture of our district, the community in general and the Dominion of Canada, we submit the following figures relating to the 1937 beet crop:
235.481 tons of beets were produced from 19,829 acres of irrigated land-an average of 11-88 tons per acre.
75,603,700 pounds of sugar were manufactured.
3,813 pounds was the per acre yield of refined sugar.
$3,040,000 worth of sugar was manufactured.
$155 was the total gross return per acre.
$77.50 was the gross return to the manufacturer.
$77.50 was the gross return per acre to the farmer.
The farmers' costs approximated $60 per acre, which includes $25 per acre paid for hand labour by the farmer. These figures were given in a speech made by T. George Wood, manager, Canadian Sugar Factories Limited, at Lethbridge, Wednesday, March 23, 1938. We believe that this land is producing more food value per acre than any other land in the dominion.
That is the record.


The CHAIRMAN:: I wish to remind the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: I have not finished, Mr. Chairman. I was interrupted several
times.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Mr. Chairman, I want
to stay well within the rules of the house, but I should like to discuss a few problems connected with our war-time economy.


John Horne Blackmore: May I not finish my speech, Mr. Chairman? I was interrupted several times.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member
asks for unanimous consent and it is granted, he may proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Mr. RALSTON:: Could the hon. member
not curtail his remarks now and deal with this matter on the budget if, in it, there should be a tax on sugar? If not, then may I suggest that all that my hon. friend has said is just so much surplusage. If there is in the budget a tax on sugar, my hon. friend will be quite free to present his argument then. I say that not only because of what my colleague the

Minister of Finance has said but because of my own position. I have been sitting here for a good while. It has been said that the discussion of this matter has not been properly organized, but I find it difficult to see how it could have been organized in view of the desire of members to express their opinions on all sorts of subjects. It is, however, going pretty far afield, on this particular bill, to discuss really not the operations of the wartime prices and trade board, but the defects and merits of a tax on sugar. If my hon. friend, having consumed his forty minutes, could leave the matter to be discussed on the budget if the necessity should arise, speaking as one who is interested in this bill and in seeing it go through, and who has to sit here until it does go through, I would appreciate it.


John Horne Blackmore: I should be very glad to comply with the request of the Minister of National Defence, but I believe that at the present time this problem is of such great importance that it is worth while taking the time of the committee to discuss it. It will be noticed that our group has taken very little part in this long and rambling debate, which has now lasted for about six weeks, but there are some matters which we consider vital. I regard this particular question as vital, and there are several other hon. members who are deeply interested in it. If I were to finish my remarks, which probably would take only a few more minutes, they would serve as a basis on which to carry on a discussion of the sugar question. I do not feel that we can get an adequate discussion of the subject on the budget, when we cannot talk back and forth about the question; so, if it is not against the rules, I should like the privilege of finishing my speech.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not raised any point of order. I do not know that there is any point of order to raise. I would, however, just suggest to hon. members that to some extent the eyes of the country are at present on parliament. If we are going to convert a discussion on a bill for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security, into a long rambling debate on every conceivable subject-and they are as numerous as the sands of the sea, these speeches which are of tremendous constituency importance-


An hon. MEMBER:: National importance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is making a constituency speech, and frankly says so. I do not see why, if he avails himself of this opportunity to make that kind of speech-and perhaps he can do so under the rules-every other hon. member cannot follow his example and make constituency speeches for weeks.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
I would ask hon. members to exercise a little restraint in connection with a bill of this kind. Two general opportunities for discussion are provided for by the rules of the House of Commons. One is the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and the other is on the budget. Beyond those two, I would kindly request hon. members, in the interests of the reputation of parliament, not to take this afield to an unlimited extent and with the enormous repetition which has been the case in this debate.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the import of every word that the Minister of Finance has said, and I have sat quietly in my seat for weeks and weeks and never said a word. Other social creditors have done the same thing. This problem which is being discussed is not merely of importance to my constituency; it is of dominion importance. I have pointed that out time and time again. My constituency happens to be vitally concerned, and therefore I understand this situation to some extent, so that I look upon it as my duty as a member of this house to bring this matter of sugar to the attention of the committee at the present time. Why, it looks as though the people of Canada are going to be gouged and gouged and gouged to no limit in this matter of sugar. Therefore, with all deference to the ministers, I have made my request, and if it is within the rules, I am going to continue my remarks.


Thomas Vien: Order. The forty minutes allowed by the rules having been exhausted, and it being apparent that there is no unanimous consent, the hon. member must yield the floor to the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


John Horne Blackmore: This is now another speech. There have been two or three speeches since I spoke.


Thomas Vien: I have no latitude. It is the duty of the chairman to see that the rules are adhered to. The chairman is in the hands of the committee. The committee can at any time by unanimous consent suspend the rules, and the chairman is quite pleased when the committee sees fit to do that. Unless, however, the committee sees fit to do it, I must say that the hon. member's time is exhausted and I must give the floor to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who was on his feet when the request was made.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the only reason why I sat down was to listen while you gave your ruling. I had not finished my speech. If the committee chooses to make a special ruling or to rescind the rules in order
14873-135!
to stop me from making a speech on beet sugar, I must bow to the committee's ruling. But I certainly believe that, in view of everything which has passed in the last six weeks, it would be a downright shame to do it.


Thomas Vien: The Minister of
National Defence and the Minister of Finance have explained to the committee the urgency of the measure now before us and the reasons why unanimous consent cannot be granted at this hour, and that there will be other opportunities this session further to discuss the beet sugar industry. I think it would be hardly fair to express an opinion on the refusal of the committee to give unanimous consent, and necessarily I must apply the rule. I call on the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. McLARTY:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat was kind enough to give me a few moments before he addressed the committee.
I do not intend to enter to-day into any debate on the problem of sugar. I wish to refer to only one statement that was made by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Most of his address has more reference to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance than to the war-time prices and trade board. In connection, however, with the question of why a wider expansion of the sugar beet industry was not taking place, he cited as a primary cause the passing of order in council P.C. 1983. That order in council provides that all sugar refineries in Canada shall sell to the sugar administrator, as and when required by him, all raw sugar, et cetera; I shall not take up the time of the committee to read the whole paragraph. The hon. member has entirely misconceived the purpose for which that order in council was passed. It was passed for one specific purpose which has nothing to do with a limitation of sugar beet acreage.
At the time it became apparent that, in accordance with our dealings with the British sugar controller, there would be an increased price of sugar. It was well known that if that fact became widespread, the price of sugar would assuredly rise, that is both the retail and the wholesale prices, with the inevitable result that the refineries would make large inventory profits to which it was felt they were not entitled. The order in council had nothing to do with a limitation of sugar beet acreage. It had nothing whatever to do with any other purpose than that for which it was specifically passed. In order to avoid these profits on sugar which had heretofore been sold by the administrator to the refineries, it was provided that the administrator would repurchase that sugar at the
2132	COMMONS
Supplementary IFur Appropriation Bill
prices at which he had sold it to the refineries, and would immediately thereafter resell it to the refineries at the enhanced price. In other words, it was simply a method of giving to the government and the people of Canada the inventory rise which, in the normal course, would otherwise have accrued to the refineries.
I do not think there is in the hon. member's speech another point to which I need now refer. No doubt an occasion will arise when we shall have a more appropriate opportunity of debating the sugar question, and at that time I shall be glad to participate.


Frederick William Gershaw: I shall be extremely
brief, but I do realize that the matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Lethbridge is one of urgency and extreme importance in a large part of this country.
We find that, in England, some 22 per cent of the sugar is made from home-grown material; in the United States, 25 per cent; whereas in Canada it is only 12-40 per cent. Furthermore, we find that the refiners are reducing and forcing the growers to reduce their sugar beet acreage. This is going to have a disastrous effect upon the economy of the people of that district. This is an industry which would help in some measure to bring up the income of agriculture, because figures have been produced in this house to show that the agricultural population of the country are not getting their share of the national income at the present time.
We have irrigation districts and there is great need for development of more irrigation. In years gone by, irrigation systems have been started and not completed, and in order to produce more sugar beets to balance our economy, if these irrigation districts could be completed a great benefit would result. With regard to the cattle industry, this government was fortunate enough to make an agreement with the United States-and the government deserves credit for it-whereby we are allowed a generous quota in the United States markets at half the previous rate of duty. We are not, however, altogether filling that quota, and the encouragement of the beet sugar industry would help the cattle industry through the use of tops, pulp, molasses and other by-products. A great benefit could be derived from this source.
In recent years the great unemployment menace was one of the worst things that struck this and other countries. Producing sugar from home grown raw material would provide employment for twenty times the number of people for whom producing the same amount of sugar from imported cane

would provide employment. That is one big factor. Again, it has been rumoured and hinted that there in the near future will be a tax on sugar. I would appeal to the Minister of Finance so to regulate that tax that it will bear less heavily upon sugar produced from home-grown raw materials. I believe that, if the tax could be adjusted in that way, great benefit would result.
Someone has questioned the quality of beet sugar. I am quite sure that it compares favourably with that of cane sugar; it conforms exactly to the same chemical formula, and the people who are using it do not object to it. The prejudice against it is dying out and, under modem methods of manufacture, it is exactly the same as cane sugar.
We are engaged in a war of such magnitude that the very foundations of the temple of liberty and freedom are being threatened. We know that the months ahead may be dark, but beyond those months there are surely brighter things coming, and we hope that there will be a more ample life, more equality of opportunity, and better home conditions.
It has been said, and said by the Prime Minister, that we look for a new order to replace the old order; but if we wait until the war is over for that new order to come, we shall look in vain for it. It must be planned and prepared for and worked on. It cannot be reduced to writing at a conference, and so in preparing for the great rehabilitation problem which will face this country, some of the things I have mentioned will be of great value-irrigation schemes to provide homes, security for the people in those homes, and the encouragement of the beet sugar industry, the sheep industry, the cattle industry, to balance our economy and provide employment for those who will be released from war activities and for the strangers who will come to our land at that time.


Mr. GILLIS:: When the house rose last evening, I was out of the chamber for a few moments, but on looking over Hansard to-day I find that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), in concluding his observations just prior to the adjournment, made the following statement with reference to the contribution that I had made to the debate. I wish to correct the impression he left. As reported at page 2114 of Hansard, he said:
It is entirely wrong to endeavour to create the impression, as set forth by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that the Nova Scotia builders are saboteurs.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	He did not
say that.
Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City):	Yes, he
said that. He said they could be considered either as saboteurs or profiteers, because either they were reluctant to help the war effort or they wanted to make too much money.
With regard to what I did say, I will let Hansard speak for itself. I will quote the reference I made on that particular point, as reported at page 2102 of Hansard'.
I was disappointed also at the statement made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs, when he attempted to analyse the reason why shipbuilding has not been carried on more extensively in Nova Scotia. He pointed out that at one time shipbuilding was the major industry of this province. He said also that shipbuilding yards in Nova Scotia had been asked to tender, but that very few had even put in tenders, and those who did were twenty-five per cent higher in their prices than shipbuilding yards in other parts of Canada. He could give no reasonable explanation for this. The minister's statement amounted virtually to an accusation against the shipbuilders of Nova Scotia of sabotage or an attempt to obtain greater profits than other shipbuilders. In the light of the present situation I think that is a serious statement to make.
Personally I do not believe that any such thing is true.
I proceeded to elaborate on what I thought were the real reasons why shipyards in Nova Scotia were not able to compete with shipyards in other parts of Canada. Perhaps the minister misunderstood, in listening to the debate, exactly what I said. At any rate, I regard his remarks on that particular point as a misrepresentation of what I did actually say.


Major James William Coldwell: On behalf of our group I support the representations that have been made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). I agree particularly with the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who said that we should be planning now for the after-war situation, and I am in thorough agreement with those who hold the view that the sugar beet industry of Canada is one that can be expanded to a very large degree during the war in order to save ship bottoms and supply our people with home grown sugar, transferring perhaps some of those who to-day are growing wheat and other commodities into a new line of production to meet the Canadian need. As has been shown by previous speakers, sugar beets would also provide valuable by-products. The by-products used for the feeding of cattle and so on are of material aid to the country at this time.
I do not wish to make a long speech; I think all that need be said in this matter is that we urge upon the government a reconsideration of the suggestion for acreage reduction in this regard; indeed, we go one step further and say that we believe the government should be giving every encouragement to the expansion of the sugar beet industry in Canada both as a war effort and as a valuable industry and asset to the country after the war.


Mr. RYAN:: I think we should concur in the request made by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance to put off this discussion until some future date, because I understand the, discussion this afternoon should not have taken place on this bill. I should, however, just like to say that it is not only Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario that are interested in the development of this industry; the province of Quebec is very much interested. I regret that more attention was not given by the government of Canada before to-day to this important industry in the interests of the farmer and also as something worth-while in the economics of Canada. I do not intend to take any more time at present, for the reason I gave at first, but I am pleased to note what the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour said, that we are going to have a further opportunity to discuss this problem of the beet sugar industry in Canada during the present session.


John Horne Blackmore: I think I am now in order to continue my remarks. It will take me a very short time to finish, but there are a few things to be said which I consider important.
When my time expired I was discusing the soundness of the proposal that the dominion government should either invest $35,000,000 in first-class beet sugar refineries or cause other people to invest that amount in order that we should have production in Canada of a sufficient amount to enable all the sugar needs of Canada to be met from Canadian production. I had just cited the record of Canadian Sugar Factories Limited in 1937, which I think was a most excellent record.
There are other reasons why the proposal that the dominion should support the beet sugar industry is sound. The costs of production of beet sugar are falling rapidly, contrary to the commonly accepted idea. There is at the present time, I read, a machine invented by a man named Hardy in the United States which will enable a man and a boy with one machine to top five acres of beets a day. Anyone who knows anything about the cost of topping beets will realize that this will greatly reduce the cost of producing beet sugar.
2134	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
There is another machine which is described in the United States department of agriculture bulletin No. 488. This machine is designed to plant and block sugar beets much more cheaply. Then there are unusually fine machines being developed to unload and pile and handle sugar beets. All these dispense with labour and greatly speed up the process of making beet sugar and will unquestionably reduce the cost. Larger mills of 1,600 tons slicing capacity will cut down the unit overhead cost far below that possible for a 1,200 ton mill such as Raymond has. A longer campaign, say 120 days, will greatly decrease the cost of production, the overhead being much the same, and the number of days the factory runs being increased. The climate of Canada is especially adapted for a long run; in that respect being greatly superior to the climate of the main European sugar producing countries like Germany, Czechoslovakia and Roumania.
The explanation being given for this reduction of 1,300 acres is that it was brought about to help Britain win the war. It has been argued that the desire was to enable Canada to help to take the empire sugar supply. If that were the case, then will someone tell me why 200,000,000 pounds of sugar were imported in 1940 from Santo Domingo, 50,000,000 pounds from Cuba and 6,000,000 pounds from Haiti, all three non-British countries? And why were British ships used with the risk of shortage for Great Britain, and why was valuable foreign exchange which Canada could ill-afford spent for the buying of foreign sugar?
It is said that the reasons for this procedure are that the United Kingdom did not ration sugar until January, 1940; that the people, expecting rationing, bought heavily in Britain, and that during the last year the British West Indies crop was about 250,000 tons short and the Australian crop about 150,000 tons short. Every one of these is a reason why the sugar of the Raymond and Picture Butte factories should have been taken by the sugar administrator!
The Minister of Labour rose in his place in support of the administrator; I will ask him to deny this statement: that the sugar administrator is given control of everything pertaining to sugar in Canada, and could have taken the sugar from the Canadian sugar factories if he had so chosen. But he did not so choose.


Norman Alexander McLarty: He is under no obligation to take any definite amount of either preferential or full duty sugar whatever.


John Horne Blackmore: That is, he has a perfectly free hand. That is to his condemnation, that, having a free hand, he neglected to

take the sugar off the hands of the Canadian sugar factories, thereby forcing them to cause their growers to reduce acreage by 1,300 acres in one year. The blame must be assumed either by that gentleman or by the war-time prices and trade board or by the men who gave them orders, whoever those men may be.
If Great Britain has to sell her sugar to Canada in order to pay for goods that she has to buy from Canada, if the price which Canada has to pay to help Britain is the destruction of the Canadian beet sugar industry, then I say that the British are asking too great a price from Canada. I do not believe the British asked it. That is not necessary. The dominion government could far better afford to give commodities to Great Britain to the amount that would be paid for by the sugar which Canada is buying from Great Britain than she can afford to take the sugar and deplete her own sugar producing resources.
The argument is sometimes advanced that Canada must trade. I challenge that statement. The big question is, can Canada be self-sufficient? If the reason why she must trade is that she cannot be self-sufficient, then why in the name of reason is it that sugar, which is a main item that prevents Canada from being self-sufficient, is the one item which is being sacrificed at the present time?
Also, why is someone in Canada managing matters in such a way that Canada is not producing the wool she needs, so that Canada has to import much of her wool from other countries when she is one of the best wool growing countries on the face of the earth? I use this just to show that it is not a sincere argument to say that Canada must inevitably trade. Canada, properly managed, does not have to trade. Canada is equipped by Providence to enable herself to live largely without having to trade with other people. And if we are going to be independent and economically free in this country, we must develop our potentialities.
We are importing a lot of com from abroad when we can raise corn here. We are importing coal when we can produce coal, oil when we can produce oil. The argument that Canada must inevitably trade is hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. Canada can be self-sufficient, if certain overpowerful men in Canada will let her. Has Canada any insuperable necessity? If so, what is it? I will hear the answer, "Oh, rubber, citrus fruits, coffee, tea, bananas and so on." I freely grant all those, but-


James Lorimer Ilsley: And cotton and tin.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I am glad to have them all-and rubber.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And I can think of a good many more.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


John Horne Blackmore: That is all fine; I am glad to have them. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how in the name of common sense can we overcome our disability with respect to tin by putting ourselves under the disability of having to import sugar? That does not make sense.
Is the self-sufficiency policy unsound? I point to the United States and. her experience in the last war. When the last war came, the United States found herself unable to produce her own rubber. Greatly to her embarrassment she found herself unable to produce her own dyes, because she had been tricked into depending upon German sources for her dyes. The result was that the United States was in a most precarious position with respect to dyes. She was in the same position with respect to chemicals, and for the same reason. The United States was in a desperate condition with respect to sugar during the last war, because she had not got herself into the position where she could produce her own sugar.
May I read to the committee a statement in which I believe everyone would be interested. This comes from an article entitled "The Sugar Bowl is Mended", by Charles Morrow Wilson, and appears in the Country Gentleman for April, 1940. It contains words which have great significance for us at this time, and sets forth one of the reasons for my insisting upon debating this question at the present time. The article reads, in part:
When the first world war began Europe was growing almost enough sugar for its own use. But when the beet fields turned to battle fields Cuban production shot from 2,000,000 to more than 5,000.000 tons a year, and Cuba was sugar bowl for the world.
After the armistice tens of millions of war-rationed people were frantic for sweets, and sugar bins were empty. So in the early twenties Cuban sugar prices boomed to 24 cents per pound at the mills.
Mr. Chairman, it needs to be shown by the Minister of Labour, and by anyone else who is interested, whether or not the same gentlemen who were in charge of Cuba at that time are not in charge of Cuba to-day, and are not exercising a very strong influence over the British sugar control.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is nothing to that.


John Horne Blackmore: It is sometimes argued that Canada by importing sugar from abroad would-


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is the hon. member acquainted with the number of tons of sugar we imported from Cuba?


John Horne Blackmore: This year?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I have already put the figure on Hansard.


Norman Alexander McLarty: What was it?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not a question of how much we import this year, but rather a question of how much we shall be called upon to import next year.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The reason for importation of Cuban sugar is the trade arrangements whereby we maintain, by that method, our preference for the goods we ship to Cuba, goods such as flour, and so on.


John Horne Blackmore: That may all be true, but it does not in any way alter the validity of my argument that we cannot afford to leave sugar unused in the storehouses of our own Canadian beet sugar factories while we import sugar from abroad.
I happen to be somewhat familiar with this sugar question, I may tell the Minister of Labour. This is his first experience with me. Probably after a while he will realize that. I have now in my hand figures showing the importations from Cuba, and I find that they are placed at 50,000,000 pounds for this year.
It is sometimes argued that by increasing our importation of sugar from abroad we would increase our market for potatoes and salt fish from the maritime provinces. I have every sympathy with the maritimes; far be it from me to say anything which would jeopardize their position. But may I tell hon. members from the maritimes that in this respect they have been deluded. Much propaganda has been spread to confuse maritime minds. The arguments about potatoes and salt fish by such propagandists are devastatingly dealt with by Mr. Ralph P. Bell in an article of February 8, 1938 appearing in the Halifax Herald. I commend that article to hon. members from the maritimes. They will find that all this talk about sugar beet production impairing the position of the maritime salt-fish and potato markets is just pure piffle, and worse; it is sheer delusion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Anything else?


John Horne Blackmore: From all the facts
I have set forth it would certainly appear, first, that the Canadian government is selling Canada into bondage in the matter of Canada's sugar supply.
Second, someone is bartering Canada's birthright for worse than a mess of pottage, betraying her future for dross as base as the famous thirty pieces of silver; for any nation that must buy from abroad any necessity of
2136	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
life is, in respect of that necessity, a potential slave of external circumstances.
Third, the interests that control our sugar supply, once our beet sugar industry is destroyed, can raise the price to any level their unprincipled cupidity dictates, and, as they did after the last war, force Canadians to pay that figure.
Fourth, the sugar situation looms through the storm clouds as one of the blackest and most imminent threats to Canadian economic freedom.
The other day the Minister of Labour promised a statement in connection with the sugar situation. He will have to canvass the whole question carefully, for in his report he will have to show, first, why the Canadian beet sugar industry has been restricted in war time. He will find that a thorny question, and more thorny the more deeply he goes into it.
Second, why has Canada spent good exchange for foreign sugar, and left Canadian-grown sugar unused, with agriculture in the tragic condition in which it finds itself, and with a trade balance so dangerously against us, as it now is?
Third, why are prices of sugar rising, when raw cane can be bought for 75 cents per hundredweight in Haiti, Cuba, and Santo Domingo?
Fourth, why is the Canadian government apparently preparing to give Canada over to the spoilers who robbed her at the close of the last great war?
Fifth, why must Canada's consumer prices depend upon the will of the British sugar controller, when Canada could produce twice her needs at greatly reduced costs?
Sixth, while even the United States insists that 55-59 per cent of her domestic consumption shall be domestically produced, why can Canada afford to decrease even her meagre 12i per cent?
Seventh, who selected the present sugar controller? On whose instigation was the selection made, and why?
Eighth, is there not cause for grave suspicion that certain overpowerful Canadians are manipulating Canada's sugar supply to enrich themselves, to enslave Canadians and to exploit our people immeasurably?
The first question the ministers of Labour, Trade and Commerce, Agriculture, and Finance, and their colleagues need to answer is this: Do they intend to keep and to make Canada a free and independent democracy, or did Canadian unity in their election platform a year ago mean Canadian unity with the United States, or with the United States

and some other nation or nations? If the latter is the case, are they rendering such' unity unavoidable by policies tending to reduce Canada to economic helplessness? If they really desire a free Canada, then they must make her economically free. To do this, they must take steps to build up within Canada an adequate all-Canadian sugar supply. This they can do only by expanding the beet sugar industry.


Jean-François Pouliot: I asked some questions of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I would be thankful if he could give me the information I asked for.


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the
questions asked by my hon. friend had to do with government-owned companies which he named. These companies operate just as any public company. They accept contracts from the government, execute them and carry out whatever duties are assigned to them by order in council, just as would any private business firm. In each case the treasurer of the company is an officer of the treasury branch of the government. The auditor of each company is an appointee of the auditor general of Canada. The procedure of these companies conforms to the best practice of corporations operating in this country.
The largest organization is the Allied War Supplies Corporation which deals with the explosives and chemical operations of the government. This company retains experts in the different branches of the work. Contracts are made with reputable contractors for the construction work involved, and in most instances contracts are made with the leading firms in the chemical and explosives business to operate plants on a management fee basis.
There are other companies, but I have told the house on several occasions that it is not desirable to elaborate on their operations too fully. These companies are doing the work of protecting the government against supplies of materials which come from foreign countries, and the sources of which may be subject to interruption from war causes. There is the Melbourne Merchandising Company Limited, the Plateau Company Limited, and one or two other commodity companies. These companies have the duty of making available supplies of such things as rubber, silk and other items, the names of which escape me at the moment. These companies operate just as any commodity company would. Purchases and sales are made, commodities are bought at the best market price obtainable and are sold at the current Canadian price. But in between the purchase and sale of commodities, considerable stocks are maintained to make sure that supplies will be available

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
for several months should there be an interruption because of the war. As I remember, this covers questions asked by my hon. friend. If he mentioned other points which have escaped my memory at the moment, I shall be glad to answer them.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I
heard the explanation given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). If the words which he used were capable of the interpretation which I put upon them, I am glad to know that it was not his intention that they should have any such interpretation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for what he has just said. However, referring to experts, I cannot see what particular experience Mr. Biggar has had. He may be a good lawyer, but I cannot understand what experience he would have in the manufacture of optical equipment. I should like to know what experience Mr. Dunning, who has been a trader, has had in supervising chemical and explosives manufacturing. I do not know what experience he has had in that respect, apart from being the understudy of that international Vulcan, Mr. Purvis. That is all there is in it. The minister must take what I say in the spirit in which I say it. I am simply trying to help him in his work, which I realize is quite heavy. He is, however, surrounded by a few men who think they can read before they learn their alphabet. They are somewhat like children who sometimes try to read upside down. The points I raised were not quite along the line of his answers.
There is one branch of the department-it does not matter whether you call it a branch or a division-which is responsible for purchases. In order that this branch should be treated fairly, they should have the entire responsibility; it should not be shared with another branch which is directly responsible to the deputy minister. These branches are asked to deal with all purchases of chemicals and so on. I shall read what the minister said and take this matter up with him privately in order to save the time of the committee. I would, however, remind the minister of one thing. We do not impute motives when we ask for information. We do this simply to satisfy those people who come to us for information, whether they live in or outside of our own constituencies.
I want to protect this purchasing branch. I do not wish to see them suffer by any encroachment on the part of these so-called companies. The Minister of Munitions and Supply is not a corporation lawyer, and I congratulate him. I think he will admit that most of the wrong which has been done in the
financial world has been done by corporation lawyers. Ninety-nine per cent of them are crooks. What are these blue-sky laws we hear about? What about the watered stock in these companies which have been organized by lawyers, who take a portion of it as their fee and retainers? Many companies have been ruined because of watered stocks, a large portion of which went into the pockets of the corporation lawyers.
I think it is all wrong to organize government business along corporation lines. You can go to any stock broker's office and look at the stocks, and see how people have been robbed through the formation of these companies. They do not offer a good example to be followed in government business. Any lawyer who knows the law and who knows the principles underlying our law will not do this sort of thing. Corporation practice in government is wrong. It is also wrong to canonize those who are part of the scheme, to make saints of them, to place halos upon their heads and then tell us that we must not criticize them. There is not a single item of information about expenditures that can properly be refused to members of parliament when we are sitting in committee like this. We are entitled to information about all expenditures. What should be secret?
There is no need for secrecy about the spending of public money. Secrecy is necessary about the plans by virtue of which certain kinds of arms and ammunition are being made and the places where they are being manufactured, and also as to war tactics. I want no information on these things because I admit they must be kept secret. But when it comes to the purchase of any kind of munitions, we must know how much is paid for them, and even if Hitler gets to know how much we pay for shells and guns and other munitions it will not endanger our position in the war. It might, however, embarrass some profiteers, and' we ought to embarrass them and prevent them from getting too much money from the public exchequer. This distinction should be made in determining what shall and what shall not be kept secret.
In the first place, no one in public business should be kept sacrosanct until after he is dead. So long as he is living and engaged in public business, he must be man enough to suffer criticism no matter where it comes from. In the second place, there should be no hiding place, no secrecy regarding public expenditures, which we are supposed to check in this house and not vote blindfold. Third, I want my constituency to be protected from any attack by land, sea or air. I asked a question on that point the other day. The
2138	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
question was clear, but I got no answer. I repeat my question: How are Temiscouata county and Riviere du Loup being defended against any possible attack by land, sea or air? I also asked for information about military camps. No answer. I asked for information about aviation fields. No answer. I asked for information about roads. No answer. But I will get this information for the people of mj' county and my province just as I got a station at Riviere du Loup, however stubborn anyone may be who will not give a satisfactory answer, and I warn the minister I will get this information for my people.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Government may act as agent.
Mr. GREEN:: Yesterday the Minister of Munitions and Supply in dealing with the question of shipbuilding, as reported at page 2104 of Hansard, said:
We have placed up to the present contracts for twenty merchant ships of the 9,300-ton class.
I interjected to ask whether that was a British contract. Then there was some heated flurry between the minister and myself, and I thought I heard him say that it was a British contract but apparently the Hansard reporter did not get it. I should like to have it made clear whether these twenty ships are or are not for the British government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have received a requisition from the British government for twenty ships, and contracts have been placed for twenty ships. Whether the twenty ships that are to be delivered to the British government are what we have here, I am not sure, but in any event the Canadian government has placed contracts for twenty ships and we hold a requisition from the British government for the same number of ships.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to say to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who said that there were some questions he had asked which were not answered-he had asked with regard to the defence of the county of Temiscouata and the city of Riviere du Loup -that he knows, without my saying it, that we do not disclose on the floor of parliament the defence plans for Canada or any portion of it. I do not propose to make a statement in the house on our means of defence. I only say to him that I have consulted the officers of my department-I know he has not the highest regard for them; nevertheless I have -and I am satisfied that their plans are sound with regard to the defence of Canada generally. I assure him from what I am 
advised that steps are being taken against any possible, likely and prospective attack on Temiscouata county or Riviere du Loup.
With regard to the location of a military training centre, my hon. friend said, as reported in Hansard at page 1807, that he had asked for a military training centre and-the way Hansard has it-"the experts of the department have not yet answered." I wrote him a letter at once and pointed out that I had written him myself personally over a month ago with regard to the matter, and he sends me to-day a copy of Hansard in which he has inserted after the word "yet" the word "satisfactorily," indicating that what he meant to say was that he had not been satisfactorily answered. He has used that term again to-day. I am sorry that the answer is not satisfactory in his opinion, but the answer I have given him is my own answ'er and that of my officers. The training centres were established in the locations where it was thought that the interests of the country would be best served having regard to the likely number of men to be trained in the different districts, and to a fair distribution of the facilities available. A great many members have made representations, but none except the member for Temiscouata has risen in his place to make the complaint that a training centre was not established in a particular constituency. But that, as the hon. member says, is his right, and I make no objection to that. I only say that the training centres were selected after the most careful and serious consideration having regard to the needs, and I am sorry that Temiscouata was not included in the selection.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry too, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: On Tuesday I
addressed a question to the Minister of National Defence for Air, who was not then present, and the Minister of National Defence said that he would get an answer to the question.


Mr. POWER:: May I answer it right away, because I have the answer here. The question was somewhat involved, and I am not quite sure just what my hon. friend wished to know. I have here so much information that I think I had better just file this memorandum with Hansard because it runs to three pages. His question as reported at page 2072 of Hansard was this:
Mr. Ross (St. Paul's):	I have one or two
questions in connection with rumours -which I suggest ought to be straightened out. Would the Minister of National Defence for Air or the Minister of Munitions and Supply give a com-

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
parison with regard to the hours necessary to ground planes of various classes for purposes of overhaul. I understand there is some dissatisfaction with some of the planes being made.
He goes on, and then the Minister of National Defence said:
Mr. Ralston: Is the hon. member asking as to the regulations concerning the number of flying hours before an overhaul is ordered?
Mr. Ross (St. Paul's): No; there are various classes of planes used in connection with the air training plan. There is dissatisfaction, or at least it is rumoured that there is dissatisfaction with certain makes. How many hours are granted for the overhaul of these different classes of planes?
I take it that that is the question to which he now refers, and I have here a memorandum covering the question:
1. Herewith are given under appendix "A" the approximate man-hours required for minor and major inspections. Under appendix "B" the maximum running hours for engines and airscrews for the various types of engines. Appendix "C" number of flying hours after which a complete overhaul is required.
2. It is to he noted that the types of aircraft and engines are those in use in the B.C.A.T.P.
I will file, if I may, these three appendices "A", "B" and "C" for inclusion in Hansard:
Appendix "A"
Minor and Major Inspections-Aircraft J.A.T.P.
Approx, man- Approx, man-
		hours per	hours per
Aircraft	Periodicity	minor	majortype	(hours)	inspection	inspectionYale ....	. . 40-240	50	150Harvard	.. 40-240	50	150Battle ..	. . 40-240	100	350Anson . .	. . 40-240	75	250Fleet ...	. . 30-180	25	75Moth ...	. . 30-180	25	75Cessna ..	. . 30-180	75	250
Note.-Periodicity as follows:

All inspections at intervals of 40 hours up to 240 are minors. 240 is a major.
30-180-All inspections at intervals of 30 hours up to 180 are minors. 180 is a major.
Engine type
Cheetah IX	
Cheetah X	
Civet	
Cyclone F.52	
Cyclone G.7	
Cyclone G.102	
Gipsy I	
Gipsy Major	
Kinner B.5 and R.5... .
Lynx (all)	
Mercury VIII	
Mercury XV	
Menasco	
Merlin II and III....
Mongoose III	
Pegasus IX	
Pegasus X	
Pegasus XXII	
Perseus XII	
Tiger VI	
Wasp B & C	
Wasp S3H1	
Wasp Jr. SB	
Wright J6 D & E	
Twin Wasp R.1535-13
Twin Wasp Jr. SB4-G Twin Wasp S.1C.3-G .. Jacobs L.4	
Jacobs L.6	
Continental 75	
Wright R.975-E.3	
Appendix "B"
Table "A" C.A.P. 78/C.l
Engines and Airscrews
Max. running hours between overhauls
		900
		780
		540
	 600
	 600
	 600
		540
	 900
		540
		420
		420
	 420
	 360
	 390
	 390
	 600
	 600
	 600
	 600
	 420
	 420
		720
	 600
	 420
	 390
	 450
		540
		480
	 480
	 600
	 600
	 630
Airscrews max. hours at overhaul Fixed pitch Fixed pitch Fixed pitch 720 600 600
Fixed pitch Fixed pitch Fixed pitch Fixed pitch 720 720
Fixed pitch 720
Fixed pitch 720
Fixed pitch
Fixed pitch
720



C.S.-600

[Stage Direction]
2 pos. controllable-720 (C.S.-600
(2 pos. controllable-720 720
(C.S.-600
(2 pos. controllable-720 600 600 (720
)C.S-600
2 pos. controllable-720 Fixed pitch (C.S.-600
(2 pos. controllable-720 600
Wasp S1H1G
2140	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Appendix "C"
Table "A"-CA.P. 78/B.l Airframes
Normal flying hours
Airframe type	at complete overhaul
Anson 		.. 1,080
Battle		. . 1,080
Bolingbroke 		.. 1.080
Beechcraft 		. . 1,260
Delta		.. 1.080
Digby		.. 2,520
Fawn I and II		. . 1,440
Finch I and II		.. 1,440
Goose 		.. 1,200
Harvard I and II		. 1,980
Hudson 		.. 1,260
Hurricane 		. . 900
Lockheed 10A 			.. 1,260
Lvsander 		.. 720
Moth 60M 		,. 1,080
Norseman			. . 1,260
Oxford 		.. 720
Shark 		.. 720
Stranraer 		. . 900
Tiger Moth		.. 1,200
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. A few days ago when speaking in the house I suggested that the government had no policy in connection with the future production of aeroplanes and that some manufacturers were getting a little worried, not knowing what the policy was to be. I was told by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services that of course the government had a policy and that it had been outlined by the Minister of Munitions and Supply some time ago. I do not recall, Mr. Chairman, that it has been outlined, and I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply should give us at some time an outline of what the government proposes to do in connection with the future production of aeroplanes in this country. I do mean, not just to the end of this year, but farther on, because these companies require to have some knowledge of what is going to happen, so that they can carry on their work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe that every aeroplane company knows the policy of the government in that regard' until at least the end of 1942, provided that in the meantime there is no change in the war situation. In general, the policy will be to keep the plant in production on the plan upon which it is producing to-day, or on another plan which the plant has coming into production in the meantime. There is only one uncertainty; it relates to the development of a new type of engine in the United States, and we expect to have that determined shortly. Aside from that, I believe that any and every plant could give my hon. friend its programme up to the end of next year.

| Mr. POULIOT: Mr. Chairman, I have just lone word to say in reply to my hon. friend (the Minister of National Defence. It is that 'the defence of any part of a country can be ia military secret only in so far as it exists, j Where there is no defence there can be no jmilitary secret; and I complain bitterly that we do not have enough protection in my county. That is why I insist upon a military camp.
There is something else. I have noticed in a certain committee that it was the practice of the high-ups of the civil service commission to come with a brush and a can of rose paint to paint everything in rosy colours and defend everything that was done within the civil service commission. Of course it would be a very bad thing if the brass hats of the Department of National Defence were not afraid of the criticism which hon. members can make in this chamber, just as is the practice at Westminster; and, although I have a high regard for the Minister of National Defence, he will never make me believe that the men who surround him in the Department of National Defence are perfect.


James Layton Ralston: Nobody has ever suggested such a thing.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad the minister admits that. That is a step in the right direction.


James Layton Ralston: I have never said so in my life.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to hear that. We are making great progress. I thank the minister and I congratulate him on that statement. I noticed in Hansard that the hon. member for Regina City said he wanted to teach geography to these high-ups. I want that too, and I want them to learn the alphabet so that they can read properly. They need the alphabet in order to read, but they seem to ignore it.
The minister has said it was decided there would be no appeal. I am not in favour of inflexible rules in the militia or anywhere else. The Department of National Defence should not be a privy council in the legal sense of the word, a court from which there is no appeal. All matters should be discussed and everybody heard before a final decision is made, and even when a final decision is made it must always be subject to review in the light of events and considerations which cannot be foreseen. I say that on behalf of my constituents and my own people, and I shall never be afraid to speak for them.
I wish the Minister of National Defence good health. If, however, his health is failing, I can make a suggestion of a gentleman who

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
is not sympathetic to Mr. Bennett, is of independent means, has a fine military record, is the best organizer in the land, and has been praised recently by the Minister of National War Services. I do not mention him more precisely to-day; but it shows that if no men are infallible, no men are indispensable. If the Minister of National Defence does not like the way I voice the sentiments and feelings of my people, well, a time may come when someone in the Department of National Defence will grant us justice.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to say that I will convey to the right hon. the Prime Minister my hon. friend's sentiments.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wish to say a few words before this section carries. For several weeks we have been trying to get an idea of the government's war programme, and it seems to be disclosed in little bits here and there.
I have before me this evening's Ottawa Journal, in which I notice a news item stating that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has given out a statement about a six-man committee that has been appointed to study British Columbia's war capacity. Could the minister give us a little more information on this-when the committee was set up, and what are the various things it is going to investigate? There is mention here of two items which are termed "major" items, namely, an investigation into the possibilities of developing steel from scrapiron, and of the establishment of an electric furnace.
First of all, why could the minister himself not have announced this to the members of the committee? Next, what further matters are subject to investigation in British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is not reading from a press release of the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a report from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard has his publicity arrangements and I have mine. I hope he will not hold me responsible for his, and I will not hold him responsible for mine. I may say, however, that we had a committee go out some months ago to investigate capacities in British Columbia. As my hon. friend knows, British Columbia industries, that is, industries capable of taking on war work, are for the most part in small units. After the investigation, a good many people in Vancouver felt that these men from Ottawa had not reported fairly on the capacity of British Columbia to handle war work. We decided that this time
not only would we assign to the investigation three technical experts from here, but we would ask three men in British Columbia, who know a good deal about the industrial capacity of the province, to look over the situation with our men, in the hope that we might find additional means of placing war work in that province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that include the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, may I ask?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard is not a member of that committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He seems to be taking charge of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is simply a committee sent out to gather information for the purposes of the department. We looked upon it, not as a public inquiry, but simply as a departmental inquiry as to additional capacity. We have had committees travelling over a good part of Canada; I think they have visited every province, perhaps every industrial centre in each province. Various officers of the department have travelled together as a committee. This is not a matter which would seem to require any great formal announcement. We have asked the committee to study every matter affecting production there, to look into certain plants from the point of view of labour organization and of skilled workmen who are out of employment, and we hope that when the committee reports we shall have a better picture of the situation.


Thomas Vien: I have allowed a number of questions, but I must point out that section 2 has been carried and we are now on section 3.


Angus MacInnis: What I have to say can be said equally well under section 3. I do not intend to speak at any length. I am not objecting to the committee that has been set up; in fact, I am glad thgt it has been set up. What I do object to is the way in which information comes to me as a member of this house and a member from British Columbia. Here we have this statement in to-day's Ottawa Journal:
G. G. McGeer (Lib.-Vancouver-Burrard), announced on Wednesday that a six-man committee had been appointed by the government to investigate British Columbia's potential war industrial capacity. It will begin work next week.
I skip the second paragraph. The third paragraph reads:
Mr. McGeer, who made the anouncement on authority of Munitions Minister Howe, said Colonel W. C. Woodward, of Vancouver, executive assistant to the munitions minister, will attend the meetings at the coast.
2142	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
There have been suggestions in this house that the government was trying to carry on a Liberal party war effort. I have never made any such statement either in the house or outside, and I would not want to make a statement of that kind. I should be sorry if there were grounds on which I could make such a statement. But when we see such a thing as this, after we have been discussing the matter in the house for a month or more, I think members have a right to ask for more definite information and to know why they are not taken into the confidence of the government. It should not be left to private members to make announcements such as I have quoted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Members on all sides have asked me to look into matters in the districts they represent in parliament, and we try to do that. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) said that he did not think the original committee gave a fair statement of the potentialities of British Columbia, and it was largely on his representations that this second committee was set up. My hon. friend knows British Columbia politics better than I do, and if he will look over the British Columbia representation I do not think he will suggest that the committee is political. It is a committee of industrialists, two of whom are so far as I know, not supporters of this government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister name the members?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the representatives are Gordon Farrell, president of the British Columbia Telephone company, R. W. May-hew, and Lawrence Killam, who is not a supporter of the government. I was not aware that he was a supporter of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He comes from an old Liberal family.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Orders and regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire for a few moments to deal with a matter that is of considerable importance; otherwise I would not venture to delay the passage of the bill, which I regret has been delayed altogether too long.
Prior to 1931 the system of treasury control in this country was exceedingly inadequate. A system had grown up whereby parliament voted moneys, in the estimates or supplementary estimates, which were allocated to departments, but there was no treasury control of expenditures and frequently accounts were overdrawn. The situation became rather acute in 1931 with the fall of the national revenues during the depression. The government of

the day decided that the situation had to be grappled with and they introduced the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which is to be found in chapter 27 of the statutes of 1931. I remember that bill very well. I had something to do with piloting it through the banking and commerce committee to which it was referred, and it was given thorough consideration by everyone and treated entirely in a businesslike manner. Section 29 of the act contains an important clause:
No contract, agreement, or undertaking of any nature, involving a charge on the consolidated revenue fund, shall be entered into, or have any force or effect, unless the comptroller-
That is, the comptroller of the treasury appointed under the authority of the act.
-or an officer of the Department of Finance designated by him and approved by the treasury board, shall have certified that there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available, out of the amount authorized by parliament for the particular service, to pay any commitments under such contract, agreement or undertaking which would, under the provisions thereof, come in course of payment during the fiscal year in which such contract, agreement or undertaking is made or entered into.
That was notice to these departments that the deputy ministers could not overdraw, and I remember that word went out at that time to the departments that any infraction of the law might call for the resignation of the deputy minister. That was the impression left on them, and a great evil was corrected.
At that time Mr. Watson Sellar, the present auditor general of Canada, was appointed comptroller of the treasury. He was appointed after the act was placed in the statutes by the Bennett government, and I was impressed, before the banking committee, with the knowledge he had of the proposed measure and the way it should work. I think that in every way he was an important official. He is now auditor general of Canada.
Recently I have been amazed to learn that by reason of the provisions of the War Appropriation Act 1940, which are similar to subsection 4 (1) (e) of the bill now before us, and presumably also from time to time under the authority of the War Measures Act, that provision of parliament has been set aside by the government by order in council, at times when this parliament was in session.
I challenge the position that the government has taken. I can readily understand that in a time of war a statute might be found too inflexible and that at a time when parliament was in recess it might be necessary-in fact,
I could imagine circumstances in which I think it would be absolutely necessary-that some extraordinary provision be taken to

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
cover any given commitment in war time. I suggest to the committee, however, that when parliament is in session, the setting aside by order in council of a statute of that kind, intended to be the safeguard of the public treasury, to protect the taxpayers of the country, is absolutely indefensible and cannot be justified on any ground of expediency or of war requirement or anything of the sort. If occasion is found when the provisions of the statute are too inflexible at a time when the House of Commons is in session, all the government have to do is to come to parliament and say so and explain the position, and power will be given to them. But to-day that is not the position. What has happened? An important section of the statutes of this country, intended to protect the public treasury, has been flouted by the minister, at a time when the people's representatives are in session and could correct the position if it absolutely needed to be corrected.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the dinner recess, I had discussed briefly the changes which I understand have taken place concerning treasury control of government expenditure, and I had detailed the steps that had been taken in 1931 to protect the public treasury against overexpenditure, and to set up a proper system of accounting.
When we passed the war appropriation act in 1940 there was a clause in the measure in practically the same terms as paragraph (e), subsection (1), of section 4 of the present bill, namely:
The governor in council may make, from time to time, such orders or regulations .as may he deemed necessary to give effect to the purposes of this act-
Of course the meaning of that is quite clear. -and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, the governor in council may, by order or regulation . . .
(e) prescribe administrative practices with respect to the making of financial commitments, the taking of security for the performance of contracts and agreements, .and the recording and paying of accounts.
If hon. members followed me with respect to the provisions of subsection 1 of section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, they will, I believe, agree with me that the powers given under paragraph (e) subsection
1, section 4 of the bill at present before us do not in any way override the provisions of the audit act, but empower the governor in council to prescribe, by order in council, administrative practices with respect to the making of financial commitments.
At the time that provision was placed in the 1940 act, I did not appreciate the extent to which it might enable the government, if it does so enable it, to change the statutes not of this house but of parliament.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Those are the only statutes we have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps that was a redundant statement to make. I was referring, however, to changing a provision which has been concurred in not only by the House of Commons but by parliament as a whole, and is therefore the law of the country.
Under the War Measures Act numerous orders in council have been passed. I believe it is absolutely impossible for any person, individually, and least of all for myself, to keep track of all those orders in council. The government is commanded by law to send some of them to members of the House of Commons. But we do not know anything about most of those orders in council until after they have become operative for a long time, and what has taken place becomes known.
I held the view, and still hold it, that, as a matter of right, all orders in council should come to the office of the leader of the opposition. I applied to the leader of the government for a direction that this might be done, and to my surprise it has been refused. I find also upon examination of the records that this is a rather old story, and that from time to time-


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to have that point cleared up. At one time I was in charge of the legislative committee and, as I recall them, my instructions were to send copies of all orders in council having the force of statutes to the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the different groups in the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is still being done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
going to say that it is not being done. I shall have to make further inquiries at my office.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That practice is still being followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true; I will not contradict the hon. member, unless I am advised to the contrary by my
2144	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
office. But what I was saying was that I hold that, as a matter of public policy, all orders in council ought to be sent to the leader of the opposition. I applied to the Prime Minister to have that put into effect, and I have been refused.
I shall not traverse that ground to-night. I found to my surprise that this is an old problem, and has been considered between leaders of governments and leaders of oppositions for almost a generation. It has always been held, by whoever was prime minister, that it was not a proper practice. I shall leave it at that.
But because that practice has been pursued and because we are not given all orders in council, one has his attention drawn only to particular orders in council on certain occasions. Personally I should very much dislike having to read the reams of orders in council passed by the government, and especially in war time. But it certainly would be a matter of great convenience to have a clerk in one's office go through them each day as they come in, and call attention to the important ones. That, however, is not the point I have in mind at the moment.
It appears that as long ago as November last, while the house was in session, a most important order in council was passed, overriding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I desire to call the attention of lion, members to evidence given by Mr. McIntyre, comptroller of the treasury on March 27 last, before the special committee on war expenditures. It will be observed that in his statement he was explaining what the practice had been and what it now was Speaking of the treasury board, he said:
As to the origin of the office, prior to 1932 each department or other division of the service had its own accounting organization and made payments from the consolidated revenue fund, chargeable to the appropriation granted by parliament. This system had some weaknesses, among them the position in which departments were placed to over-ineur expenditures with their resultant overdrafts in the appropriations at times. These overdrafts were sometimes substantial.
That was one of the evils the present act sought to correct. I have the order in council here. Then, he continued:
In addition, the departments were the sole auditors of their own accounts before they were paid.
That was a weakness of the old system.
The auditor general carried out his post-audit, but there was no independent audit before payment.
In other words, the auditor general made a post-audit which, we all know, is not nearly as valuable as a pre-audit. Then Mr. McIntyre proceeds to say-and I do not intend to read very much of it:

The amendments to the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, approved by parliament in 1932, were designed to correct the shortcomings of the old act. The amendments provided for the appointment of a comptroller of the treasury, and placed on this officer certain controlling functions, such as exclusive power to make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund.
That is to say, there was one central accounting branch and one central paying branch.
This change over from the departments to the comptroller involved the transfer of certain accounting staffs of the departments to the Department of Finance, and placed them under the direction and control of the comptroller of the treasury. The authority for this transfer was contained in section 36 of the act.
I read the first clause of that section. The witness is explaining to the members of the committee the practice which had been followed from the time the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was passed until the outbreak of war.
During 1939-40-
I assume, by that, that he is speaking of the fiscal year.
-we carried on-
He is speaking for the treasury.
-with the peace-time method of accounting for expenditures and commitments under the war appropriation, but early in 1940 it was found that conditions-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From what is my hon. friend reading?


Richard Burpee Hanson: From the evidence of Mr. McIntyre, the comptroller of the treasury.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course that is entirely out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may be out of order, but I can give it in my own terms. There was detailed before this committee the practice which had been followed and the defects which were found in respect of it. It was through reading this evidence that I discovered order in council P.C. 6695 which was passed on November 19, 1940, by the governor in council. This order in council will be found as an appendix to the minutes of proceeding and evidence, No. 7, and it recites:
That section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act sets out the existing procedure to be followed before financial commitments are entered into and provides that no contract, agreement or undertaking of any nature involving a charge on the consolidated revenue fund shall be entered into or have any force or effect unless the comptroller of the treasury or an officer of the Department of Finance designated by him and approved by the treasury board shall have certified that there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available, out of the amount authorized by parliament for the par-

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
ticular service, to pay any commitments under such contract, agreement or undertaking which would under the provisions thereof come in course of payment during the fiscal year in which such contract, agreement or undertaking is made or entered into.
It recites further:
That the appropriations asked for from parliament would be unduly inflated and unrealistic-
I do not know whose language that is.
-if they were to include estimates of the total cost of projects which will only come in part for payment within the current fiscal year.
I pause here to make a little examination of that language. Why should that be put in an order in council? Why should parliament not know realistically just what the appropriation is to be even in war time, assuming that a proper estimate can be made by the department, which I agree is not always possible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Finance made it quite clear that only estimates could be made and that they would have to have wider powers. We find now that although we passed only $700,000,000 last year, and the expenditures grew with great rapidity, the requirements needed under this legislation amount to only $135,000,000. That seems surprisingly low, having regard to the rate at which we have been spending money. I am not making any observations with respect to what value we are getting for our money; I am only commenting on the rate at which we are spending money. I quote again:
That paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 5 of the War Appropriation Act, 1940, empowers the governor in council to make regulations prescribing administrative practices with respect to the making of financial commitments.
Paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 5 of last year's act was, I believe, identical with paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 4 of the bill now before us. On the basis of that statement contained in paragraph (e), which I have read more than once, His Excellency, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, proceeds to change the law of this country while parliament is in session. I protest against any such practice, especially in connection with treasury expenditures and commitments. I quote again:
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to make the following regulations regarding the making of financial commitments with respect to expenditures for war purposes, and they are hereby made and established accordingly:
1. War programmes shall, in the first instance, be submitted for the approval of the governor in council or the war committee and
any major changes in or additions to an approved programme shall also be submitted for the approval of the governor in council or the war committee. When submitting any original programme or changes in or additions to an approved programme the department concerned shall furnish in as much detail as is practicable at that time the information required under the next succeeding regulation.
On. the basis of that, the government of this country has gone ahead and altered the statute law of Canada. We have no longer any regard for the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I admit at the very outset that in war time, when parliament is in recess, I can quite understand the necessity of having some additional authority. I question very much if the additional authority is to be found in paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 4, but it may be that the government has an opinion from the Department of Justice that they can do that.
This is what I want to put to the minister: If we still have responsible government in Canada, why should a government of this country override the laws of Canada by order in council, while parliament is in session, especially with respect to the expenditure of money? There is a great principle at stake here, the principle of parliamentary control and the supremacy of parliament. I never thought that I would live to see the day, even in war time, when a government led by my right hon. friend would take authority, under the flimsy pretext contained in that clause of the statute, to override the considered opinion of parliament as to what is necessary to protect the public treasury with regard to financial commitments. That principle cannot be defended on any other theory than that of ex necessitate. While I am quite willing to admit that in war time the necessity may arise to do this or that by order in council while the house is in recess, and the government might be able to justify it; but when parliament is in session, as it was on the date when this order in council was passed, there is absolutely no justification for legislating by order in council on matters of this kind.
I have not been able to go through all the cases in connection with which this government has acted in this manner, but I have a sample lot here. Some of them are important and others are of no importance at all. But all of them were acted upon while parliament was in session. The last one I have here is dated March 18 and refers to the reserve army regulations, 1941. I do not suppose that it was necessary as a matter of practice to come to parliament to get approval of these reserve army regulations, 1941. That procedure might delay parliament, but the fact
2146	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
remains that this was passed on March 18 while the house was in session. And mark these words, "notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law". Can my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, defend that principle?
Let me go back a little bit. P.C. 6695 was passed on the 19th of November. We find a whole series of them following. I do not believe I have by any means exhausted the list. On November 27, while parliament was still in session, the government passed P.C. 6282, establishing the veterans welfare division to assist former members of the forces in matters pertaining to reestablishment in civil life. This was passed by virtue of the War Measures Act and "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other act or regulation". I wonder why that provision was not brought before parliament by my hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Was he afraid to consult parliament, or was it done so hurriedly as a result of the pressure brought to bear upon him by members of this house on behalf of the 20,000 soldiers who had been set adrift in this country that he acted in defiance of and flouted the will of parliament? He had no authority at all on principle to do this by order in council.
The War Measures Act, Mr. Chairman, under this government has set aside the constitution of this country, and I submit in all fairness that it ought not to be used for all the purposes for which it has been used. I have given two cases. The last one I will not question at all, but the first case I do question.
There is another case which comes in order of sequence that I would not question. Here is P.C. 6645, passed on the recommendation of my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence. I have them all here, but I am not going to take time to read them all. I will just put them on the record. P.C. 6645 was approved on November 19, designating the military forces of Canada as the Canadian Army. This was passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act and "notwithstanding the Militia Act, chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada or any other act or law". Aside from the principle involved, I would not raise one word of protest if the government want to change the name of the army. But there is a principle involved, and I submit that the War Measures Act was not set up to cover any of these proceedings.
I wish to call attention to another one, P.C. 6647, approved on the same day, November 19, 1940, containing regulations to govern the air cadet corps. This was passed pursuant

to the War Measures Act and "notwithstanding the provisions of the Militia Act or any other act or law". I assume that it is not an important matter except for the regulations, but it violates the principle just the same.
Then there was P.C. 6879, approved on November 28-all of these were passed while parliament was in session-authorizing certain regulations to govern civilian claims against members of the Canadian forces in Iceland, Newfoundland and the West Indies. This was passed pursuant to the War Measures Act and "notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, law, statute or regulation".
We have even altered the Radio Act and the Canada Shipping Act under the guise of war necessity. P.C. 1014, amending the defence of Canada regulations, was approved on February 22, 1941, when this house, if my memory serves me aright, was in session. This order in council amended regulation 11 of the defence of Canada regulations and provided that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Radio Act, 1938, or in the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, or in any regulation made under such acts, the Minister of Transport might prohibit the use of radio apparatus on any ship within Canadian waters". That probably was necessary, and as a matter of practicability no one would greatly object to it. But it was a violation of the principle just the same.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member arguing that these matters should have been brought before parliament?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I have tried to make a reasoned argument. I am not asking that every "i" should be dotted and every "t" crossed, but what I am objecting to is the brutal way, if I may call it that, in which the treasury department has taken into its hands the powers contained, in section 4 (1) (e) to override the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. That is the gravamen of my complaint. These other matters are merely illustrations of what the government has done by order in council under the so-called authority of the War Measures Act in matters that are not relative to the war and are not of nearly as much importance as this question of finance. The question of finance is important.
I wish to say to the Minister of Finance that if the provisions of section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act were too inflexible, if they were not sufficiently wide and it was necessary to enlarge the scope of that section for a given contingency or a given period in relation to war expendi-

Supplementary TFar Appropriation Bill
tures, all the government had to do was to c-ome to this House of Commons and introduce a bill, tell this house of the necessities of the situation, and the bill would have been passed in thirty minutes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no, thirty days.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.
I will give you an example. How long did it take to .put the $700,000,000 war appropriation bill through last year?
Mi-. ILSLEY: Take this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right;
I know dt has taken a long time this year, and it is the minister's own fault because he did not take parliament into his confidence. He abused the privilege that was given to him last year.
Some lion. MEMBERS: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that a reasoned argument?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is declamatory. The minister took advantage of the innocence of some of us last year to try to pass this thing through, but I declare that so long as I am here, it will never be done again. I tell the minister to his face that on any reasonable interpretation of section 4 (1) (e) of this bill, he cannot do what the government is doing, setting aside the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I should like to have this thing go to the Supreme Court of Canada to test its validity.


Mr. POTTIER:: And hold up the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman who said that does not know what the whole argument is about. He does not know what the principle at stake is.


James Layton Ralston: That is another reasoned argument.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am trying to make a reasoned argument. I know it is not much use to appeal to gentlemen who have done a thing and are determined to support and stand by it to the last shot. Hon. gentlemen opposite throughout the whole of this session have never once admitted, except the Minister of National Defence for Air, that anything they have ever done is wrong. But the country knows better, and so do I.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the Bren gun contract?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to enter into a discussion of the Bren gun contract, but I would say that it is a classic case of the government never admitting to an error.
I suggest to the minister that he review the whole position with respect to these orders in council. I am not going to follow the question along any further. I am going to make my statement and sit down.
I close by asking the minister to tell us the necessity for the changes and the reasons why he did not come to parliament and ask for the imprimatur of the House of Commons. Then I am going to ask the government generally to justify this class of legislation. The Liberal party, led by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, the champion of liberty in Canada, the man who above everybody else in Canada has clearly stood for the supremacy of parliament, has thrown the supremacy of parliament out of the window at the first opportunity. What a spectacle!
I invite the Minister of Finance to justify the position, and I say to him that on no occasion has this government, during the last ten months since the first session of this parliament, ever made a reasoned appeal to this opposition for support and assistance to put through a matter which was of present necessity. If they had come to us and said, "We find that these provisions of the audit act are too inflexible; they served a purpose in peace time, but they are not sufficient in war time," they would have had the united support of those on this side of the chamber. Have we at any time refused to help this government vote money to carry on the war? Why, from the day we entered the house, we of this party have pressed to get on with the war and let us have an all-out war effort; and I tell these hon. gentlemen to their faces that the Canadian people will give them all the money they want, but we shall demand an accounting of how it shall be spent, and it will come as a great surprise to the people of Canada when they learn that, by a turn of the hand, the considered statute laws of this country protecting the treasury have been overridden under the guise of war necessity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, the first
observation I should like to make is that the hon. gentleman has been a long time getting angry over this infringement of the principles of the constitution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, I was not angry.


Charles Gavan Power: Progressive wrath.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On February 20, 1941, I brought to the hon. gentleman's attention this order in council. I have been able to
find what I said to him; it is on page 888 of Hansard of that date. It is not very long,
2148	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
and I will read it. It shows clearly that at the first opportunity I made the House of Commons aware of this order in council and why it was passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "The first opportunity"! It was passed in November.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
A copy was sent to my hon. friend a week after it was passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does the minister know?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):
I do know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does the minister know?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver	Centre):I have	just checked it	up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no doubt that a copy of this order in council was sent to the hon. gentleman. Before I come to the passage to which I referred, I would point out that, when parliament met on Monday, February 17, the Prime Minister laid upon the table of the house copies of all orders in council passed after November 2, 1940, down to February 7, 1941. Among those orders in council was this order in council. So the hon. gentleman not only received a copy of the order in council as soon as it was passed, by having it sent to him direct, but it was laid on the table at the beginning of the session, and then it was specifically brought to the attention of the hon. gentleman in debate by myself on February 20, 1941.


Mr.   MAOKENIE@Vancouver Centre: And further, if I may interrupt my hon. colleague, the leader of the opposition said to-night that he had never seen the order in council until he had read the proceedings of the committee on expenditures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will go further, and say
that I either sent the order in council to the hon. gentleman or took it across the floor of the house and handed it to him. It was printed in a blue book; I handed it to him and showed it to him, and if I remember correctly, he thanked me for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
do that, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did that on the 20th or
21st of February. The reason why I know it is that it was just after the remarks I made in the house about this particular order in council. This is what I said, as reported at page 888 of Hansard:

Mr. Ilsley:	I think the treasury board is
adequately and sufficiently advised; I do not think they require any more advisers on this point. I volunteer this information to the hon. gentleman, which again perhaps is not wise, that he should have -a copy, as perhaps he has already, of an order in council that was passed last October or November, if I remember correctly, after a great deal of consideration, setting out the procedure to be followed in the approval of draft estimates and subsequent allotments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister say that that was overriding the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I took it across the floor oi the house and handed it to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nowhere
did he inform parliament that the act was being overridden.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think so. Just a minute. One can only go so far in conveying information to people. Let me go on now:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): That is a verv interesting statement. I confess at once that I cannot possibly read all the orders in council that have been passed by this government, some thousands in the course of the year. No human being could undertake to do it. I should be glad if the minister would have a copy of that order in council sent to me. It might have been useful if he could have read it to us here to-night. But the statement that the matter has been given great consideration is reassuring.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ah, that
was the topic-whether that was a peace-time or war-time appropriation. That is what we were talking about.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): The allocation?
Mr. Ilsley: Yes, out of the money voted by the War Appropriation Act. If the hon. gentleman thinks a great deal of thought has not been given to that, he is wrong.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): I am not sugfesting anything of the sort. I am just asking or information.
Mr. Ilsley:	There is a long and very carefully worked out order in council which sets out the procedure, but that does not do away with the necessity of judgment being exercised at some point as to whether certain items should be paid out of the war appropriation or not.
I do not think the rest has any relevancy. As I say, I took the blue book with the order in council in it and either handed it personally to the hon. gentleman or sent it across the floor of the house; I cannot be sure which, but I think I handed it to him myself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
any word or suggestion in anything he has said that the order in council related to the overriding of a statute of this house?

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure, but it is
recited in the second paragraph of the preamble, the very one he read to-night. The whole story is set out.
So much for the matter of the hon. gentleman being kept in the dark about it. He was not, at any stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly, then, the public were kept in the dark.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The next point I should like to make is as to the power to pass this order in council. I do not believe there is any opinion of the Department of Justice as to whether it is authorized by the section to which he has referred, but I am satisfied that the government had the power to pass this particular order in council, either under that subsection of the War Appropriation Act, or under the War Measures Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister state that under that subsection they have the power to do it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think he will.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I do not know. It was assumed perhaps rather than decided that they had the power. Apparently the power is granted by that. The hon. gentleman says that we should have some litigation on it, take it to the supreme court, or the privy council, or something like that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say anything of the sort.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to ask the hon. gentleman to hold his peace, because that would be disrespectful.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I object to the minister putting into my mouth words which I did not use.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is my impression, most definitely, of what was said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well, I cannot be responsible for what impression it would make on the minister's mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman did make the observation referred to by the hon. gentleman in this corner of the house, and the hon. gentleman sustained his position.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: And he knows it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should not have said that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like hon. members to obey the rules of the house. Nobody has a right to interrupt, except to put a question, without asking leave.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the Minister of Finance had better refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not object so much to interruptions as to the running fire of almost muttered comment which I cannot hear and which, I am afraid, gets on the record. If the hon. gentleman will just stop that, I will proceed. I would ask him respectfully to stop that kind of thing in this chamber. I cannot hear it, and if it gets into Hansard and I have not answered it, it creates an entirely wrong impression. If at any stage of my remarks he would like to say something to me, would he ask me to stop? We are in committee. I cannot be talking at the same time that he is and expect to make my points at all. What I was saying was that I have no doubt the power is conferred on the governor in council to pass these orders in council, either by the section to which the hon. gentleman has referred, namely, the section of the War Appropriation Act, or by section 3 of the War Measures Act. Section 3 of the War Measures Act reads:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada ....
I cannot think there should be the slightest doubt about the power of the government to have done what they did. I do not know that the hon. gentleman argued that we did not have power, but there can be no doubt as to the power.
The next position, I thought, was that under the powers conferred by the War Measures Act and by the War Appropriation Act we should never pass orders in council which had the effect of amending acts of parliament. But when I questioned the hon. gentleman on that, he said, no; he did not go to that length. Of course, it would be impossible for us to carry on a war if we had to go that length. We are passing hundreds, it may be thousands, of orders in council a month-I do not know how many, but a great many-and situations have to be met from day to day, and to be met in such a way as to provide the provisions of certain existing statutes. We could not bring these into the house; we could never make headway if we did. We have, therefore, to pass a good many of these orders in council, and we have the power to pass them under those acts which parliament has passed. Be it remembered, however, that these
2150	COMMONS
Supplementary Tl'ar Appropriation Bill
eventually rest upon the authority of parliament, and we have to act upon them to meet these emergent situations.
The position of the hon. gentleman, therefore, comes down to this, that in this case the matter was so important, it was of such a character, perhaps by reason of its financial nature, that we could not have exercised the powers which it is admitted we ought to exercise in a great many other instances-


Richard Burpee Hanson: While the house is in session.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have taken that into
account.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has not said so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I put the question to him, did he think that while the house was in session we should make a rule of never passing orders in council which had the effect of amending an act of parliament?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not understand it that way. I would not think it was necessary in certain cases to come to parliament-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -with
regard to certain small matters. But anything affecting the protection of the public treasury should come to parliament while the house is in session. That is the point I am really trying to make.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then we are in agreement as to the hon. gentleman's position. I have got rid of a lot of other positions which he appeared to me to occupy from time to time throughout his address: First, the position that we had no power-there is nothing in that. Then there is the position that we should never amend an act of parliament by order in council while parliament is in session. We have got rid of that. We are down now to the question whether this particular matter is of such a nature that we should not have taken this action while parliament was in session. That is a question as to which there might be two opinions. I can tell the hon. gentleman and the committee exactly what happened. We were drifting into a state of administrative chaos, because it was simply impossible to operate under section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. It is utterly impossible to estimate what will come for payment within the fiscal year and what will not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not come to parliament and say so?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we can divest this controversy still further of any elements of disagreement between us. Is the hon. gentleman now saying that he has no objection to what we did, because I will not argue in favour of our action if he does?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not very complimentary; it is equivalent to asking me to say whether I had made out a case. I think I made a good case, and I believe the people will think I made a good case. With regard to the question of financial control when parliament is in session, I tried to make it plain that in my opinion the government should have come to the house and told us what the difficulty was and they would have obtained relief at once. In respect of this and other cases, I still hold that the principle which I enunciated was good. Whether you should call it the Canadian reserve army or the Canadian army is a matter of no consequence, although the principle is there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there is no-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With respect to the one passed by my department, parliament was informed within two or three days.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It took
the minister a week to get it out, and the country did not understand what it was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I have order, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Vien: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman is
making no claim that what we did was wrong, that it was a bad thing to do; if he is merely arguing about the way we did it, let us have that understood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said that what you did was wrong and illegal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, all I can say is that the procedure wrorked out by this order in council was not only necessary but was well considered and long considered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why did you not bring it to parliament if you took a long time to consider it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. gentleman
wait until I come to that. We cannot have it agreed, I suppose, can we, in order to avoid jumping from one point to another, that the hon. gentleman has no objection to the procedure?

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure that I know exactly what the procedure is. I never sat in with treasury board. I never had any accountant come to me and explain the procedure. I can only try to interpret the language for myself, and I am not an accountant. The point I make-and I want to repeat it-is that I do not think the government should have changed the law of the country without coming to parliament with respect to treasury commitments. That is the point I make.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has repeated that over and over again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, and
the minister ignores it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But I wish to point out
that the hon. gentleman does not criticize what we did. He does not criticize the procedure we set up. He has made no case; he has not attempted to make a case, that we did not do the wise thing in making this change.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a matter of opinion; I do not know. I never argued that at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is not arguing the point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not
say that. Do not put words into my mouth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is not criticizing the
government for having set up a bad procedure or for having done anything wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May 1
ask the minister a question? Is it his argument that the end justifies the means?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is exactly what the minister argues.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am trying to find out
what the hon. gentleman is driving at, and apparently he is saying something like this: "You may have done a very good thing; I do not know whether it is or not."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, he does not take any exception at all to what we did here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
making no commitments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman wishes to argue as to whether we made an improvement in financial control and in financial procedure, we can argue that question at any time,
and I may say that I do not think there are two sides to that argument. I was proud of what we did, because it brought order out of what would have been administrative chaos if the thing had gone on. We were working on this for quite a long time. I think work began on this order in council in September or October; draft after draft was prepared, and finally in November it was passed. When I came to look at the date I was surprised to learn that the house was in session at that time.
The hon. gentleman asks why we did not bring it before the House of Commons. Because we had the power to do it this way, abundant power. There was no doubt in the mind of anyone who knew anything about it that what we were doing was a good and wise thing to do; so we went ahead and did it, and got on with our business. The hon. gentleman can make a great deal of it, but I think that is about all there is to the story.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to say one word. From what the hon. gentleman has said, I take it that as far as the order in council changing the name of the army was concerned, he will admit that it was perfectly legal in every way under the authority of the War Measures Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would say it did not matter whether it was or not; it was all right to do it. I am thinking principally about the public treasury.


James Layton Ralston: The same, I think, could be said with regard to the matter of claims arising in Iceland. There we provided machinery whereby small claims could, after being considered and approved by a joint committee, be settled by the paymasters of the forces and then reported to national defence headquarters. That was in connection with claims not exceeding $250 with regard to accidents and matters of that kind, which would take literally months if referred to national defence headquarters. Then, after that length of time, when you were through with them, you still would have claims for only $250. In the meantime a situation was arising in Iceland under which the population felt that the Canadian forces were not honouring their obligations. Therefore, with regard to that far-flung territory it was decided to make that provision in order that small claims might be settled by officers expressly authorized in this connection; that is to say, the officer commanding, in cooperation with a joint civilian and army committee established to pass upon these small claims. I do not think my hon. friend will suggest that it would have been worth while
2152	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
taking the time of this house by coming here and asking for legislation to set up a claims commission in Iceland to deal with these small claims. I am sure, when this discussion has blown over, my hon. friend will quite frankly admit that this was a proper departmental regulation for the purpose of facilitating administrative procedure.
The only other matter the hon. member has left, the one on which he was ringing the changes and in connection with which be wanted the Minister of National Defence to have something to say, was the matter of the four months training plan, the regulations in connection with which were tabled in this house a few days ago. I have not read the order in council since I secured the recommendation; I heard my hon. friend read it, but I have not the exact wording before me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not read it; I just referred to it.


James Layton Ralston: While this order in
council may have mentioned the War Measures Act, let me call the hon. gentleman's attention, so that there may be no doubt about it, to the fact that the order in council is expressly authorized by a statute of this parliament, the National Resources Mobilization Act; nobody ever thought of bringing down a bill in this house for the purpose of providing the procedure under that act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I made no reference to the thirty-day training scheme.


James Layton Ralston: The regulations to which my hon. friend referred-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, the reserve army regulations.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the reserve army regulations. They are with respect to the four months' training plan. My hon. friend rang the changes and defied the Minister of National Defence, asking if he would dare rise in his place in the house and defend a thing like that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I said that.


James Layton Ralston: Well, the record will show what was said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
referring principally to the financial end.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend brought me into it. He expressly pointed to me, and in the most emphatic terms indicated that it was something that no one would dare

defend; that is, the making of these reserve army regulations by order in council. Here is the statute, which is chapter 13 of the statutes of 1940. This is not the War Measures Act; this is an act that was passed by this parliament, an act for which my hon. friend voted. It provides:
Subject to .the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as maybe deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
Then section 5 provides:
Every order or regulation passed under the authority of this act shall be tabled in parliament forthwith if parliament is in session and *a copy thereof sent to every member of the House of Commons and of the Senate and if parliament is not in session then every such order or regulation shall be forthwith published in the Canada Gazette and copies thereof sent to every member of the House of Commons and of the Senate forthwith; provided that any of the steps specified in this section may be omitted o,r deferred if the governor in council considers such omission or deferment necessary in the national interest having regard to the special circumstances.
Those regulations were passed under that statute, not under the War Measures Act. My hon. friend says the War Measures Act was mentioned; I presume that would be for the sake of greater certainty, but those regulations were made under the express authority of the act I have just quoted, and brought down by me, and they have been laid on the table of this house, as the statute required. I say to my hon. friend that I am sorry I cannot get into the frame of mind that he wants me to get into, namely, that of making this committee a confessional, of coming here and saying, "Mea culpa" and bringing myself to the state of penitence which he has commended in referring to my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence for Air. I am not to blame in connection with this matter; the regulations were made under this statute. I stand by them, and I say that my hon. friend can have no objection in the world to them. I say that his point is absolutely ill-founded, that there was complete power under that statute to make these regulations.


George Hugh Castleden: This section 4 deals with the power of the governor in council from time to time to make orders and regulations with respect to various matters, among them to provide for the utilization, disposal and control of equipment. Under such regula-

Sup-ply-Finance
tions a great deal of power has been given the various controllers. On March 6, a question was asked as an order for return having to do with the work of the oil controller, and part of that question was as follows:
10.	How many applications have been made for new service stations or retail gasoline outlets since the appointment of such controller, and by whom ?
11.	How many applications have been approved of and to what individuals, company or companies were permits issued?
12.	How many applications have been rejected, and what were the names of the applicants in each case?
13.	How many retail outlets have been erected since applications have been approved, how many have yet fo be started, as of this date, and to what individuals, company or companies were these permits issued?
14.	Have applications been made by any oil company on behalf of any applicants? If so, by what company, and have such applications been granted?
When the answer to this question was tabled, it was found that the answer to paragraphs 10 to 14, which I have quoted, was that it was not in the public interest to reply to these questions. It seems to me this is rather an arbitrary denial of the right of hon. members to information, and I wondered whether any minister here would be willing to make a statement as to why it was not considered in the public interest to reply to these questions. The Minister of Munitions and Supply is not in the house at the moment, but would any other minister care to answer for him? If so, I should be glad to have a reply.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that I caught the question. Was there some complaint that certain information was not made public, and that it was stated that it was not in the public interest so to do?


George Hugh Castleden: A number of questions were asked with regard to the oil controller, and I quoted five paragraphs to which the answer was that it was not in the public interest to give this information.
I wish to know whether the minister would be willing to make a statement as to why it is considered not in the public interest to reply to such questions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Munitions and Supply is not in his seat at the moment. I could think of some reasons why it would not be in the public interest to reply to one or two of these questions. I believe, however, it is not usual to state the reasons. That is a matter left to the ministry to decide.


George Hugh Castleden: I was merely drawing attention to what would seem to be a rather arbitrary denial of the right of a member to
secure information. I cannot, for the life of me, see why it would not be in the public interest to give these answers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The best I can do is to direct my colleague's attention to the complaint. If the numbers to which the hon. member referred include the questions I think they include, it would seem-and of course I cannot say this for certain-that one or two might have been answered without any conflict with the public interest. There are, however, certainly one or two of them which should not be answered. I refer to one question asking for the names of applicants and the names of those rejected. I can see why that should not be answered. I shall, however, bring the matter to the attention of my colleague.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Viei. in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
J/27- Departmental	administration-further
amount required, $25,000.
Mr. STIRLING:: To what coin shipments does the item refer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, this amount is entirely for additional express on shipments of coin from the Royal Canadian Mint to the various agencies of the Bank of Canada, certain movements between the chartered banks and such agencies, and the return to the Bank of Canada of worn and mutilated coin. The value of the coin moved has increased from
12.800.000	in 1939 to over 84,800,000 in 1940. The amount provided in the main estimates for this purpose was $38,000. The amount of
870.000	is included in the estimates for 1941-42.
Expenditures in recent years have been as
follows:
Year	Expenditure
1937-	38	
$25,948	971938-	39	
20,341	951939-	40	
40,201	57


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
i29. General; expenses of completing the work of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations-further amount required, $27,000.
Major James William Coldwell: I assume there will be an opportunity of discussing this matter od the main estimates?	.

2154	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I have undertaken to give an opportunity later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions branch-Services to veterans and dependents.
1,38. Employers' liability compensation-further amount required, $15,000.
Howard Charles Green: Why is this further amount required?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Chairman, each year it is impossible to estimate the amount of money which will be required. This vote arises as a result of an order in council passed in 1922, and is renewed from time to time. Pensioners with 25 per cent disability may be taken on in industrial work. If they are injured seriously, compensation is paid, and it is assumed by the state.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total vote for this purpose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is $40,000 in the main estimates.


Howard Charles Green: The total is $40,000, including this $15,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amount in the main estimates for this year is $40,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch-
439. Opium and narcotic drugs-further amount required, $15,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the reason for this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is for unpaid legal accounts in connection with prosecutions under the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
1,1,0.	Treatment of sick mariners-further amount required, $160,000.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What does this expenditure cover?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The annual vote for the treatment of sick mariners has expanded considerably since the beginning of the war. This is all covered by dues received under part V of "An Act respecting Shipping". As a matter of fact, the dues received exceed in every year the amount paid out. But they go to the consolidated revenue fund, and therefore it is necessary to have an item in the estimates to give authority to pay out for the treatment of sick mariners.


Mr. HAZEN:: What provision is made for dental treatment of mariners? Would that come under this item? I would call the minister's attention particularly to X-rays connected with dental treatment. I am informed that at the present time there is no provision for X-rays for seamen suffering from dental troubles, and in some instances an X-ray is absolutely necessary if a man is to receive proper treatment. For example, where a man has an impacted tooth, it is impossible for a dentist to discover this unless he takes an X-ray. As I understand it, no provision is made for X-rays, although I may not be correct in that. If I am, I draw this matter to the attention of the minister and ask him if arrangements cannot be made to provide for X-rays.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The matter has not been brought to my attention before, but I shall look into the question and let my hon. friend know.


Howard Charles Green: Does this vote provide for any dental treatment? I notice that in the last annual report of the department the following words appear on page 132:
The act provides medical and surgical treatment to all members of the crews of those vessels that pay dues under its authority.
Reading those words, one would take it that dental treatment is not provided. Is that the situation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not my impression, but I am not definite. I shall look into the matter.


Douglas King Hazen: I think there is provision somewhere for dental treatment by the dominion government, and perhaps the minister could make a statement at a later date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to do so when the main estimates are being considered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to commend the minister for the publication of a book which should be widely distributed, which should be sent to each member. This is the best publication that has come out of his department. It is entitled "Mother and Child", by Doctor Couture. I hope it will soon be translated. I cannot praise the minister too highly for the publication of this excellent book.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, this vote provides for assistance to merchant seamen. I represent a constituency on the Pacific coast, and accordingly I hesitate to bring up a matter concerning the Atlantic coast. I understand, however, that in Halifax there are not adequate facilities to care for the merchant seamen who are flocking there in such great

Supply-Post Office
numbers at this time. There has been a great increase in the number of men coming to that port. The way this war has developed has meant that our merchant seamen are in the front line perhaps to a greater degree than any other men serving the empire. I suggest to the minister that steps should be taken by the government to ensure that when these men are in port they are given every opportunity for recreation and receive proper care.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Extensions have been made in the hospital accommodation to meet this and other purposes. If my hon. friend knows of any case where a sick mariner has received inadequate treatment, I shall be glad to hear of it. I understand that ample facilities are available.


Howard Charles Green: I was not referring so much to the treatment of merchant seamen who are sick as I was to the provision of facilities for the care of these men when they are on shore. Are any steps being taken to provide such facilities?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think hostels are being provided for that very purpose.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: While the care of merchant seamen, whether sick or otherwise, is not related to the work of the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, I happen to know something about what is being done in Halifax ini order to provide hostel accommodation. Three new hostels are being built, one by the Canadian Legion, one by the Knights of Columbus and one by the Salvation Army to care for soldiers, sailors and airmen who may wish hostel accommodation in that city. I am sure my hon. friend is familiar with the work being done by the Navy League of Canada. The Navy League proposes to build a building there which will be devoted primarily to the care of sailors and merchant men. Before the war. they had a splendid building which was used for that purpose, but it has been expropriated by the air force. At first the air force rented it, but later on they decided to buy it and they got a good bargain. I agree in full with what my hon. friend has said about the work the men of the merchant marine are doing. In my opinion no other body of men, in either the air force, the army or even the naval service itself, are undergoing such hardships, dangers and difficulties with so little glory. None of these others is doing work which is in any way superior to that done by the merchant marine. No praise is too high for the courage and fortitude of these men.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Has provision been made to construct this new building to take care of these men?
14873-136}


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hostels to which I have referred will be of the ordinary type, and I understand they will be finished next month.


Percy Chapman Black: I was referring to the new building which is to take the place of the one which was expropriated by the air force.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The three hostels will be open to the men in the services as well as to the men of the merchant marine. I can give my hon. friend no definite information as to when the Navy League building will be completed-I do not know if they have undertaken its construction as yet

 but it is intended primarily for the men of the merchant marine and the navy. It will be in addition to the three hostels.


Angus MacInnis: Will the Minister of Pensions and National Health state if in his opinion the facilities in the various seaports of Canada for taking care of sick mariners are sufficient at the present time to meet the demands upon them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that is my definite opinion. If my hon. friend knows of any case where it is inadequate, I shall be most happy to have the condition improved immediately.


Major James William Coldwell: Between now and the time the main estimates will be considered, will the minister look into conditions at Halifax with regard to accommodation for sick mariners? I think it will be found that there has been considerable difficulty and congestion there in recent months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall look into the matter immediately, but the information I have received from my officers is that there is ample accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices-further amount required, $149,500.
Mr. PERLEY:: Could we have a breakdown of this item? Why is this increase necessary?


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: There is an increase of $149,500. The main appropriation for 1940-41 was S14,155,190, and the estimated expenditure $14,302,065. This is in the neighbourhood of $158,000 less than for the year 1939-40, but a comparison of the figures does not serve any useful purpose, for the reason that as a measure of economy the department effected certain reductions in
Supply-Post Office

service in 1940-41, such as the non-delivery of mail on Saturday afternoons and statutory holidays. On the other hand, there has been a very large increase in postal revenue during the year. The latest figures show that for the nine months ended December 31, 1940, the gross revenue increased by $2,739,313 over the corresponding period of the previous year. This augmented income involves a corresponding increase in the volume of mail, the handling of which necessitates increased staff and expenditure not only for salaries but for conveyance of the mail by railway and in other ways.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the estimated saving for the ensuing year from the doing away of the Saturday afternoon mail delivery?


William Pate Mulock: It is a substantial sum running into several hundred thousands of dollars, but I would prefer the hon. member to raise that question on the main estimates.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Have there been any complaints about the pilfering of packages sent through the post to our soldiers in the old country? I refer more particularly to cigarettes and small luxuries for the soldiers. I \ave had reports that there is much pilfering going on.


William Pate Mulock: Early last spring and in the early part of last summer there were a great many complaints from people who had sent parcels, and there were also a considerable number of complaints in the press. Since then, a wholly new system has been inaugurated for handling cigarettes and tobacco parcels for the troops overseas. Most of the cigarette and tobacco parcels are sent through the four large tobacco companies, which now list these parcels. Under the supervision of post office officials they are cleared through customs, brought to the base post office and given unit sortation, and the bags are then sealed. Therefore these parcels are now receiving dentically the same treatment as registered mail. There has been a great improvement, and only a very small fraction of the number of complaints that were received some time ago are now received.
An assistant of Mr. Fortier, the chief inspector, is at the base post office at Ottawa in charge, with assistants, of making investigations into all complaints received. At the present time we know the dispatch number, the train the parcel goes on and the ship, and the contents of the respective bags. Most of these cigarettes and tobacco parcels go through the four large tobacco companies. A list of the contents of the bag is sent overseas.
[Mr. Mulock.l
I hope hon. members will not ask for further details because we do not want to give too much detail. I can assure hon. members, however, that a close check is being made on these parcels. I might add that all the employees in the postal corps overseas are former employees of the Post Office Department, and there has been no case of any employee of the Post Office Department or of the postal corps overseas having been guilty of any irregularity in the handling of cigarette and tobacco parcels.


James Arthur Ross: Was it discovered why parcels were going astray?


William Pate Mulock: I shall be glad to explain some of the troubles. At the beginning of the war it was found that as high as 10 and 15 per cent of the letters and parcels addressed to the soldiers were being improperly addressed, and it was taking a large staff to correct the addresses. In some instances this was impossible on account of lack of identification. That has been improved considerably, because we have sent out approximately
150,000	notices to the dependents of the men serving overseas, giving detailed instructions and examples of how parcels should be addressed. The press of this country, particularly the press gallery, were extremely helpful in that matter. The press gallery went down to the base post office and saw how the mails were handled, and then they assisted in bringing home to the public the proper way to address the mail. They saw examples before them of improper addressing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
H2. Railway mail service-further amount required, $593,677.
James Arthur Ross: What is this large
amount for?


William Pate Mulock: The first item is $19,820
for salaries, $17,500 of which is due to an arrangement with regard to the railway mail service, but we can deal with that better on the main estimates if the hon. member would wait until then, because it is a long and complicated matter.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the question of
regrading the staff?


William Pate Mulock: Yes. The next part of the vote is an item of $111,000 for mail service by railway. The amount originally requested in the 1940-41 main estimates was $7,200,000, but this was cut to $6,975,000. The expenditure to January 31, 1941, amounted to $5,938,285, leaving an unexpended balance of $1,036,715 for the months of February and March. January expenditure amounted to $597,477, but it was not expected that the outlay would

Supply-Mines.-Geology Branch
be maintained at that rate during February and March. Careful calculations indicate that a minimum of $111,000 will be required to supplement the main appropriation.
The next item is $452,857 for mail service by steam boat. This is due largely to the fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce formerly gave subsidies to steamship companies. Since the war, most of the ships have been taken over by the British Admiralty, and the Post Office Department has now to pay for space on board ships, at so much per cubic foot.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: In the main and supplementary estimates combined, there is an increase of over a million dollars for railway mail services. The minister said something about reductions, but taking the main and the supplementary estimates-


William Pate Mulock: I was taking the
supplementaries.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am taking the whole
thing. The increase is $691,000 on the main estimates, and the minister has added another $593,000 now.


William Pate Mulock: I was speaking to one of
the hon. members who brought that question up, and suggested that he be good enough to let the whole question of railway mails stand until the main estimates, because it is quite a long matter to go into.


Howard Charles Green: On this figure of $452,857
for mail service by steamboat, to what companies is that paid out? Does part of it consist of subsidies, or just how is it paid? That is a very big increase.


William Pate Mulock: As I said, formerly there
were subsidies paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but now the Post Office Department has to pay for space at so much per cubic foot for mail and parcels sent overseas. We pay on the basis of the space occupied.


Howard Charles Green: Is that to Great Britain, or is it to other countries, say in south America and the orient?


William Pate Mulock: A great part of this is
on the Atlantic service. There is some on the Pacific, Australia particularly, and New Zealand.


Howard Charles Green: Is any of it paid out in
the form of a ship subsidy?


William Pate Mulock: No; this is paid on space, so much per cubic foot of space occupied.


Howard Charles Green: When the main estimates are before the committee, will the. minister give us a detailed statement showing how this money is paid out?


William Pate Mulock: Absolutely. I will give full particulars of the arrangements with regard to the Atlantic and also the Pacific.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mines and geology branch.
437. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $450,000.
Grote Stirling: Why is this extra amount required?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The estimates submitted
were for $4,000,000 for assistance in moving coal, under the subvention principle which has been in operation for a good many years. That amount was found to be inadequate, and $450,000 more is required for this purpose. I may say that it was all required for the movement of Alberta coal to Manitoba and Ontario points.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Is that an increase in the subsidy, or is it just the regular amount?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I stated a moment ago. the appropriation was $4,000,000, but that was found to be inadequate, and it has had to be supplemented to the extent of $450,000.


Charles Edward Johnston: To what provinces is this going? To the western provinces, or to the eastern provinces as well?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not allotted to any province; it is used as it may be required. As a matter of fact, in working it out, the whole amount went to Alberta, as I stated a moment ago, for the movement of Alberta coal to Manitoba and Ontario points.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask the minister if there is any reduction in the subsidy for bunker coal loaded at Nanaimo and Union Bay?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I think not.


George James Tustin: Under governor general's warrants there is another item of $1,040,000 for the movement of coal. Would the minister explain that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, we can take item 461 now.


Grote Stirling: Does this mean that two million dollars extra is being asked for? Apparently there is half a million dollars in the main estimates, $450,000 in this item, and a governor general's warrant for a million dollars on top of that?
215S

Supply-Mines-Geology Branch


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Grote Stirling: At the beginning of this fiscal year? The governor general's warrant is April 5, 1940.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Grote Stirling: That comes into the fiscal year just ended.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, that was appropriated for the fiscal year 1939-40.


Grote Stirling: And paid for on April 5, 1940.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. Owing to the expansion of business due to the war, the movement of coal increased very much more rapidly than was anticipated. The payments have now to be met. Ordinarily, if parliament had been sitting and had not been dissolved for the election, the supplementaries would have been brought down before the end of the fiscal year 1939-40, or immediately after. This item is to cover the additional amount required over and above the amount voted in 1939-40.


Mr. McCANN:: The minister referred to some of this coal having been moved to Ontario. What quantity was moved to Ontario? Is it not a fact that this subvention is not paid either to the provinces or to the coal companies, but is paid to the railway companies?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I do not think I have the tonnage moved, if that is what my hon. friend is inquiring about. If he will keep that in mind, when my ordinary estimates are up, I shall be in a position to give that information when the officers of the department are here.


Mr. HANSELL:: What is the approximate percentage of increase in the movement of Canadian coal since the outbreak of the war, or, regardless of the last three months of 1939; say, 1940 up to date?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I cannot give the percentage increase. As a matter of fact, it would require a bit of mathematical calculation to work it out, and I have not the data wherewith to work it out even if I were to
[Mr. Stirling.!
undertake it. There has been a considerable increase in the movement of Alberta coal eastward.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor General's warrants, 1939-40.
J/dZ. Indian hospitals and general care of Indians, $200,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister give us the break-down of this?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the details of the $200,000, but I may explain it in this way. Hospitals are being operated in the more remote parts of the country, but sometimes it is not possible to have the accounts in until some months afterwards. I discovered, shortly after I came to the department, that accounts for expenditures which had occurred before the end of the fiscal year were coming in subsequently to that, sometimes months afterwards, and were charged against the following year. We have endeavoured to overtake that, and this $200,000 is to enable the Indian Affairs branch to provide the necessary funds to meet all the accounts outstanding at the end of the fiscal year for which the vote is asked. As to where it is apportioned, I am not in a position to say.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can that be given on the main estimates?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Probably it could, but it would be difficult. If possible, we will do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor General's warrants, 1939-40.
J/63. Grants to residential schools, $62,662.86.
Ernest Edward Perley: How is this divided among the residential schools?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The list is as follows:
Quebec-
Fort George	 $ 5,000 00
Fort George	 2,000	00
Ontario-
Albany	
5,508	50Fort William	
3,200	00Sioux Lookout	
5,494	50
Manitoba

Cross Lake	 1,400	00
Saskatchewan-
Round Lake	 3,071	06
Alberta-
Grouard	
1,103	50Holy Angels	
8,618	00Joussard	
1.908	75Old Sun	
3,589	57Sturgeon Lake	
1,562	60Vermilion	
1,015	00Wabasca	
1,575	00W-abasea	
1,937	40Whitefish Lake	
1,350	00
Supply-M ines-I n dians
Northwest Territories-
Aklavik	
3,200	00Aklavik	
1,215	00Providence Mission	f 750 001 3,250	00Resolution	
2,041	50
British Columbia-
Kitamaat	 1,312	50
Yukon-
Carcross	 2,500	00
Total	 $62,662 88
It will be observed that most of these are amounts ranging from $1,000 to $3,000. Returns from schools in the more remote districts are often considerably delayed. They are paid by the department certain fees in connection with their pupils, and the amount [DOT] paid of course depends on the number of pupils that are enrolled. That cannot always be determined at the moment the estimates are made up, but the department tries to estimate as accurately as possible. In this particular instance, however, we were short the amount mentioned for the various schools I have enumerated, and the vote is to cover that shortage.


Ernest Edward Perley: Generally speaking, is the enrolment increasing or decreasing at these residential schools?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The tendency is towards an increase. That touches another question which has to do with general Indian welfare. There is no doubt that improvements in recent years in the medical care of Indians, and in supplying them with those necessaries of life which perhaps they lacked before, have tended to bring about an increase in the Indian population, and as the population increases, the number of children for whom school facilities have to be provided also increases. It is estimated that the Indian population is increasing at the rate of one and a half or two per cent a year.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The Indians at Burleigh Falls are squatting on government land, the canal property, and the children have no school to go to. There are about seventeen children. These Indians are not paying taxes to anyone and the government refuses to recognize them. The Children's Aid Society of Peterborough have written to me with regard to them. There should be a school for these children. The Indian Affairs branch contend they are not Indians but half-breeds, although on the registration cards they are put down as Indians. The township will not take responsibility for them. Is there any chance of the departihent looking into the matter with a
view to making a small grant? I know the province or perhaps the county would help. At present the school inspector goes there once a week and holds school in the dining room of a little store, but these children need education.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps my hon. friend has given the reason in the remarks he has made. He says that the Indian Affairs branch contend that these particular people are not Indians but half-breeds. If they are, we must decline responsibility for them. If we accepted responsibility for half-breeds, it would land us in a sea of troubles. Consequently, they are the responsibility not of the Indian Affairs branch, but of the province.


Mr. LEADER:: Is there in this item anything that would take care of the situation at Portage la Prairie? I assume the minister has been informed of the situation that exists there. The sewerage system of the residential school is out of repair and has been for at least two years, but I failed to hear the minister mention Portage la Prairie in the list he read out. Is it taken care of in the main estimates? I have been assured by his secretary that an amount had been placed in the estimates to meet the situation there, but the minister did not mention it in detailing the items, and I was wondering whether it would be provided for in the main estimates.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At the moment I do not recall the problem, if I may so term it, mentioned by my hon. friend. As the committee knows, this is a supplementary vote required to make good a deficiency in the supply voted last year. I should think it altogether likely that in the main estimates for the current year an item could be found to cover the point raised by the hon. gentleman.


Harry Leader: Thank you.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the grant
that is paid each year for each child in these residential schools?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It varies considerably. My recollection at the moment is that it will vary from $150 per pupil to something over $200.


George Hugh Castleden: Per annum?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there a school on each reserve?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand that under the original treaties with the Indians, they were assured that there would be a school on each Indian reserve.

Supply-Transport-Railway Service


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I very much question my hon. friend's information on that point. In most instances I think the schools are on the reserves, but in some instances they are not.


George Hugh Castleden: Are these residential schools run by various church organizations?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Practically all.


George Hugh Castleden: How is it decided which organization or church shall have charge of the school on a certain reserve?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That will depend on the religious faith of the Indians.


George Hugh Castleden: And what if they vary?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact, they do not vary very much. There are no serious difficulties in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Railway service.
Hudson Bay railway-To provide for the difference between expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1941-further amount required, $68,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Could we have a little
information about this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to cover a greater deficit than was expected in the operation of the Hudson Bay railway. When the item was placed in the estimates of last year, it was expected that about 2,500,000 bushels of grain would be moved over that railway. That expectation, however, has not been realized. The additional deficit on operation is in the neighbourhood of $100,000, but due to the reduction in expenditures, the amount has been reduced to $68,000. There has been no movement of grain to the elevators at Churchill this year.


Ernest Edward Perley: How much grain is in the elevators at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are full.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many incoming cargoes were there to Churchill last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think there were any.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Last year I directed several questions to the former Minister of Transport in connection with the more extensive use of the port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway. It is my opinion that even in war time this route might be used for the more economical transportation of grain and timber, in spite of the fact that it might involve the convoying of certain Shipments. Could the minister give us any information as to the possibility of this port being used

during the current year to move wheat and timber from northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the United Kingdom?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I am not
in a position to give my hon. friend a great deal of encouragement in that regard. I do not recall what explanation was given by my predecessor when the question was raised last year, but I think I would be safe in saying that so far as boats using that harbour are concerned, we are more or less in the hands of the shipping companies. It is not a matter that can be controlled to any great extent by the federal government. The facilities are there, but we cannot force the shipping companies to take advantage of them, if advantage there be. At all events, when the estimates for the present year are under consideration I shall try to give a more complete explanation or answer to my hon. friend.


Percy Chapman Black: I think in
this case we might paraphrase the words of Churchill:	"Never did so many people pay
so much for so little as for Churchill."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government-owned _ enterprises-Special deficits Canadian National Railway Company
J/53. Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $15,000,000 already appropriated, required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1940-41 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company, to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1940, including such supplementary contribution to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways employees' provident fund as may be necessary to provide for payment in _ full of monthly allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section four of the said act, and including such supplementary contribution [DOT]to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of monthly [DOT]allowances under the rules and regulations of the fund, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section thirteen of chapter sixty-five of the statues of Canada, 1874. but not including amounts charged to proprietor's equity of the national railway system as defined in chapter twenty-two of the statutes of Canada, 1937:	Canadian National Railways, exclusive
of eastern lines, $1,476,174.42; eastern lines, $488,869.76.	-
Total, $1,965,044.18.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to know where we are, Mr. Chairman. You are carrying these items so quickly that even the numbers are not being read.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals.
454. Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $327,000 already appropriated, required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1940-41 to the Canadian National Railways Company (hereinafter called the National Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the National Company, to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the National Company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the National Company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals arising in the calendar year 1940, $133,773.48.
Percy Chapman Black: I am going to ask the chairman to read these items, or at least to give us time to turn, the pages so that we may see what is being passed. I think this is being carried to an extreme.


Thomas Vien: I have no objection to waiting, but every hon. member has a copy of the estimates. If, when an item is called, someone desires me to wait, certainly I shall do so, but when no one raises his voice I take it that the item is carried.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: We cannot very well raise our voices when we do not know what the item is.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This item is to provide for a greater deficit than was expected in connection with the operation of the Prince Edward Island ferry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Governor General's warrants, 1939-40.
459. To provide additional amount for construction of supreme court building (governor general's warrant of March 18, 1940), $390,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Is this- to provide for inside equipment or something like that, not covered by the original contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. As hon. members will remember, at one time, it was decided not to complete the construction of the supreme court building because of the situation in which the war had placed the country. Later on, after inves igation, it was ascertained by the officers of the department that we might proceed with the completion of the building with a view to providing space for various branches of the government. Therefore the construction was proceeded with, and as a result of what has been done, six or eight government services are at present housed in the supreme court building. Had we not had that building, we would have found it necessary to provide additional temporary building space to house the services now functioning in that building.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What is the total cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the present the expenditures have reached the sum of $3,-
075,000.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does that include equipment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, that does not include the furniture which will be used by the judges when they are there.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many departments are being housed there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Six or eight departments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When will the court be moved from its present quarters to the new building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is raising a delicate question. If we moved the supreme court to its new quarters, it would involve the moving out of the services which are now using the building. We would have to provide additional space for those six or eight services which are particularly connected with the carrying on of the war. Therefore, I fear very much that the supreme court will not go into the new building until the war is over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not wish the minister to think I am trying to increase the comforts of the judges on the appeal court. I was onl}r asking the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Governor General's warrants, 1939-40.
465. Additional amount required to provide for Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol (governor general's warrant of April 5, 1940), $972.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is an additional amount to cover a greater contribution by Canada to the patrolling of the north Atlantic in connection with ice conditions. Ten or twelve countries have signed a convention providing for the patrolling of the north Atlantic. The share carried by Canada amounts to three per cent of the expenditure. The United States are charged with the patrolling of these waters. The amount required last year for our contribution was larger than expected. This is to make up the deficit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Governor General's warrant, 1940-41.
469. Expenses for maintenance of essential war services for the first six weeks of the fiscal year 1940-41, parliament not being called until May 16, 1940 (governor general's warrants of April 3, 1940 and April 9, 1940), $71,063,265.75.
[Stage Direction]
2162	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Health of Animals
Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain this item?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the cost of carrying on the war for the period when parliament was not in session. I believe it is self-explanatory. It is for the maintenance of essential war services for the first six weeks of the fiscal year 1940-41.


Grote Stirling: Is that for the Department for National War Services?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is for the war. There was a time between the election and the time parliament was called when there was no money and no parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants, 1940-41.
470. Expenses of completing the work of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations (governor general's warrant of April 9, 1940), $30,000.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What is the total
amount?


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to have an explanation of this.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I thought three men did that free.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the particulars before me. However, this has to do with the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. It was necessary to issue a governor general's warrant to pay this comparatively small sum.


An hon. MEMBER:: Page Hepburn!


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was for the year 1939-40.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What is the total
amount?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Olof Hanson: It is not carried. It is a small amount, but I am entitled to have an explanation why it is in the estimates. I want reasonable particulars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a return in Votes and Proceedings giving the detail as to the total cost of the commission. The amount is quite large: I believe it is a little more than $500,000, if I remember correctly.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Previous items have passed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Unless there is some reason for producing this information now, I should prefer to give it later under the main

estimates for the Department of Finance. If, however, the hon. member wishes to have it immediately, the item will have to stand over until to-morx'ow.


Olof Hanson: That will not be necessary.


James Arthur Ross: May we go into details as to the conference when we are discussing the minister's estimates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) raised that point about an hour ago, I now agree that the discussion may be had under the item for departmental administration for the Department of Finance, if, indeed, there is no more specific item under which it may discussed.


Gordon Graydon: Is the chairman agreed, too?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Production service.
428. Health of animals-administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act'-further amount required, $39,300.
Ernest Edward Perley: I notice in the details on page 7 of the supplementaries the largest amount is for travelling expenses. Would the minister break down that amount of $33,000, and also the $4,000 for equipment?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Both those items are connected with expenses in connection with fighting hog cholera, largely in Ontario. The sum of $4,000 from this allotment was transferred to the allotment for travelling expenses to meet an emergency caused by outbreaks of hog cholera. This money is now required to replace automobiles used by inspectors in carrying out their official duties.
The item of $33,000 under the heading "travelling expenses" has to do with the withdrawal of a large number of inspectors from general area testing in the control of bovine tuberculosis, to deal with outbreaks of hog cholera. That has increased the expenditure for travelling considerably. When inspectors are engaged in controlling outbreaks of hog cholera, their transportation from farm to farm is paid by this department, whereas the various provincial governments pay those expenses when they are conducting general tests of cattle for tuberculosis in restricted areas.


Ernest Edward Perley: What success is the
department having in controlling hog cholera?

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been fairly
successful. Quite a number of hogs had to be destroyed, and other action had to be taken to prevent the spread of the disease.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is very little of that in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very little.


Mr. QUELCH:: Can the minister say
whether or not the department is going ahead with testing for tuberculosis in Alberta? The minister said the work was to be curtailed.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no money provided this year for carrying on any further work in that connection. The work under way is being completed, but no provision is made for further work.


Mr. REID:: Is compensation paid for hogs
slaughtered?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I think not.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the hog cholera menace fairly well under control, or has it increased?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is fairly well
under control now, although there was some difficulty with it for some time.


George Hugh Castleden: Has there been an
increase or a decrease this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is on the decrease
now, but there was an increase last year up to a certain date.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for
New Westminster asked a question, and as I heard it, it was as to whether or not compensation was paid for hogs killed or slaughtered for cholera. If the minister looks it up, I think he will find that compensation is paid when the government actually orders the killing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps my answer was only partly correct. I shall get full information on that and give it to the committee when we are on the main estimates.


Gordon Graydon: Where a hog dies from
cholera without the government ordering its slaughter, the farmer must bear the loss himself. But where a government inspector comes in and orders the slaughter of all the hogs owned by a man because of an outbreak of cholera, then I believe compensation is paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $3,379.
14873-137}
Olof Hanson: Could we have
details of this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is to cover a payment to the Kelowna growers' exchange, in excess of the funds provided by vote 27. The treasury board has ruled that funds in vote 27 can be used only for the payment of subsidies to organizations named and in the amounts stated in the estimates. Therefore, because of the ruling of the treasury board, it will not be possible to charge amounts paid out in excess of the amount voted, and a special vote must be put through in order to make this payment.


Olof Hanson: What subsidies
have been paid to cold storage warehouses in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount paid last year was $188,987.87. This is a supplementary vote, but I am not certain that it is in addition to that. It may only be because one item was overexpended.


Mr. ROWE:: Is this for apples or fruits?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should think it would be largely for apples at Kelowna.


Olof Hanson: What are the amounts paid to the, different cold storage companies throughout the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give that on the main estimates. This vote deals with only one item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
425. Prairie Farm Assistance Act

administration-further -amount required, $98,675.
Ernest Edward Perley: No details of this item are given, and no details of the item in the main item are given and were not given last year. I think the minister would be well advised to furnish details of this item. Is this $98,675 to take care of cases which have not been adjusted? I understand there is quite a large number of cases which have not been adjusted. I have three or four in mind, but I should like the minister to state what this vote is for. I notice ini the main estimates there is an increase of $250,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: This item, is for administrative expenses. The amount provided in
1940-41 was $250,000, but if I remember correctly-and I am speaking from memory only -the amount actually expended was $268,000. At the time the estimates were made up, it was considered that this cost would be less this year, but members will recall that last year a board was appointed to administer the act, and additional responsibilities were placed upon this board of checking to see that
2164	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Prairie Farm Assistance
persons had 3,000 bushels or more. This greatly increased the amount of inspection required, and this additional amount is necessary. It represents largely the increase in inspection expenses brought about by the amendments made last session. I could give the items making up the S250,000 if that is desired.


Ernest Edward Perley: We can get that on the main
estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I have it here.


Ernest Edward Perley: Are there any great number of cases not adjusted yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not as many this year as there were a year ago. Some cases are being dealt with from day to day.


James Arthur Ross: I take it that this vote is to cover both office and field administration. Upon what basis are field inspectors paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are paid on a per diem, basis, but I am not just sure of the exact amount per diem. I can get that when the main estimates are before the committee. The total amount for salaries is $42,500; the total amount for wages, field and office, is
8130,000,	while other items, such as travelling and field expenses, total $149,000.


Mr. McNEVIN:: What were the total expenditures under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount for administration expenses is 8348,675. I have not the detailed items here, and I can give them only from, memory. It was nine million and some odd dollars for the first year, and between six and seven million for the second year up to date. There are, however, still some expenditures to be made.


Major James William Coldwell: There has been considerable dissatisfaction over the operation of this act. With the experience we are getting with this new form of crop insurance, if I may call it that, I think it will be realized that there is need for some adjustment in the legislation from year to year. I am simply expressing the hope, which I know is shared by a number of hon. members, that after the Easter recess the minister will see fit to suggest some amendments to this measure in order to make it more workable and more just to the individual farmer. There should be some legislation to iron out some of the difficulties which have been encountered in the operation of this act during the past year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the main estimates are before the committee, perhaps
fMr. Garcliner.l
the minister could let us have a list of these field men and particulars of salaries and expenses paid.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe there is on my desk now, waiting for my approval, a return which gives that information.


Ernest Edward Perley: I asked for that return on February 27 and I intended to inquire about it to-day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The convention of rural municipalities of Saskatchewan urged upon the government and upon the Saskatchewan members consideration of having this whole scheme placed upon an individual farm unit basis. I am not going to take the time to argue the advantages of that. I believe administrative costs would be reduced considerably and the whole plan would be on a much fairer basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: Consideration is being given to the possibility of bringing down amendments as suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Amendments would, of course, bring up the question which has just been raised by the hon. member for Weyburn. I am not at all sure that we can go as far as the municipalities suggest. I would say that if we did, it would multiply the cost of doing the work in just the same way as adding the three thousand last year added $98,000 this year. This has put it partly on an individual basis.


Mr. FAIR:: If the return on the minister's desk is for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I would suggest that the minister look in another corner and see if he cannot find a return there for me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the return
referred to is also there.


Victor Quelch: Has there been any change in the attitude of the government regarding applications? I mentioned this to the minister the other day, and he said that the government were not going to change their decision, but I have recently received a letter from Alberta stating that a letter has been received from Regina to the effect that this question is being reconsidered. That impression has got around, and I should like a definite statement from the minister as to whether there will be a reconsideration of applications made after October 31.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know, no reconsideration is being given to applications made by municipalities or provincial governments after October 31. I think it has been definitely decided both by the board and by

Supply-Agriculture-Prairie Farm Assistance
the department that the date should not be moved forward. There may be a misunderstanding in this respect. There are, within the municipalities, individual cases which it was decided at one time should not be considered because the applicant had not, on the date fixed, put in his return indicating his acreage. These are being reconsidered, but not applications so far as municipalities and provinces are concerned.


Frederick William Gershaw: Some farmers who have been found ineligible for the bonus declare that they never at any time saw an inspector. The inspectors probably drove through, but apparently they failed to get in touch with the residents of the township.
There is another point. This bonus is on the individual basis so far as the 3,000 bushels are concerned. It would seem that it could be more easily administered if it were on the individual basis all the way through, because it causes resentment and bad feeling when one farmer with a fairly good crop gets a bonus as well while his neighbour across the way gets no crop and no bonus just because he happens to be in a township where the average yield was about twelve bushels to the acre. In the district from which I come there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction regarding inspection. I am convinced that the secretaries of municipalities and the corresponding provincial officers were notified, but in talking to some of these men I find that they did not realize how important it was to get in the notification, and consequently the matter was neglected. This causes a lot of bad feeling, because a whole community will be declared ineligible for the bonus just because of failure to have the notification in by the date set, October 31.


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not hear what the minister said when he was replying to an hon. member on my left. Did I understand him to say that there were certain cases yet to be considered with respect to the bonus for 1940? I gave a case this afternoon of a man who had summer-fallowed his cultivated acreage last year, and it was ruled by the treasury department that since he had no wheat in, he would not be eligible for the bonus, although the township received a bonus of 90 cents an acre. Would a case like that be reconsidered and an adjustment be made?


James Garfield Gardiner: Cases of that kind are being considered from day to day. It is the type of case that was referred to a moment ago. They are stall coming up continuously with regard to the 1940 season. Some are being further examined; some are being turned down, and some are being passed. But cases
of the kind just referred to are still being considered unless a final decision has already been made in the case of the individual.


George Hugh Castleden: Cases of great hardship have been drawn to my notice, where people whose production was practically nothing, but who, because of the average production of the township, got no bonus. These people have been having difficulty in getting seed and feed. One farmer lost four out of six horses which died for lack of feed. What steps will be taken to take care of cases of that kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a question which was raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It was one of the things in his mind when he spoke, whether the act should be amended to take care, in part at least, of these cases. I would remind the committee that when this act was passed, it was not expected that it would take care of the responsibilities of the provinces and municipalities. It was only expected that the act would take care of what was considered to be the responsibility of the federal government. We believe that in taking care of townships or full areas-if the township is not the proper area-this government is assuming its full responsibility, and that individual oases which result in areas either because the man is on poor land or is for some other reason unfortunate, are cases that remain the responsibility of the municipality or the province and must be taken care of by them. It is not the responsibility of this government.


George Hugh Castleden: Is a grant being made by this government for feed and seed this year under this act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not under this act, and there will not be under any act; but if there were, that would not relieve the responsibility of the municipality and the province for doing something in that regard.


Robert Fair: The hon. member for Qu'-
Appelle asked the minister whether a bonus would be paid to a farmer who had summer-fallowed in 1940. I did not catch the minister's answer clearly. Would he mind repeating it?


James Garfield Gardiner: My answer was that
those cases would be under consideration. I would say that some cases would not be passed, and some would be. If, for instance, a person went out and summer-fallowed an area of land that had been in Russian thistles, tore them up and made it look like summer-fallow, he would not be paid if the inspector did his work properly. But in other cases, where a man has summer-fallowed all his land and
Supply-Agriculture-Cheese

farmed properly while he was doing it, he might be paid. It would depend on the circumstances surrounding the case.


Robert Fair: I am very glad to hear that because I know of a case where a farmer has been diligently farming, and he summer-fallowed his land last year for the purpose of getting better production, and was denied the bonus. I am glad to hear from the minister that a person who is farming properly and who summer-fallowed in 1940 will get the bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: All these cases are under consideration, and they are settled on what the board considers to be the merits of the case. I should not like to say that the bonus will be paid in any particular case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
1,26. To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories -further amount required, $300,000.
George James Tustin: Last year the government set aside a certain sum of money to bonus the improvement of cheese, and many cheese factories included the bonus to the producers with their milk cheques on receiving the grade of the cheese. They now find themselves out a considerable amount of money, because they paid the last bonus with the last milk cheque. Is an item included in this amount to pay the factories for the last bonus on cheese, which was made last fall?


James Garfield Gardiner: This amount is to make
up the shortage in the estimate of last year for the payment of bonuses under the act. I am not just sure what the type of case is. If the cheese factory is entitled to a further payment, and it was only because there was a shortage of money at the time the application was made, then this sum of money being provided will make it possible to make that payment. The explanation in connection with the requiring of more money is largely to be found in the fact that there was a considerable increase, namely, fifteen per cent, in the production of cheese last year over the previous year, which increase was not estimated at the time. In addition, there has been quite an increase in the number of boxes of cheese which have gone into 94 and 93 as compared with the year before, 148,098 more boxes going into 94, and 192,873 more boxes scoring 93.


George James Tustin: That answers what I wished to know. The factories have paid the farmers the bonus on the quality cheese. I quite appreciate the fact that that quality 'has improved considerably.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Governor general's warrants, 1939-40.
*'/SO. To provide for expenses of administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act (governor general's warrants of November 22, 1939, and January 10, 1940), $150,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This relates to 1939-40. Why does that come now, rather than at the last session?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. gentleman will remember, this act went through the house very late in the session, and there was no estimate. The act was passed after the estimates for agricultural purposes had practically all gone through the house. It was considered at that time that there was provision for the administration costs. We found out later that, legally, provision had not been made, and we had to find sums from other sources to pay costs of administration. To the extent that they could not be obtained from other sources, we had to pass warrants for them. The two warrants amounted to $150,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What would that make the total expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be $266,595.62.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How does that compare with the crop year 1940-41?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount was $348,675.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The difference
is largely because of the extra supervision connected with this 3,000 bushel limitation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: In connection with these administration costs, are the moneys paid entirely to individuals, or are the municipalities reimbursed for any expense in connection with the matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the municipalities do not do any of the administration work. The administration work is carried on by the staffs and inspectors who are put out by the government.


Robert Fair: When the regulations governing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are being reconsidered, I hope the minister will again consider the 3,000 bushel limit, because in many instances it has worked great hardship on farmers. For example, a man who is farming with one, two, or three sons working with him, can have the benefit of the acreage bonus only if his yield is under 3,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should point out that this limitation is in the act; it is not in the regulations.


Robert Fair: The act might be amended to fix that up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Labour-Industrial Disputes

[Stage Direction]
433. Industrial Disputes Investigation Act- further amount required, $20,000.
Angus MacInnis: Before this item carries, I wish to draw attention to what I consider to be a vicious and pernicious principle which has entered into the matter of conciliations in labour disputes. I would not take the time to place it before the committee to-night were it not for the fact that I have in mind a board decision which has not been satisfactory to the employees concerned, who at the present time are on strike. It does not follow that I think all decisions should be in favour of the employees. That is a chance they must take in accepting the principle of conciliation, a principle which I believe to be a very good one. What I am objecting to now is the principle laid down in section 10 of order in council P.C. 7440. The section reads as follows:
In the case of any dispute in which a contract with a government department is involved, the board of conciliation and investigation to which the dispute is submitted shall afford to the department concerned the privilege of submitting to the board a brief in writing as to the views of the department on any matter touching the dispute.
The way in which that works is this. A dispute develops with regard to wages and working conditions, or any matter which affects employees, in a certain *work in which the government is concerned. Either side makes application to the Department of Labour for a board. In the course of time a board is granted, and then another department of the government, the same government which has granted the application for the board, and has appointed the chairman of the board, sends its representative to appear before the board-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think the hon. member means "the chairman"; he means the representative of the employer.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, that is right. But I am pointing out that the government appoints the board; it may appoint the chairman, and then .a representative of the government appears before this board. The minister shakes his head, but I happen to have under my hand proof that this takes place. The representative appears before the board. This order in council says that he shall place the representations of the department concerned in writing. That is bad enough; as a matter of fact, it should not be done.
The case I have under my hand is that of a board which was granted in a dispute between
H.	F. McLean, Limited, and its plumbers, steam-fitters, sprinkler-fitters and general pipefitters employed at He de Salaberry, Quebec, members of local 144, United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steam Fitters. I am reading from a copy of the majority findings and the minority findings of the board, with a covering letter signed by the assistant deputy minister of labour and registrar.
In this case, H. B. Chase, director general of labour relations in the Department of Munitions and Supply, made, according to section 10 of order in council P.C. 7440, a submission to the conciliation board, and he not only made the submission in writing, but, according to the minority report appeared and made argument before the board. I shall show, before I have finished, that he went so far as to point out to the board that it would be illegal under order in council P.C. 7440 for the board to grant an increase of wages in the case. The minority report in the dispute is signed by the representative of the employees. I quote:
In accordance with clause 10 of order in council P.C. 7440, dated December 16, 1940, Mr. Howard Chase submitted a brief in writing on behalf of the Department of Munitions and Supply of the Dominion of Canada. Not only did Mr. Chase submit his brief, as provided for in section 10 of order in council P.C. 7440, but he furthermore read it, added comments, made comparisons and even touched the legal aspect of the fair wages policy of the government of Canada, together with possible legal rights being derived from a collective labour agreement, now in force in the district of Montreal.
That statement from the employees' representative bears out the point I made. The government sets up a board, appoints a chairman, and another government department appears before the board and declares that the board cannot make a certain award because it would be illegal according to order in council P.C. 7440. It seems to me that such pro* cedure reduces the conciliation boards, in any industry in which the government is concerned, to a farce. They cannot in the circumstances be of the slightest value whatever. As a matter of fact, any one who reads the submission made by Mr. Chase to the board and then reads the majority findings of the board and compares the two, will find that the majority findings carry out every suggestion made by Mr. Chase. Let me read two sections on page 4:
The attention of your board is directed to order in council P.C. 7440, which has at least an indirect bearing on the case before you. It is true that the request is for an allowance for board and transportation expenses and it is equally true that an allowance for board is equivalent to an increase in wages.
With regard to sprinkler-fitters, the provincial decree above referred to specifies that when employed outside of the city of Montreal they will receive an extra 20 cents per hour. It is not referred to as an allowance for board-it

216S
Supply-Labour-Industrial Disputes
is a flat increase in the wage rate. Therefore, in the present instance while the request of the applicants is for an allowance for board, it is in effect a request for an increase in the wage rates, and as such, falls within the terms of P.C. 7440.
It seems to me it would be better, instead of stringing the employees along, to use the language of the street, and allowing them to think that they will get something in this way, for the Department of Labour or the Department of Munitions and Supply, or both, to tell the representatives of these labour organizations that there is no use in their applying for a board, that under order in council P.C. 7440 it is illegal for a board to give an increase in wages. It is an amazing fact. I have brought to the attention of this house several times during the last twelve months the lack of labour representation on the war boards apart from the national labour supply council. This is the only war board set up on which there was a representative of labour, and we find that this representative is used by the government to beat down the wages and impair the conditions of employees instead of helping them. I submit to the Minister of Labour that he give this matter careful consideration. It is, as I said before, nothing more than a farce to have a condition of affairs such as this. If it continues sooner or later labour will become so exasperated that not only a small number of workers as in this case, but a large number, will be involved in labour disputes and may to a very great extent interfere with war production.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think I shall require many minutes to reply to the remarks of the hon. member. I quite agree with him that the reason why section 10 of the order in council was put in was to obviate the very thing that happened at Valleyfield. There is no question about it. The labour supply council went into the matter thoroughly, and it was their idea that putting that clause in, and allowing a memorandum to be submitted to the board by any interested department, was the farthest that the government should go. That condition was not observed in Valleyfield. I did not know of it at the time the board was sitting. Had an application been made for a rehearing, it might have been necessary to grant it, but no such application was made. I can assure the hon. member that the situation will not recur, because it is not in accordance with the section of the order in council.


Angus MacInnis: This is not the first instance in which the activities of Mr. Chase have been drawn to my attention. When the
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
application of the employees of National Steel Car Corporation was before the Department of Labour for a board, Mr. Chase was sent, either by the Department of Labour or by the Department of Munitions and Supply, to Hamilton. The men understood that he had the granting of the request for a board with him. When he got to Hamilton, however, he told the employees that they could not get a board, and that even if they did, they could not get an award because of order in council P.C. 7440. That is the information I have from representatives of the employees of the National Steel Car Corporation. If the minister has information on the discussions which took place at the trades and labour congress at Vancouver last September, he will know as well as I do the statements that were made there with regard to Mr. Chase's activities respecting wages in the shipyards. I think it is time the Department of Labour told Mr. Chase where he gets off at.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can assure the hon. member that Mr. Chase was not sent to Hamilton by the Department of Labour. I do not know what representations he made, but if he made a representation that they should not have a board he w'as certainly mistaken, because they have a board. I do not know what representations he made in Hamilton, nor do I know the purpose of his visit. Certainly I can assure the hon. member that he was not sent by the Department of Labour.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask the minister who Mr. Chase is, where he comes from, how he came to get into the department as a representative of labour, and who recommended him? His activities have not been in the best interests of organized labour.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can hardly be expected to say who recommended Mr. Chase for that department. It is not a department over which I have any jurisdiction whatever. I believe he was a member of one of the railroad brotherhoods.


An hon. MEMBER:: The locomotive engineers.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was not sure, but one of those. When the war supply board was originally set up, he came to Ottawa, I believe, and while he was not a member of the board he was active in labour relations. What his antecedents are, or the recommendations that were made respecting him, I do not know.


Major James William Coldwell: He was not recommended to the government by organized labour as its representative. That, I think, is the point which is being made.

Easter Adjournment


Norman Alexander McLarty: So far as I know, that would be correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Yien in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1941, the sum of $78,744,584.32 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1941.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Yien in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have not copies of this bill. This is for the $78,000,000, is it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
He said: On this motion I should like to thank hon. members for their great consideration and kindly cooperation in permitting the passage of these supplementary estimates so speedily to-night.
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party have been here one hundred per cent in dealing with these estimates.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 4, 1941.