1941-06-10

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Presenting reports by standing and select committees.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Before this order is called I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). In the Votes and Proceedings, No. 89, which has just come to hand, under the heading Notices of Motion, there is notice by the minister that he will introduce a bill to amend the Special War Revenue Act. Unquestionably this must be an emergency measure, and I am going to ask the minister if he will be good enough to introduce this bill to-day, at once, so that we may know what it is and it may be advanced.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: While I am on my feet may I suggest that if there is to be any further legislation we should have notice of it immediately? I had hoped that the house might close within a day or two.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	I think the amendment
which is to be introduced by the Minister of Finance concerns a minor non-contentious matter arising out of an amendment to the act when it was before the house earlier this
Special War Revenue Act

session. As to further legislation, I know of nothing that is to be added to what is already before the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I have the consent of the house I will introduce the amendment and explain it when the order for the introduction of bills is reached. Perhaps with the consent of the house I might introduce the bill now.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. We have not yet reached the order for the introduction of bills.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The order for introduction of bills follows the order for motions, on which we may spend most of the day. The Minister of Finance wishes to introduce the bill now, before the order for motions is called.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Donnelly.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
He said:	No doubt the house would like
an explanation of this bill. The explanatory note states that when the budget resolutions were introduced it was the intention to exempt carbonic acid gas when used in the manufacture of soft drinks, but the exempting section was so drafted that it also exempted sugar, et cetera, which was not intended. The purpose of this amendment is to make the necessary correction. It was a mistake in the drafting of the bill.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Donnelly in the chair.
On section 1-Exemption not to extend to sugar, etc.
Mr. POULIOT:: We have not copies of
this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I
understand it, this is merely a correction. Perhaps the minister would just state what are the goods mentioned, to which reference is made in the section. Is there anything in addition to sugar?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know of anything.
I assume that the original bill was drafted to accomplish the end that it was desired to accomplish, which was not to exempt sugar from the excise tax. To do so would be a most important, far-reaching and unintentional

exemption. Section 8 of the act to amend the Special War Revenue Act, passed at this session, adds the following subsection to section 80 of the act:
Notwithstanding anything in this section contained, the said tax shall not be 'payable when such goods are exported under regulations prescribed by the .minister, nor in the case of goods purchased or imported by a manufacturer licensed under this part, which are to be incorporated into and form a constituent or component part of an article or product which is subject to an excise tax under this part, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
There are some parts which are subject to these excise taxes we have been imposing, through the War Exchange Conservation Act. Where those parts pay the 25 per cent tax, and the completed goods pay the 25 per cent tax, the first tax should not be payable.
Specifically, this section was drafted to deal with the carbonic acid gas situation. It will be recalled that in the budget we imposed a tax of 25 cents a pound on carbonic acid gas. That tax had been raised from five cents. We intended to provide by this section that when the carbonic acid gas had been purchased by a bottler or by a manufacturer of soft drinks he should be able to buy it tax free, just as he would be able to buy it free of sales tax. This tax of 25 per cent is imposed upon the bottler or manufacturer. It is not in addition to the carbonic acid gas tax, but takes the place of it.
The section was so widely drawn that it included sugar which was purchased for use in soft drinks, and that was never intended. I believe I have explained the purpose of the section.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I was told over the week-end that some of these retail distributors of soft drinks sell their product at six cents, and some at seven cents. Is that a legitimate procedure? Are they allowed to do that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: One important manufacturer has not raised the price of soft drinks to the wholesale or retail trade. This is creating a difficulty, and an undesirable condition in the soft drinks industry. Consideration is being given to that point, and I hope that perhaps the situation may be remedied so that there will not continue to be the complaints there are to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the thud time and passed.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is expedition; that is cooperation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Thank you.

War Expenditures Committee-Report



CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN POSITIONS FOR PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission classifying certain positions to which employees on the temporary staff of the House of Commons are to he .appointed on a permanent basis, laid on the table of the house on March 5, 1941, be now approved, provided that the six constables transferred to the messengers and cleaning branches, in the reorganization of the house services be made permanent by the civil service commission at the same salaries as they are now receiving, but such authorization is not to be regarded as a precedent.
Motion, agreed to.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk) moved that the third report of the special committee on war expenditures, presented to the house on June 4, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the special committee on war expenditures began its study of the reference to it, it was somewhat awed at the vastness of the territory upon which it had entered. The territory was uncharted, and a great deal of preliminary exploratory work had to be done. Then, later, specific subjects of inquiry were suggested to the committee by members of the house, and from various sources; and as the inquiry proceeded the fields of exploration of possible economies began to become more clear.
May I give an illustration of the manner in which the inquiry clarified itself as it proceeded. When we were studying the subject of financial controls over army, navy and air force expenditures it became clear to us, through the study of that subject, that there were certain fields of possible economy that should be further explored. It is indicated in our report to the house that parliament looks at the war expenditures for the first time when the war appropriation bill is before the house. The war appropriation bill is based1 on estimates that are presented through the departments to the treasury board and to council, and then to parliament. It was disclosed to us that these estimates are largely based upon war establishments, and the operations of war establishments, and matters that are incidental to war establishments. It was further disclosed to us that war establishments
consist mainly of persons, plant and equipment. It therefore became clear that there were fields of exploration of possible economies back of the estimates themselves.
Three large possible fields of economy were opened up: one relating to all questions of personnel and the most efficient and economic use of personnel; a second relating to construction projects and all that is involved in the preliminary study of construction projects and construction programmes, and a third relating to equipment, munitions and supply. The desirability of making a study of these three main factors that enter into a war establishment before the war establishment itself is finally approved and becomes the basis of an estimate became therefore very clear. It was for that reason that the committee recommended the setting up of an establishments committee in such of the defence departments as have not a committee of that kind. It is not always easy to review an establishment once it has been created; therefore it is essential that there should be the most careful review of all establishment proposals before they leave the department itself; for the establishment proposal becomes the basis of the estimate, and the estimate in turn becomes the basis of the appropriation that is made in this house. The committee therefore emphasized particularly the need of an establishments committee. I give this by way of illustration of the manner in which the fields of possible economies opened themselves up to the committee as it proceeded with its inquiries.
As the committee continued its inquiries it came gradually to an agreement on certain fundamental principles. There was some confusion with regard to some of these at the outset, but I think that these principles are now completely clarified in the minds of all the members of the committee. The committee was appointed for the purpose of examining all war expenditures with a view to reporting what economies were possible consistent with the execution of the policy decided upon by the government. The committee has therefore agreed, and is settled in its view, that it is not a public accounts committee. The house has already a standing committee on public accounts, and if there is any hon. member who thinks that a matter should be referred to the public accounts committee he has the right to ask that it be so referred, but if he does so, he must do so on his own responsibility.
The committee is not precluded from examining past transactions; indeed in that respect the reference to the Canadian committee is very much larger than the reference
3720	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
to the corresponding committee set up in the United Kingdom. But while the committee is not precluded from examining past expenditures, its only purpose in doing so is to explore the possibilities of future economy, and it has acted in that light.
Furthermore the committee is not a fact finding committee. It does not conceive it to be a part of its functions to approve or disapprove any particular transaction, or merely to find the facts with regard to a particular transaction. Its purpose is very much larger than that. Its function is to promote, as far as it can, economies in our war expenditures, to eliminate waste where waste exists, and inefficiency where inefficiency exists. In its search for economy and in its desire to eliminate waste and inefficiency it must not in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, hamper or restrict the war effort of Canada.
The report presented to the house emphasizes the need for adequate and proper control of war expenditures at every stage, but it also stresses the importance of not restricting in any manner whatsoever the war effort of this country. May I quote what the committee says in that regard:
The application of financial controls over war expenditures must not be of such a nature as to hamper or restrict our war effort but rather in aid and furtherance of it. Indeed it is in that light that the subcommittee sees the importance of proper controls. Proper controls do not lessen the effective power of our armed forces. On the contrary, they increase it, for the economic use of our financial resources makes possible greater increase in manpower and the instruments of war and greater striking and defensive force.
The committee found it necessary to operate by means of subcommittees. There were many subjects of inquiry; indeed the special committee on war expenditures differs in a number of respects from any of the other committees that have been set up by the house. There are literally scores of subjects that require study and. investigation; indeed in this one reference to the committee there are many subjects involved, any one of which might well deserve a special inquiry. In fact, it was when the committee began to function through its subcommittees that it did its most effective work.
When the decision was made to continue the studies of the committee by subcommittees the committee also faced- the necessity of making a decision as to whether the sittings of the subcommittees should be open or in camera. It was urged that all sessions of the subcommittees should be open sessions, but this contention did not commend, itself to the committee. The committee did not accept that view. It decided that, in the

main, meetings of the subcommittees should be held in camera except as a subcommittee might otherwise itself determine. In taking that decision the committee was not seeking to hide any facts; it was not a desire for secrecy that prompted that decision. Secrecy is important for one purpose, namely that aid shall not be given to the enemy. Indeed that is the main purpose of secrecy in deliberations of this sort. But the decision that the meetings of the subqommittees should be in camera was not based, exclusively upon the need for secrecy. It was based upon the grounds of efficiency in the prosecution- of the task entrusted to the committee. Everyone in this house knows that the committee system of inquiry is not the most ideal system of inquiry. It has its shortcomings, but on the other hand it has also its advantages. The committee decided that the sessions of its subcommittees should be held in camera largely on two grounds. It was felt that in camera sittings would make for a more direct and a more concentrated approach to the subjects that were under investigation. There is a natural tendency of members when the press is present to make speeches. That is not confined to the members of any particular group. The making of speeches does not further an inquiry, and when sessions are held, in camera the number of speeches becomes very considerably limited and members apply themselves more directly and with greater concentration to the subject that is at hand.
There was another reason and a more important one for the decision of the committee that its sessions should be in camera. This committee is not a fact-finding committee. It is a committee for the purpose of promoting economies. In order to promote economies it must know where the economies are possible, and in order that it shall obtain that knowledge it must have the full and complete assistance of officials who are in the services themselves and know the details of all the operations of the administration of such departments. There must be the fullest scope for a frank discussion of what has happened and what can be done. There must be the freest possible exchange of opinion, because it is from that free exchange of opinion that the possible avenues of economies open up.
Then, too, it is well known that officials of departments when they know that the press is present and that every word that they utter will be published tend to freeze up and will not give as full an expression of opinion as they otherwise would. That is natural and human, and we all know that it is a fact.

War Expenditures Committee-Report
Our committee was impressed with the rapidity of the expansion of our fighting services. Perhaps I might give some interesting figures to show that. I shall give, first of all, the figures for the last year before the war, the year 1938-39 and corresponding figures for the present fiscal year.
Richard Burpee Hanson: We have them all here this morning.


Mr. THORSON:: They are all on record but, by way of illustration, the appropriations for the army services increased from $16,727,000 to $666,574,000. Naval service appropriations increased from $6,639,000 to $169,640,000. Air service appropriations increased from $11,688,000 to $386,003,000. This showed an immense rapid expansion of our fighting services. It would be amazing, Mr. Speaker, if in the course of that rapid expansion there was no waste, because the objective at the time was not economy. The objective was speed in expansion, and there was not, of course, the same cost consciousness as exists in peace time. Canada owes a very great debt of gratitude to the defence departments for the energy and the drive which made this rapid expansion possible. But now, Mr. Speaker, we can more easily and perhaps more intelligently promote economies than we could a year ago, when speed of expansion was the first essential. It is now our duty as members of this committee to promote these economies in so far as that is possible without in any way lessening the effectiveness of our war effort.
The committee has recommended a number of reforms of importance in our fighting services, believing that their adoption will result in very large economies throughout the services. The committee has sought to avoid invidious comparisons between the services. It has not sought to set one service against the other, or to make invidious comparisons between them. Nor has the committee sought to be spectacular in its findings, or to seek credit for any of its members. The committee could have made and announced very large estimates of possible economies; for the committee knows that large economies are possible, but the extent of these possible economies does not lie exclusively in the hands of the committee. I conceive it to be the duty of the committee to point out possible reforms, and to point them out in such a manner that they will be most effective and prolific in their results. It is therefore our duty to aid in the adoption of those reforms and supervise their progress and development; but the extent of the possible reforms depends upon the services themselves and the cooperation which
they will give, and upon the manner in which the loyal public servants in the departments, both civilian and service personnel, will carry them out. The promotion of reforms resulting in economies therefore requires the utmost cooperation between the members of this committee and the persons in the defence departments themselves, and the committee must act in such a manner as best to accomplish its fundamental objective, namely, the achievement of the necessary economies. The members have therefore taken this view, that for the time being it is their duty to submerge themselves in the objective which they are seeking to achieve; the allocation of credit for accomplishing economies is not in any sense the function of this committee.
The committee has really only commenced its inquiries. There are a great many subjects which require the most careful study. Many of them require immediate study so that if reforms are possible they may be set in motion as soon as possible. There are many subjects which still require further attention. Some of them have as yet not been studied at all.
May I be permitted to enumerate some of the outstanding subjects which ought to be further studied?
1.	Financial controls over army, navy and air force expenditures.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Only an interim report on this subject has been made, and a great deal of further work must be done.
2.	Review of headquarters establishments, with a view to eliminating duplication of functions where such duplications exist, and promoting coordination and the most effective use of personnel both service and civilian. That is a subject which requires a good deal of further study and thought.
3.	Army, navy and air force buildings construction; specifications and designs for such projects, and the inspection thereof during construction. Our committee has not as yet been able to commence its study of that very important and large subject, and it is important, particularly in view of the fact that there are large construction programmes still before us.
4.	Medical, dental and hospitalization services in the army, navy and the air force.
5.	Food and other supplies for the forces, the inspection and the distribution thereof.
6.	The salvage of all waste materials throughout the services. We have been able to make only the most preliminary approach to this vast and very important subject.
3722	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
7.	War contracts: the bases upon which they are let; centralized purchasing and local purchasing authority; capital assistance; and all the other subjects which are related to the subject of war contracts. We have made only a general study of this vast subject, and further study of it should be made.
8.	Labour relations generally. That is a matter of vital importance at this time.
I have enumerated only some of thfe subjects which require study. There are many others; indeed, as the inquiry developed and opened up, its ramifications became almost overwhelming.
It is desirable in the opinion of the committee that these important matters should be investigated as soon as possible. They are heavy subjects, difficult subjects. They require concentrated study and undivided attention. They are well worth exploring during the adjournment, when members of the committee will be free from their other political parliamentary duties and can give their undivided and concentrated attention to them. That is necessary; for, if economy reforms are possible, the sooner they are carefully studied and put into effect the sooner the results will follow.
The committee does not imagine for a moment that its task can be completed during the adjournment. Indeed, the task of this committee cannot be completed while the war is in progress.
The committee has been informed, and believes, that already it has been a stimulating factor in the promotion of economy reforms. Indeed the very existence of the committee is important in that regard. It is valuable to the services themselves and to the war departments generally that they should know that the committee is in existence and is studying the matters which come under those departments for administration. The knowledge that the committee is continuing its functions will be of considerable value in that regard.
Then, too, I think it will also be believed that the assistance which this committee can give will be greatly appreciated by those public servants in the war departments themselves- and there are many of them-who have been working loyally and faithfully for the achievement of economy reforms.
It is therefore the opinion of the committee that it should continue to sit notwithstanding the impending adjournment of the house. In that regard I should like to refer to the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he suggested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the formation of this committee. It was ms thought at that time that the committee

should sit continuously. I quote from Hansard, December 3, 1940, page 616. The leader of the opposition, in the course of his presentation of this suggestion to the government, said this:
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.
This is particularly the case now that the fields of inquiry have been so clearly opened up and the need of economy reforms has been so definitely indicated.
It might further be suggested, Mr. Speaker, that a failure on the part of the committee to continue to sit will be a set-back to the reforms which have been already proposed, and that the members of the committee would in a sense, be "letting down" the persons in the defence departments who are struggling for these reforms.
If I might interject a personal note, I should like to express my very great appreciation of the splendid manner in which the members of the committee have cooperated with one another in the very difficult task that has been assigned to them. There are differences of opinion in a committee such as this. Differences of opinion are inevitable. But the very fact that there have been differences of opinion has, in my opinion, made the committee more valuable than it would otherwise be, for these differences have been honestly, and, may I say, very vigorously expressed; they are appreciated as necessary and helpful.
It will not be a pleasant task for the members of this committee to be sitting here during July and August, in the heat of Ottawa, giving concentrated and undivided attention to the very difficult problems they must face. That task will involve sacrifices, greater to some of the members than to others; but I conceive it to be a matter of national duty and I sincerely hope that members of the committee on all sides of the house will support this motion.
There are grim days ahead of this country. Our people do not fully realize the grimness of the situation that faces all who are engaged in this struggle. We must use our resources as efficiently as we possibly can; in the promotion of the efficient use of these resources I am convinced that our committee can perform a useful task. It cannot perform a perfect task, far from it; but it can perform a very useful one. I sincerely hope therefore that all members of the committee and all members of the house will join hands in further-

War Expenditures Committee-Report
mg the accomplishment which this committee has set before it, in reaching the objective which the committee has set for itself, that objective being that the people of Canada shall know that there is a body of men here in Ottawa who are seeking to ensure that Canada will get a dollar's worth of war effort for every dollar contributed by the Canadian people.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: In the words with which the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) concluded, every member of this house concurs. He has told us of the vast field that has had to be covered, the still greater field that is open, and the opportunity of service which has been and will in future, in ever-increasing measure, be rendered available for those who are privileged to sit on this committee.
The committee itself will remember the circumstances under which it was set up. It was set up in consequence of a speech delivered in this house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on December 3, 1940, a few days prior to the adjournment. The house commenced to sit again in February and continued until March 4, 1941, before anything was done to set up this committee. As a matter of fact, vast as is the field of opportunities, great as is the challenge to this committee, neither the committee nor any subcommittee has so far sat for more than thirty or forty hours. We had an opportunity to start sitting from March 4 and it is well to remember that we did not start until well on in the month of May. I point that out at the beginning so that the picture may be before the house. Let me repeat, too, at this stage that the purpose for which the committee was set up was to enable private members to contribute something at this time to the war effort. I can do no better than to read1 from what the leader of the opposition said when the matter was first brought before the house. At page 615 of Hansard of December 3, 1940, the leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
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: 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.
Let me interject that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) says the powers of the
committee set up by this parliament are greater than those of the committee set up by the British parliament. The only difference is this, that the word "current" was omitted. Further than that no change was made. The hon. member was frank to admit to-day that as far as he was concerned as chairman of the committee-and I agree with him to some extent-his attitude was that this committee was not to go into past expenditures. It was to view past expenditures not as a fact-finding body but merely for the purpose of coming to certain conclusions upon the basis of the experience with contracts that had been let prior to the setting up of the committee, and on that experience to recommend economies for the future. With that I will deal later.
The leader of the opposition continued:
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, 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.
As was pointed out by the member for Selkirk, the leader of the opposition, later used these words:
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.	[DOT]
There is the background. The committee was set up, I repeat, to give private members an opportunity to serve to unify the people of Canada by reassuring them that such economies as can be effected will be brought about within the limits of government policy, by destroying rumours falsely circulated regarding phases of the war effort that would, unless checked, undermine public confidence. This committee should fearlessly reveal failure on the part of any department to practise necessary economies where efficiency would not be thereby curtailed. In short, the
3724	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
purpose of the committee, and the attitude with which we approached its work, was a desire to canalize the spirit of Canada by giving it the assurance that the sacrifices of the people would result in efficient action within the limits of government policy.
That was the attitude the members of the committee adopted; that is the attitude we hold to-day, for in these days of difficulty all of us, regardless of party, wish to serve. From time to time we may be assailed by fears that all is not well in this war effort on the part of the dominion. To those who are of that mind I believe the reading of what took place during the days of Napoleon will bring reassurance. The other day I came upon a statement made in the British House of Commons by Richard Brinsley Sheridan in 1808, which I think epitomizes the situation in the empire to-day and the attitude of hon. members of this house. These are his words:
Hitherto Bonaparte has had to contend against princes without dignity and ministers without wisdom. He has fought against countries in which the people have been indifferent to his success.
How applicable those words are to-day 1
He has yet to learn what it is to fight against a country in which the people are animated with one spirit to resist him.
That was the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition in the suggestion he made with regard to the setting up of this committee to strengthen and uphold the hands of the government at this time. Too often we think that this is the government's war effort. We on this side of the house believe that it is our war effort as well. In asking for the setting up of this committee, the desire of the opposition was to ensure that there would be no engaging in political wrangles; and we did not desire, nor should we desire at this time, to obtain political advantage out of wrongdoing, wasteful expenditures, and the like. All those things can come after the war.
Let me add, too, that I entirely agree with the statement of the hon. member for Selkirk that this is not a public accounts committee. Our purpose is not to find wrongdoing. Our purpose is to recommend economies for the future, but I do think the people of Canada are expecting more from us through the setting up of this committee than is within the contemplation of any of us. Under the resolution establishing this committee, the committee has no power to report wrongdoing to this house or to the country. The wording of the resolution bears out the construction placed upon it by the hon. member for Selkirk when he

said this was not a fact-finding body. We can only report upon economies, if any, consistent with the execution of the policy decided upon by the government.
We do say, however, that while we wish to secure no political advantage, we feel that when a committee is set up in this way, with eighteen members from the government side and only six representing all the opposition groups; when that committee sits behind closed doors, however outspoken and vigorous may be the ideas advanced by its members-and the hon. member for Selkirk referred to the fact that there had been, on occasion, vigorous expressions on the part of some of the members-the fact remains that people all over Canada ask, "Why are the meetings of this committee being held in secret? What is the reason?" No member of this opposition has ever taken the stand that there were not matters which should be kept secret, matters which might be of assistance to the enemy or which, if made public, might be detrimental to our war effort. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what possible advantage there is to the enemy if in time of war, as between 1914 and 1918, examples of wrongdoing should be made public, thereby assuring that participation in wrongdoing would be a pastime dangerous to those taking part therein? Going back to 1914-18, how often were charges made against persons high in public life and industry? More than once, and when those charges were made they were investigated publicly, and that did not do Canada's war effort any harm. It assured the people of the dominion, under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden, that wrongdoing merited the strongest condemnation, whether it was on the part of political friends or not.
Als I say, our attitude was that the meetings should be open, that the evidence should be heard in open session, except such matters as might be of advantage to the enemy. I would even go so far as to add what was mentioned to-day by the hon. member for Selkirk, the evidence of officials in the public service who might be fearful of expressing themselves if everything they said was going to be bruited abroad throughout the dominion. But I ask you again, Mr. Speaker: why should the evidence in regard to waste, overexpenditure and unjustifiable expenditure be hidden away in reports of the committee which are in the possession of the chairman only and not in the possession of the members of the committee? True enough, the chairman of the committee will at any time permit one to read the evidence. Surely, if the desire to hold these meetings in secret is

War Expenditures Committee-Report
to be effective, it should not go so far as to prevent members of the 'committee from having before them the evidence taken in the committee on which they sat as members.
I should like to direct a question to the government. May I in this house mention the evidence which came out before the special committee on which I served, namely that dealing with matters of the air force, air observer schools and elementary training schools? If I do, what are the consequences? I asked the hon. member for Selkirk, the chairman of the committee, what his attitude was on that question. Will he allow us to reveal matters which came out in evidence before these committees, evidence wbich cannot be of advantage to the enemy?- The fear of publication of it would strike terror or fear, in any event, into the hearts of those who might feel like-minded. Or, Mr. Speaker, are the voices of the members of the committee stilled in respect of the evidence which came before those committees? These are matters which are in the minds of the people of Canada.	.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What was the attitude of the chairman? I suggest the hon. member should indicate what the chairman's attitude to the hon. member's question was.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the opportunity to reply. The chairman's attitude was this, that he could not decide it, that it was a matter for this house, if I remember what he said. Is that correct?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Reasonably correct.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask again, what is the attitude, and what stand does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) take in this regard? Shall we as members of the committee be privileged or allowed to place before the country the evidence which came out in committees, or ^hall we be required as members of that committee to forget what we heard, to disabuse our minds of what we heard, and, what is more important, fail to bring to the attention of the public of Canada the evidence that was available? In other words-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Has the hon. member any charges to make?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now,
now,-


Mr. HOWE:: What about these insinuations?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
insinuations? I have not heard any.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for information. Does the 'hon. member for Selkirk ask me whether there was any evidence or whether I know of any evidence of over-expenditure which came out in the committee? If he does, and the house agrees I will refer to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Make your charges.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not going to sit down. It is a debate anyone can take part in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are not in charge to-day. You sit down and let the hon. member make his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: I have referred to evidence brought out before the committee, and I am asking the question as to whether our lips shall be sealed. I am not making charges. I should like to place before the country the evidence that did come out, and evidence that may come out, subject to the limitations of the safety of the state. I think the country has a right to have that evidence. Because if another view is adopted here, what will happen? Just as was referred to in the editorial I mentioned a while ago, but did not then read:
The chairman of the committee says there is no desire to "hide things". But when the committee sits behind closed doors the public is liable to suspect there is something to hide. It is unthinkable that the party in power has been collecting campaign funds from war contractors. Then why the secrecy? In the Commons, Premier King intimated that the only reason for secrecy in the taking of evidence was the prevention of useful technical information reaching the enemy. What would a committee of laymen be doing with technical information, especially a committee considering war expenditures?
Ten months after the last war started, the purchase of war supplies was under investigation by the public accounts committee, but it seemed expedient to Sir Robert Borden, the then prime minister, to continue and enlarge the investigation.
Then it goes on to say:
The government ought to throw the investigation wide open, except with regard to war secrets, if it -wants to satisfy the public.
I think that, generally speaking, represents the point of view to-day of the people of Canada as a whole.
We believe no harm would be done to our war effort-and we would certainly not want to d'o such harm-by pointing out where waste has taken place. We agree with the hon. member for Selkirk that there has been a great expansion of Canada's war effort during the last six, seven or eight months.
3726	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
There has been a vast spreading out, and, as he says, it would not 'be for us even to suggest that in the desire for acceleration of the war effort there would not be instances of waste. But that is a different thing, Mr. Speaker, from waste or over-expenditure consequent upon a government declaration of policy, or upon agreements entered into by the government, and still in effect to-day.
Our attitude to-day, and throughout, has been to give every assistance in the committee to assure that there shall be efficiency and, to assure a dollar's worth of war effort for every dollar of expenditure, within the limits of the necessities and requirements of an accelerated war effort. But while we do not believe in scandal-hunting at this time, we do believe that in the interests of morale, and to assure the people that all that can be done is being done, and to prevent over-expenditure, the evidence that has been taken should be placed not only before members of the committee but before the country.
As I have already pointed out, we as members of the committee are not permitted to have copies of the evidence that is being taken from day to day. Somebody says, "Do you make charges?" No, Mr. Speaker, we as an opposition are just as anxious that *there shall be no wrongdoing, that no wrongdoing shall come out, that no cases of overexpenditures should be revealed, as any member of the government. So far as I am concerned I have forgotten political consequences, what the next election may bring forth, and I think that is the attitude of all hon. members of the house. Our paramount consideration as members of the opposition must be to refrain from obstructive criticism and fearlessly to offer constructive criticism. Not to have as an objective the winning of the next election; because it cannot be too often emphasized that unless this empire triumphs it will be a matter of small concern what political party we belong to. That, I say, is the attitude that we over here are trying to take, not the attitude of the classic aphorism of Tierney when he said that an opposition's duty is "to propose nothing, to oppose everything, and to turn out the government." We want hon. members on the government side to realize this, that we have a duty to the people of Canada in the creation of public opinion, that our sincere desire is to cooperate, and it is in that spirit that I advance in debate what I have suggested to-day.
. Mr. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize that irreparable injury may be done to a person by the evidence of one day publicized, which evidence may be refuted on a subsequent day?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is true of proceedings in any court of law.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is a member of the committee. He concurs, I am sure, in everything I have said in regard to our aims and purposes, and I should be the last to suggest that what he says in that regard is not true. But that is only a justification for not making the evidence public as it arises; it does not answer the point I have raised that we as members have a right to that evidence and to make it public before the country after we have come to a conclusion based upon both sides of the question as it has been placed before us.
I have dealt at some length with the question of secrecy; now let me refer to another aspect of the matter, namely, the setting up of the committee. I have already said that as to the general terms of reference and the purposes to be served by the committee it was modelled on the committee set up in Great Britain. But one slight change would have made the people of Canada feel that the committee was entirely free from the criticism that there was on the one hand an overwhelming government majority, and on the other, if I may use the expression, an overwhelmingly small minority. The committee was not set up the way the British committee was. There they set up a committee on which there was equality as between government and opposition, the government having a majority of one. Here a committee is set up with eighteen members representing the government side, four the official opposition, and, one each the two other opposition groups. Why should a committee not be set up that would indicate to the people of Canada the desire to give leadership at this time regardless of political consequences? Let the government say to us: We will give numerical equality with the opposition, retaining to ourselves the majority by having a chairman and vice-chairman of the committee. Would there be anything wrong with that?
The hon. member for Selkirk says that this is not an ordinary committee, that it is an extraordinary committee and I agree. Justification there might be by tradition for inequalities in ordinary committees, but there can be no such justification for a committee set up with the high purpose and the firm resolution that politics shall be divorced therefrom. We are all human, and if you pile up against the opposition a majority of four to one, however fair the meetings, there is left in the country as a whole the idea that the committee is overwhelmingly against bringing out recommendations that ought to be brought

War Expenditures Committee-Report
out. I plead with the government now, if we are going to continue the work of this committee-and work of great importance has been done and very considerable economies have been effected, although as yet it has only covered the fringe-to forget political considerations, forget the rules of the house, if you will, based upon tradition, and equalize the representation of the government and the opposition, giving to the government the right to control the committee through the chairman and vice-chairman. Because as the hon. gentleman has said, the work of this committee is very trying. It requires hours of labour, it requires concentration. Yet what is our position? The government members may leave from time to time; they can spell one another off; we continue to sit if we wish to be represented. Therefore I suggest, first, remove the veil of secrecy, subject to imposing it when the public interest demands; second, equalize the representation of government and opposition members.
I come now to another matter. It has been said, according to the press, that members of the committee are to receive $15 a day for an allowance for expenses in respect to sittings held between sessions of the house. I think I express the view of all hon. members on this side of the house when I say that to make such an allowance would be a dangerous thing for the morale of this nation. It would encourage the spreading of all kinds of rumours if we in this house, while advocating the necessity for sacrifice, when it came to a practical application of the doctrine, should forget all about our professions in that regard. My suggestion is that we as members of this committee-most of us were anxious to be on it for the opportunity it offered to serve, give a lead to the people at this time- regardless of our financial position, should not be placed in the position of saying to the people of Canada that we think we ought to have an allowance additional to our indemnities for serving on the war expenditures committee. For, after all, as members of parliament our duty as members extends throughout the year and is not confined to the period during which we sit in the house.
I have criticized in the past large expenditures for per diem allowances made to others. Can any hon. member who has taken a similar stand justify before the people of Canada what we have criticized in others. As I see it, our primary duty as members of this house is to assist in making the laws-although our legislative and deliberative functions have been considerably curtailed and are rapidly diminishing by reason of war-but our great duty is to implant in the people of Canada a
wider measure of appreciation and faith in democracy and its worthwhileness. That faith must be imparted to our people. That faith rests on the definiteness of the decisions made by this parliament, on the leadership it gives and the course it maps out.
Twenty-four members on a committee- $360 a day. Do that, and all over this dominion there will be the feeling that we in this house have let the people down. What do I suggest? I know the difficulties. The solution as I see it is this. We cannot, we dare not, at this time place ourselves in a position of accepting a per diem allowance. But the government might see fit to increase the membership of the committee along the lines I have indicated, and then we could set up subcommittees on a territorial basis instead of on a basis of subject matter. The proper division should be based on air, army and navy, and supply-at least that was the original intention-but to-day it is on the basis of subject matter. Set up subcommittees on a territorial basis. Every province has a certain number of representatives, and we can afford to meet in a provincial committee and investigate any matter which the chairman may consider necessary or which we as members of the subcommittee consider necessary.
We have no authority as I understand it- and I raise this as my second point-to accept any allowance. An interesting debate took place in the British House of Commons on February 27, 1941, in regard to the old principle that a member of parliament shall not accept a "place or office of profit" under the crown. This, in my opinion, having regard to the definition, is a place or office of profit. The principle, hon. members know, goes back to 1705, to the Act of Succession. So rigidly has this principle been applied that for years it was impossible for a member of the British House of Commons to hold a commission in the armed forces of Great Britain. In 1914, the parliament of Great Britain passed a statute in order to enable members who had accepted commissions in the armed forces to continue their membership in the House of Commons. That statute is chapter 3 of 1914, and its operation terminated with the end of the great war. The pertinent section is as follows:
The acceptance of a commission as an officer in his majesty's forces shall not vacate and shall be deemed not to have vacated the seat of any member returned to serve in parliament, and shall not render and shall be deemed not to have rendered a person accepting such a commission incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting in, the Commons House of Parliament.
The necessary amendment to permit of members of parliament being commissioned was passed at the outbreak of this war. Our
3728	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
governing statute, of course, is the act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons. And what does it say? It permits naval and military men to accept commissions and retain their seats in parliament. Strangely enough, it does not refer to the air force. Whether or not an amendment would have to be made to "the Senate and House of Commons Act" to permit members of the air force to retain their seats in parliament would be a matter for the Department of Justice. The act refers to the naval and military forces, not to the armed forces in general. I fortify my argument, therefore, by saying that, as I apprehend the law, members of the committee who desire to take this allowance will be placing the tenure of their seats in this house in jeopardy.
With these suggestions, and not having any ruling as to whether the evidence which was adduced before the committee should or should not be referred to, I conclude what I have to say. I again press on the government the necessity of accepting some of these recommendations. Their acceptance will pay dividends, Mr. Speaker, in the reassurance it will give to the people of Canada that the government is not relying on the traditional basis of representation on committees of parliament and that the overwhelming power of its numerical strength in parliament is being relinquished in the case of this committee. We are animated by one desire, namely, to serve, and if we agree to serve, as I think we ought to, on the basis of no payment or allowance, any difficulties in the way of some members coming to Ottawa could be overcome by establishing territorial limits for the jurisdiction of the subcommittees. From time to time these subcommittees could send representation to the central committee at Ottawa in order to place before it the point of view of the different committees throughout Canada.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the war expenditures committee I wish to say a few words. I am not going to go over old ground, particularly that traversed by the previous speaker (Mr. Diefenbaker). Whatever merit there may be in much of what he has said, it is futile discussion at this time because we accepted the composition of the committee and its terms of reference when it was appointed earlier in the session. So long as we are willing to serve, unless we ask for the discharge of the committee, I do not think there is very much use in taking up the time of the house in putting forward suggestions which, however good they may be in themselves, are not likely to be accepted by the government.

The committee was formed on a basis having relation to the representation of each party in the house. Maybe that was unfortunate, because of the abnormal conditions under which parliament is operating at the present time. However, it was done, and we agreed despite that to work on the committee. We are therefore not on very strong ground in raising the point at this time, although it is one which the government might well take into consideration.
The committee, however, has worked very harmoniously. There have been differences of opinion, but no acrimonious discussion, and we have got along very well. Little partisan feeling seems to have crept into the work. If it did, possibly I was not sharp enough to notice it.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The hon. member
would have noticed it. He is sharp enough.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot accept, however, some of the statements made by the chairman, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), as to the nature of the work of the committee. He has said that it is not a public accounts committee. With that I agree, but I believe it has to do work which a public accounts committee would have to do, and to that extent, no matter what you call it, it is a public accounts committee.
He has also said that it is not a fact-finding body, but a committee to promote economies. Well, you cannot promote economies unless you know the facts, and to discover the facts you must delve into the organization and the financial transactions and everything pertaining to the war economy. That, really, is what we have been doing.
Having said that I do not agree in these respects with the chairman of the committee, I should add that I got along very well with him. As a matter of fact it was a very great pleasure to work with, or under, him-whichever is the proper term to use. We had no difficulties, and I am sure that so long as he is chairman that condition will continue.
The question whether the committee should hold secret sessions was raised, also as to members of the committee not having access to the evidence taken at these secret meetings. It was something new to me to hear that any members had been refused access to evidence. Personally if I were denied recourse to any testimony taken at a committee hearing I should refuse to act until I got it. I cannot make a report except upon the evidence, and I cannot make a report on the evidence unless I am allowed to examine that evidence. I am sure there must be some reason for the allegation made by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that he

War Expenditures Committee-Report
was not allowed to see reports, and that it cannot be correct in its full implications. To me such a state of affairs is unthinkable.
There is a great deal to be said, however, for holding meetings of a committee such as ours without the presence of the press, and possibly without the evidence 'being printed. It seems to me that there are two ways in which we can give comfort to the enemy. One is by making public facts which he would like to know, giving him information which would be useful to him. But another proceeding would 'be just as valuable to the enemy, namely, the making public of facts or reports which would tend to weaken morale in this country. I think everyone will agree that the greatest care would be necessary in considering evidence of the former kind. As to what information would or would not, if made public, weaken morale in the country, there might be considerable difference of opinion.
I do not believe that any harm was done, but on the contrary a great deal of good, by having evidence taken in camera. There were witnesses before us who were anxious to give expressions of opinion, but would mot have cared to do so were they to be put on record. They desired that the committee -should have their point of view for what it is worth. They took the position that certain investigations they were making had not been carried to the point where they could be definite in their conclusions, but so far as they had gone they had come to certain conclusions which they wanted to communicate to the committee as being their point of view. I believe the committee should be in a position to accept evidence of that kind. We are not bound to act on anything we hear, but we are bound to examine it. Eor these reasons I think the committee was justified in hearing evidence in camera.
It will be noted that the report of subcommittee No. 1, which is part of the report, has been amended, and that the report of that subcommittee and the report of the full committee were carried in the committee on division. I was one of the members who would1 not agree to the report of subcommittee No. 1, either in the form in which it came first before the committee, or as amended; for that reason I had to vote against it. I also had to vote against the report of the full committee. But this represented only a part of the committee's report, and with the remainder of the report I am thoroughly in accord.
I believe it is in order for me to state why I could not agree with the report of subcommittee No. 1. That subcommittee had to examine, among other things, contracts with
civilians, flying clubs, associations and companies. Contracts were made by the government with certain flying clubs when these clubs had satisfied the government that they had sufficient capital to carry out their contracts. The amount of capital was not really large. The government provided all the capital and equipment and furnished the money for carrying on the work of these schools, apart from management and perhaps other small items.
What I objected to in the report of the committee was that a bonus of common stock was given to the shareholders of the stock in these flying schools, and dividends were paid on this common stock-stock for which the shareholders paid nothing. I considered that, and I still consider it, something that this house should not allow. It is a condition as to which the committee should make a definite report to the house, recommending that it cease at once, and the government should see that the committee's report is implemented. This short explanation makes clear my position with regard to the report. I wish to put myself quite definitely on record in the matter; I think it is wrong. The people of the country will think it is wrong, and if it becomes public and the government does not take action it will be harmful to our war effort. I do not believe this is the time for any company, let alone a company that is financed largely by the government, to be building up reserves to carry on work after the war. If there is work of this kind to be done after the war, the government can finance it, just as it is financing the work at the present time.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, namely, the sitting of the committee during the adjournment. I believe the committee has done good work already. The mere fact that the committee was appointed has had a beneficial effect on the service, and there is a great deal of work still to be done. Despite the fact that I would much rather enjoy the balmy climate of Vancouver during July and August than swelter in Ottawa, I believe the committee should sit. I think it, however, a mistake for the committee to recommend that the whole committee should sit. A much smaller committee would be better. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that this smaller committee might more closely approximate equality in the composition of its members than the larger committee did.
I am not going to say anything about the per diem allowance. I made my position clear in that regard in the committee. I think we should try as far as possible to keep
3730	,	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
politics out of this discussion-I say "politics" for want of a better word-and because I so believe, I am not going to discuss the question further.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The
appointment of this committee came before the house on March 4, in a resolution proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He sought to pattern the committee on a similar body which was set up by the British parliament to deal with various problems in connection with the war expenditure, but this committee is of a different sort. It did not follow the text of the British resolution.
The committee has held a great many meetings. I happen to be one of those who on March 5 strongly opposed its formation from the start, because the committee system as we have it in this legislature never digs up anything. Moreover, the government of the day has a large majority on the committee and they write the report. Everything that I said in the debate on Wednesday, March 5, in opposing the appointment of the committee, has proved true. This committee when it was appointed was expected to deal with war expenditures, past and present, and to suggest economies. Now I do not know of anything wrong that has been done, nor do I wish to refer to things that have been wrongly done, but the people are paying $4,000,000 a day in war expenditures, a large part of which is not for the war and will not amount to a snap of the fingers in beating Hitler over in Britain and other primary theatres of war, where the war will be decided finally and conclusively.
The committee has not adhered at all to the text of its reference. The chairman wrote to members of the House of Commons a day or two after the committee was appointed asking hon. members to come and give suggestions. One morning I went to the committee myself and saw the chairman-not to take up any of the time of the committee but simply to submit on a page of paper suggestions regarding what I thought ought to be done. One of the main questions which the British government has been discussing is that of transport, and I have never heard one word in that regard from this committee. One subcommittee over there deals with it. Look at our transport situation to-day on the Atlantic ocean; consider the shipping that is being lost, and the lives of numbers of our sailors in the merchant marine, off the Irish coast and elsewhere in the Atlantic. One of the main reports of the British war expenditures committee had to do with the investigation of that whole problem, but this committee has ignored it. I asked the committee if they
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
would investigate soldiers' insurance, free soldiers' railway transportation, and other matters, but nothing was done. They said it was not for them.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of nearly all committees is to keep members out of mischief. Of course the idea is to give them plenty of work to do so that they are good fellows during the session. But I wonder what committee has been really useful since first I became a member of parliament? Nevertheless members have worked hard on committees, have toiled long days and have spent sometimes restless evenings, and far into the night, trying to get some deep knowledge of the matters submitted for their consideration.
I join with other members who have spoken in complimenting the chairman of the committee (Mr. Thorson), the chairman of the subcommittees and the members of the committee for their painstaking efforts.
I am very glad to follow in this debate my good friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who is one of the most popular members of the house. He has always been known as the soldier's friend, and I am sure that he could serve in any capacity with very good results for the state if his services
3736	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
should be required by the government. All his life he has been interested in soldiers' problems. He has done a great deal for the soldiers. He has the added distinction of having been mayor of one of the largest cities of Canada for the longest period during the war.
The committee whose report we are considering was appointed to examine into war expenditures. Before the chairman had finished his address this morning I sent him a note asking him what his definition of war expenditures was. It could be very broad, of course, if we were to take in all expenditures made for the war and the financial business that is done by this government or the Bank of Canada, or the foreign exchange control board for the government of Great Britain, and if other similar bodies were to be taken into account. But I shall not go as far as that to-day. I will be good and take the report itself only.
The chairman of the committee said that this was not an ordinary committee but an extraordinary committee. Its scope was defined in the formation of three subcommittees. At page 447 of the Votes and Proceedings of June 4, which contains the report of the committee, the Department of Munitions and Supply is mentioned as a central purchasing agency for the three departments of national defence, army, navy and air, and we are told that the committee had reviewed "the various checks and controls in the matter of cost accounting that are exercised". The checks must be departmental. Control is the function of parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, which is totally ignored in this report.
The report goes on to state that the committee has studied "the manner in which the purchasing organization within the department is set up and functions and a general exploration of (1) the existing checks, (2) controls, (3) care and (4) supervision in the matter of procuring necessary munitions and supplies."
The report goes on to say:
Your committee next made a general review of the subjects of inspection of and payment for munitions and supplies.
Inspection, of course, is by the department concerned, and payment is by the Department of Finance. Then follows a sentence which is commonplace:
The object of inspection of munitions and supplies is to ensure that the goods supplied are fit for his majesty's service.
That is evident, and therefore, I shall not insist upon it. It goes on:
It is essential therefore that this function should be performed by persons independent of either of the contracting parties.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Meaning that the check should be made by somebody who has not sold something to the department or by one who is not in the department itself. That is very good; I agree wdth that. That is the case with parliament. Parliament is independent of all these people who buy and sell. If parliament had taken heed of what was said at the time of the creation of the national defence purchasing board we would not be in a mess like this to-day. Why was the Department of National Defence mutilated when Mr. Dunning as Minister of Finance put the national purchasing board under his control. I was the only one who stood up against that proposal. Saturday Night, which has no colour now, said, "Pouliot is a Liberal." I saw what was coming, and I thought it absurd to put the national defence purchasing board, which comprised all purchasing agencies of the Department of National Defence, under the control of the Minister of Finance. It was a crime. So much so, that afterwards the department of munitions was created. The national defence purchasing board travelled from the Department of National Defence to the office of the Minister of Finance, and from the office of the Minister of Finance to the office of the Minister of Transport. Then a new department was created, that of Munitions and Supply, which is neither man nor woman-it is an Auvergnat. Here we are, in a complete mess.
Moreover, the committee has not seen that in the view of the house what was necessary was to check, not the Department of National Defence, not the Department of National Defence for Air, not the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, but this very Department of Munitions and Supply. But that was not done. Here we have a minister who buys everything for every branch of the army upon requisition, and delivers it, and what we are interested to know is what happens from the time the requisition is received by the Department of Munitions and Supply and the time the goods are delivered to any branch of the defence department. That is the interesting part, but nobody thought of that in the committee. The thing was so organized that the attention of the members was distracted by something else. Why did the members of the committee not look in the first place at the set-up of the Department of Munitions and Supply, which is on record in Hansard'! They could see that it is chaos-chaos from beginning to end. When I asked for information I could not get it. What I find most strange is that

IFar Expenditures Committee-Report
the chairman, in his second report-I quote from page 458 of the Votes and Proceedings- said:
It should also he noted that reliable statistical records are essential as a background for adequate financial control and the future policy and programme of the department.
Of course. I agree with him in that.
It is therefore the opinion of the subcommittee that such essential statistical records should also be under the jurisdiction of the deputy minister.
All right. I am for that. But there is something which is more important: it is that every cent of expenditure should be submitted to every member of the house; in the first place, in the report of the auditor general, which is the public accounts; and when any lion, member asks for information he should get it at once. The government would have much less information to give privately to hon. members if that were done. No provincial body, no municipal council, no school board, no public organization of any kind could stand if that information were not available to all without being asked for, as it has been for centuries past in England, 'and as it was for a century in Canada since responsible government was established.
I have taken the trouble to check this report from page to page. As has been stated, there are three subcommittees, one for air, one for medical, dental and hospitalization services, food supplies, and buildings construction, and one for headquarters establishments and financial controls. I will consider these in turn.
The committee itself started to work on March 12. From that date until April 8 it spent its time on organization; several meetings were devoted to this subject only. In a second period extending from April 30 to May 5 the committee prepared an agenda. From May 5 to June 4-the third period^-some witnesses were heard in camera andl this report was prepared. Now look at this, on page 448 of the Votes and Proceedings, which are before every hon. member.
No. 1 subcommittee was appointed to inquire into the following matters: (a) Contracts. Not contracts with other countries- no; "contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies; (b) Airports, aerodromes and air force building construction, specifications and designs for such projects and inspection thereof during construction," That is all.
What was done with the British commonwealth air training plan? It was never submitted to the House of Commons. Hon. members were not trusted to take cognizance of that plan. Many times the government was 14873-236
asked to submit it to parliament for further consideration, but the request was refused. But how can this committee on expenditures study the question of air services without seeing that plan, which is the basis of our air effort? Perhaps members of the committee have had the opportunity to see it, but it was definitely refused to members of the House of Commons, and it was because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made a slight reference to it that the air minister (Mr. Power) said that "Hitler was his last recruit." It was a secret. But how can members of the committee be familiar with the whole air effort of Canada without seeing that plan? And if the members of the subcommittee have every opportunity to read that contract and study it and get information on it, how is it that hon. members who do not belong to the subcommittee or the committee have not had a similar opportunity? With all the respect I have for the hon. members who compose the subcommittee on air, I say that the study made by it is worthless.
I come to the second subcommittee, for war: (a) medical, dental and hospitalization services in the army, navy and air force. That is an essential study, (b) Food supplies for the forces, inspection thereof, catering and salvaging of waste. There is no mention of clothing in the powers which are given to the subcommittee. Although the subcommittee reached a decision on clothing it was not empowered to do so at the time it was created, but it decided upon it just the same. And here, sir, you will be plainly astonished. I remember the day of the funeral of the late Hon. Norman Rogers-a year ago-and I was scandalized to see battalions there who had no rifles, although according to the king's regulations no soldier shall attend a funeral in uniform without carrying his own rifle. There were perhaps a few soldiers who had rifles; most of them had none. It is important that we have some information about munitions and about equipment, not merely about food. It is essential that soldiers shall be well fed and well looked after, but it is essential also that they shall be well equipped and well armed. I have asked consistently about this matter in the house without getting a decent answer from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). *
So, there is no question of clothing, and moreover, no question of ammunition, because ammunition is under the direct control of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and it was left aside. I wonder whether the chairman of the committee did not have instructions from the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) not to touch that department.

3738	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I may inform the hon.
member that the chairman had no instructions from the Minister of Munitions and Supply or from anybody else.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon. member to sit down. I do not want him to speak at all at this time. He will reply in due course. I do not want to be interrupted by anybody. My time is short and I have a lot to say.
How is it that this committee has not touched the subject of munitions? How is it that the committee has not touched the matter of equipment, except to speak of old boots and old clothes which belonged to the soldiers? Of course people have a right to know these things when they subscribe to the victory loan, as I have advocated that they do on many occasions, when I spoke in favour of it at Riviere du Loup a week ago and also last Sunday at Isle-Verte, which was formerly the chief town of my county. I am here in parliament on duty and not for my own pleasure. It would be much more pleasurable to me to be at home to-day. I want to speak freely, and I claim the same freedom that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), had during the war, when he was the editor of the "Liberal Monthly," and as any other Liberal members had during the war, and I am speaking on behalf of my people. Nobody will prevent me from saying what I want to say for the protection of the soldiers and in the interests of my own people.
The third subject of inquiry of the second subcommittee is army and navy buildings construction. Nothing about construction for the Department of Munitions and Supply; only for the army and navy. Why does not the Department of Munitions and Supply get into the picture so that we can scrutinize as through a magnifying glass all the expenditures which are made there? No answer. Nothing is said. Note also that there is nothing about construction for the air service; no questions about the building of aerodromes, except for civilian flying clubs, etc. No, not at all; just the army and navy. Of course, the soldiers are under canvas most of the time. They are in camps, they have just tents, which are not very expensive; that is the lodging of many soldiers during the summer. It seems to me it would have been vital to get some information with regard, to construction for the department of air, but the answer would have been that aerodromes do not come under the department of air but under the department of transport and therefore we cannot scrutinize that. A subcommittee was set up with regard to financial control over army, navy and air force expenditures-headquarters 
establishments and pay and allowances. This report is bilingual, even in the English text, because there are some Latin words in that text such as "syllabus" and "honorarium". My knowledge of the English language is limited, and I did not know what the word "establishment" meant. I had to look it up in the dictionary. I find that establishment means: Church system, established by law; organized body of men maintained for a purpose, as army, navy, civil service. This is the first time I knew that. Other members who knew it before were more fortunate than I am; those who did not know it have now the same advantage that I enjoy after reading that excellent, non-controversial book-the dictionary.
Let me ask this question: AVhy were the sittings of the committee in camera? The answer is given at page 448 of Votes and Proceedings. I quote:
It was the opinion of your committee that its members would obtain a freer expression of opinion from persons appearing before the subcommittee if the sittings were held in camera than if they were open sittings.
Expressions of opinion! Expressions of opinion where you can have people swearing at each other and contradicting themselves all the time. But the course with the ordinary witness is to have that witness take an oath and tell the truth, stating the facts. That would be the ordinary course, and then it would be up to the members of the committee to decide what conclusions should be reached after reviewing all the facts. It is not simply the knowledge of a lawyer, it is the knowledge of every man who has attended one sitting of a court, that witnesses are not there to deliver lectures. And the witnesses that appear before the committee should be there to inform the members of the committee as to the facts which those members have a right to ask for and decide upon later on.
This was done during the last war. My hon. friend the member for Lake Centre said something really appropriate. During the great war the committee that sat was not a committee like this one but the public accounts committee and eveiything was open. Miss McAdam's shovel came out of it; old horses, butter and all the rest of it; but after it was all over it had a very good effect: it prevented others from doing likewise and people were more careful. So long as people are protected by silence you can expect anything. I do not see why this committee has been sitting in camera. What can we know? We know only what is disclosed to us. We do not know anything about the evidence given before the committee; nothing is quoted. The only thing they say is that the quartermaster-general

War Expenditures Committee-Report
appeared before the committee to tell a little story; that is all. There is nothing with regard to the essential thing, which is the commonwealth air training plan. That is not revealed to us. The committee has not studied that contract, it has not studied contracts with any other dominion with regard to air, but only what I would call subcontracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies; if it did, we are not informed about it.
With regard to elementary flying training schools, I find the following on page 449 of Votes and Proceedings'.
The subcommittee has been informed that these companies are organized on a non-profit sharing basis as to all common stock and that their preferred stock, which is limited to $35,000, is restricted to a 5 per cent dividend annually. The practice has been for public spirited citizens, service clubs and municipal bodies-
I think that should read municipal bodies, service clubs and public-spirited citizens, in the third place.
-to raise the $35,000 required, and in some instances the money has been made available for this purpose without interest. The intention of the plan is that after payment of 5 per cent on $35,000 of preferred stock all profits which accrue from the operation of the elementary flying training schools will be the property of the flying clubs to enable them to sponsor civilian flying and generally to give leadership to civilian aviation after the war.
This is not a war project but an after-war project, and you will see how it works.
Under the form of agreement between the operating companies and the crown the latter provides buildings, aerodromes and all necessary equipment including aeroplanes and recompenses the company for their services under four heads, namely, management, operation and maintenance, flying hour costs and messing costs. Of these, management and messing costs are fixed, while operation and maintenance and flying hour costs are adjustable each twenty-four weeks, based upon experience.
And so forth. I have not the time to read it all, but I would call attention to pages 449 and 450. There are two payments, fifty cents per flying hour and 25 per cent of any residue that may exist in operation and maintenance and in allowance for flying hours, gas and oil, at the expiry of the contract. The crash reserve residue reverts to the crown. The report states:
The operating companies have voluntarily surrendered 50 per cent of the flying hour profits as from the time the intake of pupils was increased from 48 to 70.
That is for public-spirited citizens.
Increased intake of pupils naturally tends towards increased flying hours and an appreciable decrease in overhead costs per flying hour. The monthly profits of the said companies range from $318.32 to $942.54.
14873-236i
There is no average monthly profit quoted in the report. Here we see the difference between estimated cost in operating elementary flying training schools, on the basis of target price, $982 per pupil, and the actual cost to the crown as of March 31, 1941, which was $864. The difference between what is paid the elementary schools and what it costs the crown to train a young airman is $117.96. If there are forty-eight pupils this difference represents an amount of $5,664; if there are seventy pupils the difference is $8,260, which represents the profit made by the school. If the investment is $35,000 and it is not possible to make more than five per cent profit on the paid up capital, that interest would amount to only $1,750 but the return to the company runs from $5,664 to $8,260. There are other sources of profit, as hon. members will observe, but the minimum yearly profit is $3,816, while the maximum is $11,088, the monthly figures being multiplied by twelve. The report does not deal with air observer schools or airports, aerodromes, air force buildings, and so on; that will come later, because the committee has not had time to deal with those matters.
The second subcommittee was to study medical, dental and hospitalization services in the three branches of the service; the construction of army and navy buildings; food supplies for the forces, the inspection thereof, catering and salvaging of waste. The report states:
The plan of inquiry was to secure from the proper departmental officials the system of operation and control in regard to these matters-
This is information which is denied ordinary members of parliament.
-and to inquire as to how these departmental rules and regulations were being applied and carried out in military establishments in and adjacent to Ottawa.
According to the report these matters were not studied at any point other than Ottawa. Then listen to this paragraph, at the bottom on page 451:
The present ration list is largely the result of recommendations made by a committee of expert advisers on nutrition, dietetics, hygiene, household science, agriculture, etc., under the National Research Council.
Pork and beans made scientifically! The report proceeds:
Specifications of each item have been carefully prepared in the quartermaster-general branch and these are furnished to each firm or individual invited to tender.
And then:
The officers in charge of supplies at these depots make their demands on contractors in accordance with their immediate requirements.
3740	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
What contractors? Who are they? No one knows; the committee did not inquire into that point. How do we reach the man who is the contractor? How do we reach the man who is the go-between for a department? Then the report goes on to say that inspectors go into the meat supply houses and stamp the carcasses with the letters "D.N.D." meaning Department of National Defence, but it is not the Department of National Defence; it is the Department of Agriculture that does it. There is no economy in that. It is an economic fiction. Then this committee went to Petawawa; they had a Cook's tour there and found everything O.K. in the whole country because they had seen Petawawa.
Then there is a reference to the orderly system. I do not wish to abuse your patience, Mr. Speaker, but just listen to this:
One decided improvement was noted by the subcommittee at Petawawa. The "orderly" system of messing is used there and in the opinion of the committee is a marked improvement over the "cafeteria" method. It permits of a much more inviting service of food and should assist in minimizing food waste from the tables.
An lion. MEMBER: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: You laugh; I laugh, too,
because I find it very amusing. Then there are other considerations. The subcommittee confined its inquiry to the salvage of food waste and containers and did not deal with other matters under the heading of salvage of waste. But this is the recommendation:
It recommends that the general committee enlarge the subject matter of inquiry under this head to include all items of salvage including foodstuffs, oil, boots and leather goods, clothing, lumber, containers and other worn-out or cast off material.
The committee did not give the subcommittee authority to deal with the matter of clothing, but here they deal with clothes as "garbage." It is not garbage; it can be used. There are poor people who do not receive any unemployment relief who could use this clothing. I obtained a certain quantity of worn-out military clothing which was distributed to the unemployed of my town and the settlers of my district on New Year's eve. It made these people very happy, and they gave thanks to the Minister of National Defence, the personnel of the department, the Prime Minister and all the members of the government for the charity they received from that department. Their little children could not go outside in the winter time because they had no clothes; they were unable to attend school, and these worn-out articles meant a great deal to them. But since this committee has been sitting it has been impossible to get anything from the department, because these
IMr. Fouliot.]
Solomons have not yet reached a decision. They have had no time to study these matters.
According to this report the committee has studied the question of the distinction between civilian and service responsibility. Of course the responsibility is undivided. It makes no difference whether the books of the Department of National Defence are kept by men in civilian clothes or men in uniform; all these people are responsible to parliament, and it is up to parliament to decide what should be done. They are responsible under the authority of the minister, so that any distinction between service and civilian personnel is ridiculous. Of course the taxpayer usually is a civilian. I made the statement in the house that it was ridiculous to see men in several departments, especially in the Department of National Defence for Air, rendering civilian services but wearing uniforms and therefore receiving extra pay and allowances. The report mentions that matter and agrees with what I said. That is the good side of the report; I have not time to quote it verbatim, but every lion, member has read it.
We should get back to the policy under which the minister was responsible for all purchases made by his department. That is necessary. Ask the Minister of National Defence; he will not deny it. He is not responsible now; all purchases are made by the Department of Munitions and Supply. The minister cannot buy a cap or a badge for his department with public money. He has to go through all the red tape of the Department of Munitions and Supply, which he finds very embarrassing. Formerly the minister had full responsibility; that has been all changed, but I believe we should go back to the sound policy under which the minister was responsible to parliament for what was done by his department. That is all I have been asking from him. I do not wish to cause the minister any trouble, but I want him to be true to the parliamentary practice of many years ago,-the parliamentary practice that he supported until he came to act in this government for the last time. Every one knows it. It is the policy of Joe Howe, it is the policy of Blake-it is the policy of all Liberals, and not only of Liberals, but it was the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It was the policy of those who consider government something other than a corporate body. That is all.
I urge each one of my esteemed colleagues in the house to take the trouble to look at the report between pages 454 and 459 in the Votes and Proceedings, and he will realize what was in the head of the chairman when he dictated or wrote those lines. I have great

War Expenditures Committee-Report
esteem for the chairman of the committee, although I do not always agree with him, and I do not wish him to interrupt me. But the chairman could not find his way through, he could not find his way clear; he could not understand that system of departments suffering from elephantiasis, or big feet,-big feet that fall in corruption. When any hon. member reads the report he will see there is something wrong, and that an operation is necessary and urgent.
Of course, it is said with the precaution one takes when he does not want to hurt anybody. But if people have chosen to have military uniforms put on their backs, for profit, and for being better paid, then I do not see why the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) does not transfer them at once to the army, so that they may fill the Tanks for the filling of which he is calling 32,000 men. They should be the first to go. They have been wearing the uniform for some time, and they have been getting more money than they would have been entitled to, had they not been wearing the uniform; therefore those people, if they are not cowards, should enlist at once in the real service of Canada. I do not think there is a single hon. member who will oppose me on that. These people have been parading the streets of Ottawa in military uniforms. I say they should parade in tanks, in the same uniforms. Then the state could pay them for military service, and not for military service under false pretences. I am referring of course' to purely civilian services rendered by those in uniform.
This must be the reason why the chairman's report is obscure. He did not go farther and say all to the minister. He wanted to be mellow and to use white gloves. But I say brutally what he said in a certain form of language which I do not possess.
In conclusion, what is the use of discussing this matter when we have no detailed estimates from the Ottawa offices of the three war departments? They are only bulk estimates. We have no information-all these matters are of great importance. We have not the scales with which to weigh them. The only scale is the exact expenditure, and we do not have a record of it. We have no information, either, about the Department of Munitions and Supply. I said that when the minister was not in the chamber, and I repeat it now that he is here. How is it that the committee did not get any information as to armaments? Even if it was secret, we should have had the satisfaction of knowing that the committee had information about it. Why did it not get information about clothing? Why did it not get information about construction for the air service?
All this reminds me of one thing. Once I visited Holyrood castle, and while there I visited the room, which, I was told, was Mary Stuart's. The attendant said, "This was her bed." After a while he told me, "No, this was not her bed; it is another bed, but it stands in the same place as her bed stood originally." That is the story of the report. This is not a report of expenditures. The expenditures are made by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and from the smile on the minister's face, it would seem he knows that is true. Neither the Minister of National Defence, proper, nor the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), nor the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), could spend a cent without having the requisition first passed through the Department of Munitions and Supply. Purchases are made by the Department of Munitions and Supply, but payments are made by the Department of Finance. Therefore I say the Minister of National Defence, proper, and his two colleagues, and the other war ministers, are out of the picture completely. One of them may write a small requisition,-"I want a hundred uniforms." That is handed to the Department of Munitions and Supply. That department call 3 for tenders, or the order is given to a contractor or to a tailor. The goods are then sent to the Department of National Defence, or to the Department of National Defence for Air or the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. When they reach there, I presume another form is sent to the Department of Munitions and Supply, and that department in turn gets in touch with the Department of Finance. Then the Department of Finance makes the payment. Has any hon. member ever seen anything like that?
I should like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to be in a position to feed the soldiers, et cetera. I should like him to be responsible for the payments connected with all purchases of food, clothing and munitions. I should like his colleagues in the departments of National Defence for Naval Services and National Defence for Air to be able to do the same. Although the minister who until recently headed the Department of National War Services is no longer head of that department, I should like his successor to do likewise, so that we in the House of Commons would know with whom we would have to deal. In passing I would say that the Department of Munitions and Supply should be abolished, and the minister of that department should be made Minister of National War Services, if such is found necessary.
3742	COMMON'S
War Expenditures Committee-Report


Mr. J. H. BLACICMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member from this group who served on the war expenditures committee felt it necessary to leave, because of illness at his home. Therefore it becomes my duty to pinch-hit for him. Not having attended the meetings of the committee, I am not in. a position to pronounce in any way upon the efficiency, thoroughness, spirit and all those fine things which up to the present time have been commended. I assume statements which have been made in this connection are all accurate.
I shall devote my attention to the general idea of having such a committee, and to making such observations as would seem to be fitting in connection with the establishment and maintenance of such a committee of the house at this time. I believe the idea of having the committee is good, Judging from what I have heard from our member on that committee I do not think I am immoderate when I say that the committee has done good work and will justify its existence.
In the first place, Canada wants no profiteers. I think one of the most malodorous relics of the previous war was the number of millionaires and profiteers which was created at the expense of the people of Canada. It is my settled opinion that Canada has never recovered from the maladjustments in her social, economic and financial structures induced by the abuses of the last war. We want no repetition of those abuses. I am not disposed to be ultra-critical of the government which conducted the last war, I just leave what I have said as I have said it.
In this war the number of orders is bewilderingly large. If the problems connected with getting material fabricated and delivered during the last war constituted a headache, then I think the problems connected with the task in this war must create a super-headache. To the ordinary citizen and the ordinary member of parliament the whole thing is simply beyond comprehension.
Again, the nature of the orders is forbiddingly complex. When listening to reports from our representative I have wondered how such a committee, constituted as it was and even sitting once a day, could possibly adequately examine a sufficient number of accounts to enable it to do the kind of work which we all wish it to do. I am not able to answer that question; I am going to leave it unanswered. But I think it constitutes a third reason why we need a committee of this sort.
To most Canadians war manufacturing is very remote. For example, the people in the prairie provinces hear about it as something going on in a far-away country. In order to indicate how large and complex and remote this whole problem has become, and for the benefit of people in the country who read Hansard, I should like to place upon the record a document which came to my office only this morning. I believe it will be an interesting relic in the years to come, showing as it does the colossal task with which the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and the other ministers involved must grapple. This document is as follows:
Department of Munitions and Supply
For release
After 8.00 p.m., E.D.S.T., June 8, 1941.
M. & S. No. 349
Ottawa, June-Contracts awarded during the week ending May 30, by the Department of Munitions and Supply, numbered 2,671 and totalled $16,446,254, according to an announcement made to-day.
The contracts of over $5,000 issued during the week were as follows:
Foodstuffs-
Oxo (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Que	 $	7,158
Libby, McNeill & Libby of Canada, Ltd., Chatham, Ont	 12.487
R. Smith & Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man	 25,000
Clothing-
Stanfields, Limited, Truro, N.S	 34,500
Maritime Pant Mfg. Co., Ltd., Amherst, N.S	 22,677
Fergusson Atlantic Underwear, Ltd., Moncton, N.B	 69,862
J. A. & M. Cote, Ltd., St. Hyacinthe, Que	 5,116
Knitters Limited, Marieville, Que	 15,300
Canadian Knitting Reg'd., Joliette, Que	 25,875
Northern Woollen Mills Ltd., Joliette, Que	 34,500
Acme Glove Works Ltd., Montreal, Que	 8,107
Montreal Suspenders and Umbrellas, Ltd., Montreal, Que	 29,370
Hanson's Woollen Mills, Hull, Que	 66.240
Eaton Knitting Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	 6,900
Eaton Knitting Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	 24,150
C.	H. Petch, Ottawa, Ont	 5,024
Burritts Rapids Woollen Mills Ltd., Burritts Rapids, Ont	 15,525
Brampton Knitting Mills, Brampton, Or t	 34.500
Brill Hosiery Mills, Georgetown, Ont	 7,935

War Expenditures Committee-Report
May I interrupt here in an attempt to provide a little interest as I go through this list? In my judgment it is an extremely important matter that members of this house should note, as this list is being read, the small number and meagre size of the orders that go to any one of the four western provinces and to any one of the three maritime provinces. Far be it
from me to say anything that would in any way offend our friends of the two central provinces, but I believe it should be pointed out over and over again that there is something wrong here in Canada. If this process continues for a number of years, the result will be serious in the extreme. I continue with the list:
Personal equipment-
J. Rodger Binks, Ottawa, Ontario	 $	9,936
Viceroy Manufacturing Company, Limited, Toronto. Ontario	 9,760
Robert Soper, Limited, Hamilton, Ontario	 21,527
Kitchen and dining-room equipment-
Cassidy's Limited, Ottawa, Ontario	 17,817
Berkel Products Company, Limited, Toronto, Ontario	 16,785
Beatty Brothers, Limited, Fergus, Ontario	 12,183
Westwoods Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba	 22.630
Beds and bedding-
Simmons, Limited, Montreal, Que	 6,610
Canada Comforter Co., Toronto, Ont	 11,980
Tentage and other canvas goods-
Woods Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que	 15,228
Robert Soper, Ltd., Hamilton, Ont	 7,737
Barrack services-
Clayton & Sons, Ltd., Halifax, N.S	 200,000
Mr. E. Ludlow, Everett,	Out	
5,616Rumford Limited,	Winnipeg,	Man	
9,800
Sanitary supplies-
Dominion Textile Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que	 13,650
Shipbuilding-	.
St. John Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B	 68,000
Whitehead Metal Products Co. of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ont	 77,976
Russel Bros. Ltd.,	Owen	Sound,	Ont	 12,675
Dockyard stores-
Dominion Rubber Co., Ltd., Montreal, Que	 5,138
Horton Steel Works Ltd., Toronto, Ont	 25.263
Canada Foundries & Forgings, Ltd., Welland, Ont	 6,183
Hammant Steel Car & Engineering Works, Hamilton, Ont	 7,672
Instruments (technical) -
Dominion Electric	Protection	Co.,	Montreal,	Que	
7,500Dominion Electric	Protection	Co.,	Montreal,	Que	
12,000Dominion Electric	Protection	Co.,	Montreal,	Que	
28,365Dominion Electric	Protection	Co., Montreal, Que	
45,385Kelvin, Bottomley & Baird (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Que	
5,552Northern Electric Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
48.108Research Enterprises Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
381,810
Medical and dental stores-
Johnson & Johnson Ltd., Montreal, Que	 11,819
Smith & Nephew Limited, Montreal, Que	 7,376
Bauer & Black Ltd., Toronto, Out	 8,510
J. L. Morton & Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man	 5,875
Land transport-
Geo. W. Reed & Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que	 13,680
International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	 5,517
International Harvester Co. of Canada, Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	 40,941
Metallic Roofing Co. of Canada Ltd., Ottawa. Ont	 19,334
General Motors Products of Canada Ltd., Oshawa, Ont	 24,037
Notice how rarely the name of any province appears except the two central provinces. I should like to turn this over to Hansard to have the rest of the list put on record, but I believe it will be good for the ears of the
members from the two central provinces and the other provinces to hear the list read.


Angus MacInnis: It is music to their ears.


John Horne Blackmore: I continue:
3744	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
Land transport-Continued
General Motors Products of Canada Ltd., Oshawa, Ont	
General Motors Products of Canada Ltd., Oshawa, Ont	
General Motors Products of Canada Ltd., Oshawa, Ont	
Goodyear Tire & Kubber Co. of Canada Ltd., New Toronto, Ont
Metallic Roofing Co. of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Ross Cycle & Sports Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., Hamilton, Ont...
Canadian Top & Body Corp. Ltd., Tilbury, Ont	
Canadian Brown Steel Tank Co., Ltd., Brandon, Man	
Richardson Road Machinery Co. Ltd., Saskatoon, Sask	
Aircraft-
Air Ministry, England	
Canadian SKF Co., Ltd., Montreal, Que	
D.	K. McLaren Limited, Montreal, Que	
Noorduyn Aviation Limited, Montreal, Que	
Noorduyn Aviation Limited, Montreal, Que	
Switlik Canadian Parachute Ltd., Montreal, Que	
J. H. Connor & Son, Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Irvin Air Chute Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Irvin Air Chute Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
George W. Reed & Co., Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
George W. Reed & Co., Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
S. & S. Aircraft Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
The Steel Co. of Canada, Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Belleville Foundries, Ltd., Belleville, Ont	
R. Laidlaw Lumber Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Fleet Aircraft Ltd., Fort Erie, Ont	
Standard Machine Works, Winnipeg, Man	
Prairie Airways Ltd., Moose Jaw, Sask	
MacKenzie Air Service Ltd., Edmonton, Alta	
Precision Machine & Foundry Ltd., Calgary, Alta	
Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Vancouver, B.C	
Electrical equipment

British Admiralty, England	
Bepeo (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Que	
Canadian Marconi Co., Montreal, Que	
Superior Fixtures Co. Reg'd., Montreal, Que	
Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Vancouver Radio Laboratories Ltd., Vancouver, B.C	
Gasoline, oil and fuel-
R. E. Archibald Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S	
Irving Oil Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B	
Irving Oil Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B	
E.	S. Chartier & Cie., Enr'g., Quebec, Que	
McCoil-Frontenac Oil Co. Ltd., Eastview, Ont	
McCoil-Frontenac Oil Co. Ltd., Eastview, Ont	
McCoil-Frontenac Oil Co. Ltd., Eastview, Ont	
British American Oil Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
British American Oil Oo. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
British American Oil Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
British American Oil Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Canadian Oil Companies Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Canadian Oil Companies Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Shell Oil Co. of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Anglo-Canadian Oils Limited, Brandon, Man	
Machinery-
Canadian Fairbanks-Morse Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont	
Dominion Chain Co., Ltd., Niagara Falls, Ont	
Tools-
Precision Tool Works Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Fire fighting equipment-[DOT]
LaFranee Fire Engine & Foamite Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Construction and defence projects-
H. J. McFarland Construction Co., Picton, Ont	
Turnbull Elevator Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Cross Supplies and Paving Limited, Windsor, Ont	
Ordnance-
The Hall Machinery Co., Sherbrooke, Que	
John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Munitions^-
Dominion Arsenals, Ottawa, Ont	
Dominion Arsenals, Ottawa, Ont	
Dominion Arsenals, Ottawa. Ont	
W. H. Banfield Son, Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
U. S. orders	
[Mr. Blackmore.l
$	33,282
33,282 186,749 34,001 7,278 13,924 11,137 10,260
23.112 121,660
40.000
76.113
5.100 10,411 22,186 16,159 38,226
10.277
10.277
8.100 10,260 31,421
142,229
6,966
73,008
11,835
5,670
14,155
35,184
9,790
6,071
20.000 6,078 5,391
16,934
6,722
5,935
19,520
5,550
7,400
57,050
13.314 14,168
154.000 7,084 9,634
13.314
126.000 8.250 8.525
144.000 7,960
7,281
7,910
5,378
53,727
7,426
6.855
16,248
11.370
190.000
350.000
480.000 2,800,000
24.000
256.200
3,500.000
20,093
2.921,332

War Expenditures Committee-Report
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for having taken up so much time and having more or less bored the house by reading this long list, but I believe it has a significance which the Minister of Finance and the other members of the cabinet can ill afford to ignore. You can see why this whole manufacturing and ordering business is more or less strange to people in most of the provinces. As a matter of fact, two provinces are gathering all the plums and seven others are not, and I submit that as a fourth reason why we need this committee.
Another reason is that for a great many Canadians there is no hope of profit or even financial or economic gain from these contracts, but only the privilege of "paying the shot". I noticed that in that list there were very few orders for seven of the provinces; members will recall that the provinces that were luckless in getting orders are primarily agricultural provinces. The ruinous policy with respect to agriculture which is being pursued by the dominion government of to-day is adding a good deal more than insult to injury to these seven provinces while they are suffering from these other disadvantages. Just the same, those provinces are obliged to pay all these impositions which we have been discussing under the budget. They all have to pay all the impositions as a result of the tariff structure of this country. They are all suffering from inequitable freight rates. They are all called upon to give their quota of loans. They are all expected to give their quota of enlisted men. That, I submit, is a matter worthy of attention.
Another reason why this committee ought to be proceeded with is that people, in order to fight successfully, have to build up an emotional attitude which makes them think primarily of the safety of the state, and think in terms of patriotism. When one is in a mood like that he is not likely to be quite so critical of what is going on in a business way. It is all the more necessary that there should be a committee here looking after the interests of the people who are being encouraged to develop that emotional attitude of patriotism. Always there are certain ones who think only in terms of dollars and cents.
The great body of the Canadian people may be likened to the farm hands who have to do the chores, the rough, hard, exacting work out in the wind and weather. They need someone in the kitchen, watchful to see that they get their share of the cream and pie; someone alert at the wicket to see that they get their share of the deeds and the dollars. This committee should serve as that someone watching in the kitchen, wa tching at the wicket.



H873-237

[Stage Direction]
Up to the present time the committee has not, perhaps, considered it one of its duties to exert some influence on the minister with respect to the placing of war orders. But, I submit, if the economic life of this dominion is to be preserved in anything like a sound condition, careful attention must be paid, to this tendency to raise great loans and heavy taxes from seven of the provinces, to be spent in two of the provinces.
Of what the committee has already done I have no criticism to offer. But it does occur to me that the committee should be enlarged and it should be modified, with respect to numbers. They tell me that there are on this committee, 18 Liberals, two Conservatives-
Angus MacInnis: Four Conservatives.


John Horne Blackmore: Four Conservatives
-I am glad to be corrected-one Social Crediter and one representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I submit that the numbers of members of the various parties on that committee open the committee to serious suspicion to start with. I am not saying that the committee has taken advantage of the preponderance of one party, but I believe that the ordinary man in the street, looking at these numbers, would be very suspicious; he would find it difficult to see why at least the number of members from the three opposing groups should not equal the number representing the government. I understand the committee is to be conducted on a non-partisan basis, that its whole object is to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing else but the truth. I submit to you that a member of the Conservative party is quite as capable of finding the truth, and recognizing it when he has found it, as a member of the Liberal party, whosoever he may be. I would even venture to suggest that members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit parties can do fairly good, work in detecting truth and recognizing it when they find it. I suggest that there be a definite modification of the relative representations on this committee. May I point out that, with only one Social Crediter and one member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, it would be a complete impossibility to have each of these groups represented on each of two subcommittees.


Angus MacInnis: It was.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the committee has done the best it could to give them fair representation, and I understand the device which has been used is that of allowing a member of the Social Credit group to


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: The motion before the house is a motion for concurrence in the third report of the select committee on war expenditures. Hon. members will have noticed that about a week ago the chairman of the committee submitted two reports, the second and the third. The second report contained the recommendations of the committee with regard to the work it had been doing, and to-day we are really concerned only with the third report. I would ask members to look at the wording of that report, because we are being asked to approve its terms. It will be found at page 460 of Votes and Proceedings, and in effect it asks that certain powers be granted to the committee by the house.
First of all, it asks that the committee, which of course means the full committee of twenty-four members, be authorized to continue its inquiry notwithstanding the impending adjournment of the house. Then it asks that the committee have power to adjourn from place to place-for example from Ottawa to Halifax, say, or to Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada. It asks for power to sit in camera or otherwise as it may from time to

War Expenditures Committee-Report
time determine, and for power to determine the manner and extent to which the evidence and proceedings shall be printed or typed, and furthermore to employ such secretarial, clerical and other assistance as it may deem necessary. There are two other requests. One is that six members of the committee constitute a quorum during the adjournment, and the other, that any subcommittee appointed by the committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house and likewise to adjourn from place to place.
These are wide and unusual powers, and I suggest that it is the duty of the house to consider carefully whether or not such a request should be granted. My opinion is that it would be unwise in the extreme unless drastic changes are made in this committee, in the set-up of the committee and in the way in which it carries on its business. In order to outline my reasons for coming to that conclusion, I would sketch briefly the background, the manner in which the committee came to be appointed.
This committee was modeled of course on the committee in Great Britain. In the last war of 1914-18 there was a special committee in Great Britain, and shortly after the outbreak of the present war the British parliament appointed a similar committee, on December 12, 1939, so that their committee has been functioning almost from the start of the war. It has had the benefit of the experience of the earlier committee which served in Great Britain during the last war.
We decided in Canada this spring that we would do likewise and appoint a similar committee, and on March 5 an order was made appointing the committee and giving it practically the same power as was given to the British committee, with one exception. The word "current" as applied to expenditures was deleted so far as the committee here is concerned. I quote from page 446 of Votes and Proceedings:
Your committee was appointed by order of the house on March 5, 1941, to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and 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.
In addition, we had in mind that there would be an opportunity to suggest ways in which the general war effort of Canada could be improved; that the wrork of the committee would disclose such ways. I do not believe that in following the British example we realized clearly-I do not think we stressed sufficiently-certain facts: in the first place, that the British committee was set up at 14S73-237*
the start of the war, and that in Great Britain they had had the previous experience in the great war, whereas in Canada the setting up of such a committee was an entirely new departure. Then we did not realize that in Great Britain the committee can get around the country much more readily. It can get to the defence centres, and subcommittees can travel and find out for themselves what is going on, whereas in Canada that is extremely difficult. But above all we did not emphasize the fact that in Great Britain there is a national government, a parliament which is not working on party lines, whereas in Canada we have the opposite. That fact should have been kept more clearly in mind.
In any event, on March 5 the Canadian committee was set up. Every member of the house will admit that there has never been a committee of this house of a similar type. It was something new. This committee was intended to be different; it was not intended to be just another committee. We thought that we were setting up a committee which would be entirely different and that it would have a great place in helping Canada to play her part in the war. We thought that we could set up a committee which would be quite detached in its outlook, although parliament itself was functioning on strictly party lines. I have reached the conclusion that we expected too much of human nature.
I do not mean any offence to any member on the government side, nor do I wish to question the sincerity of members on the government side who were on the committee; and I do not pretend that the members of my party or of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or of the Social Credit group have any larger endowment of sincerity than members on the government side. I do say, however, that this war expenditures committee has proved to be part of the Canadian parliament, which is functioning on party lines, and that the committee has reflected in its actions the attitude of this parliament, which is dominated by party politics.
That situation was made much worse by the fact that the government loaded the committee with government supporters. We understood that there would be a committee of fifteen, of whom nine would be government supporters and six members of the opposition. Instead, we got a committee of twenty-four, with eighteen government supporters, twice the original number, and only six supporters of the opposition parties. In other words, there was a loading of the committee to the extent of three government supporters to one opposition supporter. That alone made it impossible for this committee to carry on as members of this house had hoped it would;
374S	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
and, further, it meant that the subcommittees which were eventually set up were also overwhelmingly composed of supporters of the government. No more than two opposition members were on any subcommittee.
After the committee was set up, there was a delay before the work was started. It took a week before we had our first meeting and two weeks before we called any witnesses. Before the Easter recess there were several general meetings of the whole committee, and on April 3, when the situation was discussed, our chairman announced that he thought, when we returned after the Easter recess, it would be wise to divide the committee into five subcommittees. Hon. members will find that suggestion at page 222 of the proceeding! of the committee. The chairman suggested that there should be subcommittees on army; navy; air force; munitions and supply, and miscellaneous. That was following the example of the British committee, which has subcommittees on army services; navy services; air services; supply services; home defence services, and trade, agriculture and economic warfare, and I believe one or two further subcommittees have been added. I think this proposal of April 3 was the proper procedure to follow, and consequently there would be subcommittees dealing with the various departments; where any question concerned more than one department, the subcommittees could meet together, as is done in Great Britain right along.
Accordingly we went away for .the Easter recess. When we came back, towards the end of April, the whole plan had been changed. It had been decided that we would not divide into subcommittees allotted to the different departments, but that subcommittees should be set up to deal with specific subjects. I have never been able to understand why that change was made. I do not think it was a sound decision, and I believe it has greatly handicapped the work of the committee. That, however, was done, and at the same time it was decided that meetings of these subcommittees should be held in secret, unless the subcommittee decided to the contrary. That motion will be found at page 237 of the proceedings of the committee. The wording is:
That the sittings of subcommittees be in camera except as the subcommittee may otherwise from time to time determine. . . .
The members of the Conservative party suggested that the question of secrecy should be left entirely to the subcommittees, which should decide at each meeting whether or not that meeting should be held in camera. Instead, however, the majority of the committee decided that all meetings of the subtMr. Green.]
committees must be in secret unless the subcommittee decided otherwise, which made it very difficult for a subcommittee to meet other than in secret. When tve opposed that suggestion we were promptly voted down; the old steam-roller was brought out and put in gear, and we were run over by the government majority on the committee. At the time it seemed to me a strange way to do business in a committee which was supposed to be entirely non-partisan, working as a group of individual members. As a matter of fact, I believe the evidence brought out before the subcommittees has indicated that most of these meetings need not have been held in secret at all; that no harm would have been done if the press had been present, and that, in fact, much good might have resulted if this had been done. That is particularly so because the subcommittees are dealing with specified subjects. If they had been going into particular departments in detail, there might have been more justification for secret meetings, but that was not the situation. For example, take the question of contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies, which was dealt with by No. 1 subcommittee; or take other matters, such as food supplies for the forces, the inspection thereof, catering and salvaging of waste, and the construction of army and navy buildings, which were referred to subcommittee No. 2. In my opinion there was no reason why the meetings dealing with those subjects should not have been quite open.
In any event, it took the subcommittees some time to get started, and they hurried through their work. Perhaps No. 3 subcommittee had many more meetings than the other two; but if hon. members will refer to the reports of these committees they will see through them all a tendency to pull punches. The subcommittees are not hitting out at things that should be hit out at; all the way through they have pulled their punches. For example, look at the report of No. 3 subcommittee, which was dealing with headquarters organizations. At page 459 we find these words:
The subcommittee is strongly of the opinion that .a further careful study of adequate controls of army, navy and air force expenditures should be made immediately dn the belief that such controls will result in very large economies throughout the services, greater no doubt in some than in others.
The fact was, Mr. Speaker, that these greater economies could be effected in the air service; but rather than come out and call a spade a spade, the subcommittee said that all departments should be looked into, but that greater savings might be made in some than

War Expenditures Committee-Report
in others. Then, if we turn to page 452, we find the report of subcommittee No. 2 dealing with the inspection and1 marking of beef. It was reported to us that a certain system of marking had been inaugurated in Ontario and Quebec, and some members of the general committee said, "Well, why not recommend that this system be adopted in the rest of Canada?" The answer was, "Oh, no. We must not go that far. We might antagonize the quartermaster-general or somebody else. Instead of that we will put in these words," and they will be found in the report of the committee:
The quartermaster-general informed the subcommittee that consideration is being given to the extension of this practice throughout Canada.
There was a failure to face the facts and make a definite recommendation, which this committee should have done. We are the people who should have made the recommendation; we do' not have to stand back, to pussy-foot around and be afraid of criticizing higher officials, or of making suggestions that may not please those officials. If the committee is to be of any use, then it must make forthright suggestions on these questions.
In the report of subcommittee No. 1-and it is to that report I object most-we find that the subcommittee have dealt with contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies. In their report they deal first of all with elementary flying training schools, and they discuss the question of these schools fairly fully. There were certain facts they did not have, such as the question of common shares, to which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) referred this afternoon.
But, then, when they come to a discussion of air observer schools, we find this statement in the report, as it appears at page 451 of Votes and Proceedings-.
The subcommittee has not completed its inquiry as to operation costs and profits with respect to air observer schools. A conference has been called of executive officers of all of these schools to discuss operating costs and profits and the subcommittee is not prepared to make any report in regard to these schools until its inquiry in this regard is completed.
The inquiry with regard to elementary training schools had not been completed, either, but a report was made upon them. In committee of the whole we were told that with respect to air observer schools, profits running from 40 per cent to over 50 per cent were made in cases by these private companies. Some of us took the stand that that information should be included in the report to parliament; that parliament and the Canadian people were
entitled- to know that fact. Instead, this subcommittee decided that they would call into conference the officials of these air observer schools, and that they would try to beat them down in their profit, try to make a better bargain for the government-and, of course, try to make the picture look better. That was not the function of that subcommitee, n-or was it the function of the whole committee. It is not the object of this committee to go out and- make deals with contractors or with private firms. That is a job for the government. Yet, when we asked that the report of subcommittee No. 1 be referred back to them in order that they might obtain further information, we were again voted down on a strictly party basis.
Mr. GOLDING; And only two voted for that.


Howard Charles Green: No; there were four. We
were voted down on a strictly party basis. In other words-
Mr. GOLDING; There were two.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member can make his speech later. In other words, the old steam-roller was brought out against us again. That amounts to soothing parliament and to soothing the Canadian people, and I say that this soothing combined with the secrecy of the subcommittee meetings, is dangerous to the nation at this time. If changes are not made, this war expenditures committee may do more harm than good. It may be a case of hindering, rather than aiding Canada's war effort.
It is now suggested that the committee should carry on during this summer. The suggestion is that it carry on- again as a committee of twenty-four members, presumably to continue sitting in secret. That would continue all summer, perhaps during four months, and there would be no house to which to report. What is the sense of anything like that? Where is all this to lead us? The Canadian people will think, "Oh, we are reasonably safe; there is a committee in Ottawa checking all these items of expenditure." Yet there is no way of getting the information from that committee to the public, and I point out that on the committee members in opposition groups are not in a position to have their proper share in the decisions made by the committee.
If the suggestion is adopted, the committee will continue to be one-sided. It will consist of eighteen government supporters, and six supporters of opposition groups. Just to illustrate the attitude and the frame of mind: When we were holding our last meeting, and discussing the report which would be brought
3750	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
in, the suggestion was made that the number of members on the committee be cut down for the work during the summer. I believe it was suggested that the committee should consist of fourteen members. There arose a discussion which lasted an hour or an hour and a half as to the impossibility of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec having different representation-from the government side, if you please!-on that committee.


Mr. CLEAVER:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Vancouver South has made a statement with regard to a discussion which he stated lasted an hour or an hour and a half, and which was a contest between Ontario and Quebec members-


Howard Charles Green: I had not gone that far.


Hughes Cleaver: -as to the proposed
reduction in the numbers on the committee. I state definitely that that statement is false, and should be withdrawn. I state that on my responsibility as a member.


Howard Charles Green: I do not withdraw it, because it is not false; it is true. There was argument that this province must have so many Liberals on the committee, and that province must have so many Liberals, and that they must have Liberals from every part of Canada -one from British Columbia, and so forth, and so forth. In the end they decided to increase the committee to seventeen, in order that there might be proper Liberal representation from the different provinces. That is not the way to fight a war. That is not the way for this committee to carry on. If it is to cariy on in that way, then its efforts will be useless, and the whole proceeding will be a farce.
I do not wish to condemn without suggesting a remedy. For that reason I suggest that if this committee is to sit during the summer, the number should be cut in half. That is, it should be cut from twenty-four to twrelve members, and there should be equal division; that is, five members from the government side and five from the opposition parties, with the chairman and vice-chairman from the government group. That would give a total of seven government members to five in the opposition groups. I suggest that this business of sitting in secret should be at least greatly reduced. Meetings should be held in public, except in those instances where public meetings would give aid to the enemy. In such event they should be kept secret.
Even then, the committee could not be expected to do as good work as the British *committee has done because, as I have said, the Canadian parliament is carrying on along strictly party lines, and because we started so
;
much later. The committee, however, would have far more chance of succeeding than it has had to date, and I believe it might be able to do a great deal of good for this nation in these very trying times.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, before attempting to tell the story as to the ground covered by the subcommittee on which I acted- as chairman, I think it only right that I should answer one or two of the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). In the first place he stated that both the general committee and the subcommittees were dominated by party politics, and that they were overwhelmingly Liberal. He stated, and -repeated the statement several times, that the old steam-roller had been brought out and put into gear. I should like positively to assert that not only was the hon. member wrong and incorrect in making that statement, but he himself did not attend the meetings of the committees enough to know whether or not there was any partisanship in their work. He would rush in and get his attendance and then rush off to another committee.


Howard Charles Green: That is not correct. I missed quite a number of meetings because I had to attend the meetings of the pensions committee, but when my hon. friend says that I would rush in and then rush out, he is not telling the truth. The times when I said that the steam-roller was used, I was there and was rolled out.


Hughes Cleaver: I am not saying that my hon. friend had not perfectly good reasons for not attending the committee; he was spending most of his time in another important committee, the pensions committee. He had a perfect right to choose which committee he would attend; but having failed to attend with reasonable continuity the meetings of the war expenditures committee, I think it ill behooves him to make the statements which he has made with regard to that committee. The members of the war expenditures committee who attended the meetings devotedly and continuously caught the spirit of the committee and they functioned, not on partisanship or political lines, but just as this house expected them to. With regard to the charge that the committee divided on political lines. I may say that the very afternoon about which my hon. friend complains and on which he attended the committee, the committee divided nine to ten. Was that a division on political lines? More of the steam-roller, I suppose!


Mr. HOMUTH:: On what question did
the committee divide ten to nine?

War Expenditures Committee-Report


Hughes Cleaver: I think the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), being entirely unhampered by knowledge of this committee, had better not waste the time of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I certainly shall not get any knowledge from the hon. member.


Hughes Cleaver: I come now to the second point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South, that we were pulling our punches. He gave as an illustration that he was told the committee had been informed that there was some evidence that air observer school companies were earning profits of from 40 to 50 per cent. Once again he did not tell the whole story. In failing to tell the whole story, once again I say that deliberate misrepresentation has been made of the facts.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that the hon. member withdraw the words "deliberate misrepresentation".


Georges Parent: I would point out to hon. members that I cannot be the judge as to what one member says happened in committee and another hon. member denies. Hon. members must take the responsibility in stating what are alleged to be the facts. However, the expression "deliberate misrepresentation" should be withdrawn.


Hughes Cleaver: I gladly withdraw that
without reservation. I shall be pleased to present to the house the facts of what took place and leave it to the house to judge whether the matter was misrepresented. These are the facts. Subcommittee No. 1 was delegated three tasks: to inquire into the commercial operation of air observer schools, of elementary flying training schools and construction contracts. The committee was appointed on May 4 or May 5, and we headed into these questions as quickly as we could. But we have not been able to complete our work on any of them although we got along further with the elementary flying training schools than with any other subject. We made a reasonably complete interim report on that subject, but we told the main committee that we had not completed our investigation into air observer schools. Perhaps I was guilty of indiscretion in being too frank, but I told the committee that we had the evidence of one witness who gave figures that established profits ranging from 40 to 62 per cent. We also told the committee, however, that we had the evidence of only one witness; that we had no right to prejudge the case; that we should have an opportunity of hearing both sides of the question before turning in a definite report.
I think it will be readily seen how wise the committee was in coming to that conclusion and how unfortunate it would have been if we had reached a premature decision without hearing both sides of the case. What did we find? A conference was called of all the air observer schools across Canada to discuss the whole problem of operating costs and profits. The subcommittee found at that conference that the gentleman who had given evidence establishing profits of from 40 to 62 per cent was entirely in error, that the profits were not half of that amount. Where would we have been if we had not "pulled our punches"?


John George Diefenbaker: I rise to a point of order. I do not want to challenge the memory of the hon. gentleman, but this evidence was taken in camera. I think the hon. gentleman has considerably understated what the original evidence was, as well as what the subsequent evidence was.


Hughes Cleaver: Fortunately I have extracts of the evidence before me. The evidence given in connection with example No. 1-I shall refrain from giving the name of the school because this was given in camera-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think the hon. member should refer to evidence taken in camera.


Georges Parent: Each member of a committee which has held meetings in camera must himself decide whether he can use that evidence.


Hughes Cleaver: Under normal conditions I would not refer directly to any evidence given in camera, but the hon. member who preceded me has made the statement that profits in air observer schools ranged from 40 to 50 per cent and that the subcommittee had deliberately "pulled its punches". As a member of that subcommittee I cannot let that grossly incorrect statement go out to the people of this country without refuting it. I appreciate my responsibility as a member, but I should like to give sufficient evidence to refute entirely the statement which has been made. I am doing this in the interests of the morale of this country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I rise to a point of order. The committee decided that the sessions of the subcommittees should be held in camera. I think that means that the evidence given before such committee must be regarded1 as privileged. If the rule is relaxed in respect of one statement, then the whole value of "in camera" sessions is gone. If it is permissible to refer to a statement of fact given in "in camera" sittings, then it would follow that
3752	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
statements of expressions of opinion given in camera might also be stated in this house. I suggest to Your Honour that the distinction should be this: If any evidence or any facts are available from a source other than statements made in camera, then such evidence or facts may be given in this house. But statements that are made in camera and expressions of opinion given in camera ought to be regarded as privileged. Otherwise the purpose of "in camera" sessions is completely defeated.


Mr. STIRLING:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I make this observation. The incident which has just happened illustrates the point that some of us who were not able to support the idea of holding this committee were not incorrect, in that evidence which is given in camera should not be used outside in any shape or form whatsoever. Here we have had a piece of evidence given in camera referred to in this house. It is evident that if it is referred to in this house it will be referred to outside this house by individuals who think they may properly do so in matters of conversation with the general public. It renders the holding of committee work absolutely useless if sittings be held1 in camera because no reference should certainly be made to such proceedings.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, in view of the discussion which has taken place, that if the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), will withdraw the statement that he made with regard to 40 and 50 per cent profits, I am quite content to leave that part where it stands.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on that point I was not quoting secret evidence. I was quoting statements made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), as chairman of the subcommittee when we sat as committee of the whole.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: That was in camera also.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


Georges Parent: The position of the Chair is this. Subcommittees were appointed, and they, in their discretion, decided to hold meetings in camera. Evidence was given at those meetings in camera, and any reference that might be made to that evidence by any member of the subcommittee must necessarily be on his own responsibility as a member of parliament. I cannot decide that question for him, nor do I think the Chair is entitled to decide as to what shall be said by a member of this house with regard to the proceedings in a committee of which he is a member. So far as the point of order is concerned, I again

repeat that hon. members speaking on this question who refer to proceedings of the subcommittees must do so entirely on their own responsibility as members of parliament.


Hughes Cleaver: 
Angus MacInnis: May I ask the speaker a question? Who gave the authority for the issuing of common stock, and was any mention of it made in the agreements between the government and the flying clubs? How did the common stock come into existence, and how much was paid for it?


Hughes Cleaver: I am sorry that I cannot answer that question as fully as I would like to, because, as mentioned in the report, in the time at our disposal we have not had an opportunity to check the records of each of these elementary flying training school companies. We are told, however, that the preferred stock, the 5 per cent stock, was sold at par. We are told that, as to some of the companies, only ten $1 or no par value shares of common stock were issued. At any rate, as to all of them we are informed that the common stock is held in trust for the flying clubs and that no individual can make a dollar profit. I am sure that when the subcommittee has had an opportunity of fully investigating the whole set-up of these individual companies, it will make a full and complete report to the house. At the present time that is as far as I can go.
Your subcommittee have also recommended that a complete study should be made regard-

ing the profits which these elementary flying training schools earn for the benefit of the flying clubs. I do not think it is talking out of school to say that a majority of the committee feels that a ceiling should be placed upon the gross profit which should be made in that regard. But there is one other word which I should add as regards profits earned by the elementary flying training schools. At the time the schools w-ere organized it was anticipated that each school would be able to train forty-eight pupils at a time. Through increased efficiency of the schools it has been possible to increase pupil intake to eighty, with the result that the flying clubs through their training companies have come along voluntarily and have asked that their per flying hour profits should be reduced from 50 to 25 cents.


Angus MacInnis: When was that voluntary offer made?


Hughes Cleaver: It was made a little while after the committee began to function. I could not tell offhand the exact date.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May 1 ask the hon. member if the profits are subject to taxation?


Hughes Cleaver: I do not know. All I can say in reply to that question is, that the contracts provide that all these profits, other than the payment of the 5 per cent on the preferred shares, are to be kept in a reserve fund, invested in the main in non-interest bearing Dominion of Canada bonds, and none of them can be paid out during the duration of the contract, which is the duration of the war.
The essence of the contract, when one studies the whole picture, is simply this. No private individual can make any profit at all. The profit accruing to the clubs is held in the form of dominion bonds without interest; in other words, the essence of the transaction is that there is a future promise to pay from the dominion to these clubs when the war is over.
As to the work of the clubs, the evidence given shows without exception that they have carried on in an extremely efficient manner, both as to the training of pupils and with regard to the cost of operation. The house will be interested to know that their casualties have been extremely low. With a total of over 17-360 million miles flown, the elementary flying training schools have had less than one casualty per million miles-and perhaps that part of the training is the most hazardous to the pilot because it is during that part of his training that the raw recruit is doing his first solo flying.

War Expenditures Committee-Report
In conclusion, I might make a few remarks with regard to taxation. Taxation in this country has reached the highest level we have ever before experienced, and consequently the public are becoming extremely critical of expenditures. That is as it should be. I am pleased that this government has adopted, in so far as it is humanly possible, the policy of paying for the war as we go. High taxation not only benefits the country, in the sense that we are able to pay as we go, but has a restraining influence on any type of extravagance, and I am sure that as members of this house we all welcome the critical attitude of the public towards war expenditures, because it will lead to greater care being taken and it will have a restraining effect on anyone who might be tempted to try to profit by war work.
Then there is the final result that overshadows all these points, which is the fact that heavy taxation curtails present consumer demand for goods. When one reflects that the maximum capacity of any country to contribute to war effort (outside man-power) is the difference between total goods produced and the goods consumed, he can see how important it is that we should restrain present consumption. In that regard there is the final chapter, the position of Canada when the war is over. In every way in which we deny ourselves now, in every way in which we economize now, we are building up a vast reservoir of future consumer demand which will help to start the wheels of industry turning when the war is over.
I could not resume my seat without paying tribute to the other members of subcommittee No. 1 who sat with us in the work. That committee's work was done by two Conservatives and three Liberals. There was no partisanship visible or active in any way in connection with the work of that committee, and while we had a difficult problem to study, we reached a unanimous report. I wish to express my personal appreciation of the cooperation which was given by every member of the committee.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): There are two private bills to be considered, which will take only a few minutes. With the consent of the house, therefore, I would move that we pass to the order: private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dorrien Edson Weaver.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of David MacDonald.-Mr. Maclnnis.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. T. Thorson (Selkirk) that the third report of the special committee on war expenditures presented to the house on June 4 be now concurred in.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when I asked the hon. member for Ilalton (Mr. Cleaver) a question, he suggested that I should not take up the time of the house because I was not a member of the committee and therefore could not know very much about its work. The lack of knowledge of what the committee did or tried to do is the principal reason for my rising to-night to protest against concurrence in the report presented by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). When this committee was suggested I considered, as did other hon. members of this house, that such a committee could do a great deal of good work; that it might go a long way toward bringing about economy in our war effort; that as a result we might put an end to many of the extravagances which we knew were being committed; and that their findings, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr.' Diefen-baker) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said, would cause others to be careful in their work in connection with our war effort. Then we were told what would be the set-up of the committee; and instead of a committee which would do what we had visualized, I saw that it was to be a committee with an overwhelming number of government members. Why the change was made from fifteen to twenty-four members, I do not know, but it seemed quite plain that this larger committee would not bring about any better geographical representation, and therefore it could only be that the government wanted so many more of its supporters on the committee.
In my opinion, from the very start the committee was handcuffed and hobbled, and. in addition, its members were to be pledged to secrecy. Certainly it could not accomplish what it should be able to do if it were pledged to secrecy, because most of its findings would also be kept secret. Further, it was suggested that if any wrongdoing should be found, that wrongdoing should not
3756	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
be reported to the house or given to the public but should be told the government or the minister in charge privately, and the minister would see to it that appropriate action was taken. What that action might be, we would not know. Then all this committee was to do was make representations, which recommendations might be brought before this house, if it were in session, or before the responsible ministers.
I have closely followed the work of this committee and have read all available reports. In the beginning there was a long delay; it took weeks before the committee got under way and began to work on any plan. What have they done? In my opinion nothing has been done by this committee that should not have been done by the ministers and deputy ministers of the various departments. All the recommendations that have been made have to do with the internal economy of the various departments. The committee has found that there are men in the Department of National Defence and other war departments, some of them high-ranking officers, who are receiving pay and allowances for doing work that a clerk could do, and that as a result there is a tremendous unnecessary overhead. Surely we did not need a committee of twenty-four members of the House of Commons to set up an efficient system within the offices of the Department of National Defence. I realize that the ministers are busy, and cannot give to these matters of internal economy within their departments the attention a man in a private business might be able to give. But the ministers have deputies for all these departments. They have administrators, and if those men are not able to set up proper and efficient systems within those departments, then they are not fit to hold their jobs as deputy ministers.
There is no business in Canada which could operate on the basis on which some of these government departments operate, and it is about time we began to realize that fact. We have increased by many thousands our civil service staffs. We have increased their pay by hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Canadian people know that. Every now and again an article appears in some newspaper with respect to the money paid to people who are working for the government. I have applications every day from people who want to work for it and, to my mind, too many who wanted to work for the government got their chance to work for it, with the resultant inefficiency and heavy overhead in some departments. Why should it take a committee of twenty-four members to find a lack of efficiency in a department of government?

The committee also investigated other branches of the service, and they have made certain recommendations in that regard. I have in mind particularly the air training plan. This afternoon an insinuation was made -one which practically amounted to a charge- respecting the tremendous profits accruing to private air training schools. Even if the profit is half of what was suggested this afternoon, that is not a matter that should have to be the subject of investigation by a committee of twenty-four members of the house. Surely that, too, is a matter of internal economy within the Department of National Defence for Air. The men who negotiate and draw up the contracts for these air training schools should be in a position so to regulate and draw up the contracts that they could see to it that unfair profits were not made. We must make up our minds to the fact that whether in war time or in peace time there is always an element in the country who are desirous of making huge profits out of someone else's misery. Surely cases of this kind are purely matters with which departmental officials themselves should deal. It should not be necessary to set up a committee to decide such questions as these.
If the committees were permitted to sit during the recess, and continued to investigate only such matters as these, then certainly the people of Canada would be up in arms at the suggestion that it is going to cost $360 a day for the members alone, at the rate of $15 for each member, besides the costs of the staff, to investigate matters which ought to be the business of the minister and his deputy. Why do we need a committee to decide whether or not soldiers are getting cow beef or good steer beef? Surely those are matters for men within the department. The question of salvage in the various camps should be the business only of the men who are at the head of the camps. That is why they are put there. They are there because they are supposed to have the ability to run those camps; they are supposed to know how to handle these various matters.
Therefore I say that the people of Canada are not prepared to pay $15 a day to members of the House of Commons to delve into matters which should be the business only of the ministers and deputy ministers. The ministers should hold the deputy ministers responsible for the proper and efficient administration of these matters. I thought when this committee was set up it would investigate some of the things which had been done prior to the setting up of the committee. I thought it would look into some of the contracts which we knew were rather fantastic and extravagant

War Expenditures Committee-Report
-not to bring them to the light of day, but at least to see to it that any further contracts which were made would be made on a proper business basis, and see to it that we received a dollar's worth of value for every dollar expended.
I thought one of the matters which would have been referred to the committee would have been the Tilley report. That report is far more important than the people generally realize, or than the press would let them realize, because, when the Tilley report was presented, the press of this country came out with the statement that there was nothing much in it, and that there was nothing particularly wrong with the contract. We know there was; there was a great deal wrong with the contract. Do hon. members think the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) would have gone to Toronto to get Mr. Tilley, one of the most outstanding, if not the most outstanding, lawyer in this country, to investigate that contract, had there not been some reason for doing so? There must have been a reason for it. The reason was that it seemed as though the contract was running into huge sums of money, and the firm was making huge profits. That was generally rumoured round the country. The result was that Mr. Tilley was asked to investigate. He sent in his report, and if hon. members would read between the lines of that report they would get some idea of the extravagance of the contract made with the Acadia Construction Company. One realizes how perilously the whole matter was handled from the very start; one realizes the pressure the Acadia people put on. Then, when it seemed to the government that speed was so necessary, they signed the contract. After the contract was signed, the government found it had given one of the juiciest melons any construction company in this country ever got. If hon. members will read the report they will find that the company was in a position to charge rentals-
An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -for the machinery. I am in order. I am discussing a contract which this committee should have investigated and which, if it sits, it should still investigate.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: The hon. member was discussing the general report.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: When it was brought to the attention of the late Hon. Norman Rogers, the then Minister of National Defence, by Mr. Vaughan, the minister wrote Mr. Vaughan and told him he was sorry that Mr. Vaughan did not like the terms of the contract, but that since it was signed, nothing could be
done about it, unless all the contractual parties were agreeable. That is the type of thing which ought to be investigated by this committee. More contracts will likely be let. It is true that some of the extravagances which were apparent under this contract have now been cured, or at least I hope are in the process of being cured; but the contract has not yet been completed, settlement has not been made, and there are still points at issue.
If a committee is going to function on war expenditures, the government ought to see that this type of thing is investigated. Other contracts were given on a similar basis. Why is a man enabled to charge three days' rental in twenty-four hours and keep his machinery going continuously? Such a thing could never be done in private business, but that is what is happening in government business. It is contracts such as these that the people of this country expect this committee to investigate. This is the sort of thing we want investigated. We do not want scandal brought out. I have said on more than one occasion in this house that the worst thing that could happen to our war effort would be scandal. I am not suggesting it, nor do I wish to hear of it. But these are matters that ought to be investigated so that nothing of the like will occur again. Are there other contracts of a similar nature being performed by construction companies in this country for the government?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) referred to the construction of a plant north of Winnipeg, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said that it would be referred to this committee for investigation. Has it been referred to the committee? Has the committee dealt with it at all? Is it not more important to deal with that than with the question of whether cow beef is being fed to the soldiers? These are matters that we have to watch. These are the things that we thought the committee would delve into with the idea of seeing that no further contracts such as this would be made.
The committee asks the privilege of sitting during the recess. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has asked members of this house' to go out through their constituencies and do everything they possibly can to recruit men for the army or for the war services, to get men to go into the fighting forces of this country for SI.30 a day, or slightly more in the form of allowances if they are married. We are supposed to go out and ask young men to enlist, and yet we are sitting here to-day when a suggestion is made that we should endorse a motion to appoint a committee, the members of which will receive
3758	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
$15 a day each. I realize how difficult it must be for some hon. members to sit on such a committee; I appreciate the sacrifice that they would have to make!
There are many hon. members in this house who are specialists in certain lines of endeavour, and right from the outbreak of the war many of them have offered their services to the government, not for a dollar a year but for nothing. They were not asking for a living allowance. It is true that they received acknowledgments of their letters, but they never got a chance to do anything. Members of this house feel frustrated; they feel they are not able to do the things they would like to do. I realize how difficult it would be for some hon. members to sit on this committee without receiving some allowance, and I think it would be quite proper to pay them actual out-of-pocket expenses. When we are asking men to enlist in the army; when we are asking the people to dig deep in their pockets for the war loan; when we are asking working men and women who are not getting extravagant wages to contribute to war services and to buy war savings stamps, it is not right for us to pass a motion which will provide $15 a day to hon. members for sitting on a committee between sessions.
A member of the House of Commons receives an indemnity of $4,000 a year. If the house sat for the whole twelve months, that is all he would get; that is all he would be entitled to. He would have to make that sacrifice. When a member accepts a nomination to run for a seat in the House of Commons he knows what he is going to get and he knows what his responsibilities will be. If there are men in this house who should sit on this committee because of their particular abilities, who feel that they can do a real job, they should not expect to get $15 a day over and above their indemnities. I am opposed to this committee sitting unless it can do more work than it has done already, unless it can do some real work, and I am definitely opposed to the members receiving $15 a day each.


Alphonse Fournier: 
Karl Kenneth Homuth: I sat on them for about twenty-one years.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member has spoken many times in the house, and I did not interrupt him. Will he kindly listen to me to-night?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I did not refer to the
hon. member.


Alphonse Fournier: In committees the first thing to understand and to keep clearly in mind is the order of reference. The inquiry by the committee must conform to the order of reference. The order of reference to the war expenditures committee was agreed to by both parties, and the chairman of the committee started the investigation according to the order of reference. He called in deputy ministers and high officials of every department concerned. For the first month, if members recall well, the committee held its inquiry in open sessions and proceeded-
. . . with a general review of the manner in which the Department of Munitions and Supply functions as a central purchasing agency for the three departments of National Defence, army, navy and air, from the time it receives a requisition or contract demand from one of such departments until such requisition is filled, of the various types of contracts which are entered into by the department and the bases upon which such contracts are let, of the various checks and controls in the matter of cost accounting that are exercised, of the manner in which the purchasing organization within the department is set up and functions and a general exploration of the existing checks, controls, care and supervision in the matter of procurring necessary munitions and supplies.
This was the basis of our further inquiries and for the appointment of subcommittees. If this was not the correct procedure to follow, I wonder why the members of the opposition who were sitting in that committee did not object at the time. They all agreed that the procedure was the necessary one so that members would receive correct information. I recall at the first meetings we discussed the munitions and supply act. Many of the members did not know exactly the contents of the act, and before proceeding further it was certainly logical to make themselves acquainted with the different sections and provisions of the act. This lasted for about a month until the Easter recess, and then three subcommittees were appointed and went to work, sitting in camera. This was also decided by the committee of the whole, that the subcommittees would sit in camera unless they themselves decided to sit in the open. Two subcommittees sat in camera and one in the open. At the end of their sittings it was recommended-and this is mentioned in the third report of the committee:
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of such meetings of subcommittee No. 2, referred to in your committee's second report as were not held in camera, be printed, 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
These committees two weeks ago presented reports to the whole committee. These three reports were adopted by the committee, and they form part of the report of the whole committee.
3760	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
When the war expenditures committee was appointed, certain reasons were given for its appointment. These reasons were given also by the hon. leader of the opposition. If hon. members will read carefully his speech and the other speeches by members who spoke on the appointment of the committee, they will find that the arguments in favour of the appointment of such a committee were: first, to assist the government in effecting economies and avoiding waste; second, a similar British committee had had good results in Britain; third, to enable private members to perform a patriotic duty; fourth, that the representatives of the taxpayers could get information as to how the taxpayers' money was being spent; and lastly, to satisfy the people that we are doing all we can to get value for the money rve spend.
During all the sittings of the committee and of the subcommittees I believe every member had in mind these purposes when examining the witnesses who came before the committee or subcommittees. I may state as a member of the committee that all went well until the last meetings of the whole committee, but at these last meetings the members of the opposition started to find fault with the procedure that had been followed. I do not blame them. They started saying that this committee could not function because there were too many Grits on it and not enough Tories. The hon. member who represented the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stated that he was satisfied. The hon. member associated with the Social Credit group was not there at the, time. Hon. members who criticize in this fashion seem to forget that we have had special committees of this house in years gone by. In 1932, when there was a special committee on civil service matters, although the Liberal opposition numbered eight-one or eighty-two members, we had only two representatives on that committee, the present Mr. Justice Chevrier and Mr. Vallance. I recall that Liberal members were far from satisfied in having so small a representation, but I suppose that it was according to the system and that we received the treatment which seemed fair to the government of the day. Later on, the price spreads committee was appointed, on which we had only four members. Again we were not satisfied; but, after all, the arrangement flows from the existing system of government.
After having listened to-day to the speeches of some hon. members, I am inclined to be discouraged at the manner in which democracy is treated in our own parliament. Hon. members criticize our way of proceeding with public matters; on the other hand, they are

all willing to fight for our present way of life. To my mind it seems contradictory that we should criticize everything the House of Commons does, and yet say to the people, "My goodness, this is all wrong, but just the same we are going to fight to uphold our institutions and our parliamentary procedures." I wonder whether hon. members who speak in this fashion reflect that they are doing, perhaps, more harm outside the house by speeches in this vein than the good they can accomplish by their work on the committee.
The hon member for Waterloo South was quite critical of the proposed $15 a day living allowance for members of this committee. I do not recall the amount of the allowance received by members of Mr. Stevens's price spreads committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Twenty dollars a day.


Alphonse Fournier: Twenty dollars a day under a Conservative government.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was worth it.


Alphonse Fournier: Nobody criticized the amount at that time. The best argument for maintaining an allowance for hon. members who sit on committees is that there are many who cannot afford to attend unless they receive it. I believe that their constituents and the people of Canada generally expect hon. members to attend the sittings of the committee; they believe that their representatives can do a useful job for the country, and are willing that they receive a living allowance. Some suggestion has been made that hon. members should sit without receiving any allowance. That may be all very well for the millionaires, if any there be, who are members of the committee, but the state does not require that sacrifice from the ordinary man who has to come to Ottawa and maintain himself as well as, perhaps, his family here. All the state asks is that a member shall do the best he can for his country; it does not want him to starve while he is doing his duty. Some hon. members have assured me that they could not afford to remain on the committee unless they received some allowance. I am not interested in the amount, but I believe hon. members should receive something. It is not a question of hon. members being paid to do their duty. They will have made enough sacrifice in spending the summer months here, without being required to pay their expenses.
I do not share the idea of the hon. member who thinks we should reject an allowance. I shall have no hesitation in accepting my living expenses, and I believe my constituents will approve my doing so.

War Expenditures Committee-Report
They believe that what I can do here will be worth more than my living expenses. There will be no criticism across the river if I accept an allowance, just as there was no criticism when the Bennett government paid $20 a day to the members of the price spreads committee. Why should we be holier than the holy? It seems to me sometimes that some hon. members speak just for the press and to impress the public and show how good they are. If it were their obligation to come here and spend six months of their time without receiving any living allowance, how many would accept the job? I do not hear a very loud response.
If we are convinced that we can do useful work as members of the committee, that we can save the country money by reforming certain procedures or elements of the system, it will be worth while for the country to defray our living expenses. This committee was set up to try to find ways of saving the people's money if there is waste in war expenditures. I do not suppose that up to the present time any hon. member could make an exact estimate of possible economies, but I am sure nobody will say that the committee cannot find ways and means to save money. I have not yet heard one member of the committee assert that it is of no use. All its members, whether on the government or the opposition benches, believe that there was good reason for its appointment and that it can accomplish something useful. But some hon. members are determined to criticize. Having convinced the government that the committee should exist, they are now trying to find reasons to make it disappear. It is a funny world we live in. In one breath they advocate the committee; in the next breath they assert that everything the committee is doing is wrong. I believe, however, there is one thing upon which we all agree. The moment this motion is passed, it will be found that all our members, like good little boys, will come back here on July 2 and sit on the committee and do their best. They are all good citizens, sincere and ready to work, and most of what we have heard this afternoon was intended merely for the galleries or to put on a show, because the members who have criticized are as interested as we are in the welfare of our country, and they are doing useful work. I wish to state that the hon. member for Danforth, one of the prominent members of the committee, has been very helpful; he has offered a number of useful suggestions. I can say the same with regard to the hon. member for Lake Centre, a hardworking member, and also with regard to the hon. member for Vancouver South, whose only grudge against us is that he would like to have as many Conservatives on the committee as there are Liberals.


Howard Charles Green: It would improve it a great deal.


Alphonse Fournier: But the hon. member knows that that is impossible, and I am sure he is willing to carry on with the committee the way it is.


Howard Charles Green: You people do not know there is a war on.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is doing a useful work, and he will be here with the other members during the summer; of that I am sure. Every hon. member agrees with what I have said, so that all this discussion has been a waste of time. I think myself I have wasted a lot of the time of the house, and so I will sit down.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: I am almost alarmed to find myself in accord with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth).


Mr. MacNICOL:: The hon. member must be right once in a while.


John Knox Blair: But I am no less alarmed when I see this committee, mostly an organized crowd of lawyers, wanting to spend the summer here. I have every confidence in the government and in the way things are being handled, and I believe that a lot of the criticism can be cut out; I do not think it is necessary. What is the use of asking a band of lawyers to look after questions of medical services? If you ask me if they have any value, I say they are not worth a postage stamp.


An hon. MEMBER:: They may not be worth the mucilage.


John Knox Blair: Here the house has appointed a committee, and there is not a doctor or a dentist or a druggist on it. Yet there are many doctors in the house, and they should be represented on a committee dealing with medical matters; I would not care what parties they were taken from. The idea of having a medical committee without a doctor, or even a druggist or a dentist! A band of lawyers are going to deal with medical questions! On that subject I would not give five cents for the opinions of all the lawyers in the house. They do not know an osteopath from a chiropractor. One can talk to them about anything, and what do they know? They are simply quacks when they step out of their profession and express opinions in medicine. I have sat in committees and heard the most absurd statements made, and I have said to myself, "If this sort of thing should happen in a medical committee, heaven help Canada." I hope that these men will be sent home to employ themselves in other ways so as to allow the government to go ahead. They have only a nuisance value.
3762	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Before
making any general observations on the motion before the Chair, may I say first of all that after listening to the speeches that have been given to-day, I am wondering whether we realize the serious state in which our civilization finds itself at this moment. I wonder whether a good deal of the comment that has been made, both in the committees and in this chamber, might not profitably be relegated at least to a secondary position so that we might all fully realize, as was said over the air the other night, that the hun is at the gate, and that there is a war [DOT]on. Let us get down to business and see if we cannot in some way assist Canada, even if it must be through the instrumentality of a partisan government. If that is the only way we can do it, then let us go ahead and do it that w'ay. I say that, much as it annoys me to see evidences of partisanship displayed at this critical time.
In approaching the consideration of this third report and the motion for concurrence therein, I wish to place on record the reasons why as a member of the committee I find it necessary to vote against the report. I would refer to what the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) said just now. Not until within the last two or three weeks was there any dissension-I believe that was the word he used- or any conflict of opinion. Look at the record. At the very first meeting that was held, the result of the proceedings of the committee was adopted on division, and the reason for the division I will recite in a moment or two. Before doing so, however, and in order to make the record complete, I will read from the report to show what is asked for. I quote:
1.	That the committee continue its inquiry notwithstanding such adjournment.
2.	That the committee be empowered to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house and to adjourn from place to place; to sit in camera or otherwise as it may from time to time determine; to determine the manner and extent to which the evidence and proceedings should be printed or typed and to employ such secretarial, clerical and other assistance as it may deem necessary.
3.	That six members of the committee constitute a quorum during the said adjournment and that standing order 65 (3) be suspended in relation thereto.
4.	That any subcommittee appointed by the committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house and to adjourn from place to place.
5.	That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of such meetings of subcommittee No. 2, referred to in your committee's second report as were not held in camera, be printed, 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.

Subcommittee No. 2, I may say in passing, was the one on which I had the honour to serve.
As I said a moment ago, at the very first meeting of the committee there was not unanimity of opinion as to the manner in which the committee should conduct itself; and after we had resolved among ourselves in this chamber that, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has said, everything political should be left outside the committee room, we saw evidence at once that our friends who occupy the treasury benches were using the steam-roller, as an hon. member has said, to have their will imposed upon the committee.
I recall asking that the first report be one of the kind which is common in this house, namely, that the evidence be printed. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) insisted on a definition of policy, as to whether or not we should sit in open session. He was the first one to raise that question. I had the honour to move a motion in that committee-as a member of the committee and not as a member of any political party-that there be open sessions, but the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), did not put my motion. He endeavoured to discharge the committee that day without the question of open sessions being considered. He rose from his chair and adjourned the committee until the next day, or tried to adjourn the committee until the next day, without giving consideration to the item which has the first place on every report that I have ever seen presented to this house, namely, that the evidence be printed, 500 copies in. English and 200 in French. Then, when it was called to his attention, the secretary of the committee put a note on the record. They retired from the committee at one o'clock that day and returned the next day; and even though my motion was not put, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) rose in his place, heading off the member for Danforth, and put the motion himself, when he saw the spot they were in, that the evidence must be printed. The motion was put and carried, and the report came down to the house, but that section of the report took its place fifth on the list instead of first, where it ordinarily belongs.
That responsibility is entirely that of the chairman of the committee in introducing that partisan feeling at the very start. But we were all, or most of us at any rate, imbued with the idea that we might be able to do something on behalf of the war effort, and we tried our level best throughout the sittings to ignore all such indications of partisanship.

War Expenditures Committee-Report
My second reason for voting against this general report is that we have not had the aggressive leadership within the committee which the people expect from it; that we have not applied ourselves with diligence to the work -which was entrusted to us; that we have not carried out the mandate of the Prime Minister, namely, that the private member was to have an opportunity to do something effective. In the United Kingdom a similar committee was set up in December, 1939. The idea was advanced in this house in December, 1940, one year later, and we did not get down to any particular work until March 12. That much time was lost. We had altogether nineteen sessions, and the three committees had thirty-four, an average of a little over eleven each. And we thought we had work to do.
On April 8 we adjourned for the Easter recess. Nothing was done from April 8 to April 30, and very little until May 5. Everything seemed to be operating in such a way as to discourage us from going ahead with the work; yet my hon. friend the chairman of the general committee in his opening speech, when the bid was made for the chairmanship of the committee, suggested that we should be realists on the committee. "Let us all be realists on this committee," he said. But I have seen no evidence of any desire on his part to be realistic in the committee. To-day he said that our principles were confused but that now they were being clarified. I would say that it is confusion worse confounded after the speeches which have been made to-day. Why do I say that? Because the chairman has surrounded us with all sorts of inhibitions with regard to the purposes we had in mind.
The Minister of Munitions 'and Supply (Mr. Howe), when asked a question earlier in the session, replied that this committee would be sitting shortly and could consider the point raised. To-day the minister rose in his place during the heat of argument and said to the hon. member for Lake Centre, "Make your charge." The chairman of the committee emphasized time and again that this was not a public accounts committee; yet to-day the Minister of Munitions and Supply says, "Make your charges." Then the hon. member for Selkirk went on to say that this was not a fact-finding committee. Someone asked, "What is it?", and I begin- to wonder what kind of committee it is. We seem to be making the rules as we go along; we do not seem to have any plan or policy with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the committee.
When the committee does sit, what do we find? I do not mind helping in some way on a general committee of this kind; but the
hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that we were privileged to have a great deal of legal talent on the committee. I would not say that this was political legal talent, put there for the purpose of seeing that nothing happened to the- administration; but after we convened, how often did the chairman of the committee ask the members of the opposition, "What do you want to do now?" or "What do you say to that?" or "Will this meet the situation?" There was not a constructive suggestion from any of the Liberal members of the' committee; the discussion centred round what those of the opposition wished to say. What did they want to investigate? We were not applying ourselves as a body of eighteen men who had left their politics on the doormat; we were placed in the position of asking questions at the behest of the chairman. Then, when the question was asked, we had to sit and listen to a lecture by the chairman. The hon. gentleman said that one of the advantages of having closed sessions would- be that hon. members would not make speeches, but I say to him that in all my experience with many committees and boards of one kind and another I have never seen a chairman who had so much to say, who gave so many lectures to the members of the committee, as he did during the course of the proceedings of this committee.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member had a lot to say, too.


Joseph Henry Harris: Had I not had a great deal to say, Mr. Speaker, there would not have been very much work accomplished, because the other members of the committee who were supposed to be working in the interests of Canada sat there dumb and had nothing to offer unless it was to talk down some constructive idea that had been advanced by one of the opposition members of the committee.
I have referred to the question of sitting in camera. In connection with this committee I am probably in a class by myself, since I am the only member of that committee who has not sat in camera at any time. I have been sitting in open session throughout, and if I am privileged to continue to serve on this committee I intend to continue to sit in open session. Why? The people of this country are kept informed by a censored press, which is very careful not to hurt Canada's war effort. I believe the work of a committee sitting openly will have a far better effect on Canada's war effort, from many points of view, than will the work of a committee sitting in camera, as to which the people of Canada can have no knowledge
3764	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
We must keep the morale of our people at a high level, and the only way that can. be done is by keeping them informed and taking them 100 per cent into our confidence. There is no hon. member who would make a single utterance that would give any comfort to the enemy. If there should be such a member, he does not belong here; he should be ostracized and compelled to find some other sanctuary.
Let Canada know the facts. Let the private serving in the ranks know that we are helping. Let the contractor who wants to obtain a government contract know that we are not only helping him but also watching him, in order to see that the contract is fair and right. Let the officers in our camps, who are looking after the men, know that we are anxious to help them, but that any extravagance on their part is going to be checked. Let them know how that is going to be done; let them be given a little guidance. Let the man working in a munitions plant know that we are helping in every way possible and that his boss is not making extravagant profits. Then the man will go to work in the morning with a little better feeling than will be the situation if he hears over the radio or sees in the press that a committee is sitting in secret to examine these matters. If the working man learns that we headed into many mare's-nests, to use the words of the hon. member for Halton, and stopped there without learning what else was in the nests or what was going to come out of them, does that inspire confidence in the government? Yet the hon. member sits in secret session at the behest of the chairman of the general committee.
This afternoon the hon. member for Halton let the cat a little way out of the bag in one or two respects, rather to our surprise. Then the minister who was leading the house at the time, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) rose and slapped the hon. member gently on the wrist, telling him, "You must not do that; it is not quite right." The minister also appealed to the Speaker for support, and he was reinforced by the chairman of the committee, who delivered a little lecture on ethics and gave the hon. member for Halton a verbal spanking. But after the last slap had been delivered, the hon. member rose in his place and in a split second gave his position mature consideration and intimated that he would say nothing more about it; but the mature consideration came after he had received his little spanking from his senior, the chairman of the committee, and the minister then in charge of the house.
The hon. member for Halton rather scolded the hon. member for Vancouver South for not 
having attended all the meetings of the committee. No man in this house has done more for the returned men of this country than has the hon. member for Vancouver South. I complained previously because this committee sat while the pensions committee was sitting. The hon. member for Vancouver South divided his time between the two committees as best he could, and was absent from the war expenditures committee only when something of importance was being considered by the pensions committee.
Some of the rest of us found ourselves in an awkward position. Personally, I was supposed to appear on three committees, as well as in the House of Commons. That was four places I was supposed to be in at the same time. I had sat on the committee on railways and shipping since its inception; but this session, because a more important committee was sitting, I found myself of necessity absenting myself from the railway committee. I did not miss one meeting of the war expenditures committee, but at the same time I had to carry along my other work. Then the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) rose in his place, and asked permission to have the committee on banking and commerce sit while the house was sitting. Then, in addition, the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines was sitting while the war expenditures committee was sitting. We were supposed to be in five places at one time. It is rather bad form for the hon. member for Halton to criticize the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) for missing the odd committee.
Then, after the demonstration to-day by the hon. member for Halton, it runs through my mind to ask what confidence the witnesses who are called in future to attend camera sittings will have, if they realize that the matters discussed in those sittings are to be discussed openly in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Halton has said either too much or too little. He has crippled our activity so far in carrying on a discussion of that subject, and not giving the whole thing. We wonder what really happened in the secret committee, and whether or not we shall find out. I do not know whether we shall ever find out exactly what happened.
Inasmuch, however, as I had the honour to serve on subcommittee No. 2, and inasmuch as that subcommittee was favoured with a chairman who took a fairly broad view of things and who kept the sessions wide open, perhaps I might confine my remarks to what occurred in that particular subcommittee. The sessions were open, and I congratulate the chairman of that subcommittee, the hon.

War Expenditures Committee-Report
member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) for keeping them open. I say to him and to the house that if his committee is reconvened it should be kept wide open.
Incidentally, we were all prematurely fired, as it were, or dismissed.	But if we get
together, and re-form ourselves, and if the hon. member is again honoured with the chairmanship of the committee, then let him keep the same broad, open view he has had with regard to the conduct of the affairs of that committee, and he may make some progress. Further, I say to him, and this in a critical tone, that when the chairman of the subcommittee drafts his report, and when he takes it to the chairman of the general committee, and they sit down to discuss the matter, he ought not to let the chairman of the general committee mutilate or destroy the original report from the subcommittee. I sat on a committee which passed a report of thirteen pages, and when we came back next day we found that the draft was mutilated. It was almost, in fact, destroyed. Only a few lines which the house now has before it remain of our report. Some of the vitals of that report were entirely removed from the animal, and he could not function. He was ruined, and much spoiled as a scarecrow-he had lost his scarecrow value.
The hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Mayhew) made the suggestion that it is impossible to cover the wide range the committee would have to cover. But the committee might be of some use on account of its scarecrow value. It might keep the crows out of the corn patch-the crows being those who would like to feed on the moneys available for war expenditures, moneys they are not putting up out of their own pockets. They would feed, even as the crow in the corn patch. If a scarecrow for each committee is going to be of any use, then I say to the general chairman, take that scarecrow out of the bam, put him up in the centre of the field, and keep the crows out of the corn patch. If any of the crows do get into the corn patch, I say that this house ought to realize the fact, as I said in my opening remarks, that these are serious times, and that what is now taking place is a very grim business. We ought to put that crow up against the wall, and shoot him. That is the way I feel about this procedure, and that is what I would do with those who would get into the corn patch to profit on war expenditures.
Therefore I criticize the hon. member for Swift Current most vigorously for permitting the mutilation of his report. And I am not alone. I call to witness the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone). He picked
up apples at Lansdowne park and looked at them. He put some in his pockets, and brought them up for the examination of experts in the house who knew something about apples. I have in mind the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard) who is not at present in his seat, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills) and the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser). Any of those hon. members, or any hon. members who are not apple experts, but who know the difference between a domestic No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and a cull, and who know the difference between fancy grade and domestic grade, must agree that some crow sold apples which were inferior to specifications, and had them delivered to Lansdowne park.
Why was the report mutilated? Why was that apple clause struck out? Some answer should be given. Just to keep the record straight I will read the specifications regarding raw apples. There are two general grades -and, in passing, why does the specification call for fancy apples in western Canada and domestic apples in eastern Canada? I believe the boys in the camps would be satisfied with good domestic apples, but why is there a distinction? I shall not take the time to read the specifications in detail, but the requirements for domestic apples state that the apples shall be Canadian grown, and at the time of delivery shall meet the requirements of domestic grade. The specification in the west, for fancy grade, is that the apples shall be Canadian grown, and at the time of delivery shall meet the requirements of fancy grade. I ask hon. members to rise in their places and say that the apples which they saw in these camps, and which we saw at Petawawa were either domestic or fancy grade -or were they just culls?
The hon. member for Waterloo South mentioned that we were talking so much about what kind of beef the troops are getting. I think we should know something about that matter, and I believe it would not do any harm to place on record some information as to what occurred. I get my information from a return which was asked for in the house by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin). They asked definite questions as to whether cow beef was being supplied in place of butcher steers. I point out these facts designedly to show that there seems to be a tendency on the part of the administration not to cover the whole field of an inquiry or to give a full answer to a question when it is asked in the house.
This return comes from the Department of the Secretary of State, and is signed by the
3763	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain). The return is dated Monday, March 31, 1941, and the questions are as follows:
1.	Was cow meat supplied in place of steer meat to military district No. 11 during 1940?
2.	If so, who was the contractor?
3.	For how many weeks was this meat delivered to military camps in British Columbia?
4.	Was quality of meat supplied up to department specifications?
The answer shows that on the afternoon of October 12, 1940-and I ask hon. members to note the date, because October 12, 1940, was a Saturday,-a contractor delivered a consignment of beef. The contract was to deliver such and so, according to specifications. The result was that a signed telegram was sent in these words:
Ration board rejected part shipment beef account wastage. Medical officer supports decision. Shipments cow beef this camp must stop. Matter being referred to headquarters.
At the same time another answer came down to a question which had been asked by an hon. member. He asked if the department had made a claim, and the answer was that they had made a claim and that $429 had been paid back in January, 1941. What else was paid back? Was there any voluntary contribution made to settle the claim? Is that the complete answer? If we could get a little more frankness, the answers might be worth while. Let me move to the next phase of this same question. What is cow beef? What are the specifications? Here are the specifications which were in effect prior to March 1, 1941, the old specifications:
Beef, fresh. The beef shall be butcher steer or heifers, both to be of good quality, properly fed, with suitable distribution of fat, and to be well slaughtered at least six days before the time of issue. The beef to consist of equal proportions of fore and hind quarters, the neck, head and offal to be excluded, and none of the suet to be withdrawn, the quarters to be standard dressing. The quarter of beef to weigh not less than 115 pounds nor over 185 pounds, or in cases where the demand is less than the weight of a quarter, it shall be supplied in one piece containing a fair proportion of best to other part. All beef must bear the official government inspection mark.
The new specifications, effective March 1, 1941, are as follows:
Beef, fresh.
1. Beef shall be from steers or young female cattle. Beef from bulls, stags, and mature cows and thin, underfinished or excessively fat carcasses, shall not be included.
What happened in the meantime; what happened in between the two sets of specifications, the old one demanding that it be heifers, and the new one demanding that it be young, female cows? I have a constructive

suggestion to make; otherwise I would not raise this question. In between comes the definition of what is required. I am going to put this on the record because I think it is a serious matter. Here is the letter:
H.Q. 1772-39-938 (DST>
Department of National Defence -Army-
Ottawa, Ontario,
7th February, 1941.
D.S.T. Letter No. 3-1941 The D.S. & T.O.,
All military districts.
Re: Specification for beef.
1.	As some misunderstanding appears to exist, as to the kind of beef that is acceptable under specification No. 7-M-4, dated 31st December, 1940, and in order to clarify the situation, it is desired that all R.C.A.S.C. officers i/c supplies be informed that maiden heifer or heifer beef is acceptable.
2.	The interpretation of heifer beef is a female animal which has calved once or twice but not more than twice, under these conditions the udder of such animals would be generally firm showing only a small percentage of sponginess. The acceptance of such beef will, of course, depend upon the carcass meeting all other clauses of the specification referred to in para. 1 above.
H. O. Lawson,
Colonel,
D. of S. and T.
It is absurd to ask officers in charge to tell whether or not the beef is cow beef or heifer beef. They cannot tell if it is a maiden heifer or whether she has had one calf or two calves, and they have no chance in the world to examine the udder. When the udder is taken off the carcase, it is shipped down to-the mink or fox farms to be fed.


Mr. RALSTON:: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Joseph Henry Harris: My constructive-suggestion is that in the new specifications there should be a straight separation between the different kinds of beef.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member should read all the specifications instead of only half.


Joseph Henry Harris: Here is the rest of it:
Beef shall be from relatively young animals, as indicated by a range from red to greyish colour in the spinal process and the ends of the vertebrae must show the soft pearl-like cartilages or buttons. The aitch bone will be red in colour and porous, having a pronounced knob at the lower end, and showing the presence of white cartilage. Beef shall be well fleshed with an exterior covering of fat over the loins and ribs which may or may not extend over the full surface of the chucks and rounds.
Heads shall be removed at the atlas or first cervical joint. Feet shall be removed by dissecting with a knife at the knee joint; front feet at the top of the radius; hind feet at the top of the tarsus. All protruding sinews shall i

War Expenditures Committee-Report
be removed. Carcases shall be split down the centre of the vertebrae and the spinal cord entirely removed. All bruises, blood clots and inflamed portions of the surfaces of the carcases shall be trimmed so that only the merest trace of the damage remains. Tails shall be removed at the second eocygeal or tail-bone joint. None of the suet shall be withdrawn.
Carcases shall be hung in cooler for six days prior to delivery. The beef shall not be beef that has at any time been frozen.
Quarters shall not weigh less than 125 pounds or more than 185 pounds, and shall be supplied in equal proportions of fores and hinds.
All beef shall bear the Canadian government inspection legend and shall be slaughtered in conformity with standard practices and according to methods and conditions approved by the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture, Dominion of Canada, and the tenderer must state the establishment or establishments in which the beef he proposes to supply will be slaughtered.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend say that from that specification one could not lell the age of the beef?


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister
can reply when I have finished. I know a good deal more about butcher steers and heifers than perhaps the minister. I make this constructive suggestion. In future military beef contracts there should be a new inspection service whereby the government grader marks the beef in each plant with the letters "D.N.D.". I suggest that separate prices be requested for steers and heifers, and that they be invoiced in that way. This would be the fairest way to deal with the matter. The military people want beef that is not wasteful. In heavy, well-finished cattle, they claim there is too much kidney fat. There should be a better way of distributing these contracts, which in the end would benefit the farmer. If the buying committee could allot the contracts month by month, in accordance with the contractor's facilities to supply same, and on an agreed basis of quota, it would make for better conditions in the industry and assure a more uniform supply of beef to the military camps.
Under the present plan, if one packer secures a large share of the beef business at below market value, he is in a position to reduce the price to the farmer on this type of beef, or he may skimp on the quality he delivers to the camp in order to avoid a loss. The government do not want to buy beef on a basis that will mean a reduced price to the farmer. It should be as important to the government to take steps to see that a fair price is paid to the farmer for cattle supplied on military contracts, as it is to see that a fair price is paid for hogs and wheat. Why did the hon. member who is chairman of subcommittee No. 2 allow his report to be mutilated and changed? Instead of saying
that the beef supplied is stamped with "D.N.D.", why could he not be frank in his report and say that that which had been supplied previously, at least up until the last few weeks, had not been stamped "D.N.D."? The chairman of the main committee has said that individual members could not be allowed to take any credit to themselves for any particular feature of the work. In reply to that I would say that this committee ought to justify its existence by doing something of real value.
I shall discuss only one or two points in report No. 3. It might be all right to load up the inside service with civilians; there might be some economy there, but when it comes to the outside services and the camps, I am of opinion that all the men should be in uniform. At the present time there are too many civilians going into and coming out of the camps. Whether they are there for the good of the war effort or for their own good, I am not in position to judge. I would hesitate to allow a greater number of civilian personnel into the camps.
Subcommittee No. 3 made a few specific recommendations. They suggested that there should be a saving on stationery, printing, advertising, telegrams, telephones, transportation, heat, gas, oil and so forth. They might in the end get dollar for dollar value. The report in that respect alone has some scarecrow value. That little sentence alone will help. How much more helpful it would be if these meetings were wide open and the world knew what we were doing!
Another matter which concerns me greatly, and which I address myself to all alone, is the suggestion that the members of the committee receive pay while they are sitting during adjournment or recess, if we are going to sit. Speaking for myself, I say no. We are paid from session to session. That should be enough. I said in the committee, and I say to this house now, that for the duration of this war I shall be happy to serve anywhere. I shall be happy to serve at any war work at any time and do all I can to help out in our war effort in any capacity for the duration of the war. I am glad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) is in his place to-night. I do not think I shall be breaking any confidence between him and myself if I remind him that at his telephonic request I arrived in Ottawa on October 15, 1940, and discussed with him some problems that he had on his mind in trying to check waste on behalf of Canada. At that time I had the honour and privilege of confirming our conversation, and
3768	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
the minister will recall that I wrote him a letter from Toronto which reads in part as follows:
October 22, 1940.
Hon. J. L. Ilsley,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
This will serve to confirm our telephonic conversation of Thursday, October 10th, the exchange of wires same date, and the interview given the writer in Ottawa, Tuesday, October 16th.
At this conference I intimated to you, in a like manner as I previously intimated to the Hon. Mr. Howe and the Hon. Mr. Ralston, that I am anxious to do everything possible to assist Canada in our war effort. I therefore place at the disposal of the government of Canada-
(a) My services as an individual to serve anywhere in any capacity.
I do not need to recite the other paragraphs because they cover just the matter of my giving the government material things over which I have some control. When I say to this house that I will not accept any remuneration whatsoever, I do not wish to tie other members of the house. Let their conscience be their guide so far as they are concerned. What matters if we do not win this war? That is the position we are in. In like manner I have also a copy here of a memorandum from one of the district recruiting officers, Toronto, as follows:
To District Recruiting Officer,
61 Albert street,
Toronto, Ontario.
Please interview the below-mentioned prospective soldier for enlistment in a branch of the Canadian Army (active).
Then particulars follow concerning the member for Danforth and his qualifications to be of some assistance in the ordnance department, signed by the recruiting officer for the district and myself.
While I am in this position, I will not under any circumstances accept any remuneration for any war work outside the ordinary sessional indemnity, and I intend to adhere to that course. Can we not realize, as the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Selkirk, said to-day, that these are grim days and this is a grim business we are in, and that we must have unity, we must have tolerance, we must not have speeches like that we had a minute or so ago from the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), ridiculing those of us who wish to serve. That gets us nowhere. We must have self-sacrifice. We must have a clear conception of the tasks that lie before us and start in to execute those tasks, let the chips fall where they will. Shoot the crows at sunrise. Make sure, Mr. Speaker, that 
every gun, every bit of ammunition, every tank, every ship, every plane, every man, and every dollar are placed at the disposal of democracy and used where democracy is fighting for its life. The front line of democracy to-day is in Britain, and let us help her in every possible way we can to complete the job.
The night before last I was rather intrigued by the closing lines of a radio address by Mr. Farrell in the "Between Ourselves" series, over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's national network, and I shall delay the house long enough to read them because the sentiments expressed in these verses have moved me to make some of the remarks I have made to-night. Let us all say in the words of this verse:
For all we have and are,
For all our children's fate,
Stand up ,and take the war,
The Hun is at the gate!
Our world has passed away In wantonness o'erthrown,
There is nothing left to-day But steel and fire and stone!
Though all we knew depart,
The old Commandments stand:-
'In courage keep your heart,
In strength lift up your hand.'
Once more we hear the word That sickened earth of old:-
'No law except the Sword Unsheathed and uncontrolled.'
No easy hope or lies
Shall bring us to our goal-
I should like to repeat that top line, "No easy hope or lies shall bring us to our goal." Those easy hopers and wishful thinkers to my mind are worse than the fifth-columnists. No easy hope, for we are in a grim business. We have work to do:
No easy hope or lies Shall bring us to our goal,
But iron sacrifice Of body, will, and soul.
There is but one task for all-
One life for each to give.
What stands if Freedom fall?
Who dies if England lives?


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I am not going to attempt to follow the eloquence of the last speaker (Mr. Harris, Danforth), but I should like to touch on one or two of the points discussed this afternoon by the members of the opposition on the committee.
First of all, it was suggested that in setting up the committee we should have followed what was done in England where there was, it was said, equality of representation on the committee; or, in other words, as many

War Expenditures Committee-Report
members of the opposition group on the committee as members of the government. I have looked at the composition of the British committee and of our own committee, and I find that in the committee of this house, where we have 184 Liberals, there are eighteen Liberals on the committee; there are thirty-nine Conservatives in the house, and four Conservatives on the committee; there are ten of the New Democracy group in the house, and one member on the committee; there are eight members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the house, and they also have one member on the committee. If we followed the suggestion that was made by members of the opposition we would have as many Conservatives as Liberals on the committee except for the chairman.
Mr. GREEN; If I might interrupt the hon. member, my suggestion on that point was that the total opposition strength in the committee should be the same as the government strength, with the exception of the chairman and vice-chairman. My suggestion was not that there should be as many Conservatives as Liberals.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: But other members of the opposition did not suggest that.
Let me now go briefly over the composition of the British committee. In the British house there are 387 Conservatives, and eighteen Conservatives on the committee; fifty-four Liberals, including the National Liberals, in the house, and there are three on the committee; there are 162 Labour members in the house, and eleven on the committee, and there is one member, Mr. Edwards, whose party I could not ascertain. Therefore we here in Canada have approximately followed the plan that was followed in England of representation by parties. If we look at the numerical strength of their parties, it will be seen that we have followed just about the same plan in the composition of our committee.
If we follow the reasoning of the opposition, we are required to assume that because a man happens to be a Liberal member of this house, there is something about him which disqualifies him from serving on a committee. This, it seems, is because the people of Canada happened to elect a large number of Liberals. After all, it was not the Conservatives who elected the Liberals; they were placed here by the people of Canada, and it is hard to understand why, because they happen to be members of a majority group, they cannot fulfil their duties or exert the privilege they have of serving the country on this committee. Such an argument altogether offends one's sense of fairness; for, after all, what can



H873-238

[Stage Direction]
be fairer than to give hon. members the right to serve in the proportion that the people have elected them to this house?
A word about the subcommittees. It has been suggested that in the old country their composition is so balanced that there cannot be any partisanship or any flavour of politics about the membership. Let us see how they are composed. There are eight subcommittees, and with your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall briefly indicate their composition:
Coordinating subcommittee:	five Conservatives, one Labour,	one Liberal,	one
National Liberal.
Army	services:	five	Conservatives,	one
Labour.
Naval	service:	three	Conservatives,	one
National Labour, one Liberal, one, I think, a Socialist.
Air services:	three Conservatives, two
Labour.
Supply sendees: four Conservatives, one National Labour, one Labour.
Home	defence:	three	Conservatives,	two
Labour, one Liberal.
Trade, agriculture and economic warfare: three Conservatives, one Liberal Nationalist; one Labour.
Transport: four Conservatives, two Labour.
I find there no attempt to balance the membership of either the large committee or the subcommittees. Such a matter was never thought of over there. Members of the British parliament are given credit for having enough sense of fairness and justice to give impartial consideration to any and all matters when they are appointed to these committees. I do not take kindly the suggestion that because an hon. member happens to be a member of this group or that, he cannot give of his best in the present struggle and in our attempt to save every dollar and to see that a dollar's worth of service is given where a dollar is spent.
The next suggestion made by the opposition is that the proceedings of our committees should be open. They do not go to the British system to find arguments for that contention. In point of fact we go farther in this direction than they do in England. Opposition members in particular have been arguing that, because these committees operate in secret, there is something about them which should be looked upon with suspicion. Let me read a resolution passed by our main- Canadian-committee.	The wording is
important:
That the sittings of the subcommittee shall be in camera except as the subcommittee may otherwise from time to time determine.
[Stage Direction]
3770	COMMONS
War Expenditures Committee-Report
I hold in my hand the report of the select committee for the sessions 1940-41 of the British parliament. It happens to be their fifteenth report, and at page 7 is this statement:
The subcommittee shall sit in private.
There is no provision whereby the English committee can sit openly from time to time if they so decide. Subcommittees there have not the power to hold an open meeting. It is a strange kind of argument which we heard, for example, from the last speaker, who said that he attended a number of committee meetings and that they were open, while the opposition speaker just before him argued that their party cannot continue to cooperate in this movement for efficiency of expenditures because the committees are meeting in camera. One contradicts the other. The committees and the subcommittees have the power to hold open meetings when they believe that the public welfare or the general good will be enhanced by so doing. There is no such power in the old country.
Let not the people of Canada be deceived by the notion that there is something suspicious about secret meetings of committees, that the members who serve on these committees have ulterior motives, that they have done something which should not have been done. Such conclusions are entirely wrong. We hear from the opposition that we should follow the English lead; the leader of the opposition himself (Mr. Hanson) suggested that these committees should adopt the English plan. Yet, when we follow that plan, and go even a step farther, we are accused of "muffling" practices, of doing things which should not be done, of standing for things which should not be tolerated.
Another criticism which rather disgusted me was the suggestion that steam-rollers were brought in and put into high gear. One might think that this committee was building highways. or crushing stone or something of that kind. Reference was made to "political pressure". It is my conviction, recalling the speeches of opposition members to-day, that I have heard more talk of politics and partisanship in this committee from speakers in half an hour to-day than I heard in the month I served on the committee. It is my recollection, and I give it as such, that the only member who indulged in any partisan talk on the committee was the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who obtruded it on several occasions. At no time did I hear any Liberal member mention politics. I can say the same for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit representatives-the more credit to them.

Therefore, looking at this picture, I hope the country will not get the impression that there was a "scrap", as one hon. member remarked this afternoon. I have never attended a more friendly committee than the subcommittee upon which I served. We never took a vote; we never disagreed. There were two Conservatives and three Liberals, and we got along beautifully. I believe the same can be truly said of all the subcommittees. Contrary to the impression which has been spread here to-day that there was a lot of confusion and "scrapping", it is my recollection, which I am giving because I do not want the wrong impression to go out, that nothing of the sort took place.
It is unfortunate that the situation which exists now should have arisen. Suppose we go back a few months to the time when the leader of the opposition suggested the setting up of this committee. He gave as his reason the fact that expenditures made by the government bad to Be watched in the interest of the public. But what do we find now. One member after another of the opposition rises in his place and, for one reason or another, objects to the motion before the house being adopted, thus virtually breaking down the very fabric on which the committee is to carry on. One suggests that it should split up into territorial committees; another says that we should reduce the number; another says that we are not going at it in the right way; another says that it is too partisan; another says that there is not sufficient aggressiveness. Take all these and other representations that have been made, and you cannot come to any otheT conclusion than that they do not want the committee to carry on as it is. I give that as my frank understanding and impression.
Let us see what has happened. The leader of the opposition said that there were a good many expenditures, that a great deal of money was being spent and that a committee should be appointed. Very well; the government agrees. But what do we find to-day? They want the committee stopped. I say to the Canadian people that that is a good omen of what is happening in the departments if the purpose of the appointment of the committee, as was originally intended, is being made effective; that is to say, if they have to take the stand that expenditures have been fair, that there has been no extravagance or waste, then there is nothing further for the committee to do and their attitude can be understood. If they do not take that attitude, then they must adopt the alternative, which I cannot think they are prepared to adopt- that is, that they do not want to see economy in expenditures made.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
I suggest to the opposition that they should close their ranks. Let them consider the suggestion their own leader made. Let them reflect that this is a creation of their own party, which came about just because they suggested it; and instead of one member of the opposition offering one criticism and someone else another criticism, let them close their ranks. Let them be of one mind. There is no place in Canada at the present time in which anyone can serve to greater advantage in the war effort than on this committee, and I hope that the members of the opposition, when they think of what has happened to-day, will see the light to-morrow, will see where their privileges and responsibilities are, and will see fit to continue the committee as it is at the present time.
Georges Parent: Shall the motion carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Motion (Mr. Thorson) agreed to on division.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
EXTENStON TO FARMERS WHO MOVE FROM TOWNSHIP AT END OF CROP SEASON
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Computation of sum awarded as assistance.
Mr. GARDINER:: Subsection 2 reads:
In an emergency year the minister may, subject as in this act provided, award to each farmer resident at November first of such year. . . .
That would mean that if he came four or five days before, he would be resident on that day. I wish to move an amendment that subsection 2 of section 1 be amended by substituting the words "resident from May first to November first of such year" for the words "resident at November first of such year".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Will the minister explain a point which has arisen in two or three cases? I have knowledge of one in particular. Someone was farming and left the farm on October 19. In this case it was a woman, and she was married on that date and apparently was cut off from the bonus because it' 14873-2381
was held that she did not qualify legally. Under this, what would be the interpretation? Would the farmer have to remain from May 1 to November 1?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that would be the interpretation. As the act now stands, the farmer is required to be there on May 1 to qualify. This means that he will have to remain until November 1, all through the summer season, in order to qualify. As the regulations stand now, no date is set, and even if he were not there in January and his payment had not been made he would not be entitled to payment, according to the interpretation given by the Department of Justice recently. This fixes a date.


Major James William Coldwell: Suppose a man left in the middle of October when his year's work was done. He would not be eligible?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. He would not be eligible, but knowing that if he remained until November 1 he would be eligible he would, I should think, remain.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter which I think should be brought to the attention of the committee. This section as now amended will amount to a discrimination against any farmer who enlists for service in the present war at any time between May 1 and November 1. An exception should be made in that regard. During the past year several men wdiom I know completed their seeding operations and stayed on the farm during the summer. They did their threshing and enlisted, and they were denied the right to participate under this act, although they had contributed-as do all farmers-one per cent of the value of their several crops during the year.
Let me mention two examples. I have in my hand a letter dated May 6, 1941, from the prairie farm assistance branch at Regina ' regarding such a case. It is addressed to myself, and I am advised that a certain person has had his second payment of bonus denied him-"cancelled" is the word used-for the reason that he had discontinued farming, having joined his majesty's forces, and that the farm was not going to be operated in 1941 by any of his dependents.
The other case I have in mind is that of a young man of my constituency who enlisted in July, 1940, and, after service overseas, returned to Canada. He had his farming operations carried on, his harvesting and so forth after he enlisted and departed for overseas, but he has been denied this bonus. The reason given by the department is that since this young man enlisted in June, 1940 -which is an error-and was therefore absent
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

during the greater part of the 1940 crop season, he was ineligible for payment. I do not think any hon. member wishes to discriminate against those who, while engaged in farming, decide to enlist in the service of their country, and I suggest that an amendment to this section and to the next section should be made so as not to apply to those who enlist in the armed forces of the country.


Major James William Coldwell: I know of several cases similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre, which I was going to bring to the attention of the house, and therefore I am glad to support the suggestion advanced by the hon. member.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is scarcely proper to suggest that there has been or may be discrimination against those who have enlisted. If we were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre we would be discriminating in favour of the soldier, although I do not say we should not do so. The interpretation of the Department of Justice as to these provisions of the act, when cases of the kind mentioned were submitted to them, was to the effect that the act was intended to provide assistance to farmers in order to help them during the winter following a poor crop. That was said to be the principle underlying the act,-to make it possible for farmers to live on their farms until another crop had been put in; and I think in all fairness it should be said that this assistance was to be given for that purpose. But the Department of Justice say that since this is the principle of the act, any person who leaves the farm is not entitled to these payments under the act as it now exists, and they could not find any way of discriminating in favour of men who enlisted. We are now proceeding on the assumption that the man who has farmed all year, who has threshed and sold his crop, probably will be on his farm at least tinitil along well into October. After that, he just requires to remain on the farm until November 1 in order to qualify under this section.
I do not wish to do anything by way of legislation that would prevent any man from enlisting even for a month or fifteen days, but it is difficult to make any further provision than is contained in this bill. I do not think it would be any great hardship to those who are seeking to promote enlistments to say to these men, "You had better wait for *another two weeks after you have marketed your crop before you enlist." In any event I am told by those administering the act that their work would be made very difficult if we attempted to discriminate at all as between different groups. We do discriminate in behalf of the soldier to this extent. We say that if he

leaves any member of his family in charge of the farm, whether it be his brother, his father, his wife, or any immediate member of the family, we pay the bonus. Therefore there are several ways in which anyone anxious to enlist can obtain these payments, and I would rather hesitate to suggest that we should go further than we have gone, although I should like to see anyone enlist whenever he wished to do so. Probably by leaving the land under the direction of some member of the family they will be able to overcome this difficulty. There may be a few cases where people will not have relatives in the vicinity who can take over the direction of their farms. Perhaps those concerned will try to carry on their operations during the summer and enlist in the fall, which will permit them to receive their payments. Under this provision, if a man is on the farm as of November 1, he is entitled not only to the first but to the second payment as well.


Mr. PERLEY:: I am glad that the hon. member for Lake Centre has brought up this question, and I was glad to hear the minister's reply. I have one or two of these cases which I was going to mention, but what has been said deals very well with the points I was going to raise. I have the case of one soldier who is having the work done on his farm by hired labour. He has no relatives in the vicinity; I think he went through the last war, and he has had to take back this land from the tenant who had it last year. What would happen in that case?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he was back on the farm before May 1 he is entitled to the payment.


Ernest Edward Perley: He is in the army now and cannot be back, but he is having the work done by a hired man.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it being done by a relative?


Ernest Edward Perley: No; the man doing the work is married and living on the farm, but the owner is supplying all the machinery and paying all expenses. How about that case?


James Garfield Gardiner: We probably would have to deal with a case of that kind under the new regulations defining a farmer or a person resident on the land. This man would not be a resident farmer under the present regulations, but it is possible the case could be handled by regulation.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have the letter here. It is not worth while reading it, but that is the situation as briefly as I can state it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are so many different types of cases that I am sure they could

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
not all be covered by legislation. The whole administration of the act is along the line of doing everything possible within the terms of the act for men who are enlisting, but unless these men try to bring themselves within the terms of the act, the matter becomes rather difficult.


Mr. FAIR:: I am glad that this amendment is being brought in at this time. I have had occasion to discuss certain cases with the minister and the officials of his department. I intended to mention those cases at this time, but I find that unnecessary in view of this amendment. In view, however, of the injustices which have been caused in the past, and in order that they might be corrected, I would suggest that the amendment be made retroactive, and I would ask the minister to give that suggestion his consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Sum to be awarded in a crop failure area.
James Garfield Gardiner: The same amendment is
being moved to this section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there any increase in the amount payable in a crop failure area? I see the figure $2.50 mentioned here.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there is no change; it is just the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Blocks ineligible for award.
Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister explain this section?


Major James William Coldwell: I am very glad to see this amendment, because we all know that a great deal of difficulty was experienced in obtaining the necessary resolutions substituting one piece of land for another. Municipal councils naturally do not like to take something out of the bonus area as well as they like to put something in it. I am glad that the minister has extended the provision so that under some circumstances a quarter of a township may be included, but I had rather hoped that when the amendment was brought down, a quarter of a township might have been the unit instead of depending upon the inclusion of other adjacent land within the area. I believe the closer we can get to the individual basis, the better it will be. During the
last several years, as the minister no doubt knows, practically all hon. members from the west have had brought to their attention cases of injustice or misfortune which could not be covered under the act, on account of the provisions of the act itself. When farmers are contributing to a fund which, many of them hope, will ultimately become a crop insurance fund, they are of the opinion with, I suggest, some reason, that when they make a contribution they should receive some benefit, if they are in a situation requiring aid.
Although this is a step in the right direction, I had hoped that the unit would have been made smaller this year, and that we might have got a little nearer to the individual basis. I know it is of no use now to suggest an amendment along those lines to the committee, but while I welcome the change in the act, one which I believe makes it fairer and better, still I hope that after another year's experience we may be able to get down to a unit smaller than the one provided under the present act.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am more or less in agreement with this section. The minister knows a good deal about the difficulty there was last year in the area from which I come, and also in certain townships in his constituency. There was difficulty particularly in the townships, the south half of which were in the Qu'Appelle valley. I might say that it affected us particularly on the south side, owing to the good land which happened to be across the valley on the north side, in the minister's constituency. In that section last year they had a very good yield of from twenty to thirty bushels to the acre. That was the common yield immediately north of our district. Then, in the greater part of the valley, on the sandy land, they did not have a crop. As a matter of fact, they were below six or seven bushels to the acre, as the minister knows. I believe it is a fine thing that there is provision whereby these areas may be taken in so that they will be included in the bonus, if the yield is at a certain point. Therefore, with that part of the bill I am in accord.
There is one other matter I would bring to the attention of the minister. I would have been pleased to see an amendment to section 8 in the act, which would have eliminated1 the limit of 3,000 bushels. There were eases last year in two municipalities in my constituency where men had over 3,000 bushels, but they did not have any more than four or five bushels to the acre. Therefore I say that they were discriminated against. I suggest that if that section of the act were amended, so as to eliminate the provision for 3,000
Prairie Farm Assistance Act

bushels, it would be an improvement. There are many instances where that section serves to discriminate against producers. It so happened that some of these men had large areas, and had over 3,000 bushels. But it worked just the same where the yield was much less than 3,000 bushels. Has the minister given consideration to amending the act in the manner I have indicated?


James Garfield Gardiner: We gave consideration
to the points raised by the hon. member, but the provision in the act was inserted just last year. It provides that any person with 3,000 bushels and an average crop in1 excess of eight bushels, is eliminated. Anyone with an average of eight bushels or under is taken in, though he has 3,000 bushels. Therefore there is provision for certain people who have low yield crops aggregating 3,000 bushels. That provision has been in only for one year. It is true that there were some hardships. Most of the complaints with which I had to do were cases which individuals could have corrected the situation had they seen fit to do so at the beginning. That is, these were family divisions which they claimed later on, and in connection with which no notification had been given in the early part of the season. Those cases could be rectified in some instances, but not in all. We thought it better to try out this provision for another year. The change now suggested will rectify most of the difficulty.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is one further matter. I was wondering whether this year, in connection with inspection, the minister could work out a system whereby the same inspectors would do the work this year as did it last year. Last year we had a different inspector in our district from the one we had the year before, and he went over the territory in a different manner. I suggest that if a man is working in one territory year after year he would know the situation, and would become familiar with the farmers and their farms. The result would be that he would do his work more quickly and efficiently than a new man could do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that
if hon. members have any objections, they might make them when we are discussing the estimates. Some of the points raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle might be more properly discussed under the estimates which I intend to call, immediately after this bill is passed. One item in my estimates has to do with prairie farm assistance expenditures. Matters such as inspection, methods of inspection, and everything of that kind might more properly be discussed under the estimates.
[Mr. Perley.3


Ernest Edward Perley: That is satisfactory.


Robert Fair: I was disappointed with section 7 in the act, as amended in 1940, on account of the strings attached to it. I do not know of one case where people benefited from the amendment made in 1940. I am also disappointed with the section 7 as suggested in this bill, because it also has strings attached to it. As soon as possible I should like either to have the strings removed, or to have the matter brought down to an individual basis.
I am also in agreement with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he suggests the removal of the 3,000 bushel limit. It is not many weeks since I made the same suggestion to the minister. I am firmly convinced that he, too, believes it should be removed. Apparently, however, as in other cases, some of his colleagues do not think as he does. I hope his colleagues may possibly give some greater attention to a fair deal, and have this limitation removed before the summer passes. It has been there for one year, and in my opinion that is one year too long. I should hope to see it removed before another session comes round.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to add my
observations to those which have already been made in favour of the amendments. I believe they are all to the good. In the part of the province from which I come we did not come under this act until last year when, owing to frost in that section of the province, certain areas came within the scope of the act I was in hopes that the minister would bring in an amendment whereby in areas where grain was frozen and the price was very low, the number of bushels to the acre would be raised, to permit the farmers to come under the act. Instead of four, eight and twelve, I suggest that in respect of frozen grain, which has only about half the value of No. 1 wheat, this might be raised to eight, twelve and sixteen bushels. Has the minister given consideration to that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have, but the difficulty with legislation of this kind is, as hon. members are aware, that it is new legislation. I do not know of any other place where similar legislation is in effect. We had no experience to start with; we had to build up something entirely new. Our fear at the beginning was that every condition put into the legislation would increase the cost of administration, and we thought it would be quite easy to get the administrative costs so high that the legislation would be objectionable to government authorities generally. We have been trying to avoid that. To put in a condition to provide payment on other than a crop yield basis, on

Supply-Agriculture
the basis of wheat grades-if wheat were frozen and reduced to No. 4, a man would require to have more bushels-there would be so much in the way of added inspection costs that in due course that kind of thing would kill the legislation.
That was what was in our minds when we hesitated to do what was suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). They suggested that we use the quarter township right through. As you decrease the area taken as the unit, you increase the cost as well as the number of complaints. Most of our complaints are in connection with border-line cases. If you divide your township into four quarters, you have about 50 per cent more boundary line. The boundary lines are drawn down to such small proportions that you will have more farmers with land on both sides of the line. You will then run into trouble all the way round. It will also require extra inspection and extra checking and correspondence. All this would increase the cost of administration to a level where there would be criticism as to the cost.
One of the reasons why I feel that probably we made a mistake in inserting the 3,000 bushel provision last year is the fact that it has increased our inspection and administration costs. They will be almost double this year. If we go on doubling our costs of administration by inserting provisions that look reasonable on their faces, we shall eventually have the cost up so high and the criticism of the legislation will be so great that we shall probably lose it in the end. It is better to try to keep the costs of administration down to a reasonable point.
I went through the experience in 1914 and 1915 of establishing hail insurance legislation in western Canada. Hon. members who were in the west at that time will recall that there was far more criticism of that legislation than there is of this. But to-day one never hears any criticism. As people learn the regulations, as they learn what the legislation provides for. they fit their circumstances accordingly and cease to criticize. We are having the same experience with this legislation.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Could the minister tell us if consideration is being given to the resolutions which have been sent in asking that this scheme be put on an individual basis? Could he tell the committee the amount of money that has been paid under the one per cent, and the amount spent by the government in administering the scheme.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have all that information ready to give on the estimates.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Were any payments made last year under section 7?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall have that too.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: It seems to me that if we have a measure with no strings attached, we shall have a peculiar state of affairs. This amendment reduces the area, but the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) has said that he would like to see this put on an individual, basis. If you do that, you certainly will be placing a premium on poor farming.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.
SO. Special. Prairie Farm Assistance Act, $500,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister explain the increase in this item, and perhaps make a short statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the reason a few moments ago when we were considering the bill. On acount of the changes made last year in the legislation, increased inspection has been necessary.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister should try to reduce his staff of inspectors. I mentioned this a few minutes ago when we were considering the bill. To "hange the staff from one district to another does not facilitate the proper carrying on of this work. The municipalities could be used to a greater extent in making these field inspections; the secretaries and clerks could do much of this work. These field men and supervisors have been on the job quite a while, and there could be a considerable saving in this regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps it would be just as well if I were to place on the record the particulars of the staff of last year. The details are:
Salaries Expenses
X superintendent	 $ 4,000
1 assistant superintendent 2,700
8	supervisors at $1,800. .. .	14,400
9	assistant supervisors at
$1,620	 14,580
79 stenographers and clerks
at $2.50 a day		40,062
$	876 08
945 83 11,088 83
12,359 23
It will be noted by these figures that the stenographers and clerks do not work the
Supply-Agriculture

whole year round. As a matter of fact, we have only thirty permanent stenographers and clerks. During the season, while reports are coming in, we call in an extra number of girls, mostly from round the city of Regina where the office is located, and they work anywhere from two to three weeks up to two to three months in the summer. The largest number at any one time was fifty-three, and the total number of permanent stenographers and clerks is thirty. Permanent in this case means just what it says. They are working the whole year round, while the others are not.
We have 281 inspectors at $5 a day, and the total amount which was paid to them in salaries was $103,920, and $113,245.02 in expenses. The largest number employed at any one time was 250 in October. If we take that number of inspectors at $5 a day, it will be found that the average time they were employed was about seventy-four days, or a little over two months. Therefore when it is said that there are 281 inspectors, it does not mean they are working all the year. The permanent staff consists of one superintendent and one assistant, eight supervisors and nine assistants, thirty stenographers and clerks. The others are all part-time employees tvho are put on during the rush season in the summer.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to add my support to the submission of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle respecting a reduction in the present staff. I realize that there would be an increase in the administrative staff for the reason given by the minister, but I do not think that explanation is tenable so far as the inspectors are concerned. At a time like the present, when there should be conservation of our resources, the minister ought to make a special effort to reduce these expenses by placing more and more power in the control of the secretaries of the rural municipalities, who have the necessary data before them when the farmer comes to the municipality to secure his permit.
In connection with the inspectors I notice that one inspector, N. W. Berglund, of Melville, received a salary of $645, which means that he worked 109 days, and his expenses were $1,257.87, or an average of $11.50 a day. That seems to be an excessive amount of expenses.
I should like to deal for a moment with the regulations in effect under the provisions of the act. The act makes provision for every farmer contributing one per cent of the amount that he receives. I feel that the regulations should not be so drawn as to limit the purview of the application of the act. I am

going to refer to three regulations that were passed which limit the meaning of the word "farmer" as defined in the act. "Farmer" is defined in the act as "a person engaged in farming in the spring wheat area". But in the regulations the connotation of the term has been greatly modified. Section 8 of the regulations provides:
No person shall be considered to be a farmer under the act unless (1) he is owner or tenant of a farm from May 1 to November 1 in any year. . . ,
All of us know that there are written leases as well as verbal leases, but under the administration of this act farmers all over western Canada have been denied their bonus on account of the fact that their leases in writing were dated after May 1, in spite of the fact that they had a verbal lease prior to that date.
Next is subsection 2 of section 8 of the regulations which provides that no one can receive a bonus, even though he is a farmer, unless he lives on the farm and his primary occupation is farming, or he lives not more than twenty miles away from the farm and has no other occupation than farming. I know of instances-I have the particulars with me-of farmers who are engaged in other occupations who have received the bonus, and yet in other cases the regulations have been applied to prevent persons in a similar category from receiving the bonus.
Subsection 5 of section 8 provides that a person residing with a parent or a brother of the full age of twenty years and operating a farm as a separate unit, and the farm consisting of at least a quarter-section of land, shall be denied the bonus. There is no reason at all why a young man under twenty years of age who is farming his land should be denied the bonus, but he is to-day. The regulations as they are presently constituted abrogate the definition of "farmer" as it appears in the statute. Changes should be made in those regulations because they are most unfair and most discriminatory against bona fide farmers who under the act are entitled to the bonus, but under the regulations are not.
I would suggest that the recommendations made 'by the legislature of Saskatchewan should be brought into effect, and immediately, in order to do away with anomalies and inconsistencies in the administration of the act. The recommendations made by the legislature of Saskatchewan are as follows, and in those recommendations I concur:
(a)	That the bonus be paid on the individual farm unit or, as an alternative, that provision be made whereby a township can be divided into two or more parts for the purpose of paying the bonus awards.

Supply-Agriculture
The objections to this regulation have to some extent been met as a result of the amendment introduced to-day. Then paragraph (b):
(b)	That subsection (b) of section 8 of the act be deleted.
(c)	That sections 3 and 4 in the act be made obligatory instead of permissive.
(d)	Repeal of the regulations under which dispossessed farmers are unable to receive bonus payment until they have signed a lease for the following year, such provision to include those who have enlisted in the armed forces and to be made retroactive to cover the 1940 crop.
I have already dealt with that phase of the matter, what I have called the discrimination against those who to-day are enlisting in the service of their country, which places them in a position where, unless they stay on their farms from the 1st of May to the 1st of November, they are denied participation in the fund.
(e)	Repeal of regulation prohibiting bonus payment to farmers who were in occupation of their farms previous to May 1, but who were unable to secure written lease until after May 1, this to apply to the 1940 crop.
(f)	Granting request of rural municipal council for reinspection to determine eligibility of bonus, this to be made retroactive for the 1940 crop.
(g)	That adequate representation be given to the producers on any board or commission appointed for the purpose of administration of this act.
I should like to have a statement from the minister as to whether the resolution passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan has been brought to his attention and what decision has been made by the government with respect to the implementation thereof.
I have referred to the regulations and their unfairness in interfering with the act and its application. That is not my opinion alone; it was the opinion of members of the legislature belonging to the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, who themselves introduced the resolution in the house and asked that these inconsistencies to which I have referred should be removed.
Mr. Danielson, the member for Arm River, said this:
The regulations were unreasonable, and they were . . . drafted by men who had not the least idea of what a western farm is like.
The newspaper report of his speech then is as follows:-
He stated further that the intent and purpose of the parliament of Canada when it passed the act were being thwarted by a bureaucratic and plutocratic civil service. He asserted that his remarks were not to be interpreted as a reflection upon the man in charge for he was doing his level best to carry on a difficult task, made difficult by unreasonable regulations drawn up by men who did not know whit they were doing.
Would the minister explain to the committee what the intention of the government -is in so for as the alteration of these regulations is concerned, so that the inconsistencies in administration may be done away with?
A great deal of good has been done under this legislation. I realize the difficulties of the minister, starting in a new field, but I think that now, after the experience of two years or more, the time is come when these regulations should be altered.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just following the last remarks, I have here the regulations, and each one of these blue tabs represents an amendment. In the last two years we. have revised them nine different times, so that I can assure the hon. member that they are being revised from time to time as we have experience with them.
I read the recommendations of the Saskatchewan legislature shortly after they were passed, as they were sent to me. I do not happen to have them on my desk at the moment, and I do not know that I can remember them all. But, as was suggested, the first one refers to the question which was brought up by hon. members when the bill was in the house, namely, whether we should inspect all individual cases. I wish only to say with regard to that what I said when the bill was brought into the house in the first instance, and what our experience since has justified me in saying. I do not think this legislation would stay on the statute books for three years if we attempted to investigate all the individual cases. Those who recommend that have no idea at all of the principles of this act or how it was intended to operate. Their impression is that this measure was introduced for the purpose of giving assistance to wheat growers. The bill was not brought in for that purpose at all. Its object was to help those who were living in the drought areas, no matter what they were producing, so as .to assist them through the difficult drought period. In many of those districts farmers should be encouraged to decrease wheat acreage, or to get partly out of wheat growing and partly into something else. In other areas that would n'ot be the proper thing to encourage them to do; they are probably growing wheat to as good advantage as they could produce anything else. But if we were to place the act on an individual basis instead of the basis it is now on, we would have to inspect every individual case, and not only that, but we would have to take an inventory of everything the farmer produced on his farm during the year. To try to operate legislation of this kind on that basis, would simply make it altogether inoperative.

Supply-Agriculture

Wheat is used in connection with this legislation only as a measuring stick. We take a township of land, six miles square, and we say that if the yield of wheat in that area is under twelve bushels to the acre, they have had bad weather, and the bad weather is responsible for the low yield. We use wheat to determine the farming conditions in that area, and the man who grows no wheat at all in that area will have just as poor a crop of grass, or coarse grain, or something else, or will have just as difficult a time pasturing his cattle, as the man has who is growing the twelve bushels or less of wheat. We simply go over the area and say, because the average yield of wheat in that area is less than twelve bushels to the acre the farmer requires some assistance, and then we provide the assistance. The intention of this act to begin with was that we would pay assistance to every individual in that area.
My hon. friend over here, who does not farm in the west but in the east, struck the nail right on the head when he said that if you start to deal with individual cases on the basis of wheat acreage and wheat yield, you will put all of the good farmers out from under this act almost any year. The good farmers in those districts, particularly, let us say, in the central part of Saskatchewan, the northern part of Manitoba, and through the central and northern part of Alberta, are carrying on mixed farming, and they grow whatever wheat they do grow only in order to get a more or less sure cash crop, and they grow it on a comparatively small acreage, the best acreage they have-that is, best in preparation for that particular year's production. Such a man may grow twenty bushels to the acre of wheat, or he may grow even thirty bushels on a small acreage, and the remainder of his crop, which is a coarse grain crop put in on spring ploughing and his grass may all be poor because of poor moisture conditions during the latter part of June and July. He is more completely up against it, because he has live stock for which he has no feed, than even the wheat grower alongside him who grew nothing but wheat and got ten bushels to the acre in that particular year.
I say again that wheat is used only as a measuring stick, and to carry out this legislation under individual inspections would be absolutely impossible. The costs of carrying it out in that way would be so great that in three or four years' time this house would not maintain this legislation on the statute books.
The alternative proposal is the one we adopted this evening in the legislation. The legislature said, "Do one thing or the other."

We have undertaken to do the other, but we have not gone as far as the legislature suggested. They suggested that we reduce the units to the quarter township. When you go into a solid block of forty municipalities and the inspector drives over that and finds that it is all under twelve bushels, there is no necessity of going down farther than the complete area, although for convenience we divide the area into townships for administration. Sometimes there is an area round the rim, where there are better crop areas, and that is where all the inspection and checking have to be done. When we make that inspection and checking on the border-line, we take in or throw out quarter townships under the new legislation. We not only take in quarters out of the corner of the township, but we provide that a quarter township or more, so long as it is rectangular, shall come in as a separate township if it is under ten bushels to the acre. We have taken the alternative suggested by the legislature, and applied it as far as we can.
The second proposal is that paragraph (b) of section 8 of the act be deleted. That has to do with the 3,000 bushels, and we have decided not to delete it. The next is that sections 3 and 4 of the act be made obligatory instead of permissive. To all intents and purposes they are obligatory. The question that arises there is the same one that was under discussion between the leader of the opposition and myself early in the session in connection with another bill-that is, as to whether "may" means "shall" in certain cases. When this legislation was before the house at an earlier date, the same matter was under discussion. The then leader of the opposition Mr. Bennett, on the first occasion when it was discussed, took the position which I took earlier this session. When I took that position earlier in this session, the leader of the opposition checked it and sent me the book to indicate that Mr. Bennett had been right because, after all, I was quoting Mr. Bennett when I made the statement that in these cases "may" does mean "shall," and that these sections are obligatory. In other words, if all the conditions of the legislation are met in the area, then payment is made, and there is no way by which the minister can get out of making it.
Further, it is recommended that the regulations be repealed under which dispossessed farmers are unable to receive bonus payment. There is nothing in the regulations about it. A dispossessed farmer was refused payment, apparently, if he was put off the farm through foreclosure proceedings before he had received

Provincial Income and. Corporation Taxes
payment. Under the amendments brought in to-night he would lose payment only if he were put off the -farm before November 1, and hon. members will agree that it is not very often that farmers are removed from the land in the summer months when they are going on with their farming operations. The courts usually take care of that. The farmer will get by the first of November and receive payment if he is on the land from May 1 to November 1.
The next has reference to repeal of the regulations prohibiting bonus payment to farmers who were not in occupation of their farms prior to May 1. Of course, the difficulty which was discussed a few moments ago before this was read is involved in that suggestion. The provision now is, and has been since the act was first put on the statute books, that a man must be in control of the land by the 1st of May. The first year we allowed that to go even by word of mouth so long as they could establish it. The second year we stated that there must be a written contract. We had run into some difficulties because contracts were not signed until after the 1st of May, but in actual practice we have ruled that if a man can establish that he was living on the place on the 1st of May we make payment. It is true they were denied payment in the first instance, when they made their claims, if the contract read at a date later than May 1, but those who have come back and can prove that they were actually operating the land before the 1st of May, or on the 1st of May, have been allowed payment; and if any others have not been paid and are in the same position, they can prove their right to payment.


John George Diefenbaker: Suppose a farmer had a verbal lease whereby he was to have possession from the 1st of May, but his lease in writing was dated the 3rd of May and he did not go into possession until the 3rd of May? Would he be entitled to the bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: He would not; but I suggest that if such a person, when legislation of this kind has been on the statute books for two years, and after all the discussion to which it has been subject, finds himself in such a position, the legislation cannot look after him. It will not take care of individuals who will not come in two or three days earlier in order to get claims which they later intend to make.
14873-239J


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister come back to the statement-


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Finance would like to bring in an item if we can suspend this discussion for a moment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941-43

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31. 1942 was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
James Lorimer Ilsley: In tabling these estimates, I should perhaps say a word or two in explanation of the item relating to the proposal to the provinces to vacate the personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war, ia ' order that there may be no misunderstanding aibout what is intended. It is estimated that if all provinces accept the proposal, the annual payments to them in accordance with the formula which I described in the budget speech will amount to approximately $80,000,000. It was never anticipated that the payments to be made by the dominion in the current fiscal year would be as much as this because of the lag or interval which will occur before existing provincial tax revenues stop coming in. Our original thought was that the dominion's payments to the provinces might begin towards the end of the present calendar year, but after discussing the matter with the representatives of a number of the provinces who have been in Ottawa, we reached the conclusion that a more accurate and uniform procedure would be necessary. Accordingly the intention is to date the arrangements with the provinces from the beginning of their present fiscal years. The dominion will deduct from the amounts which would otherwise be paid to them the taxes which the provinces and their municipalities collect after the beginning of the provinces' present fiscal years which apply to incomes of the year 1940 or prior years, or which are based upon the taxpayers' operations or status in the year 1940 or prior years. Without a provision of this sort the provinces would receive in their 1941-42 fiscal year payments from the dominion equivalent to their previous year's tax collections, and in addition they would collect a substantial amount of taxes which they themselves levied on incomes of 1940 and prior years.
Questions

The amount which will be withheld by the dominion under the proposed procedure will be paid over to the provinces in the year following the termination of the agreement and will provide funds for provincial requirements during the interval which will occur before new provincial tax revenues begin to come in.
I am planning to answer the questions put to me at the beginning of last week by the leader of the opposition (Mr, Hanson) when this item in the estimates is being considered in committee, but I thought this brief explanation was desirable at this stage in order to prevent any possible misunderstanding or misconception of what is proposed.
It being three minutes past eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 11, 1941.