1941-03-05

PRIVILEGE-MR. HARRIS ORDER FOR RETURN SHOWING PURCHASES OF LAND IN PICKERING TOWNSHIP

Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I rise to a question of privilege. On February 24 last an order was passed for a return answering the following questions:
1.	Has the government bought land in Pickering township, Ontario county, during the last two years?
2.	If so, how many acres?
3.	For what purpose is the land to be used?
The return has been duly filed, but it is incomplete. To use a common expression, it sidesteps the question entirely, in that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) brought down a long tabulated report of expenditures being made in Pickering township. Through his department lands have been bought or expropriated, at any rate they have been entered upon; fences have been taken down, and at present there is work going on on these particular lands in that county on account of the department.


Mr. HOWE:: What does the return say?


Joseph Henry Harris: The return
says nothing-that is my complaint, and that is why I am raising the question of privilege. Surely an hon. member is entitled to have a proper return rather than a nebulous one of this kind. The return goes on to say that the Department of Justice has not bought any land, the Secretary of State has not bought any land, and so on and so on.
I make one further observation. Immediately that question is put on the order paper, before the printer's ink is dry, the minister's department knows all about it; they are just like watchdogs, knowing everything that happens -and quite rightly so; but to my mind there is an utter lack of frankness in imparting information to hon. members of this house when it is asked for in a straightforward way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am perhaps responsible for the return; it may be a return from the

Wheat

Department of Transport. The only explanation I can think of is that it is quite possible that property has been expropriated but has not been paid for. Unless my hon. friend is prepared to give me the answer given by the Department of Transport I cannot comment on it at this time.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is no answer from the Department of Transport.



CEREALS IMPORT COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) state who is the representative in Canada and on the Winnipeg grain exchange of the cereals import committee of the United Kingdom ministry of food?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It seems to me I have answered the same question by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle on former occasions.


Ernest Edward Perley: A year ago. There might be a change.


James Angus MacKinnon: The answer a year ago was that as far as we know the cereals import committee of the British ministry of food has no representative in Canada.



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF DISCUSSION IN SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: I wish to ask a question based on a report appearing in the Regina Leader-Post of March 1, copy of which I hold in my hand, stating that the premier of the province of Saskatchewan moved the adjournment of the house on Thursday last to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and the house discussed the wheat policy of the federal government, or proposals the province were making to the federal government. During that discussion the minister of agriculture made this statement, having suggested 85 cents as a set minimum price:
An objection that the price was too high was not valid because Great Britain was already paying that figure for Canadian wheat now and was willing to continue paying it.
Would the minister state what authority the provincial minister had for making that statement. and whether 85 cents is the agreed price?


James Angus MacKinnon: I presume the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is referring to the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan?


Ernest Edward Perley: Certainly.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have no idea on what he bases his statement.



INQUIRY AS TO POLICY FOR 1941-42 CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: In view of the lateness of the date I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) when we may expect a statement from the government regarding its policy for the handling and marketing of the 1941 wheat crop, and when legislation will be brought down to make that policy effective.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am very
sure that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is anxious to be helpful. I am very sure also that he is well aware of the immense amount of time that my colleagues and particularly I as Minister of Trade and Commerce have been giving this question, and how anxious we all are to arrive at some finality with regard to the wheat policy for next year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But spring
seeding cannot wait.


James Angus MacKinnon: Even in the most favoured parts of the west, in the province of Alberta from which I come, seeding will not be under way for some time yet. In any event, we are quite aware of the importance of the matter, and a statement will be made as soon as possible with regard to the 1941 wheat policy. Two or three days ago I stated that I hoped to make at least a partial statement within a few days. I hope to make that statement this week or, if not, the first of next week at the very latest.



JOINT SWINE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) 'ascertained whether or not there is a joint swine committee, and if so, will he tell us who are its members?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I notice that the question was
dropped following my first request yesterday. I had understood that as a result of the discussion which followed, the question would remain on the order paper. I wonder if I might ask that it appear on the order paper

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
the next day questions come up. I find that there is a swine committee; I can get the names of the members, and I will give them.



DEFENCE OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the appointment of a committee to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations passed under the War Measures Act, and the naturalization and deportation laws.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that the debate was adjourned last evening in order that other lion, members might have the opportunity to take part in it. During last session some of us thought hon. members should have been given greater opportunity to express their opinions with regard to the defence of Canada regulations. Since we have that opportunity now I feel that each of us should make the most of it and discuss all these regulations very thoroughly and from every angle and every aspect. I certainly hope the debate will not be closed before more hon. members have taken advantage of this chance to express their opinions, because I believe the country itself is very anxious to know more of what hon. members of this house think with regard to the regulations. I also hope that in particular hon. members on the government benches will take part in the debate, because it is far better to speak and risk being a goat than to say nothing and be a sheep.
Theoretically I am in agreement that there is a need for protection in this country not only against the ideology but against the spreading of the ideas of fascism in any oractical manner, because we as a nation undoubtedly are fighting the spreading of that ideology among our own people, who are democratic. I feel that we are in disagreement with the ideas of fascism, which call for the supremacy of the state and so on. We must remain opposed to them, and we must do everything possible to prevent the spread of those ideas among our own people. But I do not agree that in practice these regulations are having just that effect. In some instances, of course, we have had the arrest of people supposed to be fascists, but I feel that in other cases under these regulations we have done just the contrary. Just recently I have noticed two formulations; perhaps they may be accidental, but I happened to 14873-77*
notice them. One appears in a little pamphlet which I believe has been mentioned in this house previously, published under the direction of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) and called "The Two Ways of Life." In the introduction I notice this statement:
Our way of life is the civilized way of life. It is the civilized way because under it every citizen enjoys the right to worship as he please-
That is correct. Then it goes on to say:
-to select his own rulers, to help make his own laws-
And so on. Then I notice that, speaking on February 24, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is reported in Hansard as having said:
In a democracy the designation of the rulers of those who are to be governed is and must be made by the vote of the people.
I do not like that word "rulers"; I intensely dislike the idea. Perhaps this idea of the government being the ruler of the people comes from the fact that within the last year this government has taken to itself unusual and enormous power. We are fighting against the idea of the supremacy of the state over the individual. We are fighting against the idea of rulers over the people. We who are democratic must always insist that the duly elected representatives of the people maintain the status of servants of the people, not their rulers.
I notice also, very happily, that on February 27 the Minister of Justice assured this assembly that the defence of Canada regulations would last only for the duration of the war. According to Hansard the minister said:
They are operative in a state of emergency, and they will disappear as soon as we have peace and victory, as we hope to have some day.
I believe the minister was very honest and sincere when he made that statement; I have no reason to believe that he would be otherwise. Yet I would suggest that the Minister of Justice of to-day may not be minister of justice when this war is over. He may be retired; he may be in another office; we may have another minister of justice who is not of the same mind. The people of this nation have no other guarantee, so far as I know, than a statement by our present Minister of Justice, that these defence of Canada regulations will disappear as soon as the war is over. I do not know myself whether we should be willing to accept such a flimsy guarantee. We have no legislation upon which we can rely.
During the time of the trial of the seaman Sullivan, I believe it was, Mr. Justice Hope said that during war time we people of Canada
1204	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
should be willing to put our civil rights and liberties in pawn. I must confess I do not know very much about pawnshops. I have always said that in northern Saskatchewan we have not had many social services, and this was one we did not have-the pawnshops. And I think perhaps in the past I might have been pleased to avail myself of that service. Now, when an article of any value is placed in pawn, a ticket is given in exchange, and through that ticket the borrower may redeem the article of value. Where is that ticket the Canadian people should have to-day, with which they may retrieve their freedom and certain of their rights and liberties which under these defence of Canada regulations are being taken from them?
Several hon. members have said on different occasions in the house that the government has a mandate from the people. Would it perhaps not be wiser to say "has had"? We live in a time of swiftly moving events, let us never forget that. During the last year events have moved very swiftly, possibly more swiftly than at any other time in our history. People who a year ago viewed certain things with a measure of complacency to-day view with alarm and with growing apprehension the tide of affairs within our country.
During the last year we have seen the application of the defence of Canada regulations, of which at the time of the election we had not become aware to any great extent. We have seen numbers-I do not know exactly how many-of our ordinary citizens interned without, as I say, the usual process of law and guarantee of trial. We have seen certain groups in this country called illegal. We have seen certain measures of compulsion with regard to the war effort. Undoubtedly there is in Canada to-day a certain amount of compulsion upon people who are working in factories or in various businesses in connection with the war savings campaign. Undoubtedly -and I do not believe this can be denied- unequal sacrifices are being made in this war. During the last year we have witnessed an enormous spending programme and the creation of a vast debt, a debt greater and more stupendous than the people of this nation have ever had to accept before. We have seen a serious situation in western Canada, one which so far seems almost impossible of solution; this government apparently has no solution to offer. We have seen rule by order in council. That, again, is a dictatorial and not a democratic procedure. We have seen various orders in council directed against organized labour in Canada.
I say now emphatically that many Canadians, who a year ago viewed these regulations
rMra. Nielsen.]
with more or less complacency and were willing to leave them in the hands of the government, are to-day viewing them with apprehension. The regulations have not the support of the people. I say without hesitation that among many groups of people there is the growing belief that these defence of Canada regulations are being used deliberately to stifle the apprehensions of the people and the expression of their apprehension and discontent. The government is trying to silence the protests of the people. It is asking for unity, but it is trying to enforce unity of opinion. The fact that the government is using these regulations to enforce conformity of opinion is, in the view of some of us, an indication that it is well aware that the people are not unanimous in their agreement with the policy of the government and the legislation it has enacted. Moreover, I would go so far as to say that the very fact that the government is forced to put certain of these regulations into operation is an indication that it fears the expression of the people's will. There is growing discontent, and yet the government does little or nothing to eliminate the causes of discontent among our people. Rather it seeks to suppress the discontent by arbitrary rulings under these regulations. It acts as the ruler of the people, not as their servant.
Already we have heard a great deal about Mr. Meighen, and what he is reported to have said some time ago. At least he was honest. In effect he said that if an unregulated and unrestricted profits system were to be finished by this war, then he did not see what there was to fight for. I believe if any ordinary person, a member of a farmers' organization or a trade union, or a member of a relief recipients' association, had stated publicly that he did not see what there was to fight for, he would be in an internment camp cooling his heels. I believe I am safe in saying, however, that the government has at no time even thought of arresting Mr. Meighen. For one thing, the government does not fear the loss of Mr. Meighen's support, or the support of people like Mr. Meighen, and those he represents. The government can take that position because it is doing nothing, and does not intend to do anything, to limit or to restrict povrer, privilege or the profits system in Canada. In a time of war it is allowing-and there is not a shadow of doubt about it-a condition of profitable patriotism. We see, too, how clear it is that they need not fear people like Mr. Meighen, because legislation passed in the house and orders in council have declared protected areas for certain industries owned and controlled by monopolies in this country. We find that as an advisory com-

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
mittee the government has brought in business executives of some of the greatest monopolies and corporations in the country.
We know there has been no endeavour to conscript wealth. We are continuing to pay the interest on the loans we make from the great banks. All these things assure people like Mr. Meighen and his representatives that there is nothing to worry about. Therefore this government does not fear any expressions by Mr. Meighen. Well, that is all right. It is quite all right for Mr. Meighen to express himself in that way. But if Mr. Meighen is free so to express himself, then let us all be free to express our opinions.
It has been stated that roughly from one-third to one-half of all the people in Canada are earning less than $1,000 a year. Among that group of low-income people a certain amount of opinion is being expressed, not openly at public dinners, as Mr. Meighen is able to express himself, but among themselves. The people are saying many things. Some of them are saying: "If we are going to have conscription, conscription not only by legislation but by economic pressure, instead of being permitted freely to support the war effort; if we are to have compulsory saving introduced into this country; if our farmers are to be the neglected people and to suffer unduly from the burden of this war through no fault of their own but from loss of markets; if we are to be taxed so that we cannot even maintain health and strength in our families while corporations and monopolies are making greater profits during this time; if the banks are to get enormous interest, thereby hanging a burden of debt over our children in the years to come greater than we have had before, and if we are to lose our civil rights and to have no guarantee that they will be returned to us," is it any wonder that they say, "we can hardly see what we are fighting for?"
But the government does fear expression of these opinions. It does not intend to allow opinions of this kind to have expression because the government intends to continue the things about which the people would like to express their opinions adversely. It is clear that the government does intend to tax the low income groups. It is encouraging compulsory saving and it is allowing interest on debts to accumulate. It is not enforcing by legislation equality of sacrifice. By various orders in council it is impeding the trade union movement in this country. It has offered no constructive policy to agriculture. The government knows that as long as it conducts this war there will be a greater number of Canadian people who will want
to express themselves as being against the government policy. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that these regulations are being used to suppress the free expression of the people's will.
With regard to my own pamphlets, I have very little to say. I have noticed that various hon. members of this house have been a little interested, maybe a little amused over these pamphlets. Personally I have not thought a great deal about the matter. In fact the government has never intimated to me in any way, shape or form why they did what they did. I have formed my own opinion about why that action was taken, I regard the -thing which the government did as being somewhat of a little blunder on their part. I refer to the taking of the pamphlets by 'the police. I think that was done deliberately in an attempt to intimidate not only me but the rest of the people of this country who were interested enough to want to read what a member of this house had said. After all is said and done, the best laid schemes of mice and men and governments gang aft agley. The attempted intimidation was not successful. In fact I feel I should thank the government for some good advertising.
In return I may say that I have done my best to advertise the government's little pamphlet. All hon. members know it. On various occasions I have spoken to the people of Canada about this twenty-five cents' worth of good information and told them that they should read it. But I have also told them that if these regulations are not amended to protect in essence the people of this country from the things from which they should be protected, the new edition should have across its front a different title; it should be called, "Defence of Capital Regulations."
There has -also been intimidation of our working people. Theoretically this may not have been intended, but in practice it has taken place. I believe certain members of the trade union movement have been arrested. The other day the Minister of Justice said that they had been arrested because they were communists. Not long ago I came across a copy of an address which had been made by the lawyer who defended Pat Sullivan of the seamen's union. This speech was delivered to the Civil Liberties association, of Toronto, at Emmanuel college, university of Toronto on November 1, 1940. This lawyer bad had access to fai more material than had bon. members of this house or the general public. I should
1206	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
like to quote briefly a few of the things he said about the arrest and internment of these trade union leaders. I quote:
Is the existence of regulation 21, administered by the policy, illustrated in the Sullivan case, of denying the detained person any particulars of the things held against him, forcing the accused to assume the onus of accusation and proof without knowing what he is expected to establish or refute, designed to assist our social effort at this moment? Does it rather encourage at least suspicion that the use of this arbitrary power may be associated, at least in part, with class or economic or political interests?
Let us examine two or three of the cases and see how they work out in actual result. Let us take the Sullivan case again to begin with.
Sullivan's arrest took place in June, just as the seamen's conciliation board was emerging from the first stage of its public sessions and was about to enter into private conference with the officers of the union and with representatives of the major companies for the purpose of trying to effect an agreement between the parties.
In point of time Sullivan's arrest seemed to fit in with the particular interests at the moment of the employers. The Department of Justice asserts that this was "the long arm of coincidence." I, personally, accept this assurance in good faith. But I am not a seaman, relying upon the union and the aid of its executive officers for concrete results in the matter of my livelihood. If I were, and found myself directly and injuriously affected by Sullivan's arrest just as he is to step up to bat for the winning run, I might feel differently. So might you, if you were such a seaman.
Again he goes on to say:
Let us take the case of one David Sinclair, also connected with the seamen's union. Sinclair was editor of the union's paper. He appeared with executive officers of the union at some of the conciliation board's hearings. He was arrested in Montreal, taken into detention under order of the Minister of Justice and sent to an internment camp early in the month of September. The grounds disclosed in his case are merely that representations have been made that he is (a) a member of the communist party, (b) a communist agitator.
A day or two before Sinclair's arrest, ballots had been counted in the Department of Labour at Ottawa of seamen employed in one fleet of shipping vessels, some 38 or so vessels in number, as a result of a vote ordered by the conciliation board, to determine whether or not these men desired to be represented by the union. The company had insisted that the men had no such desire. The result of the vote was that some 95 per cent or 97 per cent voted in favour of union representation-this, incidentally, several months after Sullivan's arrest and detention.
On the day before Sinclair's arrest he filed with the_ Canadian Press in Montreal, as publicity director for the union, a statement announcing the result of the vote, which would be followed by negotiations with the company for an agreement. The press announcement did not appear the next day, but neither did Sinclair.
There are probably as good reasons for the non-appearance of one as for the disappearance
[Mrs. Nielsen.1
of the other, and reasons quite independent each of the other. I do not know them. You do not know them. The seamen and their friends do not know them. The advisory committee will, but Sinclair and his counsel, so far, do not and probably will not. What conclusions, however erroneous, would you arrive at if you were a seaman or the friend of one?
If only these people were given the right of trial where truth could be brought forward there would not be the feeling of suspicion which exists in the minds of our people that these arbitrary regulations are being used in certain cases, not in favour of the people but rather in favour of a group in this country which has power and affluence.
Considering again other minority groups, one might mention the case of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian labour temple association. That group of people have carried on in this country a marvellous work. They brought with them from Europe some of their handicrafts and their dances. Their musical festivals have been one of the finest things they have been able to give to this country. I heard one time the cultural work of this Ukrainian group described as "an oasis of beauty in the arid desert of Canadian culture." And yet to-day that group is declared illegal t About a hundred of their buildings scattered across this country, built by themselves, by poor working people with their nickels and their dimes, have been taken over by the custodian of enemy alien property. These people are not enemy aliens. They are Canadian citizens, some of the finest we have in this country. How can you expect unity when you treat a minority group in such a way? For years they have been fighting against fascism and fascist tendencies, not only in Germany and Italy, but wherever they show themselves, and they have some experience from the past to guide them. These people have some of their property to-day in some cities rented to another organization which right up until before the beginning of this war was openly in support of Hitler. How these things must hurt! This government is asking for unity amongst all our people while at the same time it is doing the very things under the defence of Canada regulations which must absolutely preclude the possibility of unanimous support.
Again there is the Canadian Tribune, a paper which has been mentioned in this house before. I feel sure, and I repeat, that in the suspension of this paper there is a desire to intimidate those who have been reading it by trying to make them believe that the paper itself is a subversive organ. The Secretary

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
of State (Mr. Casgrain) when he mentioned this paper said to the house-I quote from Hansard of February 27 of this year:
I have in my hand one of the last issues of this newspaper, dated February 1, 1941. 1 need not read it to the house, but it contains references to certain speeches and utterances of a member of the British House of Commons.
How terrible! Fancy any Canadian paper publishing a speech made by a member of the British House of Commons! What an excuse! Of course I know that the minister went on to say he thought this paper was subversive because it was promoting the ideas of the communist party. But hon. members who are conversant with the rise of fascism in Italy, in Germany, and more recently still with that terrible arising of fascism in France, will know that those who had the power used the same old Red bogy. They brought it out of the cupboard to scare the people. The Red bogy-that was the thing that mattered. As long as the Red bogy was there the people would be afraid to do anything but what the people in power wanted. In Italy and in Germany this Red bogy was brought out to scare and intimidate the people, and here in Canada you- find the same thing happening. In France recently by arbitrary decree we saw, because of this Red menace which was supposed to be there, the imprisonment of thousands of French people. There may have been a proportion of communists among them, but there must also have been hundreds who were simply the leaders of the working people, in their farmers' groups, trade union groups and others, men and women -who had been fighting fascism. But they too were imprisoned-the very people who if they had had their freedom would have defended France to the very last ditch. But they were imprisoned, and it was the government, and big business control behind the government, which imprisoned them and then turned around and betrayed France into the hands of Hitler.
Mr. THORSON:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mrs. NIELSEN:: No, I will permit a
question afterwards but I have not very much time left.
We have the same kind of thing beginning to spread in this country. Attempts are being made to scare us. Reference was made a while ago to an article by Commissioner Wood in which he stressed the Red menace. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, there is far more need for us to fear that the powers that be in this country are not under the proper supervision of the people but are allowed, at the expense of the people, to
dictate to this government, whose profitable patriotism may lead this country into very severe and very terrible consequences.
I would urge that this committee which is to be set up consider in great detail the few things which have been brought to its notice and do what is possible to amend such of these regulations as restrict the expression of view of the people.
When the minister was mentioning the Canadian Tribune there was one thing to which he took exception, and that was that the Canadian Tribune gave some publicity to a large conference of the British working people which was held in England, in January of this year I believe. The Daily Minor, one of the large newspapers of England, described the people who went to that conference as ninety per cent honest-to-God British citizens. If we in this country have not the right to know what honest-to-God British citizens are saying, well, I think perhaps we have not the right to call ourselves a democracy. I have every reason to believe that there is in this country a large body of thought which perhaps I might call honest-to-God Canadian thought, far removed from the reds, and which to-day is seriously criticizing -these arbitrary regulations. The Canadian Tribune, although its circulation was not so great, might have linked up this feeling of -the people from the east to the west of Canada. It might have helped to organize the protest of these honest-to-God citizens of Canada against this government, and that is possibly one reason why the Canadian Tribune has been suspended, I see no reason why we should neglect to consider these things in their various -aspects.
In war time there is always a certain amount of hysteria which is purposely spread among the people to keep up their enthusiasm, and I know that there are many people in Canada today, and possibly some members of this house, of whom it might quite easily be said that under the pressure of war hysteria they are more or less prepared to let the government go ahead and do as it will. But I would say to you that in times like these we have every reason to think deeply and to think well. We must not let ourselves be carried away by emotional appeals. The British working man has a little saying which will perhaps give you some idea of what he means. Of course the British working man is not very careful of his language -and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will excuse me for repeating it. The British working man says: "You must never let y-our bleeding heart run away with your bloody head." I feel that many people to-day under the influence of war hysteria are allowing themselves to be
1208	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
carried away. They are not looking at these regulations and observing their effect upon our people. If these regulations continue as they are now, where is the right of the ordinary citizens to express themselves, the right of the ordinary citizens to defend themselves against what they believe to be injustice? If these regulations continue in their present form I for one feel that this government will no longer have any right to call itself a democratic government of the Canadian people.


Mr. W. R. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate on this resolution reference has been made to the suppression of certain newspapers and pamphlets on the ground that they were subversive of Canada's war effort. In speaking to the resolution I wish to refer to a newspaper or pamphlet which, while I do not go so far as to say it is subversive of Canada's war effort, is, I do say, subversive of national unity in Canada. I refer to a pamphlet or paper entitled "The Gospel Witness," edited by the Reverend T. T. Shields who, I understand, is pastor of a church in the city of Toronto.
I do not know how I come to be favoured with the receipt of these copies, except that, the contents of it being of a very insulting nature to the Catholic faith and the members of that church, the reverend gentleman thought he was privileged to add injury to insult and forward copies to the Catholic members.
It would take me all afternoon to read all the articles contained in these several copies that I have before me, with their insulting references to the Catholic church and its members. I will not take up the time of the house except to give one or two excerpts so that hon. members will have some conception of what is contained in this sheet, published by a clergyman belonging to a religious denomination which I respect, as I respect the members of every denomination throughout this country. That respect which I give to the members of other denominations and to the religious belief of every other, I expect to be given to mine. Consequently it is not in anger but rather in sorrow that I shall give these excerpts.
In the issue of this journal of January 2, 1941, there is an extract from a sermon preached in Jarvis street Baptist church, Toronto, on Sunday evening, December 29, 1940. One clause reads:
So is it of that religion which makes a man only a part of a great church. That is Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is religious totalitarianism. Salvation is in the church. Everything is to be sacrificed for the church:

the individual does not count. That is not Christian; and that view, whether applied to the state or to religion, is essentially pagan and anti-Christian.
In another issue the same gentleman, this time giving a title to his sermon-"The Protestant Samson and the Papal Delilah"-[DOT] writes:
I shall never advocate any degree of appeasement anywhere at any time with popery. It is a religious racket, an organization which exists to make merchandise of the souls of men. The more I know of it the more I am driven to the conclusion that its officers must either be suffering from some terrible delusion or otherwise they must be outright knaves. It seems impossible to me to believe that any reasonable man can seriously believe the burlesque of Christianity that calls itself Roman Catholicism.
I know how vicious it can be. I know very well that its agents sometimes reckon they are doing God service when they actually kill. The bloody history of the Roman church proclaims that fact.
Speaking in this house as a humble member of that church, and, I believe, speaking in the names of four million Roman Catholics throughout this country, I protest with all the vigour of my manhood against the publication and circulation of such material. Thus the reverend gentleman throws his gratuitous insults into the faces of the Catholic population of this country. This is his conception of his duty as a religious leader to preach the doctrines of unity amongst all classes and creeds who so ardently desire the unity of our people during the most critical period in the history of our country.
I should like to ask the members of this house and the people of the country whether, in their opinion, such expressions and statements as I have just cited tend to bring about the unity which we so strongly desire in Canada in this most critical time of our history. It is not for me to pass judgment upon the reverend gentleman, but I would respectfully remind him of the words of the Master: "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another." I would ask that he respect this commandment and preach this doctrine of love instead of hatred.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Does that apply to Jehovah's Witnesses?


Wallace Reginald McDonald: I am not
speaking of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am dealing with these articles which are before me at the present time. I know nothing about Jehovah's Witnesses and I have nothing to say against them.


Charles Edward Johnston: It should
surely apply to everyone.


Mr. DUPUIS:: They have just as much
love for Catholicism as the others.

Dcjence oj Canada-Special Committee
Mr. MeDONALD (Pontiac): After all, this Church of which the reverend gentleman speaks. so derogatorily has weathered the tempests and storms of two thousand years, and not in this year of grace 1941 can this reverend gentleman, doughty warrior though he may be, hope to make her rock upon her foundations or bring about her destruction. Feeble indeed will be his efforts to blast this rock of ages.
Since the beginning of this war, on divers occasions, especially over the radio, our beloved king, the President of the United States, the worthy Prime Minister of Canada, have pointed out to the peoples of their respective countries that in this time of crisis we need divine help, that it is our duty to pray for divine assistance. With that idea in mind-and these sentiments, might I say in passing, are worthy of the men who uttered them-an invitation to prayer on the part of the Canadian people for themselves and our allies in this war was issued. The lieutenant governor of Quebec a few weeks ago issued a proclamation setting aside a certain Sunday as a day of prayer throughout that province. The great service in the province was held in Notre Dame cathedral in Montreal. The worthy Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was an invited guest there and also was invited to recite a prayer. This prayer I have before me. The reverend gentleman about whom I have been talking must even criticize that attitude on the part of the lieutenant governor and the clergy of the province of Quebec. I quote part of the prayer which the Minister of Justice read on that occasion, and I ask hon. members and the people of this country if there is anything in it which might not be said by any member of any denomination in Canada to-day. The portion I read is this:
We humbly beg of Thee, 0 God of mercy, to have pity on us and to give us victory. Especially give to humanity the victory of right over might, the victory of justice over injustice, the victory of charity over egotism, the victory of Thy divine rights over sacrilegious usurpations.
That is part of the prayer recited by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Catholic lay population of the province of Quebec. Yet even that has been held up to ridicule by this distinguished clergyman in the city of Toronto. Nothing that can be done from the Catholic point of view but must be criticized and held up to ridicule. And we, numerous body that we are in this country, are supposed to do like the ostrich, hide our heads in the sand and take this abuse from him.
In sermons and speeches of this kind it is also the habit and the custom to speak of
the loyalty of the province of Quebec. That must be always brought up. It would seem to me that this question has been before this house on divers occasions, speeches were made reflecting on Quebec's loyalty and answers given thereto; and the answer made was clear and distinct enough. If to-day from the flagstaff of these buildings there flies the union jack it is because on two historic occasions the French-Canadian population of the province of Quebec stood loyally by and saved Canada for the British empire. Nevertheless the old bogy of French Canadian disloyalty must be trotted out to serve the purpose of selfish individuals.
Again this distinguished gentleman, in an article appearing in the same paper, entitled "The Religious Aspects of the Sirois Report," writes as follows:
But the indisputable fact is that the Roman Catholic church, like a malignant parasite, has fastened itself upon the body of Quebec and is draining it of the last drop of its blood, reducing it to something little better than an emaciated political skeleton, if the report is to be believed.
That is, the Sirois report.
And then this same malignant parasite stretches out its tentacles, and through a "handful of French Canadians led by Mr. Ernest Lapointe" seeks to wrap itself about the vitals of the whole dominion-including this province.
And on what grounds does Quebec demand these exceptional favours? Her superior loyalty? Her unusual service in peace or in war? The report tells us she was against us in the last war, and implies she is against us in this. The report tells us she was against ns in the last war on religious grounds: on the same grounds she is against us in this. In the last war she was against republican France because of its "anti-clericalism". . . . She was behind in enlistment in the last war: she is behind in this. I can only assume that French-Canadians, left to themselves, would be as loyal as other Canadians of other racial origin. . . .
That is a gem, Mr. Speaker. "French Canadians left to themselves would be as loyal as other Canadians of other racial origin." The French Canadians of this province are as loyal as Canadians anywhere and have not to blush for their loyalty in comparison with any others. The article continues:
. . . and in the insistence of Premier King's chief, Mr. Lapointe, that this report should be considered now, there is an attempt, under a specious plea for national unity, to fasten a blanket mortgage on the whole dominion in the interests of the church of Rome; thus to compel non-Romanist taxpayers, whether they like it or not, indirectly to contribute to the propagation of Romanism.
We in the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, admit that there is a certain element there that are probably not as anxious to do their bit in connection with the war as others. But also we know the history of these few people,
1210	COMMONS
Defence of Canada^-Special Committee
we know what brought about the increasing numbers of that nationalist body some years back. I do not want to go into political matters, but in order to get the background of an argument sometimes it is necessary to bring out these things. A certain body in the province of Quebec, whose attitude at the time Laurier was in power was one of opposition to the naval bill, were encouraged by the then Conservative body in Quebec to fight against the Liberals. In order to attain victory in 1911 the Conservatives financed these men, who were preaching a doctrine of rather less than loyalty to the British empire. What happened? In the election of 1911 victor}^ was achieved by the Conservatives chiefly because of the number of seats gained in the province of Quebec, and ever since that day we have had to fight this nationalist body. It will be recalled that only a year ago last fall the Minister of Justice took his political life in his hands when he went out and fought that nationalist body in the provincial campaign. The result is well known; the Liberal party came back to power. Only last spring, in the federal election, the Minister of Justice, together with the other ministers and all members from Quebec, fought -the same fight. The result is well known to-day; a majority of the voters in sixty-five constituencies out of sixty-five in Quebec returned Liberal members, supporting this administration, the party of unity which is carrying on the war. That was the answer of Quebec at that time; that is her answer to-day. I said a majority of the voters in sixty-five constituencies supported the Liberal party. There is a single exception, but that does not prove my statement to be incorrect. The gentleman who represents the nationalist body in this house is here by virtue of a decidedly minority vote.
It was only after very serious consideration, sir, that I decided to bring this matter to the attention of the house, realizing as I do how difficult it is to discuss these issues without having wrong motives imputed, as well as the danger of causing divisions among our people. Nevertheless in the interests of national unity I felt it my duty to do so. No racial or religious difference divides the gallant men who are serving in our army, our navy and our air force; and it is my humble opinion and belief, sir, that the people of Canada desire to constitute themselves a solid unit behind those gallant men in a coordinated effort to prosecute this war to ultimate victory. Could my words reach the ears of the reverend gentleman whom I have been discussing this afternoon I would respectfully submit to him that in the interests of peace

and harmony in our country, and for the sake of the cause which he claims to have at heart, he should refrain from the publication of these articles. In the event of his refusal to do so I would suggest to the Minister of Justice, who is charged with the enforcement of the defence of Canada regulations, that the Gospel Witness be suppressed for the period of the war, on the ground that the articles published therein are subversive of national unity.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate, but 'because of certain statements that have been made since the debate began, I feel I should say a few words.
I wish to refer particular to statements made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) when he spoke on this question last Thursday. The hon. member quoted from a newspaper statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Cameron, one of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members of the British Columbia legislature, concerning the war savings certificates campaign. By means of insinuations the hon. member for Comox-Alberni tried to leave a number of impressions with hon. members. First, he tried to leave the impression that in his opposition to this form of war financing Mr. Cameron was speaking for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I wish to say most definitely that this is not the case. Our position on that question has been stated by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and also by myself. Our position is that we are not opposed to the war savings certificates so long as only people who can afford to contribute are asked to subscribe, and so long as no one is coerced. In order to show what I mean in that regard, I should like to quote about half a dozen lines from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 26:
An elderly woman in Regina, Saskatchewan, last week signed a pledge to purchase one war savings certificate every month. Her income is $20 a month, a sum she receives on a pension. To the canvasser who supplied the pledge form she said she could buy one certificate each month by doing without one meal each day.
We can admire that kind of sacrifice, but it is the sort of sacrifice that is not doing anyone any good. It is only when pressure is brought to bear to get such people to subscribe, that we are opposed to this war savings campaign. Our position on the question is also indicated by the fact that when the campaign started, our British Columbia executive appointed two of its members to cooperate with the provincial war savings committee.

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
I hold no brief for Mr. Cameron; indeed, we differ in our views on many questions, although I doubt if our differences on these matters are very much greater than those which exist between the members of the various other parties represented in this house. In the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, Mr. Cameron replied to the strictures placed upon his remarks by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni; and I think that since Mr. Cameron is not here to state his position for himself, it would be just as well to put it on record:
I oppose them-
That is, war savings certificates.
-because they set a precedent for financing the war by loans instead of by taxation. I object to married loggers and miners and other low income groups being badgered to contribute, while the government allows others to enjoy lavish incomes. For instance a single man with no dependents with a $5,000 income pays only $615 dominion income tax.
I think that is correct, with the exception that the national defence tax is not included. He continues:
The government tells us that the national house is on fire, and we must all help to put it out. I have no objection to doing that. I did it once before, which is more than many of my critics did. But I object strenuously to paying rent to enterprising fellows who have managed to corral all the available buckets, and to paying royalties on every gallon of water we need to put the fire out, to the patriotic gentlemen who have a stranglehold on the wells of finance.
Personally I think that is a position with which it is difficult to find fault.
The second impression the hon. member for Comox-Alberni tried to leave with the house was that there was a close relationship between the party to which I belong and the communist party.


Mr. NEILL:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni is noted for always being able to bring a debate down to his own level. If that close affinity exists between ourselves and the communist party, I would ask, as it has been asked many times before, why the most violent vituperation of the communist party is reserved for the members of this group. I believe I have the distinction of being the only member from British Columbia in the house who was opposed by a communist party candidate in the last election. That is a distinction I have held in every election in which I have been elected to the house. It happened in 1930, 1935 and 1940; and may I tell the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and other hon. members that it has not come about because of any friendship or any identity of interest with the communist party.
That party has always considered social democrats more inimical to its growth than the more orthodox parties, such as Liberals and Conservatives. Social democratic parties favour social reform, and the communist party desires revolution and dictatorship. Because of that, at the time of an election we always find them supporting the candidates of the old parties, when a candidate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is in the field.


Mr. TURGEON:: That is not true of British Columbia, apart from the hon. member's seat.


Mr. BRADETTE:: That is not true of northern Ontario, either, I may tell the hon. member.


Angus MacInnis: It is true everywhere.
I have seen instructions which have gone out, proving that it is true.
Mr, BRADETTE: In Kirkland Lake and Timmins I have seen the communists parading with supporters of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party.


Angus MacInnis: Communists would rather have a government formed by the party of my hon. friends opposite than by the group to which I belong. The party opposite stands for the status quo, and the status quo cannot be long maintained without the inevitable explosion which would lead to revolution. As a matter of fact, that is not only the situation as it applies to Canada, but the situation in every other country.
Four or five years ago I visited Europe and met representatives of the various social democratic parties there. In each of those countries I confirmed what I had learned from reading, namely, that the communist party was more opposed to the social democratic parties than to the capitalist groups.


Mr. REID:: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Is it not true that while in 1933 the communists in Germany had been opposing the social democratic party, when they saw the rise of Hitler in progress they joined forces with the social democratic party with a view to defeating the other groups?


Angus MacInnis: I was going to touch on that point, because the opposite is the truth. The communist party has been consistently opposed to the British Labour party, and has consistently vilified it. It has been consistently opposed to the Labour party and Labour government in New Zealand, and the Labour party in Australia. It has always opposed the social democratic party in Sweden; it
1212	COMMONS
Defence of Canada

Special Committee
was always in opposition to what was formerly the Labour party in Norway and to the social democratic party in Denmark.
I come now to the question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The same thing was true in Germany, prior to the coming of Hitler. There the slogan was, "After Hitler, we come." It is a matter of history that the communist party joined with the nazi party in the reichstag to defeat the social democratic party, and it joined, too, in the general strike.


Thomas Reid: That was earlier.


Angus MacInnis: No. Hitler came in in 1933, and it was not until 1935, when the Moscow line changed, that there was any attempt by the communist party to bring about a united front with other parties. Personally I have consistently opposed them, not only in recent years, but for the past twenty-two years. I have done so because I felt we did not have anything in common.
In the debate which has taken place, hon. members, particularly those from British Columbia, having had no effective answer to the criticism of the defence of Canada regulations offered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the ion. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), stoop to insinuation, and attempt to confuse the issue by suggesting that we have been criticizing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Such is not the case. I have stated in public and in the house my high regard for the Minister of Justice. I have said that so long as we are going to have the defence of Canada regulations administered in the way in which they are now administered I do not know of any other man in Canada I would rather have administer them. But-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: "But"-


Angus MacInnis: -freedom is a precious thing. Freedom is too precious a thing to leave in the custody of any individual, no matter how honest he may be or how great his virtues and moral integrity may be. The Minister of Justice is human, like the rest of us, and we would be making a mistake if we took the position that everything was all right so long as he was administering the regulations. It is not a change in the person of the Minister of Justice for which we are asking; we want a change in the defence of Canada regulations themselves, and a change in the procedure by which they are administered. That is a simple matter. Whether or not it can be done is another question. I said a moment ago, and with this I have finished, that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi had [Mr. MacInnisJ
the faculty of bringing all debates in which he takes part down to his own level, which is not very high. Leaving the question under discussion, he concluded his remarks with these words:
The picture is like this-pro-Jap yesterday; anti-Canada to-day; pro-nazi to-morrow!
Such remarks come with poor grace from the hon. gentleman who, in 1936, praised the agreement between this country and Japan at a time when I proposed a resolution providing for the exclusion of orientals. Two years later, in 1938, he denounced this same agreement in the most violent language. If those are his principles, of course that is his own business.


James Gray Turgeon: The hon. member just said that in 1936 he moved an amendment to exclude orientals. My recollection of his resolution is that it was to permit orientals to vote, but that if we did not permit them to vote they should be excluded. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) interpreted the resolution as being one to exclude orientals. The then leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), took exception to the interpretation of the Prime Minister and stated that it was a resolution of the party to give votes to the Japanese.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member's recollection is not very good.


Angus MacInnis: It is fortunate that these things are on record. My resolution was definitely one for exclusion. It is true that it was worded in such a way as to show that exclusion was on the ground that, because of race or religious belief, we did not give them all the rights and privileges of citizenship; that for those reasons they should be excluded from the country. It was a resolution for exclusion, and if the Prime Minister considered it in that light I think he was right.


James Gray Turgeon: What about the leader of the party for which the hon. member was
speaking?


Angus MacInnis: That does not matter. It is the resolution that matters. I do not know what he said; I have not the record before me. My hon. friend has not quoted the record. He has given us his recollection of the resolution. If that recollection is wrong, I can only assume that his recollection with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is equally wrong.
I was going to finish by saying that if the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has no higher

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
principles than those to which I have referred, that, of course, is his business, but in the circles in which I move such somersaults as he is able to make are known as political opportunism.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mrs. Nielsen) I feel I should say a few words. The hon. member made some serious accusations against one of the Ukrainian organizations in Canada. I regret having to be the one to correct her, but perhaps she has insufficient information about the organization and has based her accusations upon false or ill-advised information from groups in whose interest it is to belittle this Ukrainian organization so that its members cannot help Canada in her war effort as effectively as they are doing at the present time.
The hon. member has travelled from coast to coast, speaking in different centres of Canada, and she has made similar accusations against this organization. She has said that until recently it supported Hitler. That is a serious thing to say, either on the floor of this house or on the public platform, during a time of war. It tends to discourage the members of this organization when they know that members of the House of Commons do not take the trouble to find out the facts and get their information straight. I assume that most of those interested in the statement made by the hon. member will read Hansard and see exactly what she has said.
I do not intend to take up the time of the house to explain the stand of each of the Ukrainian groups in Canada. On some future occasion I hope to be able to give hon. members the facts with regard to their ideologies and the courses which they have pursued in the past and are pursuing at the present time. At the moment I should like to leave the matter as it stands. I can only say to the hon. member for North Battleford that she would be well advised to get her facts straight. I suggest also that she try to be fair to all organizations regardless of the fact whether or not they openly support her.
I hold no brief for any one particular Ukrainian organization, but I could not remain in my place and hear such reflections being cast upon them without making a reply. I believe that among all such organizations in Canada this organization actually had the highest percentage of enlistments in the Canadian forces at the beginning of the war. Such accusations cast in its direction are absolutely false and ill-advised.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the setting up of a committee to consider the defence of Canada regulations and the law relating to naturalization. The qualifications for naturalization in Canada are not as strict and exacting as they should be. They require at least a year's residence in Canada with the previous four years in the British empire. The applicant for naturalization is supposed to have an adequate knowledge of the English or French language, but it is not necessary that he should be able to read or write. I suppose he must be a decent man, have no record of crime, and so on. It is a great privilege to become a naturalized citizen of Canada and a subject of the British empire. The qualifications should be more than an adequate knowledge of English or French. There should be some way of finding out whether an applicant recognizes the responsibilities involved in becoming a British subject and a Canadian citizen. He ought to know something of the history of this country and of how the benefits which he is obtaining have been won and handed down, of how hard it has been for the people of the British empire to obtain the privileges they enjoy to-day. He should be willing to accept and should be impressed by the necessity of accepting the obligation which goes with the privilege of becoming a British subject. If he has not got that thoroughly in his mind, there should be some way of educating him so that he will recognize that obligation fully. We do not want people to become naturalized British subjects or Canadian citizens simply for the benefits they are going to get out of naturalization. That reminds me of the man who was seeking naturalization in one province and, when asked by the judge why he wanted to become naturalized, said that he wanted to get a game licence. Naturally his application was turned down, but undoubtedly there are people who want to become British subjects for the privileges that go with our citizenship, and who do not want to accept the responsibilities of the citizenship which they assume.
Another thing. I think more instruction should be given in the schools in the history of the fight for the rights which go with citizenship in the British empire and Canadian citizenship. If more instruction were given along this line the fathers and mothers of the children who are attending school to-day would realize better the obligations and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
I feel strongly-this has been mentioned before but I think it will bear repeating-that naturalization should be more of an impressive ceremony that it now is. The applicant should not simply have to go into some back office, stand up and raise his right hand and
1214	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
say " I swear," and that be the end of it. Naturalization should take place in the form of a ceremony which would impress the candidate and make him realize that he is assuming the obligations of citizenship. Not enough of them do recognize that, although they recognize clearly the benefits which they are obtaining.
Just a word with respect to the defence of Canada regulations. I have in my riding in Toronto, and there are also in the adjoining riding and in fact all over Toronto, a great many new Canadians. They are fine citizens. There are, I suppose, in Canada altogther some 2,000,000 new Canadians of foreign birth or descent. Not the slightest shadow of doubt should be cast on the loyalty of these new Canadians as a group, because as a class they are just as loyal as any other class of Canadians. They have been the first fighters against subversive influences in their own groups. They have been the first to recognize the danger, they have fought it, and in some cases their blood has been spilled in the fight against subversive elements in their own groups. I know how loyal are the new Canadians in my riding and in the adjoining ridings, and I must say that they resent not being used to a greater extent than they are as guards and other work of the kind. We should extend the hand of friendship to them wherever we can and do our best to make them feel that they are not outsiders.
It has been suggested that there should be a three-man tribunal to hear appeals from those interned under the defence of Canada regulations. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has suggested that it would be advisable to have two judges of the superior court and a judge of the local district adjudicate on these appeals. It is not at all that we have not faith or confidence in those who are hearing these appeals at the present time. It is simply a question of putting too much power into the hands of one man. If you have three judges hearing the appeals you will get a fair judgment; perhaps what one of the three overlooks the other two will not, and there will be argument in that connection. I have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Justice, but the feeling of the people is that we are putting too great a power into the hands of one man. I know that we can depend on the minister to do the job well and fairly, but so long as it is done by one man there is suspicion and unrest among the people with respect to any decision he may make. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that the appeals should be decided by a body of three judges, and *where they disagree the minister could make the final decision. I

mention this simply because I feel that we must get away from the suspicion that there is in connection with the internment of some of these people.
The committee which considered the defence of Canada regulations last year did a wonderful job. Naturally we all hate to see our privileges taken away from us-habeas corpus, the right of free speech, and all those things. But wre all recognize the necessity for some curtailment of our liberties in time of war. I believe that if action is taken along the lines I have indicated, the people of this country, especially the new Canadians, will be much better satisfied and have far more confidence in the administration of the defence of Canada regulations.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken part in this debate because I had to initiate it, but some points have been raised on which I have a few words to say. Unless I have the consent of the house to speak again on the main motion, I will ask one of my colleagues ta move an amendment of no consequence, just to give me the right to speak.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Go ahead.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the permission of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the house on the tone of this debate, and I am grateful to hon. members for many of the things that have been said. There is no doubt that the committee which will sit on the defence of Canada regulations will keep in mind 'the suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate. The most critical speeches have been one by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) and, to some extent, one by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I am sorry that my hon. friend the member for North Battleford is not at present in the chamber because I have to refer to her remarks and also to something that she said outside the house in recent months.
First, I should like to clear up a matter which was discussed last year and again in the course of this debate with regard to the alleged confiscation of copies of speeches of the hon. member for North Battleford in Saskatchewan and elsewhere. I regret that when this question was raised a few months ago, I was absent by reason of an indisposition that lasted for some time, and I could not give the explanations which I desire to make to-day.

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
In the first place, it was not the speech delivered by the hon. member for North Babtleford that was seized, but a leaflet, a copy of which I have in my hand, entitled "Why I Opposed the Budget". It is substantially a reiteration of the hon. member's speech with a few changes which later, when that speech was inserted with others in a pamphlet published by the Canadian Tribune, were eliminated. For instance, the words:
You have been told by press and radio that this budget was patriotic, that it ensured equality of sacrifice and equal participation in the war effort. That is a lie, and. this war budget is instead the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the nation.
"That is a lie" was not said in the House of Commons, and I congratulate the hon. member that it was eliminated from the copy of her speech which is now in a pamphlet which I have here with other speeches printed and published and distributed by the Canadian Tribune.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there anything subversive about it?


Ernest Lapointe: That is a question of opinion. It was considered such. The question did not come to us at the time. As my hon. friend knows, in Saskatchewan, as in many other provinces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act under the direction of the attorney general of the province. These were not pamphlets, I may say, because the last pamphlets have never been confiscated. These were leaflets. They were taken over by the police and were studied by the law officers of the government of Saskatchewan. They considered that perhaps it was better not to proceed, and the leaflets were returned to those from whom they had been taken. That is the whole situation.
In the city of Edmonton there is a gentleman-I do not know whether I should give the name-who has been under observation for a long time. He is the distributor of communist literature in that city and has been selling copies of the Moscow News, published in Moscow, a publication which has been prohibited in Canada since August last. During the latter part of August that man was seen with a certain quantity of leaflets and a search warrant was issued by the authorities in Regina. Four hundred copies of the leaflet "Why I Opposed the Budget" were found in his place. They were referred to the attorney general's department for decision. No action was taken and the leaflets were subsequently returned to the man.
The same thing happened in Regina, too. On my memorandum here there are two other names of people who have been handling
communist literature. The leaflets were found and were surrendered by these men and they did not; wish to take them back, so they were not given back to them. They did not want them.
The same thing happened with regard to an organization called the Regina Workers' Protective Organization. There also they handed the leaflets to the police and did not wish to have them back. It was found that these leaflets had been printed by Eveready Printing and Publishing Company of Toronto. At the premises of the Canadian Tribune Publishing Company, a few proofs and five copies of the pamphlet were seized, but following examination and reference to the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, they were returned to Mr. Macleod on November 25.
A summary of all this-and I think the house will realize that too much noise has been made under the circumstances-is this:
(1)	The investigation centred around the leaflet "Why I Opposed the Budget," not around the speeches in the House of Commons or the pamphlets which were subsequently published.
(2)	The leaflet was not a speech made in the House of Commons. (3) No individuals were arrested. (4) No persons were intimidated. (5) The leaflet and pamphlet were not suppressed. As a matter of fact, the pamphlet has already had its third printing since then, the second and third issues omitting the open letter to Canadians. (6) The investigation differed in no way from any other similar inquiry.
I must say to my hon. friend the member for North Battleford that really she has not been treated as terribly as she would like us to believe. She certainly has not been hampered in her activities. As an hon. member has just stated, she has gone throughout the country making speeches, and I must say that her language this afternoon was very mild compared with what she has been stating on the platforms. It is true she has said that the defence of Canada regulations should be called the defence of capital regulations. But that is far less than what the hon. member has been saying all over the country. I have here reports of her speeches throughout the land; they are about the same everywhere.


An hon. MEMBER :: Let us hear them.


Ernest Lapointe: For
instance, at Nanaimo she said:
In nearly every instance you will find that it is the leaders of trade unions that have been arrested by the police and sent to internment camps, and in some cases no reason or trial has been given or had.
She has stated at many places that seventy members of trade unions have been interned. I am afraid I have to say that this is
1216	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
absolutely contrary to the facts. A few men who were members of some trade unions have been interned, but not because of their membership in any trade union but because they were communists.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Can the minister tell us how many?


Ernest Lapointe: Just a few, but the information will be given to the committee, of which my hon. friend is a member. I may say that the hon. member did not do justice to herself in her speech this afternoon when she denounced fascism in the most violent vray but said never a word about communism. Let me quote further:
The defence of Canada regulations have caused fear to be instilled in the hearts of the people. Look back a number of years and remember how so many immigrants came to this country seeking freedom of religion, but now such is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses are now an illegal organization, they cannot now gather together to worship as they please.
If we are going to call ourselves democrats we should not deny ourselves the privileges we want to enjoy. The same thing happened in Germany. Take for instance Pastor Niemoller.
As the war goes on not only our privileges are cut down by the defence of Canada regulations but monopoly has taken steps through the medium of prices, wages, et cetera.
The trade union movement was trying to prevent these things but they are now being prevented.
She then quoted from a letter supposed to have been received from a member of the United Electrical and Radio Workers in Toronto which quoted an article giving details of labour conditions in Germany in 1940, and the writer compares them with conditions in Canada. At Winnipeg she quoted from an article in a Toronto paper which outlined the long hours and hardships which the German people had to endure, and she said that these very things, "which we are fighting against", existed in Canada.
Of course, as far as the government is concerned, in her view it is very bad. She repeated everywhere that we are a few Charlie McCarthys sitting on the lap of big business; "no more democracy in Canada"; "democracy destroyed"-and she said that this afternoon. Is the hon. lady member fair to her country of adoption? I believe she has been treated pretty fairly by Canada,


Richard Burpee Hanson: With some exceptions-one exception.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East). Is this fair? The mere fact that a lady member can make the speech she made this afternoon, and can speak as she did throughout the country during a war as is the situation at present, shows that we still have democracy. Does the hon. lady member believe that she

could say that in Germany and get away with it? Does she think she could say that in Italy and get away with it? Does she think she could say that in Russia and get away with it? No. We still have democracy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Limited
democracy.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; we
must have limits. She says that these defence of Canada restrictions may continue after the war. She did pay me the compliment of saying that she thought I was sincere, and as Minister of Justice would see that they are removed, but she is afraid that some other minister of justice may come. In this she is not like some newspapers who seem to hope that some other will come. But she forgets this: the defence of Canada regulations are enacted under the authority of the War Measures Act, the last clause of which provides that the act ends with the last day of the war. Therefore my hon. friend need not have any misgivings about that. All these restrictions are essentially temporary, for a time of emergency, and end with the emergency.
I should not like to say anything that might offend the hon. member in any way. If, however, the police have searched for those leaflets, of which search she complained so strongly, it is because my hon. friend keeps bad company, very bad company indeed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Be
careful.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; I
have to be careful. But were I at liberty to say what there is on the files of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police! I absolve my hon. friend from any bad intention in the matter, but some of those with whom she associates are claiming things that I am sure my hon. friend would not like to claim herself, as far as her activities are concerned. For instance, in the city of Regina a young lady has been arrested for an offence against the defence of Canada regulations, and all the papers and documents which were found have been seized and confiscated. Among those papers there was a circular letter addressed by a communist leader in Saskatchewan, who is himself interned now, in which he claims that the hon. member has the same ideas that he has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not evidence.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot give this information to the house, but I will gladly show this part of the file to my hon.

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
friend if she wants to see it. Having that information; having these things on the file, surely the police were justified in looking into the documents which may have been distributed at the time, and having the legal authorities in Saskatchewan pronounce upon them. I am sure, however, my hon. friend would repudiate any association with those people and would rather associate with other members of the house in order to give help to those carrying on the war effort of Canada, to help us all achieve victory and peace.
May I make one other observation. This morning I was reading the report of a lecture given yesterday in Montreal by a European woman who stated that in Germany and other fascist countries women are barred from all public activities and have no rights except that of raising families. When my hon. friend says we have destroyed democracy in Canada, I do not think she is being altogether fair to Canada. Here ladies like my hon. friend can exercise all their rights; they are free in all their activities, and certainly my hon. friend is using that right to the limit of her capacity.
I have nothing more to add, except that in fairness to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I thought I ought to give the facts with regard to this matter. The police have also asked me to answer a certain statement made in the Toronto Saturday Night of March 1 in an article by Politicus, headed "Mr. Lapointe, What do you Say?" Of course, I cannot say anything, because I did not read it. This is an extract from that article:
Politicus knows of two cases of newspaper people of the highest loyalty and integrity whom the R.C.M.P. are investigating and on whom they have a dossier. And in neither of those eases, both journalists being people whom Politicus knows well, is there the slightest doubt of their anxiety, perhaps over anxiety, if there can be such a thing, for Britain to win this wrar, and of their responsibility.
The commissioner tells me that he has made inquiries and is able to say that he knows of no one, male or female, connected with newspapers, whom this force is investigating or has investigated since the outbreak of war, with the possible exception of Harry Binder, who is now serving a sentence. Why should these statements be made, creating disaffection and nervousness among the public? Some days ago a letter, written by a Toronto lawyer who represents communists who are interned, was drawn to my attention. In that letter he attacked me personally, saying that of course I could not do justice to trade unionists because I am from Quebec and in Quebec people are against labour syndicates. In this statement there are two falsehoods.
First, Quebec is not against labour unions; far from it. Quebec was the pioneer in labour legislation. Second, as far as I am concerned, if that man knows me he knows I have been fighting for the trade unions all my life. I have been fighting against those employers who have been reluctant to permit the establishment of trade unions in their factories. I have been fighting for the right of labour to bargain collectively. So why say these things? Of course I am not surprised. I have a difficult task; I am doing it to the best of my capacity. I have been told in persuasive fashion that I should do things in a certain way; I have also received threats, and I may say that I have been advised indirectly that if a certain gentleman were not released I might expect a newspaper campaign. Neither sweet inducements nor threats will have any influence on me. I will do what I think is right whatever may be the consequences; and if the committee changes the regulations and I still have something to do with them, I will apply them as I think they should be applied. Again, neither inducement, blackmail nor threats will have any influence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think the government itself has some responsibility with regard to laying down the principles upon which the committee should report, instead of leaving the matter entirely to the committee undirected by the government?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the committee will have the help of officers who have had experience in these matters. They will have the help of officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who obviously will consult with the minister before giving the committee their advice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the inference is all right.


Ernest Lapointe: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again thank hon. members, and I hope we shall all cooperate in trying to have the regulations what they ought to be. We should have all confidence in one another and try to do the work as best we can.


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister takes his seat, may I ask him if he can now give us the information with regard to the number who have been interned? I asked him that question the other day, and he promised to give the information during this debate.
1218	COMMONS
Dejence of Canada-Special Committee


Ernest Lapointe: I had it here, and I forgot to give it to my hon. friend. There are at present a total of 870 persons detained under the provisions of regulation 21. My hon. friend also asked me concerning the number of women. The answer is that there are ten, at the present time. The women are all transferred to Kingston.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister in a position to give the numbers of different classifications -that is, German, Italian, communist, national unity party, and any other classification?


Ernest Lapointe: No; I believe that should be given to the committee. If the committee decides it should be made public, it will be.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, before the motion carries, I have just a few words to say. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) spoke in laudatory terms of a certain organization, the Ukrainian farmer labour temple association. She described it as being a representative Ukrainian organization. I entirely agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). When the hon. member for North Battleford described the Ukrainian farmer labour temple association as a representative Ukrainian organization, she insulted the vast majority of Canadian Ukrainians. The association she referred to in such laudatory terms is the central holding company for all the communist halls throughout Canada. I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of Canadians of Ukrainian origin are absolutely opposed to this particular organization and to communism, and are the most bitter opponents of communism to be found anywhere in Canada. I should like to associate myself in these remarks with the hon. member for Vegreville. I asked the hon. member for North Battleford, when she was speaking, whether she would permit a question, but in accordance with her rights she refused that permission. If the permission had been accorded, it was my intention to ask her whether she would be good enough to declare in this house what her attitude toward communism was, because to the best of my recollection she has never declared that attitude here.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.
lMr# Green,]



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members, as follows:	Messrs. Abbott,
Bercovitch, Black (Cumberland), Bradette, Chevrier, Cleaver, Diefenbaker, Fournier (Hull), Gladstone, Golding. Graham, Gray, Green, Harris (Danforth), Macdonald (Halifax). Maclnnis, Marshall, Mayhew, MeGeer, Picard, Bottler, Ross (Moose Jaw), Sissons, Thorson, with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house.
He said: At the outset may I explain the significance of the reference in the motion to the expression "notwithstanding standing order 65". No doubt hon. members are familiar with that standing order, but I might say in a word it is to the effect that no special committee may, without leave of the house, consist of more than fifteen persons. Hon. members will notice that provision is made in this resolution for a committee of twenty-four persons.
It may help to place the motion in its true light were I to review the circumstances which have led me to present it to the house in the form in which it appears upon the order paper. At this stage of the session, after a long adjournment, we are apt to forget that the session itself began on November 7, continued until December 6, and that we reconvened on February 17. I mention this because before the adjournment had taken place there had been an agreement on. the part of the government to introduce the motion which is now before us-at least, this motion, with a slight alteration.
Hon. members will recall that shortly after the session began, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested that the house should consider the appointment of two select committees, one which, from a factual and objective point of view, would have to report upon the fighting forces, army, navy and air, and another which would be concerned with questions of supplies and deliveries of equipment, munitions and the like.
At the time he suggested consideration of the appointment of two such committees, my

War Expenditures-Special Committee
hon. friend said that he recognized the implications, and that he thought perhaps it would be preferable, before any steps were taken, to have a conference between himself and some members of his party and myself, as leader of the government, and some members of the government.
That conference took place, and it was, I believe, in part as a result of it that, when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition returned to the subject in this house, he brought forward what he termed a concrete suggestion, one which he said he believed was constructive. It was an invitation to the government to consider the appointment of a committee for the control of national expenditures, which would be on all fours with the similar committee in the United Kingdom. My hon. friend read to the house the order which set forth the powers and terms of reference of the committee in the United Kinggdom, and stated that he had in his possession copies of the reports of that committee, that he believed its work had been very useful, and that, for these reasons, he would recommend to the government the appointment of such a committee.
Very shortly after he made that announcement, or proposal, I told my hon. friend that the government would accept it, and that we would be prepared to appoint a committee along the lines of the committee in the United Kingdom with respect to the control of national expenditures. Within a day or two before the house adjourned I gave the definite assurance to the house that, as soon as parliament reassembled, I would introduce the motion, and that the committee would be appointed.
Since the recess, I believe on the first day of the reassembling of parliament, the leader of the opposition asked me, as the record will show, what decision had been reached with respect to the setting up of the committee on the control of national expenditures. I said to my hon. friend in reply that I was prepared to bring in the motion at once. The only reason I was not doing so at that time was that the motion required notice, and that, before introducing the motion, I wished to get from the whips the names of the members who would compose the committee. The leader of the opposition then suggested it would be well if we should have a further conference before the motion was introduced. He thought that the terms of reference were as important as the membership of the committee, and said that he would like to have a further conference with me. I agreed to that immediately and my hon. friend did -have a further conference, at which time I thought
we had reached complete agreement as to the terms of reference, and I so reported to my colleagues in the cabinet.
Subsequently, however, my hon. friend met me in company with one of the members of his party and suggested consideration of a change in the wording of the resolution. At that time I gave him my reasons for feeling that the resolution should not be changed. It was agreed, however, to have a further conference between my hon. friend and one or two members of his party and myself along with one or two of my colleagues, and that further conference was held. To-day I bring in the motion as it has been modified as a result of the first conference I held with my hon. friend immediately after parliament reassembled.
It is most important that the circumstances which have led up to the appointment of this committee should be carefully reviewed and understood because I regret to say that within the last few days there has been a great deal of misrepresentation concerning the purpose of the government in proposing this committee. The fact has been completely forgotten that the proposal was made by the leader of the opposition himself and that it was accepted in full by the government. As I have said, we -had reached agreement on the matter before parliament adjourned in December last. An entirely different construction has been placed upon the motion from that which was intended, I believe, by my hon. friend at the outset or by myself in accepting it. The government's whole position in the matter has been so completely misrepresented and misconstrued-
Richard Burpee Hanson: By whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am coming
to that-by what has appeared in a section of the press within the last few days-I am not saying that my hon. friend has misconstrued it-that I think it is most important that the whole matter should be caTefu-lly reviewed. I would remind hon. members that when parliament is in session, political battles may be fought in two places, either in parliament or throughout the country. When we are being told that the opposition in the House of Commons is anxious to cooperate with the government and to do all that it possibly can so to do, we rather expect that the opposition press throughout the country will adopt a similar attitude or at least that it will withhold criticism of a measure, and above all misinterpretation of a measure, until it has been fully discussed on the floor of the house.
1220	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
Because I recognize that this is a very important measure I purpose going rather carefully into the different steps which have led to the motion being presented to-day in the form in which it is by the government. First, I would refer to what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said with regard to the appointment of committees of this house which might serve the purpose of giving the public more information on the manner in which our war effort is being carried on, and more in the way of control of expenditures in connection with the war effort. Page 43 of Hansard of November 12, 1940, sets forth the first reference which my hon. friend made to the advisability of establishing select committees of the house to deal with war effort matters. My hon. friend is reported as having said:
.... I am impelled to propose to the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees which will be charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house factually, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship-and I have no doubt that is possible-what is our exact position (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air; and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary in our war effort, so that the Canadian people may know the truth. Before such committees ministers could appear and be subject to questioning.
A little further on, my hon. friend said:
The government may hold the view that it is not in the public interest that the facts and figures for which I am asking be disclosed. I know the matter is not free from difficulties. When I make the proposal I visualize many of its implications,

And a little further on:
I am willing with some of my colleagues to meet with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues so that we may consider the whole proposal, in an honest effort to arrive at a conclusion.
That was the first suggestion made in this house for the appointment of special committees to deal with the war effort. May I say a word as to the manner in which that suggestion was received? A conference between my hon. friend and some of his colleagues and myself and some of my colleagues took place shortly after. The subject came up again in the house on December 3. At that time the leader of the opposition made reference to the former occasion on which he had suggested the appointment of these two committees. At pages 615 and

616 of Hansard of December 3, 1940, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is reported as follow's:
So far, such committees have not been set up. I indicated that I knew there were difficulties, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can and will, to tell the house what the attitude of the government is with respect to that. If the difficulties are such as cannot be surmounted then I have another concrete suggestion which I desire to lay before the house and the country. It is, in brief, that the government cause to be set up a select committee on current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and instruct such committee to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of government policies may be effected therein.
Now, it is all very well to say that we can get all this information on national expenditure through the public accounts committee. Theoretically that is correct. But the information which will be obtained through the public accounts idea will not be on current expenditure. It w'ill relate only to the expenditures that have taken place in the previous year and as covered by the auditor general's report. Practically all the national expenditure for the war effort has taken place since March 31 last-or rather the great bulk of the contracts relating to national expenditure for war effort have been let since March 31, and inquiry before the public accounts committee will not be possible. That committee may examine only such things as are submitted to it. I am impelled to make this request for various reasons, but more particularly because what I suggest has been done in England and, I am advised, with good results.
I hold in my hand a series of reports of a select standing committee of the British parliament which was set up under the authority of an order of reference made on December 12, 1939, while Mr. Chamberlain was still Prime Minister and while there was an official opposition. The order of reference contains this:
My hon. friend then goes on to quote from the order of reference. If hon. members will keep in mind the wording of the motion which is before the house at the present time, they will see that the two references are identical except for a word or two. My hon. friend goes on to quote the order of reference as follows:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
Continuing with the words of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition:
Then it goes on and appoints a committee of twenty-eight members-and not one of them is a member of the government; they are all private members, and so far as I read the list of names, none of them are of international prominence. The committee has the usual power to send for persons, papers and records,

War Expenditures-Special Committee
and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house, and to adjourn from place to place. It was to be in effect a continuous working committee to examine current expenditures for war purposes having regard to the announced policy of the government. It had the power to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters within the jurisdiction of the committee. Such subcommittees so appointed were empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house, and to adjourn from place to place. This select committee has been sitting almost constantly since it was set up. Its first report was made in January, and the last I have was made on August 21, 1940. Any hon. gentleman who peruses this report will see, I am sure, that it is serving a great national purpose-not in opposition to government policy, not to the detriment of government policy, but to assist government policy, and to see what if any economies can be attained by suggestions.
My view is that we ought to have something like that here in Canada. It is a way in which private members could contribute to the war effort. I have heard dozens of members who support the government bewail the fact that they could not do anything to help, and saying that private members ought to be in a position to do something to help.
Then my hon. friend, a little further on,
says:
I submit this to the government as a constructive proposal to which they should give some attention. I submit it in the utmost good faith, not by way of criticism but by way of being helpful to the government. We know that war is wasteful; we know there is great waste in this war, though I do not say intentional waste. I do believe, however, that a committee of private members of this house, sitting day in and day out during sessions and between sessions, could perform a very useful function in assisting the government at this time, and I commend this suggestion to hon. members. It will provide an outlet for the energies of the private members who are anxious about the war, who want to make a contribution, who were sent here by their constituents to make that contribution but who find themselves frustrated-yes, that is the word-because they have no outlet for their abilities and their capabilities.
My hon. friend goes on:
I do hope that the Prime Minister will acept this suggestion, and before I leave the topic may I say to hon. gentlemen who will accept positions on the committee, if it be set up: There is not only a real job to he done, but a job which will tax your capabilities to the utmost. You will have to make substantial sacrifices in serving the state in this way, but it is a patriotic duty which I think some of you ought to perform. I believe a real contribution can be made in this way by private members.
May I pause again to remind the house that the motion before it which I have presented to-day is an acceptance in full, and going somewhat further, as I shall indicate a few moments later, of the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition, made, I assume,
after consultation with members of his party and with his party solidly behind him in making that proposal.
What were the grounds on which the leader of the opposition put forward the proposal for this committee on the control of national expenditures? First of all, he advanced it as a concrete suggestion, as a constructive suggestion. He commended it and presented it to the government and asked its acceptance more particularly on two grounds: on what had been done in England, and done there with good results, and as serving a great national purpose, namely, to assist government policy, to effect economies and to avoid waste. There was the further purpose, to enable private members to contribute to the war effort, to afford an outlet to the energies of private members to perform a patriotic duty. Let me draw attention to the wording of the resolution which the leader of the opposition proposed. The first point in it is that the government cause to be set up a select committee on current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war.
It was a request for a committee to deal with current expenditures. Second, such committee was to be instructed to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of government policies may be effected therein.
The motion as presented by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition or which he was asking me to present was that the committee should report with respect to economies, to avoid waste and the like, and to report with respect to economies which would be consistent with the execution of government policies. It was not for any other purpose.
I do not think there can be any doubt, Mr. Speaker, about the leader of the opposition having made the proposal, or about the exact nature of it, the scope of it, the purpose of it, and of his having strengthened his position by saying it was precisely the same motion that had carried in the United Kingdom, under which a committee in the United Kingdom was operating to-day.
What attitude did I take towards the suggestion? My reply to my hon. friend will be found in Hansard of December 3 at page 633. Speaking in reply to the leader of the opposition, I said:
A few days ago my hon. friend spoke of the desirability of the house appointing two standing committees. I believe he made that suggestion on November 12. when he first spoke in this debate. His words were as follows.
1222	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
Then I quoted the words which I have already given the house to revive its memory. I mentioned also my hon. friend having suggested that there should be a conference between himself and his colleagues and myself and certain of my colleagues. Then I continued as follows:
May I say that since making that statement, my hon. friend and two of his colleagues have met with me and two or three of my colleagues to consider the matter there referred to. I wish to say to him and to the house-
I ask hon. members to note the manner in which I as leader of the government sought to accept the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition:
I wish to say to him and to the house that no approach to the subject could have been more helpful or could have been better in every respect than that which he and his colleagues made in confidence with the government in this matter. We spoke quite frankly to my hon. friend and his colleagues with respect to the difficulties which surrounded the procedure of dealing with war expenditures, questions of production and distribution-deliveries, I believe, was the word he used-in any standing committee of the house which might be holding its proceedings in public and which during part of the time might have to ask that the proceedings be held for some time in camera. We particularly pointed out the difficulties of imparting to parliament or to any committees certain information.
I will mention to the house just what one of those difficulties is. We have been asked by the British government-and this is a request they have made to governments in all parts of the British commonwealth; it is not one which has been made to us alone; it is a matter of which the British government itself has taken full account-to avoid, if possible, the disclosure of numbers, the disclosure of amounts, the disclosure of quantities, the disclosure of anything in public which would help to give the enemy an appreciation of the strength or lack of strength of the forces opposing him.
I think every one can see the reasonableness of a position of the kind. But it does raise a very difficult situation for the government. If we are not on the horns of a dilemma, we are at least in the matter of information sailing between Scylla and Charybdis all the time. We are either too near the rock of Scylla in giving more in the way of information than we should, or we are drifting to the other side toward the whirlpool of Charybdis and are being accused of withholding from the people of our country the information they are entitled to have.
I oan only put the situation as it is in its clear light before members of this house and before the country, and trust to the soundness of their judgment. That is the position we are in with respect to the disclosure of information that might prove to be harmful.
A little further on, I said:
It is for that reason and for that reason only that the government hesitates to say to this house that it is prepared to have standing committees before which will be placed the exact position with respect to our fighting forces, naval, military and air.
	*
And further:
I agree with what my hon. friend has said about the position of private members in this house. Every member is -anxious -to become more actively interested in Canada's war effort.
And further on:
Hon. members are right in feeling that they would wish, that the house itself would wish to make its own contribution to the war effort in some way.
And later on:
I can assure hon. members that we desire their fullest cooperation.
Having given, as my hon. friend had asked me to do, the reasons why we felt that it would not be wise to accept the suggestion of the two committees he had spoken of, I then gave my acceptance of the proposal which he made, and I did so in the following words:
This afternoon my hon. friend made a suggestion which appeals very strongly to me for more reasons -than one; first of all, because of the proposal itself, and also because it is the procedure which on -this very perplexing matter h-as been adopted at Westminster. In the parliament at Westminster the government has been faced with exactly the same situation we are faced with here. They have of course a much larger number of private members than we have in -this House of Commons and their private members are as anxious to make their contribution as are our private members.
Then further on:
The British government are making expenditures on a much vaster scale than we are, and human nature -is the same in -the United Kingdom as it is -in Canada with reg-ard -to all classes and conditions of men and how they may -act in respect of government contracts and large quantities of money and supplies at a time of war. They are just as anxious -as we -are to see -that whatever is done is done openly, honestly and -above-board and to bring to time summarily -anyone who seeks to profit by opportunities which war conditions may afford. But they have not thought it advisable to set up standing committees of the character which was originally proposed by the leader of the opposition. They h-ave, however, established a committee on national expenditure which has been given certain powers and which has been functioning now for almost a year, having been set up on December 12, 1939.
I then read the motion, which I have already repeated several times, setting forth the powers which are given to the committee on national expenditure in Great Britain; and having quoted the resolution which had been proposed by my hon. friend, I said:
.... may I say that after careful consideration of the whole matter the government is prepared to introduce -a similar motion into this house and to follow -the procedure which has been adopted by Westminster with respect to war expenditure.

TEnr Expenditures-Special Committee
That was a full acceptance of my hon. friend's proposal-full with respect to all the terms of reference, going, indeed, a step further by declaring that we were prepared to follow, with regard to the procedure of the committee itself, the example which had been set at Westminster. That acceptance was given without reservation, mental or otherwise. It was given in a whole-hearted, open and frank manner, deeply appreciative of what, at that time at all events, I believed was the desire on the part of the opposition to cooperate with the government in this matter and which I believe to be still the desire that actuates my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
I come now to a very important point, namely, what in the mind of the leader of the opposition and my mind as leader of the government, and having the responsibility I have in this time of war, was to be the exact character of this committee, whether it was to be a committee, as its terms set forth, to help to control national expenditure, to give to private members of the house their opportunity to make a contribution towards Canada's war effort in the manner therein indicated, or whether it was to be an instrument of party political warfare, that this house was to give to some committee a general warrant to search for scandal.


Joseph Henry Harris: A fishing committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, a fishing expedition, a x-oving committee. I thought it was important to make the purpose clear in the interests of both the opposition and the government; also that it should be perfectly understood by the country in this time of war what the motive was that lay behind the proposal and what was to be its purpose when the committee was formed. In doing so I used the following words:
I want to add that whoever is appointed to such a committee ought to take his responsibilities very seriously. Great care will have to he taken in the selection of the personnel. If there is a genuine desire to do the thing that is helpful, I am sure that great good can come out of the existence of a committee of the kind. If, on the other hand, the committee is to be made an instrument for party warfare, I cannot conceive of anything that could be worse.
That is on page 635 of Hansard.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): May I interrupt my right hon. friend to say that nothing was further from my thoughts.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Quite so. I have not said that my hon. friend-
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): I am not looking for scandal.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I believe that my hon friend is wholly sincere in what he says. I would not have made the remark I did had I thought that he was not. But I repeat that if a committee of the kind were to be used as an instrument of party political warfare, I cannot conceive of a way of working greater injury to Canada's war effort. But a committee which takes its responsibilities seriously, and will assist the government in exercising a control over the expenditures which are being made, keeping on the government the responsibility for policy, but being free to make suggestions that will be helpful and constructive, should be of the greatest possible service. It was that kind of committee which on December 12 last was set up at Westminster, and this is the motion under which action was taken.
I then read the motion, and I went on:
I propose, Mr. Speaker, as soon as parliament reassembles after the adjournment, to introduce a motion in those words in this House of Commons.
I said that the reason for waiting until after parliament reassembled was that I thought it would be a better time to select the members of the committee, and I concluded with these words:
I hope this assurance will meet with general acceptance.
May I conclude before recess by quoting one article which represents, I believe, the impression that was left at the end of the session as to the satisfactory nature of the proceedings between the opposition and the government. The opposition were getting a good deal of credit for having put forward a constructive proposal; the government on its part was being commended for having accepted1 the proposal, and the country generally seemed quite satisfied with the action which was to be taken. I shall read but this one article. It is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 5, 1940, being an editorial headed "Will Ensure Confidence":
The Prime Minister's acquiescence in the suggestion of Mr. Hanson for a parliamentary committee to inquire into war expenditures will be approved in the country as it was in the Commons. The select committee to be set up when parliament reassembles on February 17 will be composed of representatives of all parties in proportion to their strength in the house. If the committee follows the precedent of Westminster it will hold some of its sittings in camera. The quality of its membership should be high if the inquiry is to ascertain whether the country is getting full value for the whole of its expenditure.
Sheer fault-finding is not an indulgence for which there can be any patience or excuse when the nation is fighting for its life. Any attempt to make political capital which would retard the war effort will be severely condemned. What the public wants to know is whether economies can be effected without slowing up preparations for the defeat of Hitlerism. The committee should have ample power to examine expendi-
1224	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
tures for the defence services and for other services directly connected with the war. If it can suggest economies which will in no way hamper the war effort it will do well.
There may be a disposition to exploit the opportunity to discredit the government, but Mr. Hanson was prompt in giving assurance that there was no such thought in his mind. The supreme concern should be to accomplish something that will promote efficiency and economy without impairing the nation's striking force.
The government's decision to create a parliamentary committee to examine expenditures and to suggest what, if any, economies can be made will in itself inspire public confidence.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when, the house recessed, I had concluded discussing the resolution now before us as respects what had taken place during the period of the session before adjournment. I pointed out that the resolution at present before the house is almost identical with the one which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested should be adopted by the government; I indicated the steps which had led the government to accept the resolution in substantially the wording presented by the leader of the opposition, and stated that when parliament adjourned I had thought both sides of the house were in complete agreement as to the resolution and its terms of reference. What I believe justifies that view is the fact that, as I have indicated, the press of the country generally seemed to entertain it. I think it was a logical view to take having regard to the emphasis which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition placed on the practice at Westminster and the emphasis which I personally am inclined to place upon that practice as an example in matters of procedure here.
I wish now to say a word or two about what has happened since parliament reassembled. The leader of the opposition referred to the matter of this committee on Monday, February 17, the first day the house met, and his remarks will be found at page 789 of Hansard. Speaking on the business of the house, the leader of the opposition said:
May I also ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to let us know when the proposed committee on national expenditure will be set up.
I ask the house to note those words, "will be set up." I think the question of my hon. friend makes quite clear by itself that in his mind at that time there was agreement on the committee and that the committee would be

set up. I omitted to reply to that question at the time, and at. page 863 of Hansard my hon. friend is reported as follows:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): There was the question of the setting up of a committee on national expenditure.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I am sorry I omitted to refer to that. 1 hope to introduce the motion this week. I would have introduced it at once, but I thought it desirable that the whips should first confer as to the personnel of the committee. It is also necessary under the rules of the house that notice shall be given in the Votes and Proceedings . . .
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): May I interject that I think it would be very desirable that we should confer on the terms of reference to the committee. That I think is just as important as the personnel of the committee.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I shall be very happy to confer with my hon. friend. I may say I had in mind in drafting the motion what he himself had expressed before the adjournment, namely, that we should follow as closely as possible the motion as introduced in the British House of Commons. I have had the motion prepared, but I shall be pleased to confer with my hon. friend further with regard to it.
The leader of the opposition, made one other reference to the matter on February 19, appearing at page 835 of Hansard, when for the first time there was a new feature introduced. This is what he said:
I hope that the committee on national expenditure, when set up, will examine and criticize all expenditures for war purposes, past, present and future, and award praise or blame, as the case may be.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend's motion had dealt with current expenditures; but now for the first time this new feature was introduced.
. . . will examine and criticize all expenditures for war purposes, past, present and future, and award praise or blame, as the case may be. But the government must not evade or seek to evade responsibility because of the existence of this committee, and the powers of the committee must not be limited to reporting on methods of controlling expenditure. The committee must have power to report on expenditures already made, and the responsibility of refusing to go that far in the order of reference will be upon the government, and upon the government alone.
Apparently this widening of the terms of the resolution was an afterthought, the result evidently of discussion between my hon. friend and some of his followers.
In accordance with the promise I gave my hon. friend at the time, I met him in conference. With him was his colleague the hon. member for Y7ale (Mr. Stirling), and I had with me my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who is with me at the present time. If I am not mistaken, this was on February 19. We discussed the resolution, and during that discussion I had in my hand the document which I have before me

War Expenditures-Special Committee
at the present time. These conferences are supposed to be confidential. I am prepared., to have them so regarded, if that is desired; or I am quite prepared to have everything that was said at the conferences made public here, if that is thought to be preferable. But I would point out to the house that I am in an embarrassing position, in this respect; that while confidence apparently is being kept between the leader of the opposition and myself with regard to what has taken place at certain conferences, the press of the country has been told of all sorts of happenings and discussions. They have begun to base their editorials on this hearsay and have found reason to take exception to the government's alleged action.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the Prime Minister not think what has appeared in the press has been a perverted idea of what has occurred?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do, most certainly.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I mean to say it does not seem to be correct; I will put it in that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for drawing attention to the fact that the reports that have appeared certainly were perverted, I would say, and utterly lacking in justification.
I hope my hon. friend will not object to my referring to the terms of reference of the resolution as discussed in conference with him and the hon. member for Yale, because that will enable me to clear up one matter which I think is most important, inasmuch as it is one which has given rise to most of the discussion outside. I refer to the term of reference which was agreed to at the first conference between my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and myself, and which the cabinet subsequently approved. The resolution proposed by my hon. friend to be presented to the house read as follows:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the current expenditures defrayed out of the moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any. economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
My attention was drawn in the conference to the use of the word "current" which appears in the resolution. It appears in the order under which the British parliament is proceeding. The leader of the opposition said he thought the word "current" might be misunderstood, that it might give rise to the impression that the government was trying
to draw a hard and fast line, that it wished only to examine into current expenditures, and that other expenditures would be found in the auditor general's report, which would be referred to the committee on public accounts. He thought the word "current" ought to be eliminated.
I wish to make perfectly clear, first of all, that the British government have maintained a hard and fast line between current expenditures, which are being inquired into by the committee at Westminster, and past expenditures which, it takes the position, can be looked into only by the public accounts committee.
I agreed with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that leaving the word "current" in might lead to some misunderstanding, or might create some suspicion, and I said that I wTould be agreeable to striking it out; that so far as I was concerned I was quite prepared to have the committee clothed with power to inquire into all expenditures which related to the war, going back to the commencement of the war, if they so desired and believed it to be in the public interest so to do. I made that very clear, and agreed with him then and there, without conference with my colleagues, to strike out the word "current." But I said I would wish to get approval of the cabinet before giving any final word in the matter to the house.
There were one or two other words we also thought might as well go out. I refer to the words "for civil defence" in the clause "provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services." The words "for civil defence" which appear in the British resolution we did not think were necessary in the resolution to be put before this parliament. In the British resolution I believe the term "civil defence" has reference particularly to A.R.P. personnel and to the registration they have in England of persons offering technical and professional services in connection with the war effort. At any rate the words "for the defence sendees and for services directly connected with the war" we felt would cover all that could be included in "for civil defence."
Therefore it was agreed at that conference on February 19 that the resolution would read:
. . . committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
I shall come in a few minutes to what has taken place by way of criticism of the government by a section of the press of our country,

1226	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
in advance of the presentation to-day of the resolution I have in nay hand. But before taking up that aspect of the matter, I wish to point out why the government feels the resolution we are now presenting, in the broad terms to Which I have just referred, should be accepted-and accepted 'as it is, without subtraction and without addition.
In a word it is this: We believe at this time of war it is advisable to follow the practice at Westminster with respect to all matters of procedure affecting the war, unless we have the best of good reasons for departing therefrom. If there is any reason why we should adopt in this parliament with regard to this matter a resolution different from that which has been adopted at Westminster, and if such reason is a material one, I shall be the first to be prepared to consider the re-wording of the resolution now before us. But I would not take upon myself the responsibility in this parliament, knowing of the zeal and care taken by the British parliament in connection with all matters respecting its public expenditures, of taking any step in some unforeseen direction at this time. It is for that reason that my colleagues and I feel that, having before us a resolution on Which the British parliament is acting to-day, we are justified in presenting that resolution to this house, and that we would not be justified in making a material change in its terms.
But there is a further reason, and it is this: The resolution in the British House of Commons governing waT expenditures is not one which has been presented to the British House of Commons for the first time either this year or last year. To all intents and purposes this resolution follows one which was passed in the British parliament in 1917, at the time of the last war. I would point out that on that occasion the war had run on for three years before in the British parliament any committee was appointed to deal with war expenditures. I might at this point refer to the action-or lack of action-in this parliament at that time. There was no committee appointed during the last war such as is being granted by this government under the resolution now before the house. No such committee was granted during the whole of the war period. But in Great Britain in 1917, after three years of war, the government did agree to the appointment of a committee along the lines set forth herein.
At that time every argument which could be put forward either for or against the resolution was, I believe, presented in the British House of Commons. The matter was fully discussed. The question of whether

expenditures should be current expenditures or all expenditures, the question of whether the terms of the resolution should be broadened in any particular, the question of whether there should be a restriction as to matter's relating to economy, and restrictions with respect to action being in accord with the policy of the government-all of these matters were carefully examined and discussed, by question and answer, by the opposition and the ministry, and at the end of it all the committee was appointed, without any division.
I have in my hand some of the statements made at that time. I believe they throw light upon the work the committee was intended to perform, and the reasons why the terms of reference are drafted as they are. At that time Mr. Herbert Samuel, now Lord Samuel, was leader of the opposition. Mr. Lloyd George was leader of the government, and Mr. Bonar Law was leader of the House of Commons, and spoke for the government in the house. The British Hansard for July 6, 1917, reports Mr. Samuel's observations. In the same issue will be found the words of the other gentlemen whom I have mentioned.
Mr. Samuel1, speaking as leader of the opposition, said:
This motion is not intended in any way by any member as a censure either upon the government or upon any government department. It is simply the desire of those who feel themselves to be the representatives of the taxpayers of the country to get information as to how the taxpayers' money is now being spent, and to get real information in an effective way.
Mr. Bonar Law who, as I have said, was leading the House of Commons, and speaking for the government, is reported as follows:
We feel that the expenditure is so large that even from the point of view of satisfying the country, apart altogether from the House of Commons, that everything is being done to keep it down, it is desirable that further examination by the House of Commons should take place.
It must be clearly understood that reference must be of such a nature as to cut a hard and fast line, if it is possible, an the reference, between criticism of policy and an attempt to control expenditure. That is what we desire.
I propose we should appoint a select committee for two purposes, first of all-I am not attempting to give the exact terms of reference -to consider whether additional control can be obtained and in what way it can best be obtained as a permanent arrangement, and in addition to that we should authorize the same committee to do at once what was done by those cabinet committees of which my right hon. friend spoke, and go into the department to examine the method of expenditure, and make recommendations either to the House of Commons or to the department.
That is my proposal. It is not a shelving motion in any sense, and it only carries out what is certainly my own view, that we ought

War Expenditures-Special Committee
to do something more to satisfy not merely the House of Commons but the country-that we are doing all we can to get value for the money we have spent.
In concluding his statement Mr. Bonar Law used these words:
But if the House of Commons only desires- and I am sure it does-not to appoint a roaming commission to seek out grounds of criticism and attack upon the government-to effect some more real control over the vast expenditure, then that is what is desired by the government also, a.nd my proposal gives it the opportunity.
I think the words of Mr. Bonar Law just quoted are similar to those which I used in this house on December 3 when I said:
... a committee which takes its responsibilities seriously, and will assist the government in exercising a control over the expenditures which are being made, keeping on the government the responsibility for policy, but being free to make suggestions that will be helpful and constructive, should be of the greatest possible service.
After the committee had begun its work the matter was again discussed at different times in the British house. Mr. Herbert Samuel, speaking for the opposition and referring to the work of the committee, made the following statement:
It approaches its investigations not in any spirit of hostility-as the chancellor of the exchequer has very kindly acknowledged-for we recognize, heaven knows, how heavy and how difficult are the tasks of those charged with the duties of administration during this war-[DOT] but in a spirit of what I may call friendly vigilance, and with a single-minded desire to make such practical suggestions as commend themselves to us for effective saving; and in order to promote what is the most essential thing of all, an atmosphere of economy pervading the whole of the spending departments of the state.
Speaking on behalf of the government, and also referring to the work of the committee, Mr. Bonar Law said:
I must say that when the committee was set up, the government not only assented to it, but, I think, welcomed it. It was understood that the object of that committee would be not to harass the government departments, not to worry about mistakes which have been made in the past, except so far as they have a bearing on the future, but to devote themselves to helping the country, if possible, in keeping down the expenditure. I am glad to say that not only from their report, but from all I have heard about this committee, that it is in that spirit they have undertaken their work.
I give those passages to the house as indicating the spirit which governed the committee in its work and as indicating also the nature of the work and its scope. That was in 1917 and 1918. When the present war broke out, the British House of Commons had the experience of that committee to guide it,

7SA
and it had all the discussions that had taken place in the committee as well as the reports. There were members of the British house who had served on that committee and who knew the value of its work. For that reason, when the present committee was proposed in the British house, every one was more or less familiar with its purpose, its method of carrying on its proceedings, its value, and the like. The result was that there was little or no discussion and no division when it came to the appointment of a committee.
May I draw attention to another fact brought out by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The committee in England was formed when Mr. Chamberlain was still Prime Minister and when, as the leader of the opposition said, there was an opposition party in the British House of Commons. I suppose there will be some who will say, "Oh, well, they have a union or a national government in Great Britain and that makes all the difference." I may deal with that, if necessary, a little later on. I would now point out that when the committee was functioning in 1917 there was an effective opposition, of which Mr. Herbert Samuel was the leader. The opposition in the British house at that time was made up of Liberals and Labour members.
I would also point out that when the present resolution was adopted in the British house it was at a time when the Labour party was in opposition, under Mr. Attlee, Mr. Bevin and other gentlemen. At that time there was in Great Britain no national government in the form in which it is at the present time. I have just been reminded that it was Sir Archibald Sinclair, the leader of the Liberal opposition in the British house, who asked for the appointment of the committee. He was supported by the Labour opposition and the Liberals, and both oppositions were joined by the government in a unanimous agreement to appointing a committee. So far as I have heard or know, there has never been any occasion to challenge the wisdom of the decision that was reached at that time.
I come now to a further reason why we feel it would be desirable to adopt the resolution in the form in which it is. Not only have we the example of the British house to guide us in its terms and method of proceeding, we have the advantage of having before us reports of the committee itself. When the leader of the opposition proposed this committee he said that he had in his hand copies of the reports of the committee which had been appointed. I have here the reports of the select committee on national expenditure. I
1228	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
have used the phrase "committee to control national expenditure" because that is the designation used continually throughout the reports. The committee is known as the select committee on national expenditure. I assume that will be the name of this committee to deal with war expenditures.
I should like to go through these reports and indicate to the house what they contain, but that would take considerable time. I shall, however, give to the house from the reports themselves some particulars with respect to the British committee and its work, because this information will serve to indicate the scope of the committee that it is proposed to set up here, and the extent of the work it will have to undertake. I venture to say that hon. members will be amazed when they learn how wide is the latitude which the government has given to private members to investigate matters of expenditure pertaining to the war.
The first report of the committee was dated January 16, 1940. It outlines the organization. The committee of Great Britain had twenty-eight members, and it was divided into seven subcommittees which dealt with the following subjects:
1.	Army services.
2.	Navy services.
3.	Air services.
4.	Supply services.
5.	Home defence services.
6.	Trade, agriculture and economic warfare.
7.	A coordinating subcommittee composed of the chairman of the whole committee and the chairman of each subcommittee.
I intend to read two or three paragraphs of the proceedings of the committee in Great Britain because I think they will throw a little light upon the nature of the proceedings and possibly guide our committee when it undertakes its duties.
The second report points out that the committee "conceive it to be more their duty to prevent or check waste before it occurs than to conduct enquiries into past events." At this stage four more members had been added to the committee and an additional subcommittee on transport services had been set up. The subjects upon which specific recommendations were made in this report were:
1.	The coordination of procedure in the letting of government contracts.
2.	The design, specification and supply of
warlike stores with a view:	(a) to get, if
possible, -an equally serviceable article at lower cost; (b) to get an equally serviceable article with quicker delivery; (c) to ensure that specifications include no superfluous quantities, qualities, or frills; (d) to exclude imported
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]
materials which are not essential; (e) to exclude domestic materials of which the supply is short.
3.	The building programme.
4.	The selection of sites for government buildings.
5.	Competitive bidding for skilled workmen.
6.	The consideration of the prevention of waste and salvage by a fact-finding survey.
In connection with the committee's report I have noted this particular paragraph which I think is of interest:
The efficacy of your committee's investigations will perhaps never be fully obvious, either to the house or to the public at large, from their published reports alone. Not only do considerations of public interest preclude them from stating certain facts and figures, but also it has been found that the investigations themselves have led to immediate action by departments which might normally not have been taken till a formal report of the committee had been brought to their notice. Sufficient instances of this kind have occurred to convince your committee that this is one of the most valuable results of their activities, since their discovery of waste, actual or potential, brings immediate action with a view to its removal. This prompt contribution to efficiency and economy is, your committee submit, more vital to the national interest than the formulation of reports of a sensational or spectacular character.
The third report is an amended report from the subcommittee on army services. The subcommittee had, by April 10, 1940, held twenty meetings and heard twenty-eight witnesses. One of the chief subjects of inquiry was the army programme of building. The committee found that the necessity of speed in camp construction had inflated costs both of materials and of labour.
I wish to make clear to the house that the committees investigating these matters have gone very thoroughly into their work and have not hesitated to make very clear, where-ever they found evidence of wasteful expenditure, just what the circumstances were. Here is one case and I give it as an instance because I have heard others commenting on the existence of similar situations here. The committee also found that not enough attention had been given to using small contractors in this work of camp construction and that delays which might have been avoided had existed in making plans available to contractors.
The committee also found deficiencies in the army methods of requisitioning land and buildings for military use.
The fourth report dealt with trade, agriculture and economic warfare. I do not know that I need to go into the details of that.

War Expenditures-Special Committee
The fifth report dealt with air services. Here I pause to give the house a reference to the contents of that report:
The report is not concerned with the general activities of the Air Ministry but with two particular matters:	(1) the site of a repair
depot in Scotland and (2) an aerodrome in Kent.
Following the fifth report, the committee issued a special report, on May 28, 1940, dealing with its own procedure.
I shall take occasion to refer to this special report when I have concluded what I have to say about the other reports, 'because it contains mention of some things which I think will be helpful to hon. members in appreciating considerations of which full account must be taken.
The sixth report deals with the subcommittee on supply services and goes into questions of specifications of supplies; coordination of purchases; overtime for labour; salvage of waste products; the extension of the field of production through using all possible firms, large and small, for government orders.
The seventh report deals with the subcommittee on navy services. This report is concerned with the letting of contracts, the repair and construction of ships, and Sunday work on ship repairs.
The eighth report deals with home defence services.
The ninth report deals with transport services; the tenth report with priority organization; the eleventh report with replies of the departments to the first eight reports of the committee; the twelfth report with army services, and the thirteenth report with government films.
So far as I can learn, when the British house adjourned, the committee ceased to function but was reappointed as soon as the house reassembled on November 26. Before November 26, the committee had prepared one further report, the fourteenth. I have not been able to get the actual report itself. The fourteenth report was made on October 15, 1940. The committee, which was reconstituted at the beginning of the new session on November 26, issued its third report in January. This report dealt with labour waste in contracts and was reviewed by the parliamentary correspondent of the London Times on January 16.
I have not thus far been able to secure any other report, but what I have read, Mr. Speaker, indicates the very wide scope of activity for such a committee and will let members of the house see the nature of the service which it is possible to render to
the government in assisting to control expenditures, to avoid waste and to prevent misdoing of any kind in connection with government contracts.
The special report of the committee was clearly made with a view to giving to the British house and to the public information which the committee felt it was important for the house to have in time of war. I quote from this special report:
1.	Your committee concluded their second report by observing that the efficacy of their investigations might never be fully obvious from their published reports alone. In some cases, as they pointed out, their investigations had led to immediate action by the departments -a result which renders formal recommendations unnecessary-and in other cases they were precluded from stating certain facts and figures by considerations of public interest.
2.	Your committee feel bound to revert to the difficulty caused, in time of war, by considerations of the latter kind, in that they inevitably hamper the procedure of reporting to the house. In normal times, a select committee discharge their duty by reporting their views to the house, usually with the evidence on which these views are based. The order of the house for the printing of the report and the evidence (if reported) is presumed to have been made as a matter of course, and publication duly ensues. On this the house, whether or no a formal debate takes place, can form its own judgment. In time of war this unrestricted publicity is incompatible with considerations of public interest, since nothing can be safely published which would give valuable information to the enemy. The difficulty, therefore, with which your committee is faced is how to fulfil their duty of reporting criticisms of departmental action or disagreements with departmental views, when the publication of their findings might endanger national security.
3.	Your committee find themselves in this dilemma: considerations of national safety may preclude them from publishing certain recommendations and the arguments on which they are based, while the normal practice of the house prevents them from communicating their report to the members of the war cabinet who alone can take executive action to compel the departments to adopt your committee's recommendations. They feel bound to inform the house that, in order to carry out the task imposed upon them, the chairman of the committee and the chairmen of subcommittees, with the authorization of the committee or of the subcommittee in question, have considered it essential to approach ministers for direct discussions on matters arising from their inquiries and on the advisability of publicly stating certain facts and figures. This method of informal approach, however, though highly valuable, does not solve the whole problem.
4.	Your committee are mindful that their duty is to the house. But, in war, the supreme consideration is to secure efficiency and swiftness in executive action, while preventing the disclosure of vital facts. Procedure must be moulded to fit these circumstances.
5.	Your committee, therefore, recommend that when, in their opinion, a report should not be presented, their coordinating subcommittee
1230	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
(which consists of the chairman of the committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees) should be empowered to address a memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the war cabinet, with a request for a considered reply thereto; and that your committee do report to the house on every occasion when this power shall have been exercised. They ask the house to give them this power.
In making these quotations I do not wish for a moment to have it assumed that the government proposes to put any restrictions on the committee that is appointed beyond those that are set forth in the terms of reference itself. But I feel it is only right and fair that at this stage, so that there may be no doubt hereafter as to whether or not a wise course is being pursued, that I should bring to the attention of the house some of the reasons why the British committee, when it was appointed, proceeded in the manner in which it did. I took occasion a day or two ago to telegraph to the high commissioner to ascertain whether what I had gathered from its own reports, namely, that the proceedings of the British committee had been for the most part in camera was correct or not. His reply to me was that the committees in England have held their proceedings in camera.
I can see at once wherein that circumstance is capable of being grossly misconstrued. Someone may say, "Well, we do not do business in that way as a rule." Of course we do not as a rule; but what I wish to emphasize to this house is what Mr. Churchill himself has had to emphasize over and over in the British parliament, namely, that we are now at war, and that things which can be done in certain ways in peace time cannot always with wisdom be proceeded with in the same manner in a time of war.
I have in my hand the report of the debate that took place in the British House of Commons on the 27th of last month. Hon. members will no doubt have noticed it. It was a debate that arose out of the appointment of the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald as high commissioner to Canada. The government had introduced a bill to permit members who received appointments from the government in connection with the war effort to retain their seats in parliament. Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was at Moscow, and one or two others had received appointments and would in the nature of things have vacated their seats but tor the special act that wias being passed. Mr. Churchill said that he felt that in a time of war it was absolutely necessary' that the ministry should have the right to make certain appointments from among members in the house, and lie added that he would regard any vote against his motion as a vote of
rMr. Mackenzie King.]
want of confidence in his government. I do not propose to take such a stand in this parliament, but what I wish particularly to direct attention to is what appears to have taken place in the debate to which I have referred. Let me read from the dispatch;
In the same session Mr. Churchill, declaring impatiently that "I really must emphasize that there is a war on," turned down a request for a debate on the leasing of western hemisphere defence bases to the United States.
There, surely, was an apparently innocent enough subject for the House of Commons to discuss, one in which the British public was vitally interested-the leasing of certain British property to the United States. Yet Mr. Churchill would not allow a debate to take place on that subject in the British house, where members are so careful to have their property and other rights fully respected.
Why did Mr. Churchill not wish to have that debate? Because he knew that the minute a debate took place it might disclose in the House of Commons a difference of view which would be a great comfort to the enemy and might sow seeds of difficulty between Great Britain and the United States. He said, therefore, that in this time of war, when the nation is struggling to preserve the security of the state, this being its first consideration, he could not allow a debate to arise upon a question of that kind.
It is for similar reasons that in matters that involve the disclosure of facts, figures, as would give rise to situations which would be of aid or comfort to the enemy, it has been thought desirable to have these committees proceed in the way in which their own best judgment dictates. That is the reason. It is not that the government has anything to hide, or wishes to hide anything. It is because in a time of war, knowing the great responsibilities that rest upon the ministry and that the ministry must retain the confidence of the country if its war effort is to succeed, that this procedure is necessary. I say that without any hesitation. If confidence in the government is undermined or destroyed, that is going to have its effect upon the war effort of the country. Let the House of Commons give its confidence to the government or withhold it; but so long as we have the confidence of parliament, let us carry on our war effort in the best way we possibly can. If there is any reason why we should lose that confidence, let the reason be stated. But in the meantime I suggest, in the interests of what is best for the country in a time of war, that it is

War Expenditures-Special Committee
desirable that confidence in government should be maintained in the eyes of the people.
May I come now to what I said of an effort being made to create the impression that the government has something to hide or is seeking to conceal something. That reason was put forward by my hon. friend, not as his belief but as the way in which many people would interpret the resolution if the word "current" were left in, the committee being appointed to examine current expenditure defrayed out of public moneys. Leaving in the word "current" might make it appear that the government was trying to hide something that had been done in the past which was not covered by current expenditure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I ever suggested that as the reason for taking the word out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did the hon. member suggest?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will speak about it later on. I do not recall having given that reason; I will put it that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that was not
the reason, a section of the press has not been slow in trying to have it appear that there is some reason of the kind existing. I have in my hand an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 1. The leader of the opposition a day or two ago advised members of the house not to attempt to enter into controversy with the press; he said that whoever took that task upon himself might expect the press to have the last word and would fare worse in the end. As a member of parliament, I feel that the rights of parliament are supreme over the press or any other institution in the country; and if I find the press of the country misrepresenting the position as it affects the government or its war effort, I intend to take exception most emphatically to what the press says. The press is one power in the country, but I hope the day will never come when the press supplants the place that parliament is supposed to have in upholding the rights of the people. There is one other power that is supreme over press and parliament alike, namely, the people of the country; and the people of this country, on more than one occasion, have shown what they feel with respect to a press that represents a point of view contrary to that which they themselves entertain.
May I read a part of this editorial dated March 1. I would have the house keep in mind that February 19 was the date on which
it was agreed between the leader of the opposition and myself that the word "current" would be dropped out of the resolution and that the resolution that I would submit to the house would be to appoint a committee to examine expenditures defrayed out of public moneys, without any limitation by the word "current." The resolution having appeared on the order paper, the Montreal Gazette of March 1 said editorially:
The wording is significant inasmuch as it binds the committee in advance by whatever construction the government may put upon the words "consistent with the execution of the policy."
That is the first effort to undermine confidence in the purpose of the administration in submitting this resolution in the form in which it is, including the words "consistent with the execution of the policy." My first answer to that criticism is that these words appear in the resolution of the British House of Commons in the order to its committee. But they appear there, and they appear here for the reason that the government is responsible to parliament for policy, and no committee of the House of Commons has the right under any procedure known to parliament to intervene between parliament and the administration. The question of policy is a question for the government to decide, a question to be debated on the floor of the house. It is not the business of a committee appointed by the house to decide whether policy is correct or incorrect; that can be discussed between the government and hon. members on the floor of the house.
But the editorial goes on:
The phrase is restrictive, and as such it reveals a disinclination on the part of the government to allow the committee the free scope which some of its members may deem desirable and even necessary in the public interest. If the work of the committee is to be directed in accordance with the interest of the government if and whenever that interest appears to be in conflict with the interest of the taxpayer and of the national war effort, it follows that the results must be incomplete and therefore unsatisfactory.
Is that fair comment? Could anything be more unfair than that, for a responsible journal to challenge the intent and purpose and motives of the government in giving members of the House of Commons the right to investigate to the extent this motion does, in saying, "if the work is to be in the interest of the government"? I wish it to be understood that the work of this committee is to be, and I believe it will be, in the interest of the public and in no other interest. The government is here to serve the public interest and is asking for this committee to help in that effort.
1232	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
The editorial goes on:
Unfortunately, there is other evidence justifying an apprehension as to the government's attitude.
Notice that word "evidence". There is "other evidence". We have not had any evidence thus far. No evidence has been adduced up to the present, only misrepresentation, unfair comment. But:
Unfortunately, there is other evidence justifying an apprehension as to the government's attitude.
This in a time of war when we are told that the Conservative party-and this paper certainly represents what is left of the Conservative party-is trying to cooperate with the government in the matter of Canada's war effort. Note this following sentence:
The scope of the committee's labours was discussed on Monday between the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and some of the latter's colleagues, and reports from Ottawa are that the deliberations were not amicable.
That reference is to Monday, February 24. It was on February 19 that a decision was reached to omit the word "current" from the resolution. The meeting of the 24th dealt with a still further enlargement of this proposal, but it did not alter that question of the agreement of the government to allow the word "current" to come out.
The editorial continues:
They were, on the contrary, heated and acrimonious, assuming the correctness of information obtained by the Canadian Press. The substance of the story is that opposition members tried to insist upon the committee's right to examine all war expenditures incurred since the commencement of the conflict whereas the Prime Minister was prepared only to permit examination of current outlays as is done in Britain. The Conservative retort was that the British committee has been at work since the war began and therefore has knowledge of all expenditures and what was got for them.
I leave hon. members to reach their own conclusion as to where the Gazette got its inspiration. Certainly it was not from anyone on this side of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the Prime Minister suggest that it came from me or my colleagues? I deny it absolutely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will say to my hon. friend that I do not believe it came from him; I do not believe it came from the hon. member who sits to his left. I will not say anything more.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the Prime Minister can go the whole length. As far as I know, he can go the whole length.
EMr. Mackenzie King.]


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Does that leave the inference that it came from me? If it does, I ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the inference that I ever gave any information to any press man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The three hon. members who were present at the conference have all spoken and I accept their word, that not one of them gave any kind of intimation of what took place at the conference to any member of the press. I say the same with respect to all my colleagues who were present. Nevertheless, we get this interesting account. Perhaps there was an intermediary. Let me read a little further.
The inference is that Mr. King is afraid of a full investigation.
All this is based on the assertion that I would not allow the word "current" to go out. And I had stricken it out ten days before. It goes on:
Rightly or wrongly, that is how his position will be interpreted by the people of Canada. They will conclude that he has something to hide and they will have ground for believing that it is something exceedingly grave.
And this is interesting:
This ground is supplied in the amazing statement that the Prime Minister threatened to resign if he could not have his way. Surely this country, at this time of all times, is entitled to something better from the head of its government than the behaviour of a temperamental prima donna.
I think this is the first time, it is as far as I am aware, that I have been credited with being a temperamental prima donna. I rather thought the criticism was that I was far too colourless, that I did not give the press anything for headlines, that I was not spectacular enough, that I did not say nasty things about other people and gain special prominence for so doing. Then it goes on to say:
This is not war leadership, if it is leadership at all, and the greatest war in history is reaching its most critical stage, as critical for Canada as for any other country. The whole situation in regard to this war expenditure committee looks wrong, about as wrong as it could be. and it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of the public.
I ask hon. members if that is fair criticism. Are not all these not only false insinuations but false statements? Are they not malicious statements? I go so far as to say that that article is libellous; first, because it is false, and, second, because it is malicious, and it bears the stigma of both these things on its face. I go further and say it infringes the privileges of this house.

War Expenditures-Special Committee
I come now to another paper. Just before six o'clock I read to the house how strongly the Toronto Globe and Mail eulogized the administration for its stand before adjournment in agreeing to accept the motion put forward at the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, and for undertaking to introduce the motion being put forward to-day. But what is said in an article that appears in the Globe and Mail to-day on the same resolution? Hon. members will notice that these articles have been appearing before the subject matter has been discussed in this house. In other words, fill the public mind with all the prejudice you possibly can before there is any opportunity for the government to say a word, and then in the next editorial say that the government found itself on the defensive and that Mr. King spent most of the afternoon trying to defend himself against some accusations that he must know are only too true.
The editorial I read just before recess was headed something about confidence being established. This one is headed "The First Billion Dollars." It not only misrepresents motives as the editorial I have read from the Montreal Gazette did, but it also misrepresents the facts. It begins, by speaking of:
. . the reported determination of the Prime Minister to prevent examination of the first billion dollars spent on the war.
In other words, leading the public to assume that I am preventing inquiry into "the first billion dollars", being the first year's war expenditure. It goes on to say that I have precluded the committee on public accounts from meeting, and goes on to say:
The right of the public accounts committee to examine the accounts of the past year has been recognized for more than half a century.
It quotes at length from Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir John Thompson and others to show that the public accounts committee have a perfect right to examine accounts relating to the past, and it leaves the impression that I have been and am preventing the public accounts committee from meeting and am also determined to prevent this committee from going into the public expenditure for more than a year.
What are the facts about the public accounts committee? The committee was set up in this house on November 22, if I am not mistaken.
The committee is there; it can meet at any time any Iron, member wishes to have it called. The auditor general's report was tabled in this house, I have forgotten on what date. If it has not been referred to the
committee on public accounts, that has been due to an oversight, and I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to see that it is referred to the committee to-morrow. The public accounts committee is there, as it always has been, and this government is not trying in any way to prevent that committee from functioning, going into any matter into which it may wish to inquire. Any hon. member has the right to request that this should be done. But let me read the conclusion of this editorial:
Ministers may argue speciously that rules which might apply to the regular public accounts committee of the commons and be faithfully observed in its proceedings are not applicable to a special committee on war expenditures, but the argument will not hold water. It is no credit to governments or parliaments that the public accounts committee has not functioned for years, but the special committee on war expenditures has under the strong pressure of public opinion been conceded by the government as a substitute for it in order that popular disquietude about certain features of the ministry's war programme might be allayed.
I say that statement is an entire falsehood. The committee which is being set up, if this house accepts this resolution, is not in substitution for the public accounts committee; it is in addition to the public accounts committee. This is a committee that can go back over ground which should be confined to the public accounts committee, and which in Great Britain is so confined. Then the editorial concludes:
It will be farcical and something wo-rse if the government, having conceded the committee, reduces it to partial impotence by debarring it from inquiring into the first billion dollars of expenditures, and the opposition will be derelict in its duty if it does not insist upon the withdrawal of any limitations upon the investigation.
I do not think I need say more about that article. Why are these editorials put forward at this time? When the opposition in this house profess that they are cooperating with the government, seeking to help in the war effort; when they are being praised by the Montreal Gazette and the Toronto Globe and Mail for that patriotic attitude, why do these papers attack this administration, not on anything we have done but accusing us of something we have not done and have never thought of doing, and then condemn us on that specious charge? If that is cooperating in war effort, I have still to learn the meaning of the word "cooperation."
I am not going to take the time of the house to go over other press comments, but there is one with which I wish to deal 'because it reflects on every member of this house.

1234	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
Before I do so, I think I might read to hon. members one or two citations from "Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms," relating to the privileges of members of this house. Citation 157, under standing order 16, reads:
Interference with or reflections upon members have been resented as indignities to the house itself.
Then citation 162:
Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a select committee are equivalent to libellous charges brought against the house itself, while a letter complaining that a member who had been nominated upon a select committee would be unable to act impartially upon it has been adjudged a breach of privilege.
I think the sooner it is understood both inside and outside this house that any charge that members being appointed to committees of this house cannot act impartially is a breach of the privileges of this house, the better it will be. Any charge of partiality, or assumption of partiality, on the part of a member of the house serving on a committee is a reflection upon the member and also upon- the house itself; and, as the one who is more responsible than any other in this house for maintaining the rights of members and the privileges of the house, it is part of my duty to bring that matter prominently at this time to the attention of hon. members and of some of those who control the press in the country. I find as the heading of an article which appears in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 22, 1941, "Impartial Probe Desirable." T-hen I read this statement:
In another column on this page we publish a pertinent letter from Mr. Harry R. Jackman, M.P. for Toronto-Rosed-ale, in which he makes the point that the maximum effectiveness of the special parliamentary committee on national expenditures is not likely to result unless there is on the committee adequate -representation of the opposition.
I have before me the letter referred to; I shall not read it. The hon. gentleman is one of the new members of the house, and I am prepared to believe that he wrote the letter without realizing the extent to which it reflected upon every member of this house. I will go on and read what is said in this editorial appearing in the Globe and Mail:
It is not -to be expected that the ten Liberal members will bestir themselves to expose the shortcomings of the government; consequently the task of ferreting out information will devolve upon the handful of Conservative and leftist members.
This editorial is a reflection upon every hon. gentleman on this side of the house, without exception, and is a reflection upon this house itself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not forget this corner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And on hon. gentlemen sitting in that comer as well.


Mr. JACKMAN:: If I may interrupt, I would point out that the paragraph which the Prime Minister has quoted was incorporated in a letter from myself to the Globe and Mail, but was taken from an editorial appearing in a previous edition of that newspaper. If I have cast any reflection upon any member of this -house who may have been nominated to that committee, I certainly express to such hon. member and to the house my sincere apologies, and suggest that no reflection was intended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have
already said, knowing -the hon. gentleman I am sure he would be the last to wish to do anything contrary to the rules of this house, and particularly anything which might constitute a reflection upon his fellow members.
I wish to say just a word -as to why the committee has been made so large. In the first place, that has been done in order that hon. gentlemen immediately opposite may -have on the committee a larger representation than they would have if the committee were smaller in number. If this had been a committee of fifteen, their representation would have numbered three. -On a committee of twenty-four the Conservative representation numbers four, with one member from each of the two other parties. There was the further desire to interest a large number of members in this work of helping to control war expenditures. Let me read the names of the members of -this committee and as I read them I will ask hon. members whether they believe any of these hon. gentlemen, regardless of which party they support, are likely to discharge their duty to this committee in a partial manner; or whether they are not all -honourable and patriotic members of this house who can be trusted to perform their duty as their constituents would expect them to.	-


Mr. McGREGOR:: Why not ask the little boys to stand up as their names are called?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The little boy who is speaking just now evidently wishes to be heard but not seen.


Robert Henry McGregor: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The names of the Liberal members on the committee are as follows:	Abbott, Bercovitch, Bradette,
Chevrier, Cleaver, Fournier (Hull), Gladstone,

War Expenditures-Special Committee
Golding, Graham, Gray, Macdonald (Halifax), Mayhew, McGeer, Picard, Pottier, Ross (Moose Jaw), Sissons, and Thorson.
I ask members of this house if there is exception to 'be taken to the name of any one of those members on the ground that such hon. member named is not likely to do his full duty on the committee, if he is placed there.
These are the names of the Conservative members on the committee: Black (Cumberland), Diefenbaker, Harris (Danforth), and Green.
Then there is the name of Mr. Maclnnis of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Mr. Marshall of the Social Credit group.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister would not give them a certificate of credit, would he?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; I am prepared to give them a certificate of credit with respect to the integrity with which they are bound to and will, I believe, discharge their duties.
There is one word with which I should like to conclude. In the course of our conversations together, the leader of the opposition asked me if I would give him, in the form of a memorandum, what I had said to him I felt to be an essential consideration in connection with the appointment of the committee. I sent my hon. friend the memorandum he requested, in the form of a letter, and I believe he will take no exception to my reading the letter to the house because it expresses what I believe ought to be present to the mind of each hon. member who serves on the committee, and in fact to the mind of every hon. member in the house.
In these days, when one has reason to know a good deal about the possible trend of the world situation, when one faces from hour to hour the possibiltiy of having to make some announcement to the house about a development which will fill the minds of all with immediate concern, it is not an easy burden, may I say, to have one's motives continually misrepresented! to the public as being those of a person who is considering only what he can hide or what he can conceal, a person having ulterior motives in everything he does. I believe I have been long enough in this House of Commons for hon. members to know where I stand on questions of public integrity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe, too, that I can let my life record speak for itself in that regard. But if I say to this House
14873-79}
of Commons that there are some considerations which make it impossible to-day, in a time of war, to proceed as we would ordinarily proceed in times of peace, I hope it will be understood that I have the very best of reasons for so saying. I do not think I need to state them for hon. members to appreciate their importance. It is not only Canada's war effort that is at stake in this war. Anything which affects adversely Canada's war effort is going to affect adversely the war effort of the British empire. It is going to do more than that; it is going to affect adversely the war effort of all those forces fighting for freedom against tyranny, against world domination.
I have striven as best I could to prevent things from being said in this House of Commons which might make us responsible for some aspect of the war for which none of us would care to be responsible. I have been chided for that. I have been chided because I have said, "Let us be careful what we say here. It may not be understood in other countries in the way it is understood here." But at least my conscience is clear in that I have uttered no word I know of which could provoke any situation, or make a bad situation worse. I believe I am equally clear in my own conscience when I say that I have asked nothing of this House of Commons from any motive other than that of what I considered to be most necessary to make our war effort as effective as possible, and to prevent anything from happening which might at a time of crisis make a bad situation worse.
It was that which I had in mind when I sent this letter to my hon. friend, in answer to his request. Upon reading the letter I shall have concluded what I wish to say. It is as follows:
Ottawa, February 20, 1941 The Honourable R. B. Hanson, P.C., M.P.,
Leader of the Opposition,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Hanson:
You have asked me to let you have, in the form of a memorandum, the consideration of which I mentioned full account should be taken in the terms of reference of the committee on national expenditure.
In a word, what I mentioned was that I thought the United Kingdom was as concerned about the control of expenditures in time of war as Canada; that unquestionably the government and parliament of the United Kingdom had considered the matter from every possible angle, and that I thought there must have been the best of reasons for the terms of reference of the select committee of the British House of Commons being in the words they are, both as regards what they contain and what they do not contain.
I suggested -that, having read the reports of the United Kingdom select committee on national expenditure, you yourself would be
War Expenditures-Special

Committee
wholly familiar with the reasons which, at a time of war, had caused the British parliament to proceed with respect to national expenditures in the manner it had, and that I hoped you might find it possible to explain these reasons to members of your party who might be conferring with you concerning the terms of reference of the committee to be appointed by our own House of Commons.
The war effort of the British commonwealth of nations is a united effort. Whatever affects that effort in one part has its effect upon all. I should feel I was assuming a very grave responsibility if, in a matter to which the United Kingdom parliament had given every consideration, and had adopted a procedure respecting national expenditures which it deemed imperative at a time of war, I were not to point out to all concerned the responsibility which our own House of Commons would be taking upon itself in departing from the procedure followed at Westminster, particularly where that procedure had been adopted with special reference to war-time expenditures.
You will have observed that the select committee on national expenditure of the British House of Commons drew the attention of the house in a special report to the difficulties caused by considerations of public interest in following ordinary procedure in time of war.
The following appears in the report of the committee:
"In normal times, a select committee discharge their duty by reporting their views to the house, usually with the evidence on which the views are based. The order of the house for the printing of the report and the evidence -if reported-is presumed to have been made as a matter of course, and publication duly ensues. On this the house, whether or no a formal debate takes place, can form its own judgment. In time of war this unrestricted publicity is incompatible with considerations of public interest, since nothing can be safely published which would give valuable information to the enemy."
Another section of the same report is as follows:
"Your committee are mindful that their duty is to the house. But, in war, the supreme consideration is to secure efficiency and swiftness in executive action, while preventing the disclosure of vital facts. Procedure must be moulded to fit these circumstances."
It was these aspects of the matter which I felt placed a responsibility upon every party and member in the House of Commons, not less than upon the government, and which I was anxious, as leader of the opposition, you should have particularly in mind.
You will, no doubt, recollect that these were matters carefully considered at a conference which was held in my office prior to adjournment, at which the question of the nature of the committee to be appointed to deal with national expenditures was considered between yourself, Mr. Stirling and Mr. Green and some of my colleagues and myself.
Yours sincerely.
W. L. Mackenzie King.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we
have all listened with the most intense interest to the two-hour address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which he has just concluded. I confess I am surprised that he took so much time to defend a position which, so far as I am aware, has not been the subject of intense attack at least by us on this side of the house, whatever it may have been in the country.
I am bound to say that the first impressions on my mind are that he has proved, beyond peradventure, the value of the suggestion which I made to the house and the country on December 3. Second, he has taken the opportunity to battle with his friends the press in connection with the attitude they have taken with regard to this subject. May I say that so far as his engaging in that combat is concerned, I leave him to his friends of the press. They are quite able to take care of themselves, and no one has asked me to constitute myself as their champion.


Mr. POULIOT:: It is just as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Further,
I should like to say that never at any time have I communicated to the press any of the proceedings of the confidential conferences that were held from time to time with regard to this matter. I have been amazed at the crossing of wires which seems to have occurred and at the stories which have been published in the press with respect to what is thought to have taken place. I will just say to them that they appear to have mixed up two things. I am going to leave that matter right there.
At the risk of taking a little time-I promise the house that I shall not take up one-half the time taken by the Prime Minister-I should like to take the house back to the date when I first brought up the question of the examination of war expenditures. Speaking in the debate on the address on November 12, 1940, I made the following observations, which were referred to in part by the Prime Minister, and which will be found at page 34 of Hansard:
We on your left, sir, hold the view, and I believe it is well founded, that it has been the deliberate policy of the government, during the past session as well as during the interval since we adjourned in August, to endeavour to create the impression that all was well with our war effort. In our view the government has sought to lull and soothe the Canadian people into a false sense of security, and continues to do so. It has sought to convince the people that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

War Expenditures-Special Committee
Those who are alive to the situation know the clangers that lurk behind such a position, and they are alike alarmed and anxious. Knowing of this feeling, I am impelled to propose to the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees which will be charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house factually, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship-and I have no doubt that is possible-what is our exact position (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air; and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary in our war effort, so that the Canadian people may know the truth. Before such committees ministers could appear and be subject to questioning. Progress reports in the form of speeches in the house by ministers are not good enough. You can never elicit the naked facts in that manner. Only the time-proven method of cross-examination by question and answer will suffice. The process should be free from anything in the nature of propaganda. The public has been fed that until it is nauseated.
Then I go on to say;
The government may hold the view that it is not in the public interest that the facts and figures for which I am asking be disclosed. I know the matter is not free from difficulties. When I make the proposal I visualize many of its implications, but I am convinced that the method I have suggested is the only real way in which the government may satisfy the public. I am willing with some of my colleagues to meet with the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues so that we may consider the whole proposal, in an honest effort to arrive at a conclusion.
That was the proposal which I laid before this House of Commons on November 12 last. That proposal related to two distinct matters, namely, an investigation into the armed forces of the nation and one into production and expenditure. In ordinary peace times I would never have made any such suggestion; in ordinary peace times it would not have been necessary; in ordinary peace times there would be available the usual procedure and methods to investigate these matters. But because we were at war, because there was- questioning in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people as to the * government's war effort, I thought this should be done. Why should there not be such questioning? I am not going to traverse with respect to this matter the ground I have covered on previous occasions.
The Prime Minister knows the charges made against his government with regard to the war effort during the first twelve months of this war just as well as I do. The fact that the charges are true is why we are so far behind to-day after eighteen months of war. I am not, however, going into that matter to-night. I felt impelled to make that request of the Prime Minister because this
nation was at war, and I think I made it in reasonably moderate language. At all events no exception was taken to the manner or the method that I suggested. I suggested a conference and the Prime Minister was good enough to give it to me. We met, and I am bound to say that my understanding was that at the conference we agreed that it would be confidential in nature. I understood that we were to speak freely, and I tried to observe that from A to Z. We did speak freely.
I did not go into details of what I had said in the house, because the Prime Minister and his colleagues knew that without my telling them. My colleagues knew it without my speaking about it. I do not intend to go into the details of my conversation with the members of the government, but I will say that the government would not accept the proposals which I made. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) gave the reasons for not accepting one proposal. I shall not go into those reasons, but I want to be quite frank in what I say. The Minister of National Defence stated that in a time of war it would be impossible for his headquarters' staff to be at the beck and call of a parliamentary committee. I am bound to tell the house that I agreed with him. That was the spirit in which I met them. I shall not elaborate on that statement, but if he desires to do so he is at liberty. I shall free him from anything. I was impressed with his statement as to the undesirability at this critical time of having his officers delegated to wait upon a parliamentary committee appointed to investigate the position of outfighting forces, military, naval and air.
With regard to the investigation of questions relating to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary in our war effort, there was not so much unanimity. I could not get the consent of the government to investigate those matters. Until last week the attitude of the government with respect to giving information relating to the production of equipment and supplies was quite apparent. We have been deluged with promises and expectations, but we have been told nothing factually as to what the government's effort was in terms of production and delivery. We never got that until the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) gave it to us last week in connection with the war appropriation measure. The government had taken that attitude and I had no power to compel them to do otherwise. I did not try to compel them after that conference. We failed in our
123S	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
initial undertaking, but that initial undertaking was made in the utmost good faith in an effort to ascertain for the Canadian people just what this government had been doing along the lines of the two subject matters involved in the suggestion that I made. We failed in that, and for that failure I am sure the Prime Minister will assume responsibility. He has already anticipated criticism here to-night in that regard.
Having failed in that direction, I turned the matter over in my mind. I still felt that something ought to be done; if I could not get a full measure of the story that ought to be told the Canadian people, I thought that possibly I could get something like a halfway measure, and therefore I did not let the matter die. On December 3, having heard what had taken place in England, I came back to this house, and in the course of a debate I made a proposal which will be found at page 615 of Hansard. At the risk of wearying the house, but in order that it may be on the record, I propose to read what I said on that occasion with regard to this matter. I quote:
Speaking on a former occasion I requested specifically that parliament be informed as to what results had been attained with respect to production and deliveries, because we held the view, and I believe it is well founded, that it was the deliberate policy of the government, during the past session as well as during the interval since we adjourned in August, to endeavour to create, by general statements of what we are going to do in the future, the impression that all was well with our war effort in the way of production and deliveries.
Then I went on to say:
Therefore I felt impelled to ask the government that it cause to be set up immediately two select special committees, charged with the responsibility and the duty of investigating and reporting to this house, factually, objectively and truthfully, without bias and without partisanship, what our exact position is to-day (a) with respect to our fighting forces, military, naval and air, and (b) with respect to the production and delivery of all the important materials, equipment and supplies necessary to our war effort, so that the Canadian people might know the truth.
There was no suggestion of scandal there. What I was asking for was facts, information- information which I declared the Canadian people were entitled to get and which up to that time had been specifically denied them. That was the position I took on the first occasion, and it was the position I reiterated on December 3. Then I went on to say:
So far, such committees have not been set up. I indicated that I knew there were difficulties, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can and will, to tell the house what the attitude of the government is with respect to that.

I knew what the attitude of the government was with respect to it. They had told us, and in my own mind I had practically abandoned the effort which I had undertaken and the objective I had in view, namely, the whole or one hundred per cent of what I asked for. But I had not abandoned the idea that the Canadian people should be taken into the confidence of the government, to some degree at all events; and I never shall. War time or no war time, the people who are paying the taxes to the government are entitled prima facie to know what is being done with their money, and there are just two restrictions on that. These are, that the safety of the state shall not be endangered by reason of the divulging of such information, and that no aid or comfort to the enemy shall thereby be given. Save for these two limitations, there is no valid reason in the world why the Canadian people should not know what is being done with the money wrung from them by taxation and lent by them to the government.
After all, a point was made by the lady member of the house to-day, that the government of the country are not our rulers but our servants. Do not let us for a moment forget that. I think the Prime Minister, flushed as he is with the result of the voting on March 26 last, has forgotten for the moment that he is the servant of the Canadian people; and if he is not in actual name a dictator, he is rapidly approaching that point of view. Make no mistake about that; the government of this country in war time as in peace time is still, under our democratic system, the servant of the people. Do not let this government get away from that point of view for one instant. As far as I am concerned I intend to iterate and reiterate that point of view.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It is a long way from it now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid we have departed a long way from that principle. Having in mind what had occurred, knowing the attitude of the government, and being impressed, as I said before, with the reasons advanced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) responsible for the conduct of his staff, responsible for their time and labours, and their direction of our war effort, I realized it was impossible to get the government to accede to the request I had made. I yielded readily on the one point; I did not yield as readily on the other point; and so I turned the matter over in my mind. I had read about what is being done in England. The Prime Minister has indicated to-day

War Expenditures-Special Committee
that this was not a new thing in 1938 when the present committee was set up over there, that it went back as far as 1917. That is a matter of historical interest; it does not add to the value of the thing at the moment.
He said that such a thing was never suggested in Canada before. The Prime Minister was not in parliament in 1917; neither was I. He was not here in 1915; neither was I. But there was a war on in 1915. Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister, and there was the greatest drive that this country has ever seen against the government of that day in connection with war contracts. What we have attempted to do here is a pacifist movement compared with what Prank Carvell and others did in 1915. What did Sir Robert Borden do? Did he give a limited liability committee? If hon. gentlemen are interested in the historical aspect of this matter, to which the Prime Minister has adverted, I would suggest that they look up Sir Robert Borden's Memoirs, which have had' a great interest for me. Certain expenditures had been made with respect to the purchase of arms and munitions, implements and materials and other supplies for the purpose of the war, and they were being questioned by the then opposition; and in June, 1915, Sir Robert Borden, as stated in his Memoirs, page 492, thought it-
. . . desirable and necessary to establish a commission for the investigation of purchases by the government during the ten months which had elapsed since the outbreak of war.
That goes far beyond anything I have ever asked to have done. These purchases had been quite considerable and the expenditures were investigated by the public accounts committee, but it seemed expedient to continue and enlarge the investigation. What did he do? He appointed Sir Charles Davidson, retired chief justice of the supreme court of Quebec, on June 2, 1915, as a commissioner-what for?
To inquire into, investigate and report upon the purchase, by and on behalf of the government of Canada, through whatever agency the purchases may have been effected, of arms and munitions, implements, materials . . . etc. . . . for the purpose of the present war and as to the expenditures and payments made or agreed to be made therefor.
That is what Sir Robert Borden did, and that went far beyond anything the British government has ever done. That went far beyond anything that this government is now offering to do or even asking us to do. I hold in my hand a copy of order in council, P.C. 1287, approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 2nd day of June, 1915, setting out the scope of the proposed commission, and it is as wide as language can make it. There were no restrictions.
Following the passage of that order in council, a royal commission was issued to Sir Charles Davidson under the provisions of the Inquiries Act. Not only that but the government appointed at public expense eminent counsel to carry on an investigation on behalf of the public or any member of the public who wanted to make a single appearance before that commission on any matter of war expenditures. In other words, Sir Robert Borden opened the door wide to anybody who wanted to walk in. He was not afraid of public opinion. He was not afraid of any breach of privilege. He was not afraid of the Canadian people. They did walk in; the inquiry was held, and evidence was taken under oath. Eminent counsel were appointed; the commission made its report, and as a result of that report certain people were punished. That was something new in the constitutional history of Canada.
When my right hon. friend attempts to convince the people of Canada that what he is accepting or proposing to do is something new or something that is important, I say to him that he had better read his history over again. I say it is not new and it is not nearly as important as what Sir Robert Borden did. Sir Robert Borden followed the proper course. It was the course I failed to convince the Prime Minister in my first conversation with him, based on the statement I made on the 12th of November, should be adopted. I would not have mentioned that, had not the Prime Minister suggested, in order to bolster up his position, that nothing like what had occurred in England had ever occurred in Canada before. Nothing similar had occurred in Canada before, it is true; but I repeat, something far better in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada had been offered and had been put into effect here before. That is enough for that.
Having arrived at the conclusion after my interview with the Prime Minister and certain of his ministers that I could not get anywhere with part (a) of my proposal, and not feeling confident that I could get anywhere with part (b), I made another statement to this house on the 3rd of December, and this is what I said, in addition to what I have already quoted:
So far such committees have not been set up.
That was referring to the committees I had asked for. I went on:
I indicated that I knew there were difficulties, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can and will, to tell the house what the attitude of the government is with respect to that.
1240	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
That was not indicating a quarrelsome or querulous mood, was it? I went on:
If the difficulties are such as cannot be surmounted, then I have another concrete suggestion which I desire to lay before the house and the country.
Then I made the suggestion which the Prime Minister has read here to-day, the setting-up of a select committee to deal with the question of expenditures on war account. I made that suggestion. I have never sought by word or intimation or anything else to convey the impression that I did not make the suggestion. But I wish to say this in all candour to the house and the country. When I made that suggestion I never realized the implication that such a committee, if set up, could not make any report to the people or to the country. I did not visualize that. I ought to have had brains enough to see it, but I am sometimes stupid and I make no apology for that. When I read that into the records of the house on the 3rd of December, I did not visualize that such a committee, while they could investigate and examine, could not make a report to the country. What would be the good of such a committee, to my mind, without power to report?
Therefore I went back to the Prime Minister and we discussed this matter. I am bound to say for the most part these discussions were carried on in the friendliest manner, with the greatest candour on both sides. I wish to say to the Prime Minister that when I suggested on one occasion-I think it was on the 24th of February; I am not quite certain but I have the date upstairs although not here-the elimination of the word "current'-, he agreed almost immediately. For that I desire to give him credit. He certainly did agree almost immediately, and he agreed of course to the elimination of the words "for civil defence" for the reasons which he has explained at some length. We did not think they would be appropriate in the circumstances here, he having explained that the words referred to certain services that were not germane to the inquiry or to the matters we had in mind, and that they might well be eliminated. We were of one opinion on that.
As a matter of fact, there were only two points at issue between us all the way through.
I raised them after having discussed these matters with my friends on this side of the house, who pointed them out to me.
First, the committee had no power to report on any expenditures.
fMr. R. B. Hanson.]


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On a point of order may I ask my hon. friend a question? He is aware that the committee in England has already made fourteen reports, is he not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. I am coming to that. Will my hon. friend please allow me to proceed?
By the terms of the order of reference, strictly interpreted, if I understand the English language, the committee would have no power to report upon its examination into any expenditures at all, past or current, if the word "current' were left in there. I thought that was too restrictive, and that is the point of view I put before the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend what is the meaning of the words "with power to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: My right hon. friend took almost two and a half hours or two hours to put forward his point of view in this whole thing, and I am not controverting a large part of what he had to say. I think, as a matter of fact, that the factual history he gave, with some slight discrepancies according to my memory, is fairly accurate. There are just a few points on which we differ. Our point of view differs on this, that I do not agree that it would have anything like the effect he says it would have if we had this inquiry wide open and we were able to make a report upon our examination to the house.
The two points at issue were these. The first was that under the terms of reference as I interpret them, while the committee may examine into expenditures, and as the lesolution is now amended, into past expenditures as well as current, into all expenditures, it has no power to report to the house with respect to these matters under examination. All it has power to do, if I read the order of reference aright, is to report to the house what, if any, economies may be effected consistent with the execution of government policies. I will read it:
[DOT]	[DOT] *, and instruct such committee to report what, if any, economies-
Not to report all the expenditures which have been under examination, but:
[DOT]	.* * T report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of government policies may be effected therein.
Those are the limited powers which this committee has, and my friends pointed out to me that this was altogether too narrow and restrictive. I endeavoured, with all the

War Expenditures-Special Committee
powers of persuasion that I had at my command,. exercised in a decent way-I am sure he will acknowledge that-to induce the Prime Minister to agree that the committee should have power to report on the expenditures, and also on what, if any, economies might be effected in future expenditure. Let me pause here to examine certain words that are interpolated in that part of the proposed reference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First, may I ask my hon. friend if I am correct in saying that this resolution as presented to-day is identical with the one presented to the British parliament?


Richard Burpee Hanson: With certain exceptions I think it is. I have not controverted that. But I would point out that this report on any economies that may be effected in government expenditure must be consistent with the execution of government policy. Never at any time have I suggested that this committee should be authorized or empowered to investigate, or should investigate, government policy with regard to the war, because, as the Prime Minister has stated here to-night, the government must take the responsibility for policy. I never for a moment suggested; I never asked; I never contemplated that any change should be made in what perhaps is one of the most important clauses in the whole reference; that is to say, I never suggested that government policy as such, as distinguished from government expenditure, should be the subject of investigation. I do not think it woidd be proper for me to ask for a committee to investigate that. If I am opposed to government policy-and in many respects I am- right here on the floor of the House of Commons is the place for me to make that attack. If I can succeed, well and good; if not, I have the satisfaction of having made the attempt to put forward the views of people opposed to certain matters of government policy. That is the course I have pursued right along. In respect of that, the whole thing boils down to a very narrow compass.
There is one other circumstance to which I desire to refer. On the question of the order of reference, the only thing on which we were not in agreement when we last met ' was this question of the power of this committee, having examined expenditure past and current, to make a report thereon. That is the only thing as far as I know in respect of the terms of the order of reference about which there is any disagreement at all. I do suggest to the Prime Minister that if he has nothing to hide-and I do not suggest that
he has-my objection is well taken. I could tell him some things about government war expenditures that would make him blush;
I am dealing them out from time to time to certain members of the government or their deputies, so that they can investigate them, rather than air scandals on the floor of the house. I told that to the Minister of Munitions and Supply-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has the hon. gentleman ever found one yet that stood up?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; ask your colleague about the Dartmouth airport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am talking about-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister kindly keep his seat? I have the floor now. I do not mean to be impolite, but I do not like that interruption.
There is one other aspect of this matter. There is not one iota of evidence in the order of reference which has been read here and which I have read many times to suggest that this should be a secret committee; not one iota of evidence to suggest that the British parliament in setting up this select committee, whatever may have been their motives in setting it up, ever intended that it should hold its meetings in secret. But the committee itself decided on certain lines of procedure, and among others was the setting up a number of subcommittees. They went back and got authority from parliament to set up these subcommittees, and certain of these subcommittees, not all, met in secret. That was, I suggest, on their own motion. That is a fair inference from the fact that there is no specific closing of the door in the order of reference itself. I suggest to the house and the country that that is an inference which I am entitled to draw, that on their own motion these subcommittees or some of them met in secret at times. There is no conclusive evidence that they always met in secret.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
w-hat my hon. friend says.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then we are not so far apart. But the Prime Minister said that this committee must meet in secret.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I beg
pardon, not "must". I said here to-night that I cabled to the high commissioner to ask him to find out whether the committee had as a matter of fact held its meetings in secret and he cabled back that they had. But I said to-night that I was not binding the committee in any way; it is entirely for its members to determine their own procedure.
1242	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; with that understanding I will proceed. If the high commissioner said that the meetings of the subcommittee were held in secret, I think he is misinformed. But neither the Prime Minister nor myself can settle that question, because whatever evidence we have is in the nature of hearsay. There is no record, and that is the only thing that is evidence to me.
I am as certain of this as of anything I can say, that it was intimated to us on more than one occasion, and on the very last occasion, that the meetings of this committee must be held in secret.


Mr. STIRLING:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon. friend here, whose word any hon. member would take, and I am sure the Prime Minister would be one of the first, agrees entirely with me on that, and I am sure my other colleague will corroborate it. We were told that this committee must meet in secret, and I never agreed to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that I cannot recall the word "must" having been used at any time. I was telling him how the British committee met, and I said that I presumed that for similar reasons the committee here would follow a similar method.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may be true that the Prime Minister on one occasion used language such as that. I have no dictaphone record, and I cannot remember everything said in these long conversations. I have never committed the substance of them to writing. But I am as certain of this as of anything that happened in the course of these negotiations, and I am borne out by my colleague to my left, that the Prime Minister, on one occasion at all events, made this a "must" order. We left the meeting with the clear conviction that this committee must meet in camera, and that at no time would the committee's proceedings be public. Most respectfully but as distinctly and firmly as I can say it, I disagree with that point of view; with this limitation however, that if it develops that information is about to be produced which in the judgment and common sense of the committee would bring aid or comfort to the enemy, then of course the proceedings of the committee with respect to that particular topic should be held in camera.
I will add to that a second consideration: where the safety of the state may be involved.
I make those two exceptions: when in the view of the committee the information, if divulged, would be a source of comfort to [Mr. Mackenzie King.l
the enemy, and where the safety of the state may be involved. Those are analogous; they are not coterminous. With those two exceptions I suggest to hon. members that this committee should operate with open doors in order that the public may know what is going on. I warn the Prime Minister that if he refuses to heed this word of advice, if this committee is to meet in camera, the public will be entitled to draw any inferences they wish to draw. The public are suspicious now; why make them more suspicious?
The Prime Minister has already made some concession with respect to one aspect of the matter, and I am going to close my remarks with a plea to him. He says the government has nothing to hide. I have never suggested that there was anything to hide, although I think there is ample evidence of gross extravagance in this war effort. I am bound to say, as I have said here before, that to a certain extent this is inevitable in war time. You just cannot get people to spend money in war time as properly as they would spend it in peace time. There are not the safeguards and the surrounding circumstances in war time that would compel them to be more careful. Then there is the question of haste; time won't wait and things have to be done to-day that cannot possibly be put off until to-morrow, or so they will tell you. Of course usually that is ninety-nine per cent wrong, but it all costs money and there has been great waste.
I close with this plea to the Prime Minister, that if he will not allow this committee to report to the House of Commons on past and current expenditures-and I am not going to fight for that principle any longer-I do suggest to him that he should not let it be said that this committee must meet in secret, save and except for the two considerations I have mentioned.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) :: Mr. Speaker, my name has been
brought into the discussion, and perhaps I should say a word. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) speaks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) having taken two hours. I may say to him-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
objecting.


James Layton Ralston: -that perhaps he was not as long as the Prime Minister, but certainly he was as loud.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
my privilege, is it not?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. I have experienced
a great deal of difficulty in really arriving at what my hon. friend is arguing about. The

War Expenditures-Special Committee
Prime Minister has introduced a resolution. My hon. friend has taken a good deal of time telling us about the history of it, but what is it he wishes to know which the resolution does not cover? My name was brought into the discussion with regard to an interview in November. Perhaps I could well leave the matter as my hon. friend left it, when he said I had convinced him that the suggestion he made in that interview would not be in the public interest, but that suggestion was not just as he put it. I know he did not intend to leave a wrong impression, but the suggestion being made then was that matters of policy and matters of administration in the department would all be the subject of discussion with a parliamentary committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not
policy.


James Layton Ralston: Matters of policy as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny
that.


James Layton Ralston: The suggestion was that
a parliamentary committee should be set up, to be called a defence committee or something of the kind, which would have the right to send for officers of the Department of National Defence at any time-I know the committee would endeavour to meet their convenience as far as possible-and discuss with them matters of policy and administration being carried out in the department at the time.
That was the suggestion. We had a rather busy summer and fall; we were looking forward to a busy winter, and I felt and told my hon. friend and his friends that he would be seriously hampering Canada's war effort if he asked the staff officers of the Department of National Defence to meet and discuss matters of that kind with a committee of this house. I know that from time to time officers have been asked to come and discuss matters with committees, and they have endeavoured to do so; but it meant that these men had to work night as well as day, and that the work of the department was to that extent retarded. I would very much prefer that hon. members, if they would, might discuss these matters with me. I would endeavour to put any suggestions they might have into practice; and if they did discuss these matters with me, I would be glad to put them in touch, as far as I could, with the officers conducting those particular branches of the administration.
But the thing we were talking about at that time was not at all what my hon. friend is talking about now. What we were talking
about was the general matter of administration in connection with the defence services; the matter of training; the matter of equipment; the matter of overseas services; the nature of our defences in Canada and of our defence measures overseas. Those were the larger matters which were supposed to be discussed with the officers of my department. I felt that I could ask my hon. friend to agree that, those were not matters in connection with which I could afford to spare the officers of the department unless I handed over to a committee the administration of the Department of National Defence, and my hon. friend and his friends did not want me to do that. That was what was discussed by me, and in connection with that matter my hon. friend is quite right when he says he agreed with my point of view, but that really had nothing to do with the motion which is before the house to-night.
I should like to say a word with regard to the motion itself and the presentation which has been made by the Prime Minister. Really I do find it difficult to know in what respect my hon. friend is taking issue with regard to this matter. He says there is no valid reason in the world why the Canadian people should not know the facts in connection with expenditures, and I say to him he is perfectly right, provided the rules which he has laid down are observed; that is, exceptions with regard to the safety of the state and the matter of making information available which might be useful to the enemy. That is perfectly right, and that is provided by this particular resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no, it is not.


James Layton Ralston: 
Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who accompanied the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the conversations which took place with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues, there are one or two observations I should like to make.
In the long statement made by the Prime Minister descriptive of the incidents in the order in which they occurred, so far as I could follow them-and without reference to notes- I should think he was accurate. But where he appeared to me to be endeavouring to lay blame on the leader of the opposition for having altered his ground and for having modified the wording of the reference which was being discussed, I would offer this suggestion, that right up until the last meeting in the Prime Minister's office my impression was that the words contained in the reference were still being discussed. The Prime Minister takes the view that at the meeting of February 19 a set of words was discussed and agreed upon. That is the only difference I have with the Prime Minister in connection with that phase of the matter.
I left that meeting under the impression that the matter was not closed, that he would be having further discussions with his colleagues, and that the leader of the opposition would have further discussions with his colleagues. I did not take it that that set of words had been adopted or agreed upon by both sides.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has pointed out that he did not advance the matter of policy in the earlier conversations when he was pointing out the difficulties which would attend the constant appearance of his senior officers before the committee.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has misunderstood what 1 said. What I said was that my hon. friend's leader had indicated that the matter of policy was not mentioned.
I said it was my recollection that it was mentioned, and that that was one of the matters with which it was suggested the committee should deal.


Grote Stirling: The Minister of National Defence disagrees with the leader of the opposition in saying that that policy was discussed.


James Layton Ralston: I am saying that policy was discussed as a subject for discussion by the committee.


Grote Stirling: That is not my recollection, Is this not an instance of the difficulty of discussing matters of policy which have been carried on in secret? Let me say this with regard to the whole matter connected with the committee: I have never been entirely favourable to the idea of such a committee, and I should like to give my reasons. My reasons are that the work of the committee would be seriously circumscribed from the very beginning. It would be circumscribed because, by the wording of the reference anything relating to government policy is ruled out. In the second place, the government's conception of what should be secret is what will rule.
For those two reasons it seems to me doubtful whether real good, for the sake of Canada's war effort, will develop from the work of the committee. It is quite true that in the discussions the leader of the opposition had with his colleagues I put forward my views. They are but mine. I am convinced, as time goes on, that as soon as you introduce the element of secrecy into these matters you raise difficulties which can hardly be overcome. There are to be twenty-four members of this committee, eighteen of whom are supporters of the government and six who are members of the opposition parties. If these discussions are to have any usefulness, matters which should be kept secret will have to be brought before the committee. We shall then have twenty-four different ideas as to what constitutes secrecy. We shall have twenty-four individuals who, after all, are human. These hon. gentlemen will have to tie their tongues in the conversations which they may have with friends, and in the speeches which they may make when matters in connection with the war are raised. When suggestions are made by those in opposition which an hon. member feels should not be made, an hon. member will have to remember whether a certain piece of information which he desires to use has been received by him in secret. To my mind that will be very hampering.
1246	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee


James Layton Ralston: Is it not true that any public servant, any public official, any staff officer or any one else always must remember whether or not a particular matter is something which should not be disclosed? Further than that, the proceedings of this committee will be a matter of record and there can be no misunderstanding as to what takes place there.


Grote Stirling: My reply to the Minister of National Defence is that a member of this house is elected to represent a certain set of people. Those people can rightly come to the member to discuss such matters. If they should go to the higher officials of a department, those men have a good reason for not going into matters which should not be divulged.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about meeting a man on the street.


Grote Stirling: So am I. To my mind this will be circumscribing the work of the committee and it will make it extremely difficult to carry on the work to a point of usefulness.
In connection with the discussions which took place, the Prime Minister gave his recollection of what had happened, and the leader of the opposition gave his. There was some small difference of opinion as to whether this was discussed or that was discussed. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the question of secrecy. I left that meeting with a clear understanding that even though the word "must" may not have been used, it was the intention of the government that the meetings of this committee should be secret.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did I not refer to a telegram which I had sent to the high commissioner? I repeated the telegram and the reply to my hon. friend. Perhaps he would not mind my reading it now. The telegram to the high commissioner was dated February 18 and it reads:
Please advise at earliest possible moment whether proceedings of select committee on national expenditure of House of Commons are conducted in camera.
The reply was:
Proceedings of select committee on national expenditure are conducted in camera.
That is what I gave to my hon. friend and I did not mean to convey anything more than that.


Grote Stirling: There is a question of a difference of recollection. My impression is that on the occasion when secrecy was referred to, the right hon. gentleman said that he 
would cable, and on the next occasion that we met he showed us the answer. My memory may be at fault, but that is what it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is right. May I say that before the leader of the opposition had spoken at all, I was careful to say that while this was true with regard to the proceedings of the British committee, I was not placing any restrictions upon the committee here. I was leaving it to its members to settle matters for themselves.


Grote Stirling: I think I have little to add to what I have said. Our methods in the conduct of government in Canada are similar to those which obtain in the United Kingdom, but a set of circumstances with which we may have to deal are quite likely to be entirely different from a set of circumstances facing them. It has always been my habit to look upon their methods of government with considerable interest, but in no sense have I considered them as a necessary guide in what we should do. I think that is the situation with regard to this matter. Canada has developed her own methods of government, and in my opinion has done so admirably. We can draw a lesson from what they do in the United Kingdom, but I certainly am not one who is ready to accept what they do there as being applicable here in all cases.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable diffidence that I take part in this debate because I am one of those mentioned as being a possible member of the proposed committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the hon. member at liberty to take part in the debate?
Mr. 1HORSON: I think so because I do not propose to discuss anything that will take place in the committee. What I propose to discuss is the method of approach to the subject matter of the inquiry and my opinion as to the manner in which the inquiry ought to be conducted. I do not think there is anything to prevent my taking part in this debate although, as I said a moment ago, I do so with some diffidence.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated that the reference to this committee is considerably larger than the corresponding reference to the committee at Westminster. The committee set up in London has been restricted to the investigation of current expenditures, but the word "current" does not appear in the present reference to this committee. I assume that there is an essential difference between the public accounts committee and the special committee

War Expenditures-Special Committee
which is proposed to be set up by this resolution. The public accounts committee is in the nature of a postmortem to determine what has happened and the causes of that happening. This committee has a much wider function to perform. It may look into past expenditures, but the purpose of looking into such expenditures would be to eliminate waste and extravagance in present expenditures.
May I say to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) who has just spoken, that I would be the last person in this house to say that we in Canada should follow automatically what is done in the British house. I think we all agree with him in that statement. I suggest, however, that the British parliament is an excellent model to follow in the present case. The British House of Commons set up a committee during the first great war to investigate current expenditures with a view to avoiding waste and extravagance. Immediately upon the outbreak of the present war, a similar committee was set up in London.
I think that we in this country might well follow the lead of Great Britain, not only in the present war but in the last war. Both committees, the committee of the great war and the committee of the present war; accomplished excellent results and saved the people of Great Britain, I think it may safely be said, millions of pounds by the close scrutiny which they gave to current expenditures with the object of effecting economies and avoiding extravagance.
I said a moment ago that the model of the British committee was an excellent one to follow, and I am strongly of that opinion in spite of the fact that there may be differences between our system of government and theirs, although such differences are really more on the surface than in reality. The British committee, both in the present war and: in the last one, sat always in camera. It has made, during the present war, fourteen reports to the British House of Commons. It has made a large number of recommendations, some to the government itself and some to individual departments of the government. Most of these recommendations were accepted. Some were not accepted; some were rejected. But the committee made its recommendations after careful inquiry and with a definite purpose to find out the real facts. I submit to every member of this house that a committee sitting in camera can conduct a more thorough and more careful inquiry than can any public accounts committee, where one sees on both sides persons making speeches for the purpose of publicity. If a committee sits in camera, and if the members of that committee are properly seized of their responsibilities, they will be concerned
with ascertaining the real facts and will not be in the least concerned with making speeches or attracting publicity to their utterances.
The British committee resolved itself into several	subcommittees.	Each	subcommitteewas charged with specific and definite responsibilities. The chairmen of these subcommittees, together with the chairman of the committee, constituted a coordinating committee which guided and controlled the several activities of the	subcommittees.	The	subcommitteesworked	collaterally and	at the same time,according to the rules that each laid down for the conduct of its inquiry. The subcommittees listened to witnesses,	visited	plants, visited
public works, visited military sites, conducted such inquiries as they thought were advisable for the purpose of discharging the responsibilities that were cast upon them, and periodically reported their findings back to the general committee, and the committee made its reports from time to time to the house.
The British committee made, I think, a fair and thorough inquiry with regard to all the matters that were brought to its attention. Its investigations of officials were brief and to the point. The members were actuated by the desire to find, out the real facts and were not concerned with publicity for any of the individual members of the committee. If the British committee could perform its functions in the admirable manner in which it has performed them then I resent the suggestion that Canadian members of parliament cannot do likewise. I am convinced that if members of the British house can discharge the very heavy and onerous responsibilities that have been cast upon them, then members of the Canadian House of Commons, whether they are on the government side of the house or the opposition, can equally discharge the equally difficult and onerous responsibilities that are placed upon them, I know that this committee can serve a useful public purpose.
We are asking the Canadian people to give to Canada's war effort all that they can spare out of their savings. I think it is our duty as members of parliament to assure the Canadian people that every possible safeguard is being taken to make certain that every dollar contributed by them shall go as far as possible in our war effort.
I believe that every member of this house is committed to an all-out war effort on the part of Canada. We want the support of every Canadian in this country, and I think we owe it to Canadians throughout Canada that they should be certain, so far as it is within our power as members of parliament to make it so, that every possible economy shall be put into effect and every possible safeguard taken against extravagance in expenditures.
>248	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
That, I believe, can be done by a thorough and careful inquiry without regard to publicity. We will not be concerned in the committee as to what the public thinks; we will be concerned with the knowledge within ourselves, as members of the committee, that we are doing an honest and thorough job of investigation. That will be the important thing, and I think that in that regard the committee might well enlist the support of eyerv member of the house. The British committee did that. The British committee addressed a circular letter to every member of the House of Commons asking the members to indicate the lines of inquiry which they thought the committee should follow and the various matters which, in the opinion of the members, should be brought to the attention of the committee. That might be done.
Then, too, I have no doubt that when the committee is set up, suggestions of one kind and another, from one end of Canada to the other, will come to the committee, and these suggestions will be explored and investigated. They will be sorted out and sent to this or that subcommittee for careful investigation and exploration, and I think, if we as members of the House of Commons approach this very difficult and onerous task with a full appreciation of the great responsibility that is cast upon us, we shall be performing a truly national and patriotic service. Every member of this house who is named on this committee is a Canadian, concerned with the Canadian war effort and with its success, and I believe I may safely pledge in their name every member of this committee to an honest, fair and impartial inquiry into all the matters that are referred to the committee.
The committee has power to make reports from time to time to the house. It is not circumscribed in its other activities. It may Irom time to time report informally to the head of the department concerned or to the Prime Minister with a view to bringing about economies, with a view to eliminating waste, with a view to the avoidance of extravagance. Not the least useful function of this committee will be its very existence and the knowledge on the part of the spending authorities in the state that this committee is in existence and will be supervising and considering and inquiring into their expenditures. That alone will be worth the establishment of the committee.
There is nothing in the present resolution as to the powers of the committee to adjourn from place to place, nor is there anything in the resolution to empower the committee to sit during a recess of the house, nor is there anything to empower subcommittees of the general committee to have the powers of the
[Mr. Thorson.J
general committee, but all of these matters can be dealt with as the necessity for them arises.
I will close with this remark, Mr. Speaker, that if we approach this committee with the same attitude of mind that actuated the British committee, I see no reason why we should not serve a very useful purpose; and if members of the British House of Commons can discharge their responsibilities in a manner becoming to the best traditions of the British house, I see no reason why members of the Canadian House of Commons should not do likewise.
Mr. II. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, the hour is getting late, and I think the subject has been very thoroughly canvassed. Whether or not the discussion that has taken place will help the work of the committee, I am not quite so sure. Perhaps it was as well that these details and the past should have been gone into so thoroughly.
I have been very much interested for many months in the setting-up of a committee of this type. I had the privilege of being present at the two conferences which were held before the house adjourned in December. They were quite harmonious and I think everyone present understood that the matter had been settled.
The Prime Minister stated in the house on December 3, as reported at page 633 of Hansard:
I wish to say to him-
He was speaking of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).
-and to the house that no approach to the subject could have been more helpful or could have been better in every respect than that which he and his colleagues made in confidence with the government in this matter.
Unfortunately the problem has not been worked out since that time with so much unanimity, but I suggest to the house that we forget all about- that and make a fresh start. After all, we all make mistakes and we all say foolish things. Therefore let us forget the past and let this new committee get on with its job. Let it start with the blessing of this house. It can be of such great importance and of such great help, subject to one proviso, namely, that every man on this committee goes into its very first meeting and into every other meeting, leaving his politics outside. If that is not done-and the Prime Minister said words to the same effect last December-it is impossible for this committee to succeed. But if partisan politics are left outside, I am convinced that this

War Expenditures-Special Committee
committee will do a great work for Canada and will greatly strengthen the war effort of our nation.
Here we are facing the fight of our history, with young Canadians by the thousand exposed to sudden death this very night, with thousands of wives and mothers at home wondering what to-morrow may bring for their loved ones, with thousands of children in Canada wondering what is going to happen to their daddy. Surely at such a time this house can forget politics on this one question and the members of this committee can go into its meetings with their minds made up that they will do their very best not only to cut down expenditures and find where money is being wasted but also to suggest ways in which our war effort can be improved. That, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has so well said, has been the result in the British House of Commons. I know the private members of this house well enough to know that the same thing can be done here.
As I have said before, I hold that the private members are the back-bone of this parliament. They are the men who really count in this house, with all due deference to the ministers. This is the chance for the private members of this House of Commons to show what they are made of. I am certain that they will do that job and do it well. I am named on the committee and, like the others, I intend to do my part to the very best of my ability and as a Canadian first, last and all the time. I would ask the hon. members not on the committee to be behind us in this effort; give us a chance to prove to the Canadian people that the Canadian parliament can really get results without becoming involved in partisan political quarrels.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The
war was only a few days old when I asked for the appointment of a similar committee to the one set out in the text of this resolution, and to consider Canada's war effort in general. In my opinion the resolution does not go far enough; it is just a postmortem and an inquest and a grand assize held into only one feature of the war effort that is gone and gone forever beyond recall, namely, Canada being too late all along the line.
The text of the resolution does not provide for what the people of this country are demanding. I do not speak in a partisan sense, far from it, because I know no politics in this house except the effective conduct of the war. Those who want to conduct politics can do so, but in the last war and in this war I know no politics.
For over one hundred years there was civil war in England to get control of expenditures. The House of Commons here, since this war started, has been the forgotten agency in our constitutional system of government. We in this house have been the forgotten men; the private member has no rights; he can object to nothing, because these expenditures are made under the War Measures Act. Many outside boards have been created which were never in existence in the great war, with authority over the head body, the House of Commons of Canada; we never had them when we had our five allies. We have no control over the expenditure or over what is being done.
The text of the resolution does not go far enough. It is just a resolution to appoint a committee. The public accounts committee has always acted, in matters like this, in all the wars in England and the dominions, but here the public accounts committee has never been asked to sit. The money has been spent and we have an auditor general. It is spent for defence services; but what are defence services; what are foreign services; what are external services? No one knows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: I can conclude in five minutes. I do not want to prevent the adoption of the motion.


Georges Parent: Is it the sense of the
house that the debate shall continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Langton Church: Then I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


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

Wednesday, March 5, 1941.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I regi-et very much that yesterday afternoon I was required to leave the chamber because of a previous engagement and therefore was unable at that time to reply here to those hon. members who spoke after I had left. With your permission I wish to make a statement in that connection now.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) insinuated that I had some connection with the communist party. There were subtle insinuations regarding the company I had kept, which I think the majority of people will agree proves absolutely nothing. I have spoken many times, on many platforms, together with people of various political and religious views. In my view the fact that these subtle suggestions have been advanced proves the contention I 'have put forward, that those who oppose this government are branded, if possible, by any means. It is a case, I think, of giving a dog a bad name. Others have been branded before this; even the Minister of Justice himself has complained in this house that he has been so treated. A few years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to Germany, where he had conversations with Hitler and was lauded by the German press. But how indignant he would be if I or anyone else were to insinuate that 'he was a fascist.
I am in this House of Commons as a free and independent member, not belonging to any political party. The people of my constituency sent me here, and they drew up a programme for my instruction. I think it is only fair both to them and to myself that this house should know the programme which was outlined for my guidance here, so that 'hon. members may be able to see 'how consistently I have advocated these things.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: May I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that she has risen on a question of privilege in order to deny or reply to some statements made yesterday. I do not think she should now read the platform on which she was sent to this house but should deal only with what was said here yesterday.

Privilege-Mrs. Nielsen


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: II that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall be forced to accept it; but really 1 see no reason why I should not be able to place that programme on Hansard in order that hon. members may read it. I think it very necessary that I should do so, because I would like hon. members of this house, after hearing this programme, to tell me if there is anything in it which advocates communism. Have I your permission to do so?


Georges Parent: I have already ruled that it would not be proper to read the platform on which the hon. member was elected to this house, but that she should express herself as to the matter of privilege with which she has risen to deal, in regard to what was said yesterday.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Very well, Mr. Speaker; I have to bow to your ruling. I was not able yesterday, for the reason I have stated, to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), who asked me to declare my attitude towards communism. This should not be difficult. As long as we have real democracy in Canada I feel that there will be no danger of communism. It is when democracy ceases to function that communism grows. That has been apparent in many instances and that is why I am fighting to-day to prevent any restrictions being placed upon our democracy in Canada. I do not wish to see conditions in Canada such as these-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I am sorry, but I have to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact-


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am only answering certain charges which were made against me yesterday, as I believe I have a right to do.


Georges Parent: Order. May I ask the hon. member to resume her seat.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I cannot hear you.


Georges Parent: I would ask the hon.
member to resume 'her seat. I understood the hon. member to rise to a question of privilege, )vith regard to some statements which were made in this house yesterday. The hon. member is entirely within her province in dealing with those matters which were referred to yesterday, but she is not entitled to enter into an argument now based upon the stand which she has already taken. Therefore she must address herself simply to the utterances made yesterday, as being something she wishes to deny or reply to on a question of privilege.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: That is what I am doing, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my ability. Charges were made yesterday that I was keeping company with people with whom it was not wise for me to keep company. It is very necessary in reference to this question that I read to the house a letter from my constituency, dated February 25, which I received only yesterday.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: It comes from a person
in my constituency, and says-


Georges Parent: Order. Some hon. members have taken objection to the reading of a letter addressed to the hon. member from a constituent. If it has a bearing on what was said yesterday, in justification of the hon. member's attitude, she is entitled to read it.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I think it has a bearing
on what was said yesterday. The letter says:
I had a long confidential chat with our local R.C.M.P. yesterday. He is surprised at the attitude you take regarding the war regulations. He thinks you are very foolish to proceed as you are doing, and said "Can't she see that that same law will put her behind the wires, whether she believes it or not, and believe me she'll be there before long if she keeps up the pace she's hitting, for they'll frame up something somehow, either under the fifth column or as agitations against the war effort, or disloyalty."
We have a young police officer here relieving while our regular man is on holidays, and he stated that while in training they were all instructed to keep their eyes and ears open for anything on Nielsen, watch the papers and be on the alert always, because they were sure she would be interned before long.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signed that?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: There is no need for me to give the name of the man who signed that letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: There is -no need for me to give the name of the man who signed it. For one thing it would jeopardize the position of a young police officer, and- it also may lead to discrimination against the man who wrote it. If the letter is required by the committee which is set up to go into the defence of Canada regulations, I will give it to them.


Ernest Lapointe: She is
a law unto herself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to the reading of communications, I think my hon. friend must know it is the rule that one is not entitled to read from communications unless prepared to place them on the table of the house.
Privilege-Mrs. Nielsen


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Very well; I shall place it on the table of the house. I feel myself that it is only right that the members of this house should know that these things are going on; and if this Canadian version of the Gestapo continues I think this government will have to answer to the Canadian people before long. In the past history of our country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I should like to speak
to the question of privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: She is not through yet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: On the point of privilege raised by the hon. member I would say-


Richard Burpee Hanson: She is not through yet.


Ernest Lapointe: Give her a chance. Go ahead; tell us all about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should think the last thing hon. members would wish would be to have the impression go out that in any way the House of Commons had sought to deprive the hon. member of the opportunity of making the fullest possible statement writh respect to any allegations she may feel were made against her. For that reason I would think that perhaps as a matter of agreement on the part of hon. members, the house on this occasion might allow her to say whatever she wishes to say on this occasion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted a word, I have watched the latter part of this incident with a great deal of interest. It may be that the lady has not kept within the rules. I think most of us will agree on that. But I do suggest that as a matter of expediency and propriety she should be allowed to make her statement so that the public will know what she has to say. The cries of "order, order" on the part of private members might be well left in the hands of your honour.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, in support of the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, and in view of the fact that my name has been referred to-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -may I say that I stated yesterday-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Just a minute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The lady has not finished yet.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am supporting the right of the hon. member to speak.


Georges Parent: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Georges Parent: There is no motion before the house and therefore no subject for debate. In view of the fact that the house seemed to agree that the hon. member should be allowed to make her statement I of course accede to the intention of the house. I take it that that is the sense of the house.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only a few minutes-


Mr. LECLERC:: If it requires the unanimous consent of the house, then for one I will object to hearing any more of the kind of communist talk that we heard yesterday from the hon. member.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: Following the hon. member-


Georges Parent: Order. I do not think
unanimous consent of the house is required. What is required is that the sense of the house shall be ascertained. My interpretation is that the house wishes the hon. member to continue her statement, and therefore I would ask her to do so now.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Mr. Speaker. I would say that if this Canadian version of the Gestapo continues to operate in Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: -and if material is collected, as it is apparently being collected and brought up, some time this government will have to answer to the Canadian people.
I shall continue to do the things which I think are correct and I could do no better than to quote with equal sincerity the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) himself, who is reported in Hansard of yesterday to have said:
I will do what I think is right, whatever may be the consequences.
And again:
Neither inducement, blackmail nor threats will have any influence.


Georges Parent: I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the letter which she has tabled does not contain the name of the writer.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I have the rest of the letter in my office. It will be brought down and tabled immediately.

The War-Bulgaria and Roumania



CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN POSITIONS FOR PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS

Georges Parent: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house a report of the civil service commission classifying certain positions to which employees on the temporary staff of the House of Commons are to be appointed on a permanent basis.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the auditor general's report for the fiscal year ending March 31. 1940, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
.Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I should
like to make a brief statement to the house on the present situation in the Balkans, as it affects nationals and citizens of certain of those countries.
Acting upon instructions from the government of the United Kingdom, His Majesty's minister at Sofia has broken off diplomatic relations with Bulgaria to-day. There is no Canadian diplomatic mission in Bulgaria and there are no Bulgarian diplomatic or consular representatives in this country. There was, therefore, no occasion for any action by the Canadian government with regard to the severance of diplomatic relations.
The breaking off of diplomatic relations does pot necessarily bring about a state of war. On the other hand, in breaking off diplomatic relations the United Kingdom felt it could not overlook the action of the Bulgarian government in aligning Bulgaria with the axis powers and in permitting German forces to enter Bulgaria and to use that country as a base from which to conduct hostile operations.
Action has been taken and is being taken by the Canadian government to protect Canadian interests during the period that may intervene between the breaking off of diplomatic relations and actual hostilities should such take place. Action has already been taken by order in council making Bulgaria proscribed territory which means that all transactions with Bulgaria will be subjected to the regime of the trading with the enemy regulations. In this manner it is made unlawful to
conduct any transactions involving, directly or indirectly, economic aid to the enemy. Precautionary action is being undertaken to prevent any transactions that might result in assistance to the enemy.
Police action that is necessary to preserve the security of the state is, of course, being undertaken. While this is so, Bulgarian nationals and persons of Bulgarian descent will not be disturbed so long a§ they show by their conduct that they are rendering loyal obedience to the law's and institutions of this country.
The action taken to make Bulgaria proscribed territory extends also to Hungary. Hungary is a country w'ith which diplomatic relations are maintained by the United Kingdom. On the other hand it is not possible entirely to overlook the fact that Hungary is contiguous to territory under German domination, and Hungary's alignment with the axis and the according by Hungary to the enemy of privileges which are not consistent with neutrality. Hungary maintains a consulate general in Montreal and a consulate in Winnipeg. The action taken in making Hungary-proscribed territory has subjected transactions with that country to the regime of the trading with the enemy regulations and makes it possible to prevent transactions that might be of advantage to the enemy. The measures taken are precautionary and consistent with the continuation of existing regulations. [DOT]
Diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Roumania were broken off on the 10th of February of this year. Subsequently the consul general of Roumania in Canada received instructions from his government to close the consulate general in Montreal, and this action was taken on the 15th February of this year. The consul general and his staff have withdrawn. Roumania was made proscribed territory and other precautionary measures were undertaken similar to those which are being adopted with regard to Bulgaria. In the case of Roumanian nationals, and persons of Roumanian descent, the same position is maintained as in the case of Bulgarians. They will not be disturbed so long as their conduct conforms to our laws, and is consistent with the allegiance which, under the laws of Canada, is due from all residents, irrespective of their national status or racial origin.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In his statement with respect to Bulgaria the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that steps had been taken to protect Canadian interests in that country. I should like to know what steps have been taken to protect the lives of Canadian nationals who may be there. There is
Questions

at least one Canadian in that country, a lady from New Brunswick who, for a number of years, has been residing at the Imperial hotel in Sofia. She is about seventy years of age and her sister has communicated with me and asked me to do what I could through the government to safeguard her life. I wrote to the acting Under-Secretary of State and asked him if he would be good enough to cable or do what he could, but I have had no reply. Is the Prime Minister conversant with what action might have been taken?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
that I cannot answer my hon. friend's question as to what action has been taken, although I can say a word about what action in all probability has been taken. I shall make certain as to what has been done and give my hon. friend an answer later. I would assume that the communication would be sent immediately to the British ambassador or minister and that the British embassy or legation would give all assistance possible in protecting any British citizen who might be in Bulgaria and with respect to whom representations had been made.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
PERMANENT FORCES-OFFICERS* PAY AND ALLOWANCES
["1 and 2.\nParticulars concerning Members of Joint Swine Committee Name-Occupation\tAddress-By whom appointed\nW A. Amos_____Farmer\tPalmerston, Ont.-Canadian Council of Agriculture.\nF. M. Baker-Western representative, Industrial & Development Council of Canadian\nMeat Packers\t501 Kensington Bldg., Winnipeg, Man-Industrial & Development Council of Canadian Meat Packers.\nJ. D. Brien-Farmer, secretary, Eastern Canada Live Stock Union\tRidgetown, Ont.-Eastern Canada Live Stock\nUnion.\nC. M. Learmonth-Sup't. Institutional Farms,\nSask. Dep't. Public Works, secretary, Western\nCanada Live Stock Union\tRegina, Sask-Western Canada Live Stock\n,\tUnion.\nA. Morin-Deputy Minister Quebec Dep't. of\nAgriculture\tQuebec, P.Q.-Quebec Department of Agriculture.\nR.\tMcPhail-Managing sec'y., Canadian Live\nStock Sales Agency\tRoom 313, Union Stock Yards, St. Boniface,\nMan.-Canadian Council of Agriculture.\nS.\tE. Todd-Sec'y. Industrial & Development\nCouncil of Canadian Meat Packers\t 200 Bay street, Toronto, Ont.-Industrial &\nDevelopment Council of Canadian Meat Packers.", 'Questions as Orders for Returns\nParticulars concerning Members of Joint Swine. Committee-Concluded Name-Occupation\tAddress-By whom appointed\nL. W. Pearsall (Committee Chairman)-Chief,\nLive Stock and Live Stock Products Div.\nMarketing Service\tDepartment of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont.-\nDeputy Minister of Agriculture.\nA. W. Peterson (Committee Secretary)-Chief,\nLive Stock and Poultry Div. Production\nService\tDepartment of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont -\nDeputy Minister of Agriculture.']
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What additional pay and allowances, if any, are officers of the permanent force in Canada, according to rank, now receiving which they did not receive at the declaration of war?


James Layton Ralston: The following table shows the addition in pay and allowances to which officers of the permanent force in Canada are entitled, as compared with those to which they were entitled at the declaration of war:-
Rank or Appointment	Increase	per diemStaff Officers	Single	MarriedChief of the General Staff Adjutant-General, Quartermaster General, Master-General of the Ordnance. (Master-General of the Ordnance actually receiving no pay and allow-	$2,000 per annum	ances	
District Officer Command-	$0.45	2.45ing and Brigadier	1.40	2.00Director	
Assistant Adjustant and Quarter-master General and General Staff Officer	2.10	2.901st Grade	2.20	3.00

Regimental Officers
Colonel	
....	0.60	0.20Lieutenant-Colonel	0.60	1.40Major	0.15	0.55Captain	0.30	1.05Lieutenant	0.90	1.60Lieutenant, from Ranks..	0.50	1.202nd Lieutenant	1.15	1.85Note: (a) Figures underlined	denote	decrease.
(b) The above figures include dependents' and subsistence allowance but do not include children's allowance of $12 per month up to a maximum of two children. Dependents' allowance and children's allowance are not paid on behalf of the appointment of the Chief of the General Staff. A consolidated rate of $10,000 per annum has been authorized for that appointment for the duration of the war. From 1933 to 1935 Lieut.-General A. G. L. MacNaughton received $10,000 per annum as Chief of Staff.



Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did the bacon board deduct an amount of money from the proceeds of pork products shipped to Great Britain in the years 1939 and 1940?
2.	If so, what amount was deducted per hundredweight ?
3.	What was the total amount so collected?
4.	'What disposition has been made of this fund?
5.	Is any percentage of this fund still held by the bacon board?
6.	If so, how much?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.76-65c per 100 pounds.
3.82,258,760.63
Refund from packers on product shipped prior to the date the board commenced operations	 $ 300,575.60
Money accumulated on product shipped by the board	 1,958,185.03

4.U.S. freight and	exchange.. $	29,559.36
Storage charges	 640,065.58
British ministry of food 5 shilling rebate on 22,400,000
pounds (estimated)	 221,500.00
British ministry of food deductions for shrink loss, salt bags and adjustment account	 24,886.30

Questions
Storage charges on cured
product	 18,592.60
Miscellaneous charges.. ..	4,334.43
Difference in the amount received from the British ministry of food for bacon purchased by the board during the period October 14 to November 16, 1940, for shipment on and after November 1,1940, under the new contract and the amount paid for such bacon by the board pending completion of the new agreement	 923,663.14
Total	 81,862,821.41
5.	Yes.
6.8395.939.22 of the money accumulated under the 1939-1940 contract.


NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-MISS HELEN DOHERTY
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Is Miss Helen Doherty employed in the Department of National War Services?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	When was she appointed?	_
4.	What salary or other remuneration is paid
to her?	_ _
5.	Was she assigned to this position by the civil service commission?
6.	If so, on what date was the assignment
made?	.
7.	If no assignment was made by the civil service commission, by whom was_ the appointment made and under what authority?
8.	Was any request made to the civil service commission for the appointment of Miss Doherty to such position?
9.	If so, what action did the civil service commission take thereon?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The department has had the benefit of the services of Miss Helen Doherty since September 12, 1940, for which no payment has been made.
2.	General assistant.
3.	4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. See number 1.


JOINT SWINE COMMITTEE
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the joint swine committee as presently constituted?
2.	By whom were they appointed?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1 and 2.
Particulars concerning Members of Joint Swine Committee Name-Occupation	Address-By whom appointed
W A. Amos_____Farmer	Palmerston, Ont.-Canadian Council of Agriculture.
F. M. Baker-Western representative, Industrial & Development Council of Canadian
Meat Packers	501 Kensington Bldg., Winnipeg, Man-Industrial & Development Council of Canadian Meat Packers.
J. D. Brien-Farmer, secretary, Eastern Canada Live Stock Union	Ridgetown, Ont.-Eastern Canada Live Stock
Union.
C. M. Learmonth-Sup't. Institutional Farms,
Sask. Dep't. Public Works, secretary, Western
Canada Live Stock Union	Regina, Sask-Western Canada Live Stock
,	Union.
A. Morin-Deputy Minister Quebec Dep't. of
Agriculture	Quebec, P.Q.-Quebec Department of Agriculture.
R.	McPhail-Managing sec'y., Canadian Live
Stock Sales Agency	Room 313, Union Stock Yards, St. Boniface,
Man.-Canadian Council of Agriculture.
S.	E. Todd-Sec'y. Industrial & Development
Council of Canadian Meat Packers	 200 Bay street, Toronto, Ont.-Industrial &
Development Council of Canadian Meat Packers.

Questions as Orders for Returns
Particulars concerning Members of Joint Swine. Committee-Concluded Name-Occupation	Address-By whom appointed
L. W. Pearsall (Committee Chairman)-Chief,
Live Stock and Live Stock Products Div.
Marketing Service	Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont.-
Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
A. W. Peterson (Committee Secretary)-Chief,
Live Stock and Poultry Div. Production
Service	Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont -
Deputy Minister of Agriculture.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	In the five-year period, 1933-1937, inclusive, "hat was the average annual income in Canada of (a) farmers; (b) members of the legal profession; (e) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	In that period, at what age was the youngest member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuated?
3.	At what rate is the abovementioned superannuation?
4.	Have members of the legal profession been admitted to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that period?
5.	If so, how many?
Finance, made by the Toronto Transportation Commission, asking exemption from customs duties, by order in council, of new car parts from the United States for the building of fifty new cars. Also a copy of any reports made in this regard by officials of the department.



RED DEER, ALTA., POST OFFICE

Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all communications, letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department and any official thereof, and any person, firm or institution, from October 1, 1940, to February 28, 1941, with respect to the service rendered by the post office at Red Deer.. Alberta.



RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many parcels of land were purchased by the government in the federal constituency
Red Deer, Alberta, between September i, 1939, and February 28, 1941?
2.	What is the acreage of each parcel so purchased?
3.	From whom was each parcel of land purchased and upon what date or dates were the purchases made?
4.	What was the total purchase price of each parcel?
5.	Were all purchases made direct from the owner in each case? If not, what agency, agencies or other individuals were involved?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: 

TORONTO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION-CUSTOMS DUTIES ON PARTS FOR CARS

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all applications and replies thereto, in the possession of the Department of



INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDER 41 RESPECTING THE TABLING OF LETTERS QUOTED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if your honour would kindly take into consideration standing order 41 and give an interpretation particularly of paragraphs 315 and 316 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which have a bearing on the tabling of letters. We have had a discussion of this point on previous occasions in the house but I cannot find any definite ruling. I cite paragraph 316 under standing order 41:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. .
The preceding paragraph puts another limitation upon the same matter. Paragraph 315 says:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
It goes on to say:
This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so

Rules of the House
reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
And now I read the last part of paragraph 316:
On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney general, on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in assuming a question relative to the Leeds bankruptcy court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.
If we could get a ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful.


Georges Parent: The only objection I
have to giving a ruling is that there is nothing before the chair and the Speaker is really not called upon to give advice to 'hon. members unless the question is brought up in the course of discussion or debate. At the moment I am not in a position to give a ruling, but if the question arises in the course of debate or some proceeding of the house, then of course I would be prepared to give a ruling.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I would respectfully
submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question did arise a little earlier this afternoon, and I should like to suggest that you take the matter under consideration and give a ruling at some future time.


Georges Parent: I shall be glad to consider the matter and decide whether I should give a ruling. Hon. members will understand that the Speaker does not give advice. All he does is to judge and interpret the rules of the house in the course of debate or of its proceedings. What has happened to-day is past. We are not on that now. Nevertheless I shall take the remarks of the hon. member into consideration and decide what to do.


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Speaker, I would
point out that the Prime Minister himself stated that it was the rule of the house that the letter had to be tabled. The letter was therefore obtained under false representations.



MINTO-CHIPMAN COAL MINES REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN SAINT JOHN TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL ANNOUNCING APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) based on
34873-so
an article appearing in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of March 3, announcing the appointment of Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia as a commissioner "to inquire into causes of lack of capacity production in the coal mines in the Minto-Chipman district of New Brunswick." Will the minister make a statement setting out the reasons for the appointment of this commission, and may we have the production of the order in council making the appointment?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I received it shortly before coming into the house. The statement contained in the paper that he mentions is correct; Mr. Justice Archibald has been appointed:. On the other hand I would ask my hon. friend to be kind enough to allow his question to stand as a notice of question to which I will reply to-morrow, because to give the reasons for the appointment might, unless it were carefully done, prejudge the issues. I should like., therefore, to give a prepared statement rather than an impromptu one such as I would have to give to-day.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the appointment of a committee to examine the expenditure for defence and other war services, and to consider possible economies consistent with government policy.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with reference to the text of the resolution of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and first as to the functions and powers of the committee.
What is the object of having a select committee if it is going to have its hands tied behind its back through the failure of the government to give it the power which any committee should have in order to function properly regarding war expenditures, manpower, recruiting, munitions, and overseas policy as to the battle of Britain, the Mediterranean and other theatres of war, and other important matters?
I notice by the explanation which the Prime Minister gave of the resolution last night, that the committee has no power to


James Layton Ralston: The expenditures in connection with the items referred to by my hon. friend will be before the committee if it desires them, and I imagine many of them will be asked for.


Thomas Langton Church: I admit there is a public
accounts committee, and questions can also be asked when the minister's estimates are under consideration.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I think he is under a misapprehension. The expenditures will be before the committee if the committee desires them, and I think it will desire many of them.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to bring up a,
matter which was referred to the other day by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I protest against the charges that are aimed at the business men of Toronto and, for that matter, business men throughout the country. I do not believe for a moment that the business men of Canada are "resting on their oars." Those in Toronto are working night and d>ay to speed up Canada's war effort, some of them losing money. Some are not able to get parts, and others are waiting for extensions of plants. If there is any district that is making its contribution in men and munitions, it is military district No. 2. What I say of the business men of Toronto is true, I -have no doubt, of the industrialists of the country generally.
Some reference has been made to farmers'1 sons. I am glad to hear the minister's assurance that the committee can deal with these-matters. I am sure he never has anything to hide in his hard work. Let me assure the house that the sons of farmers in Ontario are-not asking to be exempted. May I say to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) that had it not been for him and his useless department, we should have had
800,000	soldiers trained by now on the voluntary system of recruiting instead of the cumbersome machinery of the mobilization department.
Yesterday the funeral of a great Canadian, Sir Frederick Banting, was held in Toronto. He was born on the farm, but look what he, a patriot in peace and war alike, did for his country. Speaking in this house on May 16, 1923. I mentioned the patriotism of the farmers of Ontario when the issue of protection was raised. The farmers of Ontario have never failed to stand for their country in the polling booths; and when war has threatened the existence of this dominion, the farmers of Ontario-the actual farmers- have never failed to go themselves or to send their sons to defend their country on the battlefield.
This resolution speaks for itself. I do not see why hon. gentlemen in another place, as they are called, should not have their services utilized in this war effort. The senate at Washington and the House of Lords in England are not, like ours, on holidays. The government might very well give the other chamber more work to do, coordinated and cooperated with the work of this house, particularly in this time of war, because they have some very valuable business men and war leaders there. How will Britain be able to take the offensive unless the dominions do their duty with regard to men and munitions?
1262	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
This committee should have the power also to go over the expenditures of the joint defence board which has been set up. That board proposes to spend a large amount of money, and we do not know what it is all about. Not long ago we had an announcement made by the deputy minister of the naval department, the minister himself, and officials of the joint defence board, involving an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, without this House of Commons knowing anything about the matter.
What about our arms programme, which is still in the preparatoiy stage? Will the work of this committee hinder or help our war effort? Is the committee to act on party lines, or is it not? Should the party principle not be eliminated? Many young soldiers who have enlisted to fight Hitler would not have done so voluntarily if they had known they were going to be sent to the West Indies, or Iceland, or Greenland's icy mountains. Hitler cannot be fought there; those are secondary areas. In our whole war effort we seem to be ignoring the danger to Great Britain, particularly in the Mediterranean, where England is doing so well against the Italians. If Britain loses the war, however, the Germans will make these same Italians fight against Britain, and Britain has to feed them and take good care of them.
If this committee is simply to conduct a postmortem on what has been done in the past, it had better not be appointed. It should have power to go over and review the work of outside boards as well. Many men in Canada have been lulled into a false sense of security. They might have known that unless those countries desiring peace were stronger than those desiring war, there would he no peace. I define collective security as a doctrine that leaves to others the task of defending freedom and civilization on land, sea and in the air, while they look on as spectators.
In conclusion, I fail to see how the appointment of this committee will help. We do not want a whitewash repetition of what was done once before in another committee on railways and shipping; we want to get some real action. The press has a right, as I see it, to carry on free discussion and criticism. The press has an important duty to perform. All the information given out through the government information bureau might just as well be dropped. It has been a cardinal principle of the nazi regime, and one of its proudest accomplishments, to take away the freedom of the press. In Canada I think the press are measuring up to their duty splendidly, particularly in connection with the war loans
{Mr. Church.]
campaign. If the press is to fulfil these functions adequately, there must be a large number of independent newspapers, each representing a particular viewpoint. The national press should provide a medium for the expression of opinion. A democratic press reflects public opinion, and the right of free discussion should not be taken away. In a double sense the press is an intermediary between the government and the public. It provides a channel by which ministers can keep the electorate informed of their activities, and it also serves as a sort of barometer, by means of which the government can gauge the feelings of the country. These are the views of a great newspaper man, and patriot, Mr. Arthur Mann, the brilliant editor of the Yorkshire Post. He says:
In this connection the establishment of the ministry of information by the present government betrayed, in its original form, a lack of confidence in the ability of the press to fulfil its proper functions.
I believe that something should be done now to establish the freedom of the press and to protect it for the period of the war. This committee may meet until doomsday, but unless it is given proper powers and functions, I do not believe any good will flow from it, and the people will continue to be just as much in the dark with regard to Canada's war effort.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the hon. member proceeds, does he suggest or intimate that I made the suggestion for political reasons?


James Alexander Marshall: No, I would not impute such a motive to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).
Here are the members of the committee:
Abbott, lawyer, Liberal
Bercovitch, lawyer, Liberal
Black (Cumberland), director, Liberal-
Conservative
Bradette, merchant and farmer, Liberal Chevrier, lawyer, Liberal Cleaver, lawyer, Liberal Diefenbaker. lawyer, Conservative Fournier (Hull), lawyer, Liberal Gladstone, manufacturer, Liberal Golding, machinist. Liberal Graham, lawyer. Liberal Gray, lawyer, Liberal Green, lawyer, Conservative Harris (Danforth), manufacturer, Conservative
Macdonald (Halifax), lawyer, Liberal Maelnnis, motorman, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Marshall, municipal secretary, Social Credit
Mayhew, manufacturer, Liberal
McGeer, lawyer, Liberal
Picard, lawyer, Liberal
Pottier, lawyer, Liberal
Ross (Moose Jaw'), farmer, Liberal
A welcome change.
Sissons, lawyer, Liberal Thorson, lawyer, Liberal


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a lawyers' committee.


James Alexander Marshall: Making a further analysis of that set-up we find that the Liberal membership of the committee is divided up as follows:
Lawyers	 13
Machinist	 1
Manufacturers	 2
Merchant and farmer	 2
Total	 18
The Conservative membership is divided as follows:
Lawyers	 2
Manufacturer	 1
Director	 1
Total	  4
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has one member, who is a motorman, and the Social Credit party is represented by one, who is a municipal secretary.
I do not have to point out to the house that the personnel of this committee is composed preponderantly of lawyers. It is a matter for argument whether a committee consisting of such an overwhelming number of lawyers is the proper kind of committee to estimate what "economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein."
My personal view is that more time will be spent arguing the legality of this or that section of the contracts than will be devoted to a discussion of the economic values of the
1264	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
products covered by those contracts. I fear that the high and noble purpose for which the committee has been set up will never be achieved. I do not think the Prime Minister is taking any chances on the deliberations of the committee being used for political advantage. I am of the opinion that his appeal for close cooperation among members of the committee is not needed. Eighteen members out of the twenty-four will always cooperate, no matter what the other six may do. It would have been a real patriotic act on the part of the Prime Minister if he had given a larger quota to the opposition groups.
Some question has been raised as to whether the deliberations should be held in camera. At the moment I believe that most of these meetings could be thrown wide open to the public. It is true that there will be times when meetings should be held in camera, but those occasions can be decided best by the committee as it pursues its investigations. The committee on the defence of Canada regulations which sat last year held all its meetings in camera. Looking back I am of the opinion that at least ninety per cent of those meetings could have been held in the open. Having that experience in mind, I think it is best to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the committee.
As a member of one of the minority groups I wish to register a protest with respect to the conferences which were held between the Prime Minister and some members of his party and certain members of the official opposition regarding this question. It does seem to me that representation from the minority groups should have been invited. It would have been a fine gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to issue such an invitation. The Prime Minister will find that the members of the minority groups are just as much interested in these important matters as are the members of either of the majority groups. The Prime Minister in my opinion missed an excellent opportunity to practise that virtue of cooperation which he professes to admire.
We as a group are fully conscious of the tremendous task which lies ahead for Canada in the successful prosecution of this war effort. We realize too that all groups must cooperate to bring victory to the British commonwealth of nations in this struggle. We renew our pledge to work whole-heartedly toward that goal. Naming and commenting upon the personnel of this committee, the Prime Minister said:
Then there is the name of Mr. Maclnnis of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Mr. Marshall of the Social Credit group.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	The Prime
Minister would not give them a certificate of credit, would he?

Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes; I am prepared to give them a certificate of credit with respect to the integrity with which they are bound to and will, I believe, discharge their duties.
I thank the Prime Minister for those kindly sentiments. I assure him that I deem it my duty as a Canadian citizen to cooperate in the fullest measure possible, and I have no doubt that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has the same feeling in the matter.


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution, but being one of the few new members of the house selected to serve on this committee, and one of the thirteen Liberal lawyers to whom the hon. member who has just taken his seat referred, there are a few matters which I think I should bring to the attention of the house.
When the committee was first proposed in November or December last, I was delighted at the suggestion. I was not too much concerned about who should get the credit; I felt that it was a constructive move which would enable private members of this house to render real public service. I have heard it said that the activities of private members were limited, that their hands, particularly those of the large government majority, were more or less tied. That suggestion has been put forth by some of my hon. friends opposite. Let me say at once that I have not found that to be so. So far as this committee is concerned, if I find, as someone has suggested, that I am to act as part of a whitewashing operation, I shall ask to be relieved of my duties on the committee.
I cannot for the life of me see why the work of this committee should be looked at from a partisan point of view. It seems to me that its work can be carried on in a perfectly non-partisan way. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) say last evening in no uncertain terms that he hoped that when the members went into the first meeting of the committee and every subsequent meeting they would leave their politics behind. Unfortunately that view does not seem to be held by all, and certainly not by certain sections of the press. The debate which occurred last evening did not entirely convince me that it was shared by all hon. gentlemen opposite.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to whether the meetings of this committee should be secret or open. Personally I can think of many reasons why the meetings should be held in camera. I can see no good reason for holding them in public, unless it is to afford an opportunity to some one to display his ability, or lack of

IFar Expenditures-Special Committee
it, as a cross-examiner. I cannot help feeling that behind the criticism which has been voiced in the press, and to a certain extent by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), there is a belief that the representation of the Liberal party on this committee is too large. Personally I resent the implication, if implication there be, that because I sit on that committee as a Liberal member I am not going to do my duty.
May I be allowed to make a personal reference? I was elected in the last election as a Liberal, but I believe it is fair to say that I received possibly as many Conservative votes as some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. My opponent was a gentleman who had sat in this house for many years. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that he had the respect, admiration and affection, not only of the members of the house but of his constituents. I refer, of course, to Mr. R. S. White. Mr. White was elected in 1935 with a large majority, something over 5,500. I was elected last year with a slightly larger majority. I am not under the delusion that that was due to any special ability on my part; it was due to the fact that the electors preferred the policies offered by the present government to those put forward by Doctor Manion. I like to think that the size of my majority was due in some measure to the confidence which a large number of the electors, both Conservative and Liberal, had in myself. I like to think that they felt that if I came here I would do what I could to ensure that our war effort would be the maximum of which we are capable. For that reason I have been particularly disturbed at the suggestion that was made-I do not say that the suggestion was made with respect to myself- that Liberal members as such will not act on this committee in a non-partisan way. I feel that criticism of that sort, if sincere, is going to produce exactly the opposite effect from that intended.
I know there is a good deal of nonsense talked about criticism. Criticism, of course, is an absolutely necessary part of our democratic system. It cannot function without it. I am not very much concerned about all this talk of the distinction between constructive and destructive criticism. To me it is too hard to tell what the difference is. What I am more interested in is whether the critic is sincere and what the motive is which actuates him in putting forward his criticism. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the criticism which has been put forward in the press and in this house as to the way in which this committee will function, while 14873-81
perhaps sincere, is not motivated solely, if at all, by a desire to see that a thorough and proper investigation be made into our war expenditures.
The other day I read the report of a speech which was made in Toronto by the mayor of Hamilton in connection with this question of criticism. It is reported in the Hamilton Spectator of the 27th of February, Thursday last, and I should like to read one or two extracts from that speech:
Mayor W. A. Morrison, K.C., of Hamilton, speaking as a "known Conservative" told the Ontario Good Roads Association in an address to-day that "we must cast out suspicion and carping and bitter criticism" to build up confidence in Canada's government, her public men and war effort.
"The man who destroys confidence in Canada and its leaders to-day is playing the game Germany has often played in other countries of undermining confidence in administrations."
"Rumour is a terrible weapon in the hands of one's enemies-rumour stealthily sown and cultivated by enemy agents has preceded the collapse of every country that has come under the German yoke. Let us be on our guard in these critical times against rumour and the wise guys who keep sniping at Canada's war effort with criticisms and comments based on rumours which have little solid foundation in fact."
Continuing, he said:
Nobody can accuse me of ever having pulled my punches when I have had to mix it in peacetime politics with the Liberals either at Queen's park or at Ottawa, but let me tell you this, when this country is at war I am a Canadian and a Britisher before I am a Conservative party man and, like a lot of other people, I am getting damned well fed up with this constant yapping at the government about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the war effort.
I do not know his worship the mayor. He perhaps did not couch his language exactly in parliamentary terms, but he was speaking straight to the point, and I think he was expressing views which are shared by a good many people in this country including, I may say, myself.
I, in common with a good many other members of this house, served overseas in the last war. It is just twenty-four years ago this month that I landed in France as a private soldier in a battery of which the second in command was my hon. friend the member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan).
I was thinking yesterday as I heard my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) referring to these category "Cl" fellows who can walk five miles with a pack on their back, that perhaps I could not even qualify for that to-day. But when I was elected as a member of this house less than a year ago, I felt that in this particular field I might be able to make some contribution to

1266	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
the prosecution of this war and I hope to do so. I did feel when this committee was suggested and my name appeared as a member of it that it would accord an opportunity of doing a really constructive job. Frankly, it has been a little discouraging to me to have the discussion of the formation of this committee, both in the press and to a certain extent in this house, put on a partisan basis. Therefore I want to endorse with all the sincerity at my command the views which were so ably expressed last night by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and to suggest that we get this resolution through so that the committee can get down to work just as soon as possible.


Joseph Henry Harris: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are all seized with the great responsibility we have during these difficult times, and I believe that members on all sides will address themselves to any task that is given us, with energy, zeal and industry, with the single purpose of trying to do something on behalf of Canada and the empire. The situation abroad is to-day perhaps even more serious than at any other time. We are seeing an attack upon our ideals and our way of life, only the remnants of which are left in some countries of Europe, and it is not difficult for us to echo the sentiments which the hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Abbott) expressed a moment or two ago and which were so admirably expressed last night by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).
Before addressing myself to the question before the chair I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we are quite in order in this discussion. Would it not have been sufficient for the purposes of this resolution if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had simply made his statement, followed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and then perhaps let it go at that? I felt disposed to rise to a point of order when the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) rose in his place, but I suppose he wanted to help out in laying the groundwork for the committee over which he may have the honour to preside.
Frankly, I was disappointed with the statement of the Prime Minister as to the functions of this committee. The evidence his statement gave of faltering, of not being just sure of what the committee might be able to do, not laying down the principles which should govern the committee, leaving the impression which he did last December that the committee would proceed on much the same lines as the committee at Westminster, neglecting to act last December on this

tremendous job of work, of which now we can touch only the fringe, and allowing that work to lie untouched from then until now- all this showed a definite weakness.
Among the names of members whom it is proposed to appoint to this committee, I have the honour to notice my own. I did not ask to be placed on this committee. Without any suggestion from myself, I was asked to serve on it, and I assume that responsibility, realizing that I shall have a free hand and that the sole purpose of our deliberations shall be the helping of our war effort. Many of our forefathers are buried overseas; our children are willing to spill their blood in the cause, and many of them are already over there. From the point of view of the people themselves, we must exert durselves to do everything we possibly can.
Then, on the material side, be it noted that our industries are connected and closely allied with British empire industries. The possibilities of our earning a living in the days to come are tied up with our membership in the empire. No matter from what point of view we look at the problem, we are forced to the conclusion that this must be an all-out effort.
To my mind this effort, since the inception of the war, and even before it, has been narrowed and circumscribed through the attitude of the government that it is their responsibility and theirs alone. Press and public rise indignantly to assert that the government must broaden the effort. So it chooses executives from industry, from the schools of learning and from institutions of (public service, and appoints them to assist in this and that way. That is all to the good, and I am thoroughly in accord with it. But when restrictions are placed upon those who come to serve, when they find themselves circumscribed and inhibited by political necessities, it is difficult for them to function. We are now to have a committee which is to lay all party and partisan considerations on the doormat before it enters upon its deliberations. That is a fine objective, and if I am honoured with a place upon the committee, everything in my power will be done to try to reach that objective. But all we have to go on is the experience of days gone by. I address myself particularly now to those who will be privileged to serve on that committee, and since some of them have not been here during the whole of the last two decades, we will restrict our observations and merely look fairly in the face what has occurred in the last ten months with regard to committees which have been reviewing expenditures.
What do we find? The one example which stands out above all others, of a committee

War Expenditures-Special Committee
anxious to do work on behalf of Canada, is the one which reviewed the accounts of the railways. The close of the calendar year coincides with the closing of the books of the Canadian National Railways. A committee was set up to examine into expenditures and the budget for the coming year. I believe that its report was tabled, in February a year ago, and in that report a vote of $15 million was asked in connection w'ith the budget for the coming year. Then we had an election. The report was not considered. The months of March and April went by, and in May parliament reassembled. In the meantime, expanding revenues on all our railway lines, the result of increased car loadings week by week and other items of that kind, pointed to the fact that $15 million would not be needed. When the committee reconvened, this was brought to its attention. I challenge any member of that committee to assert that that money was needed. They knew in their hearts, when they were sitting last June, and it was brought to their attention that that sum would not be required, that there was no necessity, in view of the experience of the months which had intervened, for any such sum. Yet the committee examining expenditure and budgeting for future expenditure drew a party line when the vote was taken and, to a man, the partisan group, led by a minister of the crown, voted to provide $15 million in case they might want to spend it.
I say to those who may serve on the present committee, let us have no approach of that kind to the problem which now faces us. I here and now give notice that any such approach will find me, if I am honoured with an appointment, withdrawing from the committee.
Here is another example of the like kind. Two-thirds of the revenue of the Trans-Canada Air Lines comes from the Post Office Department. Its rates, and of course necessarily so, are far in excess of what obtain on air lines in other countries, but the excess has enabled them to finish their business for the year with a substantial surplus. AH sensible men know that, in starting projects of this kind, one does not look for substantial surpluses, and if they occur, it is natural to examine whence they come. In this case they came out of one department and went into the other. I do not complain so much about that, provided the fact is admitted.
Coming to the partisan side of that picture, what do we find? We find in the report a statement to the effect that they had earned their interest charges, they had earned their depreciation charges and showed this surplus.
14873-81}
The real fact of the matter was-and the members of that committee knew it-that these' were bookkeeping figures, that sixty cents per flight mile was paid for the carriage of mail, whether mail was carried or not, when the service was worth no more than nineteen or twenty cents. The money which made that showing possible came by reason of a contract which was not sound and, as regards the-amount of money used to subsidize that project, would not bear investigation. Yet members of that committee rose in their places and voted to a man on party lines to endorse a statement in the report which was not borne out when the examination was made.
We can go back to other days. I do not use the word "whitewash" which was employed by my hon. friend (Mr. Church) a few minutes ago. It describes rather well, however, what happened in the days of the customs investigation, what happened in the price spreads investigation, yes, and what has happened in every committee that has sat on any special problem in the last twenty years to my own knowledge.
I do not feel disposed to prejudge a case which we might be asked to sit on. I am surprised that the hon. member for Selkirk, a learned gentleman, should rise in his place and try to indicate what is going to happen when the committee convenes. I will therefore reserve any remarks with regard to the conduct of the committee except to say that I am in accord with what my hon. leader had to say. I was in accord with his original idea that there should be perhaps two committees or two sections of this committee, namely
(a)	a section having to do with the men themselves, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and
(b)	a section having to do with the material side. I rather concur in his admitting the view expressed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and I will let it go at that.
In the view expressed by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) I concur. I do not see how we can go into a committee that sits in camera on a project of this magnitude. It is quite true they sat in camera at Westminster and brought down some fourteen reports. The Prime Minister knows and this house knows that many of the deliberations, or parts of the deliberations, of these secret subcommittees found their way into the press of the country from time to time. Hon. members well know that if such a committee sitting in camera convenes in this House of Commons, leaks will get into the press. Did we not have an example of that within the last two or three days? The Prime Minister occupied most of his time in finding fault
1268	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
with what had leaked out from a very small group, much smaller and much more subject to questioning than the one proposed to be set up. But men charged with this responsibility are not going to give out facts or figures, or quantities or information that will be of any comfort to the enemy. If we do, we are not worthy to sit on the committee. If members of this house do such a thing, they are not worthy to sit in the house. We are studying the problem with a view to assisting in every way possible.
A great deal of time is wasted in discussing the word "current." We know what the word "current" means, and we know that the impression has prevailed in the country since the house adjourned in December that the inquiry was only going to be from this time forward, instead of going back to what had happened before. But it will be very difficult to examine even current expenditures. We do not know what they are and we are not getting statements which are frank enough. We are not getting statements which are sufficiently up to the minute to give us an opportunity to examine even into current expenditures.
On several occasions during the last two sessions I had the privilege of rising in my place and asking the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to lay on the table contracts awarded months previously. Just yesterday the minister laid on the table contracts awarded for the month of November, 1940. Are we to be able to examine anything that has happened since November? Of course we must be able to. After all, this department only requires clerical help and management to bring the information up to date. Some business institutions close their books on Thursday and a statement of their affairs is on the desk for Saturday. That *obtains in four or five industries in which I am interested. They are small-a matter of a couple of hundred men-but it can be done. Business houses mailed their statements of accounts for the month of March last Friday evening at five o'clock, that being the last day of the month previous, and they were in the hands of their customers on Saturday morning, March 1. It is being done. One of the largest institutions in Canada closes its books at five o'clock on Friday night and on Saturday morning there is the financial statement for the week's business on the desk of every executive. I know that to be a fact. I say, it can be done, and in this case it must be done, so that we shall have an opportunity to be up to the moment.
I mentioned the word "frankness" and I will *mention it again. Perhaps it is not a lack of frankness so much as a lack of attention, on <
the part of the organizations in our government which are spending money, to what is being said in the House of Commons. Perhaps some civil servants do not realize that this parliament is supreme. Perhaps, from some of the discussions that go on here, they come to the conclusion that we do not know what it is all about, and they have no intention of letting us know. I do not know. At any rate, I would refer to two returns which came down in the last couple of days, one of them with regard to the purchase of lands in the township of Scarboro for the building of some munitions enterprise or other, involving a matter of some three or four hundred acres. The return comes down, "No information". The contractors are building on that land now. The land was expropriated and taken over months ago. In like manner a return was brought down, which I asked for in my own name, with regard to the township of Pickering-"No information". They entered on these lands in October last and tore down fences and buildings. I made the inquiry for the reason that certain persons wanted to see whether they could help on that job. Trucks are out there to-day clearing off the buildings and getting ready for a considerable expenditure, which I notice runs into as much as 82,000,000, one-eighth for Canadian account and seven-eighths for United Kingdom account. Yet the return comes to the house, "No information".


James Layton Ralston: What did my hon. friend
ask?


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not have it here.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member said the return was asked for in order that some people who wanted to help-


Joseph Henry Harris: I asked whether land was purchased in the township of Pickering.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and the answer was,
"No information".


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I wondered what that had to do with people helping.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not see that that has any point.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend gave the impression that, from some high-minded motive, he had asked a question in order that people might help. I find the information asked for was, "How much land was purchased?" And the answer was, "No information". All my hon. friend is saying is that people are on the land. Land is being taken
MARCH 5, 1941	'f	1269
War Expenditures-Special Committee
and occupied by the defence services, outside munitions and supply, in respect of which negotiations have not been completed.


Joseph Henry Harris: I wanted to lay the basis for information, and if land was entered upon and occupied, we desired to know. It is the General Engineering company who have entered upon the land, and there is an expenditure of 552,250,000 for filling fuses, primers and so on, at Pickering, Ontario; yet we get back the reply, "No information".


James Layton Ralston: No information with
regard to what question?


Joseph Henry Harris: No information with regard to the purchase of the land on which this work was going to be done, although they have been working on it for six months. My whole point is that in the matter of the current expenditures, if we are going to be dragging four, five and six months behind all the time we are not going to be able to do the job of work we would like to do. The other point is that if, as we go along, we do not get frank statements from those charged with responsibility, we shall be circumscribed more and more in our effort to do something along this line. I do not say that it is going to be all cluttered up with blind partisanship, but I do say that if blind partisanship in connection with this committee does not cease, then the committee will not function properly and will not be able to do a real job of work.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that my hon. friend is tilting at windmills.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, he is not; not about Pickering. Why in the world did you not give the information?


James Layton Ralston: It is not my department at all-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I appreciate that.


James Layton Ralston: -but I was pointing out that "no information" did not necessarily mean that anything whatever had been withheld. My hon. friend was asking about the purchase. I understand that at the time the land was not purchased, and therefore the answer was "no information."


Joseph Henry Harris: I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I have disposed of that question. I repeat what I said previously, that there is a lag in giving information to this house. That lag must be removed if we are going to be able to do a job and do it properly.


James Layton Ralston: I still say that my hon. friend is tilting at windmills.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not admit that for one moment.
The hon. member for Selkirk, in discussing the appointment of this committee, made the suggestion that when we oppose the idea of its being a secret committee, we are just scratching the surface of the matter and not getting down to realities. I suppose the group who will surround him in that committee will follow through on his suggestion that, in part at least, it must be held in camera. When the hon. member took that attitude he was following the lead that was given by the Prime Minister, but yesterday the Prime Minister removed that restriction. I ask now that all members of the government do likewise. There is still on Hansard a statement by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that this committee will sit in camera. Before the debate concludes, I should like the Prime Minister to say that when he withdrew that restriction he did so on behalf of all the members of his cabinet; otherwise I do not see how I can serve on such a committee. I will not serve on a committee that is sitting in camera.
We are faced with a very difficult problem. The magnitude of these expenditures is such that we may be able to touch only the fringe of the job of work ahead of us. Matters will have to be taken up largely on general lines. I hope we shall approach the problem remembering that our country and our empire are facing a ruthless, almost furious enemy, ambitious for power; fanatics who have come to power by crushing and impoverishing: smaller nations, with the backing of a youthful mob who seem to be seized with the idea that the old order of things is not good enough, who wish to establish a new civilization and destroy the old. We British people, slow to anger, have built up over the last thousand years a civilization held together not by force but by unwritten laws and codes of ethics. We have been a great agency for good during that time, and we should continue to be a force for good. That should be the star at which members of this committee should look all the time. They should not be circumscribed by partisanship-and I couple the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) with the circumscribing of our effort-and should see if it is not possible for government members of a committee not to be leopards but to change their spots for once. I hope they can do so; I hope it may be possible to-make this miracle work.
1270	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: (Translation) This resolution is timely: Its very introduction will prevent many abuses. Therefore, I wish to bring to the attention of the house some facts that are quite unusual, to say the least. We find that the dominion agrees to hand money to industrialists for the manufacture of munitions. In the fulfilment of most contracts, the expense is borne by the Canadian government, except perhaps, for a contribution from the United Kingdom. These contracts are awarded to this or that firm, very often without public tenders having first been called. In many cases, the firm which secures the contract does not fulfil it itself, but entrusts the work to sub-contractors. Why should there be any middlemen? Whenever a third party comes in, the expenditure invariably increases, costly transactions take place, with all that is entailed by the transfer of negotiable instruments that are part of the contracts from a legal standpoint. Yet we have in Canada a large number of industries able to offer the dominion every necessary /guarantee in addition to assuming themselves df not all at least a substantial part of the .advances. Moreover, the financial position [DOT]of this country, as well as the public interest, -would be better protected if the tender system once again was resorted to in the award of all contracts. Besides, would not such a procedure best ensure fairness and honesty? It is important that the government should eliminate middlemen by entrusting the direct fulfilment of contracts to well-established firms, whose responsibility and solvency could hot be questioned. The committee provided for in this resolution should seriously examine the matter and give special consideration to what I am about to say.
At this time, I am keeping in mind the urgent necessity for the government to hound down everywhere those who contrive to reap a harvest through patronage, through an odious exploitation of munition factory workers whereby the latter are sneakily deprived of wages sufficient for the support of their dependents with the result that they receive little in return for their work. The government must by every means at their command destroy those despicable and vile scoundrels, as they must also remove shameless financiers and histrionic politicians from the scene where not only our future but our very existence is now at stake. At this time when we are required to make very heavy sacrifices, let war be waged upon combine-advocating politicians, responsible for almost all the abuses that exist to-day. Party lobbyists should not be allowed to gain the upper 
hand in this country, whose debt is piling up from day to day. Public interest, nay the very safety of our nation makes it a duty for true statesmen, for political men worthy of that name, to restrain that swarming mob which may jeopardize the success of the most commendable policies. Men engaged in that racket, in that organized, or I should rather say industrialized crime, since it is taking nowadays alarming proportions, are endeavouring to operate, through the hiring of workmen, even in munition plants. Have we not seen an aftermath of their activities in proceedings taken before courts of justice in Montreal? The people who pay have a right to demand every necessary precaution against the plots of those people who are truly sabotaging the defence and the war effort of Canada.
Let us forestall the baneful intrigues of robbers who are so unconcerned about the people's welfare that they have repeatedly betrayed the nation for the furtherance of their petty interests. As a means of rooting out the evil, I would suggest to the right honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to have all armament factories in Canada watched by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Nobody would have any complaint to make on that score. It would be in the mutual interests of industrialists and workmen, and greedy foremen would find it impossible to exploit wage earners.
A short time ago, the public information office released to editors of religious news an article entitled "By Whom is Right Upheld," which I wish to quote:
One merely has to compare the nazi traditions and war aims with those of England and her allies to ascertain who is upholding right in this conflict wherein the fate of the world is at stake. Let us recall a statement of principles, similar to the one made by His Holiness the Pope, which has recently been published by English churchmen, one of whom was His Eminence Cardinal Hinsley. archbishop of Westminster and Roman Catholic primate of England. They made five suggestions:
Excessive inequality in wealth should be abolished.
Every child, of whatever race or condition, should have an equal opportunity to secure an education commensurate with his talents and needs.
The family must be maintained as a social unit.
The sense of a divine mission must again inspire man in his daily work.
The world's resources must be used as a gift imparted by God to all men, according to the needs of the present and future generations.
Is that not a complete program of social regeneration? One of the war aims of the allies is the defence and preservation of democracy. Of course, all forms of govern-

War Expenditures-Special Committee
ment are handicapped by imperfections inherent in their contingent and human nature. For that very reason should they not ever strive after justice, honesty, and sound and true freedom, which cannot possibly be derived from the favouritism and ambition of exploiters, who invariably subordinate the welfare of the people to their own interests? Those who shed and will shed their blood in upholding the principles stated in the war aims of the allies have a right to demand that their sacrifice shall not have been made in vain. All those whom the nation is mobilizing in their persons, their life, their industry, their home, their work, their income, demand that necessary action be taken against traitors, saboteurs, monopolizers and supporters of financial imperialism. The first duty of the government is to afford such protection to the utmost of their unlimited powers.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this committee I should like to express an opinion which, up to the present time, I believe has not been brought to the attention of the house. I am not going to say whether I would or would not serve on a committee which sat in camera, or otherwise. In my opinion that would be a wrong basis on which to start. When one goes into a committee he should try to do the things the majority believe to be in the best interests of all. Therefore I would not say I would not serve on a committee if it chose to do thus or so.
I believe the committee may do a great deal of good. In the first place it will serve as a warning to those who would prosper on the misfortunes of others, or those who would not conduct their affairs on an ethical basis. Second, in addition to the good effect it will have on the people, and the impression it will leave in the minds of those people that the interests of the taxpayers are being looked after, there is another feature to which I believe consideration must be given. In thinking of it we must first say to ourselves: What is the job we have in hand at the present [DOT]time? Is it the job of retarding the war effort, or that of promoting the war effort?
I now ask the house to consider for a moment whether a committee of this kind will actually promote, facilitate or speed up the present war effort. That in my opinion is paramount. What is going to be the effect on those people who are constantly having to make decisions with regard to war contracts, the purchase of lands, the types of aeroplanes or boats to be built, if they think that every move they make is going to be brought before a committee of the house for examination?
In peace time I believe every move they make should be watched. But in a time like this, when speed is necessary, I would question the wisdom of the appointment of a committee which would make such examinations. If it is appointed, then I say the committee must be very careful that by methods of obstruction it does not add to the cost of the war effort more than the few dollars or even the few thousands of dollars it might save. If criticism of this house is justified, more than anything else it is because we have failed to get quick decisions on a number of matters. I am not condemning the war effort or the work of this government, but I do say that decisions are vital in the interests of this country. I doubt if we shall be able to get decisions quickly if those who are to make them have to wait to wrap up everything in a blue parcel, tie it with red ribbon and put a seal upon it.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this resolution or to speak at great length, but there are one or two observations I should like to make. I agree with what was said by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), when he suggested that the House of Commons should give its blessing to this committee so that it could get on with its work. I feel also that the success of this committee depends upon the extent to which the members of the committee are willing to leave their politics outside the door of the committee room. The members of that committee will have practically to forsake their politics for the duration of the war, both in and out of this house. Anything I may say to-day I do not want to be taken as casting reflection upon any hon. member. It is of the utmost importance that this committee should work in the greatest harmony possible, and there should be similar harmony in connection with the setting up of the committee. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a few remarks which I do not think were altogether fair. He quoted an editorial which had appeared in the Globe and Mail, as follows:
It is not to be expected that the ten Liberal members will bestir themselves to expose the shortcomings of the government; consequently the task of ferreting out information will devolve upon the handful of Conservative and leftist members.
I am prefacing my remarks with this quotation because it will have a bearing upon what I have to say later on. I do not think it was the intention of this newspaper to cast any reflection upon any member of this
1272	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
House of Commons. Is there not cause for the opinion expressed in this paper? Have not hon. members on the government side given the people of Canada the impression that they are nothing but what might be termed "yes" men? Rightly or wrongly, that is the impression given to the Canadian people. There is no doubt that all hon. members have a duty to support the government when they think it is right. But there is also a duty to criticize the government when they think it is wrong, more especially in times like these. That is the attitude I have taken. I have been impressed with the fact that Liberal members have not indicated any independence of mind in their criticism of the government. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) says that their hands are not tied. If that is so, why do they not rise in their places and criticize the government when they think it is wrong? What else can the public of this country or members of this house think but that they are just "yes" men?
I have heard hon. members of the opposition criticized severely because they had the audacity to differ with the government of the day. Some hon. members have been called saboteurs and accused of hindering Canada's war effort because they have criticized the government or have tried to obtain information which belongs rightly to the people of this country and to members of this house. We have our duty as members of this house, and I intend to carry out my duty.
There has been very little criticism on the part of Liberal members. I have listened to political harangues which have been made, not only by hon. members but by some ministers in an endeavour to discredit opposition members who have attempted to criticize the government.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend mean during this debate?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No; I am talking about the past. This particular editorial and other editorials which have appeared are merited to some extent by the past performance of private members on the Liberal side. As I said before, I mention these things which have gone before simply to preface what I am about to say.
There is no doubt in my mind that this committee can play a very useful part in the prosecution of our war effort. If the committee does not think that the powers given it are wide enough, it can come back to the house and ask for wider powers. As to sitting
[Mr. Douglas G. Rossd
in secret or in public, I think it should be left to the committee to decide when it is necessary to sit in camera. There will be a few times when it will be necessary for the committee to sit in camera, but on every possible occasion I think the meetings should be public. Any decision in this regard made by the committee should not be influenced in the slightest degree by politics. It may be difficult for hon. members to forsake their party politics in connection with this committee, but any effort to play politics there will be open to censure and should be made public to the country. Every hon. member who acts in this way should have to answer, not only to the public but to his own conscience.
Last evening the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) expressed himself quite forcibly. I agree with much of what he eaid, but I take exception to his remarks as reported on page 1248 of Hansard:
That, I believe, can be done by a thorough and careful inquiry writhout regard to publicity. We will not be concerned in the committee as to what the public thinks; we will be concerned with the knowledge within ourselves, as members of the committee, that we are doing an honest and thorough job of investigation.
A few moments ago the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount said that he could see no reason why any of the meetings of this committee should be held in public. The committee will certainly be concerned over this inquiry being an honest and thorough job of investigation, but it must also be concerned as to what the public thinks. One of the main reasons for the setting-up of this committee is that the public will get all the information. The usefulness of the committee will be lost unless the public are thoroughly informed, and suspicion will be cast upon the committee unless proper publicity is given to its labours. I do not mean publicity by way of propaganda; I mean real, honest publicity. The committee must be fearless.
I should like to express this hope, too, that the press of the country will be restrained in publishing reports and facts and criticisms brought out by the committee. If these points are kept in mind and a course such as I have outlined is followed I feel that a new wave of confidence will sweep over the public.
I wish now to say a word about the membership of the committee. I have in my hand the membership of the select committee on national expenditures of the British House of Commons, taken from page 1136 of the British Hansard of December 12, 1939, and I should

War Expenditures-Special Committee
like to put the names on Hansard. I do not know whether hon. members wish me to read all the names. They are as follows:
Select Committee on National Expenditures (Great Britain^
Membership-28
Member-Party
Mr. C. G. Ammon-Labour
Sir Charles Barrie-Liberal National
Sir Ernest Bennett-National Labour
Mr. A. C. Bossom-Conservative
Mr. H. Brooke-Conservative
Lady Davidson-Conservative
Mr. J. C. Ede-Labour
ilr. Alfred Edwards-Socialist
Sir Geoffrey Ellis-Conservative
Sir Ralph Glyn-Conservative
Sir Percy Harris-Liberal
Mr. M. R. Hely-Hutehinson-Conservative
Mr. Walter F. Higgs-National Conservative
Sir William Jowitt-Labour
Col. Sir Charles MacAndrew-Conservative
Sir Adam Maitland-Conservative
Sir Assheton Pownall-Conservative
Mr. Leslie R. Pym-Conservative
Sir George Schuster-Liberal National
Sir John Shute-Conservative
ilr. Lewis Silkin-Labour
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne-Conservative
Sir Harold Webbe-Conservative
Mr. Graham White-Liberal
Miss Ellen Wilkinson-Labour
Sir Herbert Williams-Conservative
Mr. Arthur Woodburn-Labour
Sir Robert Young-Labour
The committee was composed of fourteen Conservatives, one Socialist, seven Labour, two Liberal Nationals, two Liberals, one National Conservative and one National Labour, a total of twenty-eight members. Out of that total of twenty-eight members, fourteen were government members. I would ask hon. members also to note the high calibre of the membership of that committee, and I might say the same of the membership of our own committee of this house. To my mind the confidence which the public have in the committees of the British House of Commons is due to its opposition members. There was evidently a great desire on the part of the government there to ensure that there was a good representation of opposition members on that committee.
I should like to say one word more with respect to the composition of our own committee here. The degree of confidence which the public will have in our committee will be measured by the party representation from the House of Commons on the committee. Our committee is composed of twenty-four members-eighteen Liberals, four Conservatives, one Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member and one Social Credit member. There will probably be seven or eight subcommittees, and as the committee is at present constituted it is difficult to see how a representative of the opposition can be placed on
each of these subcommittees. I think public confidence in our party system would be greater if there were a larger representation of opposition members on this committee, regardless of the size of its representation in the house, and I commend that thought to the government. May I remind them that the opposition members of this House of Commons represent in the neighbourhood of 44 per cent of the people of Canada.
I have spoken on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, only because of the anxiety in my mind that the committee should be an outstanding success and of the greatest possible service both to the government and to the country in carrying on the war effort of Canada.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrenee-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I shall delay the
house for only a moment to make one or two observations which may be of some interest. Yesterday we adopted a resolution to appoint a committee to study the defence of Canada regulations. That committee follows the one which was set up last year, and in view of the discussion which has taken place to-day, the experience of the members of the committee which sat last year on the defence of Canada regulations may be of interest to the house. We met twenty-five times under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Many members have testified to the interest and pleasure of the work of that committee, and I subscribe to all that has been said in that regard, but no one so far has pointed out that during the whole sittings of that committee we did not have a single vote taken on a party basis. I would suggest that this example might well be followed in the committee that we are considering setting up to-day.
These two committees on war expenditure and the defence of Canada regulations, all members will agree, are designed to do some of the most important work of the house this session. The committee on the defence of Canada regulations, I suggest, may well follow along the lines of the concluding paragraph of the main part of the report of the committee last year, and may I observe to the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) that that paragraph was unanimously agreed to. It read:
In making the recommendations for amendments to the regulations as above set forth and in considering amendments suggested but not included above, it was the unanimous view of the committee that all measures should be taken which were considered necessary for the safety of Canada but that the maximum amount of liberty under the law should be maintained consistent therewith.

War Expenditures-Special Committee
That was the principle on which our committee worked, and I think its report bears out my statement. I might add that the government, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said, adopted without a single change eveiy conclusion and recommendation of that committee.
These committees will be valuable, only in so far as we approach their work in the spirit which has been so well described by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and all speakers, practically without exception, who have followed him. Our object in these committees is to strike at the enemy and not at each other.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: The work of this committee has been delayed already much too long, far too many months, for us to wish to delay it any longer, even for five minutes. But there are a few points which I should like to make at this time.
First, I would draw the attention of the house to the enormous job which is facing this committee. Canada has been at war for well over a year and a half. The public accounts committee did not sit at all last year; I think the last time it met was when the Bren machine gun contract was under fire. Canada is paying the bill. The Canadian people have a right to know completely and thoroughly what is being done with the money, where it is being spent, and the types of contracts which are being let.
Going down the street the other day, I saw an exhibit of war material, indicating the prices which had been paid for parachutes and tommy guns. The people of Canada should have had that information a long time ago. The veil which has shrouded the details of expenditure has been left far too long. I hope that the committee will carry out its responsibility in seeing to it that this house and the whole of Canada know how this money is being spent.
Many people in the west are denying themselves necessities in order to buy war savings stamps-people who can ill afford to live on the lower standard which is now demanded of them; people who have very little left; some of them people who have been living on relief for a number of years. While making these sacrifices, they wish to know, and they have a right to know, what is being done with the money; how it is being spent, and where.
I hope that the committee will keep this house thoroughly informed.
I do not see how the committee can get through the pile of work which is ahead of them unless they sit continuously from now on, and if we take into account the other 
contracts which will be coming in-almost as long as the war lasts. Their work should be thorough; that much they owe to the Canadian people. Everything they find out should be placed without hesitancy before this house and the facts published to the Canadian people. As a democracy, we demand that everyone shall know what is happening.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.



AGRICULTURE-STATEMENT OF MR. SENN ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Under our present system of responsible government as it exists in this country, it is the privilege-[DOT] the time-honoured privilege-of representatives of the people to ask for redress of their grievances and to discuss matters of public importance when parliament is being asked to vote supply. I intend, therefore, to bring to the attention of the house, and more particularly to the attention of the government, the plight in which our great primary industry of agriculture finds itself throughout the Dominion of Canada; and before I resume my seat-or at least before I conclude my remarks, because I see that the time from now until six o'clock is short-I intend to move an amendment to the motion which is now before the house.
That conditions surrounding agriculture in this country to-day are unsatisfactory needs no proof. Perhaps it is difficult for people who are not acquainted with farm life, and who see, as they do, the pleasant environment which surrounds agriculture in many parts of the country, to understand that agriculture is experiencing these difficulties. Mother Nature, in her bounty, has accorded ample opportunity to the farmers of this country to be prosperous and to live happy and contented lives. Living as we do in this northern zone, she has provided for us a climate which, though somewhat rigorous, is healthful and exhilarating and which for a good many months in the year is conducive to the growth and development of plant and animal life. Moreover, she has planted within Canada vast areas of the most fertile soil which can be found anywhere in the world, areas of soil which provide for the production of a great variety of crops, ranging all the way from hardy cereals to sub-tropical fruits and vegetables. Science and invention, on the other hand, have provided the equipment for the farmers of Canada whereby they can produce almost anything

Supply-State oj Agriculture
which can be produced anywhere in the world 

equipment in the line of implements of production, motor cars, radio, hydro appliances of different kinds, so that the farmers are in a very happy position even to the extent of comparing favourably with their city cousins.
The great difficulty which surrounds agriculture to-day can be sized up, I think, in one sentence. It is this, that the income or the revenue of the average farm in Canada is not sufficient to-day to provide for costs of production and at the same time to maintain a reasonable standard of living for the farmer and his family. During the past twenty-five years a great change has come over agriculture throughout the dominion. In the years just prior to the great war and all through the great war, farmers of Canada enjoyed a modicum of prosperity, which has completely vanished at the present time. During the years which have followed that time, they have found that their reserves have been largely dissipated, and land values in this country have dropped perhaps 50 per cent or more. Anybody driving through the country will readily see that the buildings, the fences, the equipment of the average farm are sadly in need of paint and of repair. Indeed, although I hesitate to say it, it is undoubtedly true that a very large proportion of the farmers of this country to-day are insolvent. Many others have their holdings heavily encumbered and are in an unfortunate way so far as their finances are concerned. The reason for that is not difficult to find. During the past twenty years farmers have found a great increase in their production costs, an increase in their labour costs, an increase in the cost of implements of production and a great increase in taxation, while during that period farm prices and farm revenues have not advanced to any degree and in many instances, have been reduced from what they were previously.
In proof of what I have been saying with regard to farm revenues, I would refer to a document which most hon. members will recognize by looking at it. It is part of what is known as the Sirois report. I am referring to appendix 4 dealing with national income. On page 59 I find some interesting figures. There we have a report of the net income of the farmers of Canada after allowing for depreciation of buildings and equipment. The years that are given are from 1926 to 1937, twelve years, and the national income for those twelve years amounted to $5,261,000,000, or an average, during those years, of $439,000,000 per annum. When we remember that in the last census it was shown that there are some 730,000 farmers in the dominion, it will be seen that the yearly income of the farmers
of Canada for those twelve years amounted to $600.50. Taking the first eight years of the depression, from 1930 to 1937, hon. members will find that the average income of the farmers was only $290,000,000, and dividing that among all the farmers of Canada, they will find that the yearly average income of the farmer was only $400.50.
Let me carry that further. That total amount of income for the twelve years, as given in this table, shows that the farmer received for those twelve years only 11-3 per cent of the total national income, and for the eight years I have mentioned he received only 8-67 per cent. Yet the farmers of the dominion represent between 35 and 40 per cent of the population.
I wish to go a step further. I find that the farmer is charged in this table, for income in kind for the house in which he has been living, $80 a year on the average; so that it will be found that, instead of receiving $600 on the average for that time, he had only, in cash, some $520, and for the eight years, $320. Why that was added to the farmer's income it is difficult for me to understand.
I think I have said enough and quoted sufficiently from this table to convince every hon. member present that the farmers have not been receiving a fair share of the national income. They have been trying all through the years to maintain a reasonable standard of living which would induce their families to stay on the farms, and in the attempt they have been dissipating their reserves until to-day they find themselves, in altogether too many instances, in a very unfortunate position indeed.
The outbreak of the great war brought many new problems to the dominion, and all these problems have only served to accentuate and bring into bolder relief the problems which agriculture is facing at the present time. The government of necessity has been forced to purchase huge quantities of war materials of all kinds, and has made contracts amounting in the past year to over three-quarters of a billion dollars. All these contracts, so far as I know, have been based on cost of production plus profit. In addition, the government has seen fit in its wisdom to ensure that labour will receive the same scale of wages as it received between the years 1927 and 1929, with the added provision that, if cost of living rises, wages will also rise. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not finding fault with that. It was the only course the government could follow, and I am sure the farmers of Canada themselves would not say anything else; for the reason that they know that, if industry
Supply-State of Agriculture

and labour are prosperous, they will be ready and willing to buy more liberally of what the farmer produces.
On the other hand, the farmers cannot help feeling that an injustice has been done to them when war prices have to a certain extent set the prices of other industrial goods while farmers are not enjoying an equilibrium or a level of prices comparable with that enjoyed by industry and business. Indeed, the smouldering discontent under which, for some time past, farmers have been labouring, broke into open flame recently when they learned of the action of the war-time prices and trade board-which is of course a body created by this government-in pegging the price of butter. I think I am justified in making the statement that there is in the minds of farmers in many parts of the country a deep-seated resentment against the present administration. If anyone doubts that, let me say that I recently attended a meeting of farmers in the city of London gathered together to discuss prices, and I do not think I have ever seen a more hostile crowd than that faced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member went home too early.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 6, 1941.