1941-03-07

Mr. SPEAKER:: On Wednesday last,
March 5, I was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to take into consideration standing order 41 and give an interpretation particularly of paragraphs 315 and 316 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which deal with the question of the reading of documents and whether these documents should: be laid on the table. When the hon. member made the suggestion I indicated that it was not the function of the chair to give advice to hon. members but rather that the Speaker was required to judge and interpret the rules of the house on any question raised in the course of a debate or in its proceedings.
The hon. member had in mind the discussion which took place that day and which had just been completed, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), in the course of which she read a letter received from a correspondent. It might be well to state to
the house the rule governing questions of privilege. It has been well stated in May's Parliamentary Practice, 13th edition, page 317: The house is always willing to extend its indulgence when an honourable member wishes to clear up any misrepresentation of his character: but that indulgence ought to be strictly limited to such misrepresentations, and ought not to extend to any observations other than by way of correction.
It was not necessary for me to give a decision during the discussion for the reason that the hon. member for North Battleford agreed >to lay on the table the letter which she read.
There is no doubt as to the parliamentary rule which requires a minister of the crown who refers to a public document in the house and upon it bases an argument or assertion. That document, if called for, must be produced. The principle involved in such a proceeding is so obvious and reasonable that there does not seem to be any room for argument. It is the principle established in courts of law which prevents counsel from quoting documents which have not been produced in evidence. It has however been held that a demand for production and' filing of any document should be made immediately and not at a subsequent sitting of the house.
There is no standing order which governs the quoting of private communications and we are guided mainly by custom and precedents. I have no doubt in my mind as to the decision I would have rendered with regard to the portion of the letter which the hon. member for North Battleford read into the records on Wednesday last. The contents of that letter are so serious that unless the hon. member, as such member, assumed responsibility for it, then, as Speaker of the house, I would have asked the hon. member to lay the letter on the table of the house or, alternatively, I would have sought the consent of the house that it should be laid on the table. However, the hon. member took the proper course in laying the letter on the table.
It will be noticed that in the letter there is a serious statement concerning an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of the departments of government; that it refers specifically to a function of government of a most contentious and delicate character in these war years, namely, the question of internment, and by reason of the publication of the portion of letter in Hansard, it may be properly considered of the nature of a public document. That is all the more reason why it should have been laid on the table and it might have been retained as a parliamentary paper.
It may not be, in other cases of a like nature, so easy to interpret the rules of the
Housing

house. For instance, an unsigned letter should not be read in the house. Mr. Speaker Lemieux so decided on May 16, 1928. Or a member may desire to summarize information contained in a communication, but the member giving the summary must take the responsibility, as a member of this house, for the correctness of the information he or she seeks to give. If an hon. member proposes to read a communication in its entirety, or even a portion, without divulging the name and address of the sender and the member refuses to take the responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the contents, I am clearly of opinion that such a communication should be laid upon the table, and particularly if so desired by any member of the house. In the present case I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that an hon. member is not entitled to read from communications unless prepared to place them on the table of the house. The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the house, the house itself is entitled to the same information as the hon. member who may quote the document.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question either of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) or both-I am not sure to whom the question should properly be directed.
I have observed in the press a number of dispatches relating to the institution of a large-scale housing project to meet the serious housing shortage existing in certain districts of Canada. This house has not been given any information respecting the government's proposals in this regard. Time and again I have emphasized that when this house is in session announcements of important proposals such as this should be made by the responsible minister in this house rather than communicated directly to the press.
I would ask the minister responsible for the proposed housing programme to give us at once or as soon as reasonably possible a full and detailed statement of the government's plans in this matter.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: For some weeks it has become

apparent that in a certain few localities the work of the department is being seriously handicapped by a lack of housing accommodation. In one or two cities it has become utterly impossible to attract the required number of workmen on account of the housing shortage. To meet that situation it has been decided to establish a housing corporation, a wholly owned government company, and Mr. Joseph Pigott has been appointed president of the corporation. Associated with him are six other directors whose names I have not before me at the moment. This corporation has taken over the studies which have been made by officers of the Department of Finance with respect to the housing problem, and it is expected that the corporation will make recommendations to the government shortly as to the best methods of meeting the most urgent situations.
I should like to emphasize that this is not a general housing project but is confined solely to housing that is found necessary for the successful prosecution of the munitions programme.



AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), who I am sorry is not in his seat at the moment. Has an investigation been made into the situation with respect to the Eastern Passage airport contracts, where over $3,000,000 is involved? If so, has a report been made to the minister or to the government, and will a copy of the report be tabled?
I may add that this is in relation to certain questions which were asked early in December and regarding which a return was brought down in February. It is important that we have this information while the war appropriation measure is before the house.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As my hon. friend has mentioned, the Minister of National Defence for Air is not in the house at the moment, and I would therefore ask my hon. friend to let his question stand as a notice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Until
Monday?


James Layton Ralston: I would expect so.

War Appropriation Bill



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 6, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $1,300,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: Mr. Chairman, at the close of the proceedings last night I stated to the committee that I had dealt with the greater part of what I wished to say with regard to the registration of the human resources of Canada. There were one or two activities with which I did not deal at any length, merely mentioning them, on which I should like to say a few more words to-day.
First, there is the matter of the national registration of the young men who were afterwards called up or are being called up as recruits under the national war services regulations of 1940. Under these regulations, established under the authority of the National Resources Mobilization Act, all male British subjects between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years inclusive, who are unmarried or widowers without child or children and who have been ordinarily resident in Canada since September 1, 1939, are liable during the continuation of the state of war now existing to be called out for military training for the purpose of the defence and security of Canada. The period of military training and the age class or classes to be called out are determined by proclamation of the governor in council.
For the purpose of calling out men for military training, Canada has been divided into thirteen administrative divisions, corresponding approximately to the military districts of the Department of National Defence. A board of three members, the chairman of which is a judge of the court of the district in which the administrative division is located, is entrusted with the application of the regulations in each administrative division.
The official immediately concerned with the actual calling-out of men is the divisional registrar. Upon receipt of a requisition from the Department of National Defence indicating the number of men required for military
training in each administrative division, divisional registrars proceed to notify men for medical examination who are in the age class or classes rendered subject to call by proclamation. The selection of such men is made proportionately from all parts of the division. Men so notified may report to any duly licensed medical practitioner, which means that any man may go to his family doctor if he so desires. The appointment of all qualified doctors as examining physicians under the regulations was decided upon after consulting with the Canadian Medical Association. May I say here that the medical profession of Canada has responded whole-heartedly to this call for national service and that the examining physicians have performed their duties conscientiously and efficiently.
In order to obtain the number of men required to attend the several military training centres of the Department of National Defence, it is necessary for the divisional registrars to notify a number substantially larger than the one called for, in order to take care of those who are categorized as temporarily and permanently unfit for military training, and also of those who, for reasons of seasonal occupations or essential employment in war industries, cannot be called out for a particular period of training. For the first three periods of military training, the number of men categorized lower than C. 1 averaged 23-1 per cent of the total number of men called out for medical examination. This ratio is well within the percentage of medical rejections to be normally expected in such a large scale medical examination.
I recall that in the discussion which took place in the house a few days ago it was indicated that a considerable number of the men who did report to camp were afterwards found to be not physically fit, a larger number than probably would have been expected had we had some experience in matters of this kind.
The second step in bringing men to the training centres is to select from the thousands of medical reports received from the examining physicians in each administrative division the men who come within the medical categories accepted for training by the Department of National Defence. The men selected are then notified by the divisional registrar to report, on a stated date, to the officer commanding a stated training centre.
tEVIDED EDITION
War Appropriation Bill

The divisional registrar encloses with the "notice-military training" warrants for trans-portatien, meals, and/or lodging as may be required. Upon arriving at the training centre the men are again examined by the military doctors and, if found medically fit, are accepted for military training. From the moment they are accepted at the military training centre, the men cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of National War Services, because they are enrolled in the reserve of the' Canadian army.
It is important that this should be understood. because continuously we have inquiries from hon. members and others with regard to matters which really come under the Department of National Defence. The men are more or less under the Department of National War Services from the time the call goes *>ut to them to report to the physician, until such time as they have been accepted in a military training camp; from that time on, they are under the control of the Department of National Defence.
That, I think, is all that it is necessary for me to say with regard to the activities of the Department of National War Services in connection with the calling up of men. Any questions which hon. members may have with regard to costs and all matters of that kind can be dealt with when we are in committee on the amounts estimated as necessary during the coming year.


Mr. SENN:: There recently appeared in the press a notice that farmers' sons of certain categories would have their training postponed until the fall months. Will it be necessary for these young men to be called up and then go before the board for exemption, or will they be called up at all until the end of that period?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would prefer not to answer that question to-day. Probably I can answer it on Monday. The regulations have not been finally reviewed by the Minister of National Defence and myself as Minister of National War Services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In that
same category is the question of students in universities. The minister may not be able to answer at the moment with respect to that, but I think it ought, if possible, to be answered at the same time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. They are in
exactly the same category; and as soon as the regulations are passed by the Minister
fMr. Gardiner.]
of National Defence and myself, they will be laid on the table so that everyone can see them.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Another class consists of
those who, being skilled workmen, are now employed in -war industries. Would some delay or some kind of exemption be allowed to them?


James Garfield Gardiner: My answer to the other two questions applies also to that of the hon. member. All these matters will be covered in the regulations, which, I expect, we shall be able to bring down early in the week.
One other matter to which I wish to refer, and which is under the Department of National War Services, has to do with voluntary services. It will be recalled that when the department was set up there were five organizations which were doing auxiliary work for the Department of National Defence, and it was stated at that time that instead of having five different appeals for funds made to the people of Canada, attempts should be made to have these appeals made all at one time and in one organized effort. At the time it was suggested this should be done, some of these organizations had already set out to make their appeal to the public, that was at the end of last year. One of them, the Red Cross, had gone so far with their preparations that it was not thought wise then to attempt, in the short time left, to get these organizations all working together in a common effort, and it was finally decided that the Red Cross should go ahead with their drive. Later on, it was thought wise that the other organizations should combine in one drive in the spring of this year, and that has been arranged for the 24th of March next.
I should like to give the committee an outline of the activities in that regard up to the moment.
Administration of the War Charities Act. The object of this act is to provide a measure of control and regulation of the voluntary efforts of organizations throughout Canada, in their desire to raise money for war and charitable purposes. Any organization which makes an appeal to the public for donations or subscriptions in money or in kind, or any war charity fund which attempts to do so by sponsoring a bazaar or any other entertainment for that purpose, must be registered

War Appropriation Bill
under the act. From the time the act was assented to on September 13, 1939, up to February 25, 1941, some 907 central funds have been so registered. In addition to these, 739 branch funds have been registered under the central fund. This means, for example, that the national Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, is registered as a central fund, and many of its branches are also registered. The great majority of applications come from responsible groups or organizations. Upon investigation, certificates are issued to such organizations. Unfortunately some of the applications come from individuals or groups whose main object seems to be to gain some advantage-perhaps it is a financial one-by doing a certain job, possibly in a good way, but with the result that too great a part of the funds will go to an individual rather than to the charity. Such applications, after investigation, are refused. Every effort has been made to prevent the commercializing of war charity efforts. In a few instances it has been necessary to cancel the registration of organizations because their work was unsatisfactory in that regard.
We are trying to show organizations that in planning their work great care should be exercised so that the cost of raising funds may be kept to the minimum. The national war charities funds advisory board, under the chairmanship of Mr. C. L. Burton, was set up, and it is rendering a service to the country by checking up the budgets of the larger organizations that make application for the right to collect funds, and by passing on advice to myself as minister, and) through the minister to the government, as to what is thought advisable in connection with funds of that kind.
Investigations of that sort have been carried on in relation to the drive which will start on March 24 next, and five of the larger organizations have united in order to make a combined appeal to the people of Canada for $5,500,000. They are going out to make that appeal with the endorsation of the government, and the government has, through
them,	made an appeal to the people to support these efforts in view of their relationship to the general war effort.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That does not include,
then,	the Red Cross?


James Garfield Gardiner: This particular drive
does not include the Red Cross. But the matter of future drives is now being considered with a view of having all future collections made in one drive.
14873-85}


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but in our district the larger towns have done that from the very inception of the war, and we found it to work out exceptionally well. Each organization got its quota. We included also the Red Cross; and I wondered whether the Red Cross would be included in this drive.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was thought at one
stage, I believe quite early in the war, that it might be best to allow the practice which is operating in the section of Ontario referred to and many other sections of Canada, to develop until such time as by voluntary action all these organizations would be making their collections in one. In view, however, of the greatly increased expenditures in connection with the war and' the necessity for increased activities on the part of some of the auxiliary sendees, it was thought well about two months ago to speed them up by getting these organizations together and having them make one drive for funds rather than wait on the voluntary efforts growing out of these separate activities. In many of these cities the work was speeded by having the organizations agree to that effort. I may say in passing that I think the organizations were very fortunate-we did our part in arranging it-in securing the services of a man who, I know the committee will agree, has had wide experience in this kind of activity. I refer to Senator McRae, who has been placed at the head of the organization which is going to make this collection of funds. A board has 'been set up which will hold these funds in trust when they are collected and see that a proper division is made of them to the different organizations for the purposes intended.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will this change have
the effect of stopping one-collection efforts in certain districts such as have taken place in the past-one appeal to the public over a certain district?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is intended to
promote that. It is intended to make it nation-wide instead of having it apply to certain areas that have already been following that procedure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it
been found that the Red Cross object to this collective drive? There was a good deal of discussion in the press about this at the time it was started. I understand that some officials of the Red Cross have taken the view that they cannot be bound within the limitations or circumscription of one drive because of the peculiar necessities that may arise in connection with their work. Are they
War Appropriation Bill

in agreement with the principle or are they standing out? I think in justice to them that ought to be made clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Three or four conferences were held and the discussions that took place were similar to those that take place at any conference of the kind. In the earlier stages you will find some persons putting forth certain arguments and taking a certain position very strongly, and you will find these same persons later on, in a subsequent conference, turning around and taking a position which perhaps those opposed to them at the earlier stage had adopted. It is true that certain arguments were advanced to the effect stated, but I may say that as a result of the conferences held all of the organizations that are going into the drive on March 24 are going in under an agreement finally reached among themselves, and in entering into that agreement they have one hundred per cent the support and cooperation of the Red Cross. As the house knows, the Red Cross is an organization that has been built up right across Canada, having a very good reputation and a long period of service, and it is thought wise to allow that organization at least to consider the matter in their own national meetings before making any announcement as to what they think, or anyone else thinks, with respect to what they ought to do. It is considered better to leave it that way. There has been the greatest degree of cooperation among these people in meeting from time to time and discussing one another's problems and trying to come to a common conclusion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will this drive on March 24 cover a definite period of time?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the only drive to be made in 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
answers the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Red Cross have
agreed that they will not put on another drive in 1941, so that there will be no further drive by that society or any one of the other organizations during the year 1941. The question what is to happen in 1942 will be finally settled among them before the end of the year.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I have been asked
whether the funds raised by 'this central organization will be audited by public audit, and, secondly, whether any organization receiving funds from the central body will also be subject to audit. There is a belief in some quarters that some of the money raised in the past has not been spent economically,

that the organizations have been paying high salaries, and so on. In a letter in my office at the present time there is a question along these lines.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there is even better than a mere audit. In the first place, these organizations now-they have already done so, so far as this year is concerned, and will be required to do it in the future-submit budgets to the committee that is headed by Mr. C. L. Burton, of which I spoke. These budgets are all gone over carefully by a group of men who are quite competent to examine them,-


Richard Burpee Hanson: A very valuable committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and they have eliminated many things which in their judgment were not required to be done for the time being at least, whatever may happen in the future. They have attempted to cut down organization expenses, more particularly when the five were coming together and it was not necessary to have the amount submitted in five organization expense accounts in order to carry on. All that kind of work is done in advance, the expense being cut down to the limit; and when they make appeals for those things about which there is some question in the minds of the committee, they have insisted on the amount of money set aside for that particular purpose-say, $100,000-being put into a reserve fund, and even after they have collected it that reserve has to be'passed upon again by the committee before the organization can use it for the purpose for which it was intended at the time they submitted their budget. In addition there has been set up a board to whom these funds are turned over in trust after they are collected, and that board is not composed of members of the different organizations. I have not the names before me at the moment, but the board will be composed of prominent and well known business men across Canada. The money has to be turned over to them and then revoted, so to speak, by that trust board to the organizations that are to spend it.
I am not prepared to say definitely that it is provided for, but I should expect that these business men would require a careful audit of everything that has been done, and I am sure the department will require, when the organizations are submitting their budgets next year, a careful audit as to what was done with the money this year and what will be done with moneys next year.


Mark Cecil Senn: Can any contributor allot the money to a particular organization, or will the distribution be made entirely by the committee in charge?

War Appropriation Bill


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the cards used, and the different methods of subscription followed, permit a person to state to which organization he desires his money to go. If no stipulation is made, then it is divided among them.
There is one other matter which I mentioned last night to which I wish to return this afternoon. It has to do with what is known as the information bureau. Probably before dealing with one or two matters in particular I should give to the committee some idea of the organization of the information bureau. I believe it has already been indicated in answer to questions in the house that the organization was first set up by order in council P.C. 4073 on December 8, 1939. On January 3, 1940, Mr. Thompson, who was the first director of public information, was forced by ill health to resign. Mr. G. H. Lash, of Montreal, Mr. Thompson's assistant, was appointed acting director and since that time he has been made director. On February 23 there was appointed as a director Mr. Claude Melancon, previously joint press censor for Canada. On July 19 the office of the director of public information was transferred to the Department of National War Services and since then has been operated under this department. There has been some discussion in the house since the opening of the session, and in the press before the opening, as to the activities of this bureau in connection with press releases. I merely want to make the practice known so that hon. members will all be familiar with the facts in discussing matters having to do with it.
In the first place, after careful consideration of the whole matter with representatives of the press and with those who are prominent in the press association across Canada, and after consultation with many who had had previous experience in connection with the matter, it was decided not to attempt to appoint under this bureau a publicity agent who would gather together all the information obtainable from different departments of government and hand that out as one piece of information to the press of Canada. Certain reasons were put forward why that should not be done, one being that the representatives of the press could gain that information in Ottawa as readily as any individual could gather it for them; and with a score or more of representatives of the press gathering information around Ottawa and expressing their views through their own papers, the public were more likely to get the type of information which they ought to get while we are conducting a war, or under any other circumstances. Whether that is the correct procedure to follow or not, it is the procedure which has been followed up to the
present time. The papers all have their representatives in Ottawa, as they have in the press gallery at this moment; they can get whatever information is available, and as a result of obtaining that information, I assume they write their articles.
It was arranged that in order to expedite their efforts to get information we should have as many ministerial press conferences as possible. When the press is anxious to have them we try to arrange them, and when ministers have something in particular to give out they arrange for a press conference. As a matter of fact, the ministries concerned with war effort decided upon certain days that they would be prepared to meet the press if the press desired to meet them and discuss with them matters having to do with war services.
That, generally speaking, is the method by which the information is given out to the press. In addition to that, there are in the different departments of government, more particularly in the war services department, information organizations or publicity organizations, which from time to time issue statements having to do with the affairs of their particular departments. Those statements do not always go directly to the press, although some may do so. The greater part of them go to the bureau of information. All the bureau of information does with press releases from the different departments is to mail them to wherever they are intended to go. That is, we do not edit them; we do not change anything that is in them; we simply take them as they come to us and send them out. In other words, the only responsibility in connection with the distribution of press releases of that kind, that can be charged up to the fund which we are -now discussing in relation to the war services department, is the cost of distribution, and nothing more. The work of writing and compiling of them is all done in the other departments.
In addition to that, we may put out some press releases, but practically all of the press releases which are put out by the department itself simply give background; that is, they are not intended to go into to-morrow's daily paper as news, but are intended to give the editorial writer or anyone in the newspaper office information to which he can go at any time and obtain what were presumed to be the facts at the time when this particular information was sent out. Or it may be that it covers a period of time about which there has been some discussion over the country, and information is sent in order to indicate what may have been the facts in connection with it. It is not always used in the press, but, I assume, is put away on files to be referred to from time to time as needed.
War Appropriation Bill

That explains largely what is being done by the information bureau in relation to press releases.
In addition to that, we have illustrated material. I should like to read to the committee some particulars regarding the sending out of illustrated material.
The photographic branch of public information was not established until May 1, 1940, that is less than a year ago. From then until January 31, 1941, the branch has distributed 75,714 pieces of illustrated material, as follows:
30,739 Canadian photographs, of which 3,655 were supplied in finished form by the photograph section of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
23,478 mats, illustrating the Canadian war effort;
4,729 photographs supplied by the British Ministry of Information;
7,184 photographic broadsides from the same source;
9,584 ebonoid plates used by papers which cannot use mats, coming from the same source.
Travelling photograph displays are on exhibition at three points in Canada: one in the windows of the Hudson's Bay stores in western Canada; one in store windows of Tip Top Tailors and one in the National Museum at Ottawa. All these pictures, totalling about one hundred enlargements, reflect various phases of Canada's war activity.
Until the photographic branch of public information was organized, few Canadian war effort photographs were appearing in Canadian daily papers that did not have their own camera men, none in the Canadian weekly newspapers, and they appeared only rarely in publications outside Canada. That condition has been changed completely by this service, and the considerable number of photographs that are appearing in the press across Canada have been supplied by this information bureau.
With regard to printed material, posters and so on, until the autumn of 1940 public information did not undertake a poster campaign but, instead, arranged the distribution of some 50,000 posters provided by the British Ministry of Information. These were warnings, received in the English language only, against indiscreet talking. Some ten thousand plain printed posters in the French language were produced to complement those received from Great Britain. Since November, 1940, the office has produced and distributed the following quantities of posters:
English French November, careless talking.... 20,000	10,000
December, careless talking____ 20,000	10,000
January, industrial paster____	5,000	....

Other posters are now on the presses and will be put out from time to time.
The next activity has to do with booklets, pamphlets and leaflets. Under that I could give some figures, but I think I shall give only a few to indicate the scope:
English French
Canada Carries On	 50,000	20,000
Let's Face the Facts, leaflet. 1,500,000	100,000
Let's Face the Facts, booklet 450,000	....
Two Ways of Life	 1,250,000	____
I think I heard in the house since it opened a criticism of the last publication. I am told, however, that there has been a greater demand across Canada for that particular publication than for anything else that has been put out by the department. Probably wider use has been made of it in different parts of the country.
With regard to the radio, public information's first radio programme, "Carry on, Canada," will celebrate its first full year on the air on February 16. In that period it has achieved first-rank rating, and in the New York Times recently, Mr. Frederick Birchall, suggesting that the United States networks ask for it, described it as the best programme of its kind in radio.
On July 21 the office inaugurated a radio series called "Let's Face the Facts," which ran for twenty-four consecutive weeks and brought to the microphone the radio world premiere of the famous play "There Shall Be No Night," and the most distinguished procession of eminent men and women in the history of radio in Canada. The British publishing house of John Lane, the Bodley Head, is bringing out these speeches in book form. That programme was succeeded by another speaking programme called "We Are Not Alone," in the course of which repre-sentatvies of each of our allies told the story of their country's participation. Most of the speakers in that series were, I assume, heard by hon. members. A new programme, "Canadians All," which only opened last week and which, I believe, had a fine reception from one end of Canada to the other, will be on the air for thirteen consecutive weeks, during which period representatives of various nationalities settled in Canada will give of their folk music and also tell of the experiences of those of their number who have already joined the armed forces of Canada. There are several other programmes to which I need not refer, which are being put on from time to time. This will indicate some of the work that is being done in the radio section.

War Appropriation Bill
I come now to motion pictures. In March, 1940, public information, in cooperation with the national film board, planned a series of one and two-reel theatrical motion pictures. The series was given the general carrying title "Canada Carries On." I have already referred briefly to that series, so I need not say anything further with regard to it.
As another activity we are building up a reference library. In November, a newspaper reading branch and a reference library were established to meet a demand for general reference material relating to the war and Canada's participation in it. I am not going into particulars with regard to that activity, but the library is there and when we are discussing these matters in connection with expenditures I can give any information that may be desired.
There is also a public speaking programme which has been sponsored more or less in cooperation with the Canadian Clubs of Canada. In general, we are doing many other things that are of interest and at the same time, I believe, are promoting Canada's war effort.
I have reviewed these matters rather hurriedly in order to emphasize something I said last night with regard to information.
I have before me a copy of a question by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) which appeared on the order paper on December 6, 1940, and which has been answered since the opening of this part of the session. The hon. member asked:
1 When, how and by what authority was the bureau of 'public information established?
1	have given much of that information already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
minister the reference in Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question appeared
on December 6. I have forgotten when it was answered, but it was not long ago. The question goes on:
2	Under what department of the government is this bureau, and to what minister is it responsible?
I have dealt with that already.
3	How many press releases were made by .the bureau to the end of November, 1940, in what papers -were they published and how many in each?
That is the part of the question to which I refer particularly. The answer was 772, with regard to the number of press releases,
and as to the newspapers in which they appeared the answer was "No statistics available." Another part of the question was:
7. What has been the total cost of operating the bureau to the end of November, 1940, including news service, communication services, radio and moving picture services and printing?
The answer was, 8202,672.42. That is definite information with regard to the bureau of information. I wish to call attention to the fact that editorials right across Canada have been written with regard to this matter; and I mention this in order to bear out what I stated last evening, namely, that when editorials are written about our war effort they should be based at least upon facts, more particularly when they already have been given in the house. I should like to read an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail under date of February 20:
Newspapermen, as a rule, are pretty hard-boiled, but we venture to say there is not an editor in Canada who was not shocked by the revelation that dominion government press agents cost the country $202,672 last year.
This frightful waste of the taxpayers' money might be defended if the government was getting any return for it, but the fact is that most of the propaganda prepared by these men goes straight into the wastepaper baskets of newspaper offices from coast to coast.
I will just ask hon. members to recall what I have already said was done for that $202,672.
According to Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of National War Services, who tabled the return in parliament, no statistics are available to show in what papers the press releases issued by the government were published.
If hon. members will recall the figures I gave a few moments ago as to the number of releases that went out, they will realize that it would be difficult to follow through all the newspapers of Canada, even with the clipping bureau we have established, in order to see just how many of these releases appeared in the press across Canada, and how many might have been published even in newspapers outside Canada. But the criticism of one of these hard-boiled editors is that we should have known that most of these releases went into the wastepaper basket. As a matter of fact, we have records showing that a great many of these releases have appeared in the columns of the newspapers that know the facts and use the facts in writing editorials; and these releases have been printed right across Canada ever since this bureau was set up. But listen to this:
Yet these press releases cost an average of $262 each.
War Appropriation Bill

Do hon. members know how this editor arrived at the amount of $262? He took the 772 press releases and divided that number into $202,672, the amount spent for all the radio activity, all the motion picture work, all the posters to which I referred, all the pamphlets that were sent out and everything done by the information bureau; these were all made charges against the press releases, and it was stated that these cost $262 each. The editorial goes on:
The $202,672 paid out of the national treasury for government propaganda is roughly twice the combined salaries of the forty correspondents who cover the proceedings of parliament for the press of Canada.
I would hope that was so, because all the activities associated with the bureau, including those I have outlined, are covered by that $202,000.
But what is much worse from the taxpayers' point of view is that the shocking waste of public funds in government publicity is symptomatic of what is taking place in nearly every department of the public service.
This editor states what is obviously incorrect, if not untrue-and I distinguish between the two terms because I cannot understand any newspaper as prominent as the Toronto Globe and Mail having an editor who could not read that return and understand it. I suggest that it would appear to be an intentional misrepresentation. At a time when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) was appealing to the people of Canada for subscriptions in connection with his drive for funds, this paper tells the people that one of the departments of government spent $202,000 on 772 press releases, or $262 per press release. It then goes on to say that other departments are being run in exactly the same way. I quote:
If the taxpayers had the faintest conception of how their money is poured down a dozen different sewers on parliament hill there would be a rebellion.
I do not think that we have to take advice from the Toronto Globe and Mail about money being poured down sewers. The Toronto Globe and Mail used to be published in a building which suited its purposes very well, but one has only to go and look at the building in which it is published to-day to understand how they pour money down the sewer. For an organization of that kind to be criticizing, even though their criticism were right, is I think drawing the long bow in connection with matters of this kind.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: One of the great dailies published in Ontario carried a leading editorial in December stating that members of parliament were paid $66 a day. This amount was arrived at by taking the number of sitting days and divicfing it into the indemnity of $4,000. The newspaper did not take into account the fact that most hon. members work almost 365 days in the year in the service of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Of the country.


Robert William Gladstone: There is a continuous stream of people to the homes or offices of members, with legitimate requests of every description. Because of the demands made upon his time it is almost impossible for a member of parliament to look after his own business. As a result of that editorial a number of letters were written to the paper which published it, citing the editorial and repeating the statement that members of parliament are paid $66 a day. These writers simply took the editor's figures at their stated value, but it was unfair criticism of the work being done by members of parliament. Members look after the interests of their constituencies not only while they are attending sessions of parliament but practically every day in the year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The next statement was to this effect:
According ,to the return tabled by Mr. Gardiner, twelve departments of the dominion government have a total of 86 employees engaged in publicity work, who draw annually $164,460 in salaries. Included in these will be stenographers and office boys. But in addition to salaries there will be offices, furniture, filing cabinets, stationery and other material], and telephones, the cost of which is not taken into account in the return brought down in the house. On top of all this is the department of public information, which pays 43 publicity employees $61,279 a year. In fairness to the director of that branch we are bound to say that the ''let's face the facts" series which he arranged for the radio ivas an excellent piece of work.
That statement emphasizes the fact that the editor of this paper knew something about what he was writing. He knew that many other costs were included in the $202,000; he knew that the costs of all the other activities of this organization were included in that figure. Yet he puts out to the people of this country the suggestion that that amount

War Appropriation Bill
covered only press releases. In so far as the activities of this and other departments are concerned, the press releases entailed only the postage and stationery costs in connection with them. As a matter of fact the total cost is not a considerable amount of money. In view of the editorial I think I should place the exact figures on Hansard showing expenditure and commitments from the time the department of public information was set up, to November, 30, 1940.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be how long-'three and a half months?


James Garfield Gardiner: December 8, 1939 to November 30, 1940. The figures are as follows:
Details
Expenditure Commitments
Total
Salaries and allowances....
Travelling expenses	
Motion pictures	
Photographs and mats	
Pamphlets	
Posters and art work	
Radio	
Printing and stationery: Envelopes and letterheads Equipment and supplies..
Typewriters	
Sundry

Total printing and stationery
Miscellaneous:
Telephone, telegraph, postage	
Sundry	
$ 8,145 59	$ 16,523 36	$ 24,668 95
$ 1,767 29		
6,491 60		
Total miscellaneous Total

$ 8,258 89
$120,239 83	$202,672 42
Those are the details making up the total of $202,672.42. The three largest items in that total	are-giving	round	figures-salaries,
$45,000; motion pictures, $70,000, and pamphlets, $38,000. These three items, which
make up the greater part of the $202,000, have no relation to press releases. If the house desires, I could place on Hansard a similar table bringing the expenditures up to date. The table is as follows:
Department of National War Services Public Information
Salaries	
Travelling expenses	
Motion pictures	
Overseas publicity	
Radio	
Photographs and mats	
Pamphlets	
Posters and art work	
Printing and stationery:
Envelopes and letterhead	
Equipment and supplies	
Typewriters	
Addressograph plates and frames Sundry stationery and supplies___
Total printing and stationery.
Public speaking	
Miscellaneous:
Telephone	
Telegrams	
Postage	
Miscellaneous	
Total miscellaneous	
Total	
Expenditure
to
Feb. 28,1941
$ 62,922	83
4,915	01
1,887	50
894	00
663	23
6,364	72
9,021	31
1,235	40
5,094	69
1,424	81
1,140	24
598	02
4,643	58
$12,901	34
2,861	62
1,326	48
1.430	60
7.155	55
6,835	13
$ 16,747	76

Commitments as a t
Feb. 28, 1941

Total to Feb. 28, 1941 $ 62,922 83 4,915 01 113,107 50 1,672 80 663 23 7,777 90 85,471 44 9,871 17
15,107 30 8,297 97 2,635 24 3,761 90 8,222 72
$	38,025	13
	2,861	62
	1,326	48
	1,430	60
	7,155	55
	6,835	13
$	16,747	76

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that, would he tie in all the publicity costs of the other departments which have publicity agents or publicity bureaus for the same period, for those twelve or fourteen months?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid the leader of the apposition will have to get that information from the ministers of the different departments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point is that this is only one feature of the publicity work.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is one feature. It is the public information bureau to which is usually attributed the whole cost of activities in connection with publicity.


Mr. WARREN:: What amount of money is paid to the newspapers of Canada for advertising across the country, and would the minister suggest that this portion of the taxpayers' money might be saved?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. gentleman has
reference perhaps to finance advertising of which there has been a great deal lately. That advertising is well worth while. It would be impossible to carry on the great financial campaigns we are conducting without spending a good deal of money in advertising. I am very well satisfied not only with the advertising itself but with the results.


James Garfield Gardiner: In conclusion, when this matter is before us again and the actual expenditures are being considered, I shall be pleased to give any additional information that is required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister a few questions at this time. What has the minister to say to the suggestion made by one of his own followers last night, a suggestion to which I myself gave expression when I spoke on this matter a few days ago, that this is not a ministry of information but a ministry of propaganda. I term the publication, for example, of the series of speeches by members of the cabinet, government propaganda at the expense of the people of this country.


Mr. POULIOT:: What about the publication of the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition at the expense of the country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not ask for it.


Jean-François Pouliot: It shows how broad-minded the government was. It was not afraid of propaganda even from the hon. gentleman.


Mr. GRAYDON:: They know a good thing when they see it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The word "propaganda" has been given different meanings. Used in the best sense of the term, propaganda is, as I think every hon. member will agree, worth while; that is, propaganda based upon facts. The efforts of the bureau in the matter of publications may properly be termed propaganda if the putting-out of a picture indicating, for example, exactly what is being done in some part of the empire or in Canada can be termed propaganda. Radio broadcasts- it may be fiction; nevertheless fiction that illustrates something that is actually going on-I would also consider legitimate propaganda, and something which is not only legitimate but really ought to be done.
I would not altogether agree with the hon. member who suggested last night-it may not be the same member as the one to whom the leader of the opposition just referred- that we needed a ministry of enlightenment. The conclusion I have arrived at after serving for twenty-seven years either in the legislature or in the House of Commons, is that if you want to be enlightened you must enlighten yourself. There are a great many sources from which you can get information, but I do not think any ministry of any kind could really enlighten the people in general because they must get the information and then study it and arrive at their own conclusions as a result of their studies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: People like to have things done for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but sometimes that is impossible. I would suggest that a ministry of information is quite possible. A ministry of publicity is possible, and even a ministry of propaganda is possible. There may be some question as to the lines one should follow in trying to give information to the public in relation to our war effort. But so far as a ministry of enlightenment is concerned, I am afraid that we shall have to continue to put forth our own efforts if we want to be really enlightened.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister
enlighten us with regard to certain phases of the results of the registration? Last evening he gave to the committee an interesting account of the actual work of registration. He has now described how the results of the registration are being worked over, and I think he said that within the next few days or a week or two the results would be complete. I should like to know to what extent the government has already made use of that information. I have in mind particularly the

War Appropriation Bill
work which has been started in British Columbia, and I want to know whether that is being done all across Canada, collecting youths and teaching them how to use tools, using the workshops of the technical schools for that purpose. I took a great interest in the work that I saw being done. I should like to know whether that is Canada-wide and how many people have come forward to do it. Particularly I should like to pass on to the minister a certain amount of anxiety which I have met with in these schools as to what the next step was going to be. Within a certain number of weeks these lads will be turned out of the schools with a really extraordinary amount of knowledge which they have picked up quickly in the use of tools to fit themselves for openings as mechanics in munitions plants. What is being done in that direction and in other directions in which the results of the registration are already being used?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member will recall that the Department of National War Services was set up to gather information and, so far as the registration is concerned, to make the information gathered available to any department of government and to any industry or individual in Canada who wished to make use of it.
The schools which are training young people in the different areas are being operated under the Department of Labour, and when the estimates of that department are before the house I am sure the minister will be able and willing to give all the information that is desired with regard to that activity.
I mentioned last night that the governments of certain of our allies have asked for lists of those who are still nationals of certain allied countries. Those lists have been supplied. Industries have also asked for and been supplied with lists of people skilled in various trades, such as electricians and so forth. Applications have even come from England for skilled workers of different types. In Certain cities in Canada, lists were made available and persons were able to go round from door to door asking young men whose names were on the lists if they desired employment at certain kinds of work. In that way young men were employed by the thousand. Some of these activities I am not free to discuss in the house, either with regard to the number of men engaged, where they work, or what they are doing, but the information is there and it can be given out from time to time.
In addition, we have power under the act to go to other departments of government and gather information that may be required, to
put along with the information we have received through the national registration, with a view perhaps to seeing if there is a possibility of an industrial development where there are unemployed people. Information of that kind is all available.


Grote Stirling: I understand that no training of young people is being done in any direction under the minister's department, but that the results of the registration are passed along to those who require it. Then I would ask the minister if he has informed himself as Minister of Agriculture upon certain shortages of labour on farms in various parts of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Whether I have done so or not, I have been informed from all across the country, from the areas where there is a shortage of farm labour. I have no further comment to make upon it except to say that perhaps that is more or less natural at the present time, and there will have to be an effort made. Again, it is a labour matter which will be dealt with in cooperation with the labour department from time to time as it can be dealt with.


Gordon Graydon: May I draw to the attention of the committee a matter which has assumed considerable importance in our part of the dominion, particularly in Ontario? I raise this question at the moment because the Minister of National War Services has under his jurisdiction a division which has to do with material resources in connection with our war effort. My conception of the department over which he has control and jurisdiction is that, to some extent in any event, there shall be planning in a systematic way in respect of our war effort. I realize every difficulty with which he is confronted, and I am sympathetic with him in that regard. But so far as our material resources are concerned and the plans which are being effectuated for the national mobilization of industry as it fits into our war effort, I believe the matter about which I am going to speak deserves immediate and special consideration.
On the 1st of March, the farming population of Ontario received a considerable shock when they heard that the Ontario agricultural college, one of the centres of agricultural technical and practical training, was to be closed and that the premises would be occupied by No. 4 wireless school of the empire air training scheme. In justice to the agricultural population, many of whom I represent, I ought to make it clear that I have not heard one farmer suggest that anything he can give or any action whereby he can cooperate should not be freely given to the cause of Canada and the empire. When I raise my voice in
War Appropriation Bill

connection with this matter I want to make it abundantly clear that the attitude of the farmer in this matter is not based on any narrow ideas as to his own particular future.
May I, however, point out to the minister that we have now been at war for something like eighteen months, a time sufficient, surely, to give the government some opportunity to plan our effort on comprehensive lines. The government may fairly be forgiven for whatever mistakes were made when the war first broke out and during the cataclysm which followed shortly afterwards. After all, this government is as human, or perhaps almost as human as the rest of us; at any rate it should receive that degree of consideration. But when plans are being laid for the continued prosecution of our war effort, it seems important that, in taking over buildings for these purposes, care should be exercised that peace-time institutions are transformed to war-time uses, not that war-time institutions are changed to other types of war-time endeavour, because I believe I voice the opinion of many agriculturists and others when I say that part and parcel of Canada's war effort is the production of foodstuffs and the extension of educational and technical advantages in so far as that production is concerned. It is along that line that I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the government.
It has been suggested in some newspapers- although, as the Minister of National War Services has said, their information may be wrong-that it is doubtful whether the officers of the Department of National Defence were wholly in agreement with the taking over of Guelph agricultural college for No. 4 wireless training school. I am in no position to say whether that is so; but in any event it seems to me that, with 600 male students and 200 female students at the college, and a large staff, built up in a selective way, of some of the best agricultural experts in Canada to-day, the institution should not be suddenly disbanded in order that another type of wartime activity may take its place unless it is absolutely essential to our war effort.
If it is a fact that No. 4 wireless training school can find no more suitable place, or no place equally suitable, there will not be from me the slightest complaint about the taking over of the building. If, however, there be any possible substitute, it seems to me that the present choice shows a lamentable lack of planning. If we ever needed a plan so far as our general war-time activity is concerned, now is the time to start it if it has not been started before.
Further, it is my recollection-and I have been on that model farm many times-that the property includes nearly 800 acres devoted

to experimental purposes. Those experiments have been carried on at great cost, and farmers all over Canada, particularly Ontario, are very much interested in the work going on.


Mr. GOLDING:: It will still be carried on.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad to hear the acting minister of agriculture make that remark. I accept his statement, and I urge that the benefits of this experimentation be not lost to agriculture at this' time. As a matter of fact, so far as I know, there has not been any definite official statement as to the carrying-on of these experiments. Whatever is done, whether or not any change is made in the plan for the use of the college, we must not deprive the farmers of Canada of the technical advantages which they are enjoying as a result of these experimental activities.
When this war is over and the period of rehabilitation begins, it will cost much money and take a great deal of time to put these technical experiments in agriculture back where they were before. I am trying to emphasize to the minister, in all fairness, that, if there be any other way of providing for the wireless training school, whereby the empire air training plan will not be hampered or hindered, I trust he will use his influence to leave in operation our agricultural college at Guelph.
We talk a good deal in this chamber about agriculture, but it must be realized that, in so far as the interests of the farmers are concerned, the county agricultural representatives who get much of their information and practically all of their early training from the agricultural college at Guelph are able to render a tremendous service to the people of the province. They have technical, theoretical and practical experience. I wish to say a word this afternoon on their behalf. If the proposed change is absolutely necessary for the prosecution of our war effort, I am all for it, regardless of the consequences. May I, however, ask the minister to see whether a plan cannot be adopted so that we shall be able, as far as possible, to avoid changing from one important war-time industry to another, but rather so that the peace-time industries of the country may first be converted into and form a part of our integrated war effort before those which are already in war work. I make this appeal to the minister on behalf of agriculture, not by way of carping criticism of the government, because I have every sympathy with them in their difficulties; but it would be regarded as a good move on behalf of the agricultural communities who are struggling to-day if their college facilities

War Appropriation Bill
could be restored without in any way injuring or hampering or interfering with the general war effort of the nation.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to what has
been said by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the premier of Ontario should be praised for having the Guelph agricultural college used as a school for training for war purposes, and since they are apparently so zealous in their war aims, I do not see why Conservative members are critical about the matter. I live in a district in which there are many farmers. Many of them have been attending agricultural schools and- have been doing very well, but they understand- that during the war it is right to make sacrifices in order to defend the country.
I must say that I do not feel very comfortable about what I said yesterday when the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) was speaking. I interjected some remarks in the middle of his speech and since then I have read his speech in extenso and found it a m-ost interesting one. Turning to page 1141 of Hansard of Friday last, I note what was said- by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) about bringing back that great windbag the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. There is probably no one in the house who was more intimate in using him as a punching bag when he was prime minister and also leader of the opposition. He was a complete failure from every point of view, so much so that the Conservative party vomited him, and I d-o not see why they want to have him back. I am sorry to say that, but I must give an exact description of what happened when the right hon. gentleman was leader of his party, when he was called- humbug by Mr. Thomas in England, and so on. We had enough of him. Besides, he wanted to leave us, and he has gone. Let him be alone and happy. But he was a failure as head of his party and as head of his government, and I d-o not see what use he would be here during the war. The joke of it is here:
I suggest that, with a view to preventing the possibility of failures such as have occurred in the last six months in the matter of aircraft production, we have set up at this time a committee composed of representatives of the aircraft industry in Canada, and that we get in touch with the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, acquainted as he is with requirements in Great Britain, and experienced as he must be in consequence of the assistance he has given Lord Beaverbrook, -and have him come to Canada and head a committee or, if you like, a commission, to investigate the whole situation with regard to the failure of our aircraft production. to the end that further failures will not have to be admitted in this chamber.
The word "failures" is repeated several times, probably in order to describe Mr. Bennett himself. But I do not see how failure can -be prevented by bringing another failure to Canada. My hon. friend the member for Lake Centre is too bright a member to continue along such a line. He must change his mind, and he must remember also that not only did the Tory party reject Mr. Bennett but that when he left Ottawa there were only two or three members of the party, one of whom has died, to accompany him to the station. Mr. Bennett was so sorry about it that he shed tears on that occasion. We do not need him any more, and that is the opinion not only of the member for Temiscouata. It is the general opinion in Canada. The Canadian people do not want him. My hon. friends are most illogical. The people of Canada gave a large majority to the King government at the last election, and yet my hon. friends say that this government has no mandate from the people. What mandate has Mr. Bennett now since leaving?-and he left after he was defeated. He had only a handful of followers and they changed him for another leader and again changed that other leader, so that now they have a temporary leader. I do not know how long he will keep that seat.
But coming to that very gentleman, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I want to go back a little further to page 903 of Hansard, of February 21, when he tried to give me a lecture. I will stand for no lecture from the leader of the opposition. I will not refer to a dead speaker but to one of the previous speakers to witness the fact that I have no lesson in dignity to learn from the present leader of the opposition. The best way for him to preach dignity is by example. There is something else I find in Hansard at page 901, where the word "vicious" is added to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). When he spoke in answer to me he said that I had made an attack upon him. That was his view. Afterwards, when I read Hansard, I saw that the word "vicious" was added in pencil, and I do not know whether it was done by Major Leighton, who is n-ow press liaison officer of his department, formerly managing editor of a Ku Klux paper and also former editor of the Bennett Regina Star, which is dead now. I find it unbelievable to discover unparliamentary words in Hansard when they have not been uttered in the house, and I would make a suggestion in virtue of which all members would be equal. It is that the corrections in Hansard be made in the house at the opening of the afternoon sitting, and then people would know what the report is
War Appropriation Bill

that we have before us, and there would be no possibility of change. I have seen one member redrafting whole pages in his own handwriting, like a boy's composition. It is absurd. What is said in the house is what people would know. They are not interested in academic write-ups but what is said in the house, and if a correction has to be made it is very easy for a member to bring it up at the beginning of the sitting. Then people would have a true picture of what had taken place, and if there were something wrong then members could do what I have done with regard to the hon. member for Davenport- express regret.' But people would have the real picture, and Hansard would not be like the mirrors we see in fairs. If the mirror is on the side the man looks wide, if he looks on the other side he is just as high-he is a giant. It is a farce, and it seems to me that if we are to have Hansard it must be true and accurate. If people have the liberty to change anything they say in Hansard and put unparliamentary words in their speeches when they are afraid to use them in the house it is just as well to stop Hansard.
There was something else said, and on that I congratulate the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I complained about some foolish expenditure that was made at St. Paul l'Ermite. I have learned with satisfaction that after these remarks were made in the house about fifty men were suspended at that place. This is the way things should be done. That the matter was not brought up by the leader of the opposition is probably because they are milk brothers of R. B. Bennett who are heads of the concern operating at that point, and he wanted to protect the Tories there. He was afraid of them, and I know that the leader of the opposition will never bring up a thing like that because he would expose his own friends. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) yesterday said something which was absolutely true; he said that by the appointment of Tories-not all of them, but some of them-in responsible and strategic positions the Liberal party is suffering from their extravagance and foolishness. If I denounced it at times it is not only to defend my party, it is to prevent foolish expenditure. We have every right to get all the information about it.
There is a difference between strategic information and information on expenditure. My contention is that we should have all information about expenditure; nothing should be secret. Of course if one looks at the estimates we find there the job and the salary, but without any name. If we look at another book, the report of the auditor general, there is the name of the civil servant and the salary, 
but no mention of the job, except in a very few cases. Then in the departmental report everything is anonymous except the deputy minister who submits the report to the minister; there is no name, no job and no salary mentioned. Of course the branches are mentioned, but I do not see them mentioned in the report of the auditor general except in a very few cases.
Now we have this war appropriation bill. It is not only during the war that we have the Department of National Defence; we have it also in times of peace. During that time the whole thing was in the main estimates; now we have nothing in the main estimates for the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Defence for Air and the Department of Munitions and Supply. All the names and jobs and salaries of everyone employed here in Ottawa in any department should be there; whether the functions of those departments are temporary or not does not matter. We have to render account of the moneys expended by the treasury and therefore must be in a position to give all information to our constituents when they ask for it. That seems only reasonable.
This year the report of the auditor general is entirely different in form from what it was in other years. There are important amounts of money that are not mentioned. I do not know where we should go to get information on them. Yet when any elector comes to see an hon. member and asks him about the expenditure for the salary of so and so, if we do not find it in the report of the auditor general where can we find it?
Besides that the government complain they have to answer too many questions about salaries. It is their own fault; we should have that information in the proper place. One may say it would mean a certain expenditure for printing. It is the old excuse given to me by Mr. Dunning when he refused to print the report of the civil service committee. I had to fight with him to get the report printed and afterwards there was no reprint.
Now I bring to the attention especially of the Prime Minister and his colleagues this report of the auditor general for the year ended March 31, 1940. It is most incomplete; it is worthless. Every cent of expenditure should be shown in it. They say a few dollars are saved by not printing all salaries in full. It is the first time in my long career as a parliamentarian that it has happened and I denounce it. The auditor general should be very careful. I had something to say about him some years ago and I was stopped. I

War Appropriation Bill
could tell the whole story-the trouble that was then made about a messenger who was employed here and who had been recommended by me. Someone tried to make him suffer because I complained about certain people. The auditor general should be censured by this house for not giving us full information about expenditures in all departments. The ministers have no reason to complain that there are questions about salaries and expenditures; we cannot get the information in the proper place. I am sure that by mentioning that I express the views of a large number of Liberal members and members belonging to other groups.
The appropriations or estimates for the headquarters of all war departments should be in the main estimates, including not only mention of the job and the salary but the name of the individual. It would not cost so much to do that. To try to find some information we have to look at the report of the auditor general, which does not contain complete information, and we have to look at the estimate. In the report of the department there is nothing about what is paid the various individuals. That report should mean something, but it is an example of the vague information that I complained of some time ago. We have a great deal of paper but we cannot find anything in it; everything is mixed up-it is like a waste-paper basket. It is not worthy of the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada.
The estimates should contain information about the headquarters staff for each war department and staff salaries. Speaking of staff, I mean everyone from the deputy minister to the last appointed stenographer, mentioning the name, position, salary and allowances paid to each. If that were done it would facilitate the work of the war expenditures committee.
But there is something else. It is the fact that here in Ottawa the staff is part civilian and part military. The men are military and the women civilian. It seems strange at times; I do not see why a clerk whose duty is to file papers, or a messenger whose duty is to carry letters from pillar to post should wear a uniform and be entitled to allowances besides his salary. Of course there is a certain snobbery in that. During the war it is a consideration to wear a uniform, even if one is not doing any military duty. Many men are wearing uniforms who are not fit for military duty. For instance, here I have a list of the ranks in the air department. It starts with pilot officer, then goes on to flying officer, flight lieutenant, squadron leader, wing commander, group captain, air commodore, air vice marshal, air marshal, air chief marshal and marshal of the Royal Air Force. There are some pilot officers who are only piloting files, some flying officers who only fly to the door to take the salute; and I could continue at great length. On the other hand we have a girl, a stenographer, who hears very confidential information but who is in civilian clothes, buying her dress at Murphy Gamble's or some other store. There is nothing military about her. The other man is in uniform, and in addition to his salary he is paid an allowance about which we do not know, although both do the very same work. These are foolish expenditures, and the ministers concerned should bring these fellows to their senses. I do not see why a man should wear a uniform when he is performing duties that were performed yesterday by a young girl in civilian clothes, duties which might be performed to-morrow by that same young girl. This is not the army at all; this is just a parade, which is absurd in times like these.
The other day I suggested that the government should look into the expenditures at St. Paul l'Ermite, and I also mention Valley-field, where the expenditure, which was supposed to be $5,000, has gone to $16,000 or $25,000, or some very high figure. I hope the ministers concerned will get in touch with the proper authorities in order that some investigation may be made. Moreover, investigation should be made into the qualifications of the inspectors. I know of one leather inspector in the Department of National Defence who was formerly a truck driver, and in addition I believe he is an Italian, a spaghetti eater. Another inspector was in a hospital for a time performing the duties of a he-nurse; then he was a packer and now he is a leather inspector receiving a salary and a living allowance. I am told that very few of the leather inspectors were previously qualified as saddlers, harness makers or leather workers. If we want our money to be well spent we must have duly qualified inspectors rather than men appointed because of their friendship with a great man, though friendship with a great man is a godly thing.
As another suggestion, I want the government to be very careful about soldiers travelling on trains, to see that they are not given an opportunity to buy hard liquor when on ordinary passenger trains. I might mention some instances that were very bad. One night the maritime express arrived in Montreal with one car full of soldiers. All the windows of that car were broken. On another occasion the conductor complained of the way some soldiers had behaved. When he went into
War Appropriation Bill

the car the lights were all out. He turned the lights ou again and told the soldiers to leave them on. When he returned later all the lights had been unscrewed and thrown away, and the car was as dark as a cave. These things have been passed over in silence for a long .time, but a stop should be put to conduct of this kind. Of course some officers- I do not know of what branch-are supposed to be on the trains to police the oars, but what I have mentioned should be stopped in order that the Canadian people may retain their high regard for the army. There are times when soldiers can have a drink without jausing any trouble. I do not wish to cast any slur on the army; when young men are left without control this sort of thing is bound to happen. I am all for order in the army; I am for .the hierarchy, but we know very well that the hierarchy cannot work from side to side, that it works from top to bottom.
I could make reference to many other matters, but I shall conclude by mentioning only one. Bach of us realizes that war is a most serious thing and that probably we will have to stand by our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen for more than a year or two before we reach the turning .point and achieve victory. We are told that many sacrifices are ahead; but there is one class of preacher to which I object. I have before me a dispatch that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of December 12, 1940, as follows:
Canada Urged to Reduce Home Consumption. otoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, England. December 11. Canada and the other dominions are urged by Lord Stamp to join with the United Kingdom in tightening their belts and reducing home consumption so that the war effort may be increased to the utmost peak.
That was none of his business. He may speak to Englishmen, but we have no lesson to learn from Lord Stamp. Members of the government may speak to us, but it does not help our cause for a man in England to tell us to tighten our belts. That is our own business; it is none of his. These speeches are very dangerous; they may arouse the Canadian people.
There is one other matter, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in this country wants to know what protection we are getting as a result of the expenditures that are being made. We hear of billions of dollars being spent for Canada. We may see trains loaded with shells. We may see trainloads of soldiers. We are ready to vote all the money necessary to win the war. That is right; everyone is for that, but we want that money to give a certain definite amount of protection to the Canadian people. Of course there are two schools of thought on that point. There is the school 
that believes everything should be sent to Great Britain, overlooking the defence of Canada. There is the other school that does not want to d.o anything for Great Britain but wants all the war expenditures to be made for the benefit of Canada. I believe it is best to follow the middle course. We must help Great Britain as much as we can; but we must not overlook the defence of our own country. While the Prime Minister did not accept my suggestion, I suggested that every hon. member should go to his constituency and recruit a full battalion, a thousand or twelve hundred men, from the day labourers, the farm hands and the lumber jacks-the very best type of soldiers-who would enlist for the defence of Canada. At that time it was not accepted.
It seems that we should try to restore the confidence of the Canadian people in the ministry by seeing that the country is well defended. St. Martin was a very charitable man. When he was asked for some help by a poor man he cut his -cloak in half, gave him one-half and kept the other half for himself. But he did not give his underwear. In these times there is no one who admires Churchill more than I do, but I do not place Lord Beaverbrook upon the same pedestal. That is my own point of view and it is just as reasonable as the views put out by those paid by him to say that he is a great man. And Lord Stamp comes to this country to give us a lesson, I have a perfect right to tell him my views.
If we are to help England, let us do so, but let us at the same time defend Canada. We should organize our defence in case of the sudden attack which may come at any time. We do not know what may happen in the future. We hope that the future will be bright; that is the hope of everyone, but we must protect ourselves. I hope that in the money included in this vote there will be a large amount provided to organize the defence of Canada. We need to 'be defended, because we are a large country with a small population. We are, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, envied by many countries in Europe. We must be ready to repulse any attack.
When the government takes that fact into consideration and acts accordingly it will find out that the Canadian people are satisfied and ready to do more than ever for England. But first let us organize the defence of Canada. The Minister of National Defence and the other war ministers will be surprised at the extent to which I am ready to help, provided that they take the members into their confidence and do not treat them as strangers. If they are occupying the treasury benches, it is not by

W ar Appropriation Bill
a mandate of God but by the will of each member who supports the government. That should not be forgotten; that is something that deserves consideration and I hope it will not be ignored.
The press which is paid by the profiteers who are the scum of the world can say anything. I dio not care about that. The press has lost a lot of influence by using stupid language about some important matters. Very few people read the editorial pages of a paper. When they want to know the news they listen to the radio. They are not interested in the papers except to make parcels with them.
In conclusion I insist upon the defence of this country and I hope it will not be forgotten by those whom it may concern.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the statement made by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) and to ask him a question or two.
First, I think the minister should be commended for the work being done by the bureau of public information.	I am not
suggesting for a moment that that work cannot be improved, and I do not think the minister would suggest that. This is a new branch. To organize the propaganda-I use that word advisedly in its proper sense-of a nation in a few short months is a herculean task. Some of the work being done in this connection is extremely commendable. I think all hon. members who have listened to the series "Let's Face the Facts" will agree with me when I say that that was one of the finest series ever put on the air. I have heard many persons who are in a position to know say that the address by Hendrik Van Loon was a classic, probably one of the greatest things ever sent over the ether waves. The same is true of many other radio programmes. I think they have done most excellent work.
The posters and pictures put out have had a very telling effect right across Canada. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by the national film board. I am sure that most hon. members saw the picture at the Capitol theatre a week ago yesterday. I went to another picture theatre a few nights later when the same picture was shown and I tried to get the public reaction from the audience. Everywhere this picture is being shown it receives the most satisfactory ovation. I doubt if the people who put out the March of Time and who received an award for it could have done a better job. I hope that whoever is responsible for this type of work in the department will be kept at it. By having pictures like this shown in the theatres across Canada we help to build up public morale. I doubt if public morale can be built
up as adequately in any other way. The radio and the moving pictures are important media for this purpose, and I think the minister is making fairly good use of them.
As I say, I am not suggesting that this work cannot be improved. For instance, the minister has said that the material sent out by the director of public information is sent out just as it is received from the different departments. I think that is what is wrong with it. It would be much better if some newspaper man in the bureau wrote it over again in the style which newspaper men know the public considers readable. A lot of this information could be rehashed and condensed. There is such an avalanche of it that a lot of it does find its way into the waste-paper basket. It could be boiled down; many of the statistics could be eliminated and the interesting facts put into the leading paragraphs.
Hon. members appreciate the thanks expressed by the minister for the part they took in the national registration last year. I believe all hon. members cooperated to the best of their ability. But I should like to say this to the minister, and I say it in the best spirit:	Last year the minister wanted a
national registration and he wanted it quickly, so he called upon hon. members and asked them to give of their time and services. They did that gladly and willingly and the registration was a success; indeed it is a monument to the way in which public men can cooperate when they want to. In every constituency where I had the privilege of looking into the organization work I found people of all political faiths and religious beliefs cooperating; they were freely giving their services and giving them gladly. The result is that that registration cost less than a million dollars.
Now the minister has started a salvage campaign and the members are again being asked to give of their time and services. They are doing it gladly. They are endeavouring to show how they can be of service to the country and to the minister who is responsible for this work. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) wanted cooperation in connection with the war savings certificate drive, and I think he got it from all hon. members. But this is how the picture looks to some people in the country. They say: When you wanted a national registration, you came and asked for a voluntary effort; when you wanted to conduct a salvage campaign, you asked for a voluntary effort; when you wanted assistance in the war service certificate campaign you asked for a voluntary effort, but now when you are going to take the census, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $2,500,000-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. War Appropriation Bill

MacKinnon) will know-when there is some money to be expended, the work is being done on a partisan basis. The Minister of Trade and Commerce shakes his head, but I am not going to get into an argument with him about it. Every question which has appeared on the order paper in connection with the census commissioners who have been appointed shows clearly that this is being done on a partisan basis.
I know that no hon. members on this side of the house have been consulted with reference to the carrying on of the census. Since . we have been doing these other things so successfully on a voluntary basis, I think the minister might well consider the advisability of taking the census, if it is to be proceeded with at all-and that is debatable-on the same basis as the national registration was taken. It could be done that way for very much less money. The minister would have the cooperation of members in all parts of the house, and it would help the people throughout the country who gave their voluntary services last year to feel that they were not merely being used in a pinch and then cast aside when they might have an opportunity to receive something for their services. I throw that out as a suggestion for the minister because I am sure that it will not be as easy to get the voluntary cooperation of these people again if we drop this precedent we established in connection with national registration and have the census taken purely on a partisan basis, as it would appear it is going to be taken.
I have a question to ask of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner). I understand that there are no estimates for his department unless they are brought down in the supplementaries, and that consequently this is the only opportunity we shall have to get a picture of the expenditures of the department for the past year and an outline of the budget for the coming year. I would therefore ask the minister if he will be kind enough to break down the expenditures of his department for the past year up to the most recent date available. I should like to know the total amount spent by his department during the past year and what will be spent this year.
We have the item of $918,000 for the registration. I should also like to know the total amount that was spent in calling up the trainees for training and the total amount that was spent in organizing the voluntary services. The minister has already given us the amount spent by the information bureau up to the end of November. Could we have the expenditure brought up to the latest date available? I would also ask the minister to

break down these expenditures into their component parts and to give us the corresponding amounts that will be spent for the same purposes in the coming year. If the minister would give us these items now, it would be helpful.
With reference to the trainees, when the Minister of National War Services has finished would the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) give us, if not now, at all events later, what it costs the country for the pay of the trainees, their equipment, the training facilities required in their thirty days' training, the cost of the medical examinations, et cetera.


James Layton Ralston: A return that was brought down gave the amount in toto, but I do not think the expenditure was broken down. There is, however, on the order paper a resolution which I am looking into, with respect to the training camps.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Does the
return show the break-down for equipment?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think it does, but I shall endeavour to see if that cannot be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the total of the estimated expenditures, the amount set up for last year and the succeeding year, but it comprises quite a volume and it would take a considerable time for me to go through it and give it all. But if there is any particular item on which any hon. member wishes details, I shall be glad to answer any questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On that point, for peace-time expenditures w'e are provided with a printed book; the estimates are laid on the table with a message from his excellency. But for war-time expenditures, which are several times larger and much more important, and which call for much greater sacrifices on the part of the Canadian people, we are given only driblets of information from time to time. I am not complaining of that so much as I am complaining of the system. Here is $1,300,000,000 to be spent. The government must have the break-down of that. Then why not put it in the form of estimates and lay them on the table of the house so that we can study them. That is the only intelligent way in which we can proceed. The minister may say that there is nothing definite about these expenditures. I think I anticipate what the Minister of Finance is going to say.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Also some of them are
secret.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right. Those that are secret, if the minister gives us his word that they are secret, I am not

War Appropriation Bill
going to ask to have divulged. But the cost of military training, emphatically that is not secret.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is quite right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those
expenditures and estimates should be laid on the table in printed form so that we can have an opportunity to study them.
While I am on my feet I should like to say this. At the last session of parliament we were asked to vote a war appropriation of $700,000,000, the details of which expenditure are presently under review. We facilitated the passage of that resolution as no other resolution was ever facilitated in the whole history of the House of Commons, and when I hear hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches criticize us for what they consider to be destructive criticism under this measure they are entirely oblivious of the fact that we facilitated the passage of that other resolution to help the war effort and with hardly a word of information about it. That is just in passing.
In that same session of parliament, because of the tragedy of the events then occurring and because of the nature of the times, we did not ask, except in a brief and very general way, as to the war credit that had been voted at the preceding session of parliament. Was that not cooperation? It was cooperation of a kind that I do not think ought ever to occur in parliament again, and I promise the ministry that as long as I am at this desk that sort of thing will not occur again. The people of Canada want to know, and they never can know unless the government give us some detailed information in advance for study. The ministry must have anticipated, when this Sl,300,000,000 appropriation measure was brought down, that there would be discussion and that naturally we would want information. The Minister of National War Services himself, in the course of his statement, made it clear that he anticipated that we would ask and would receive the break-down of all the expenditures in his department. How can any opposition, no matter what its desire may be, ask intelligent questions about any department of war expenditures unless we have placed in front of us some picture that we can study?
With respect to the question of the thirty-day training I got a certain number of figures from the Minister of National Defence and a number of figures from the Minister of National War Services, but they are by no means complete. As the opportunity arises, I propose to ask to have them broken down, but I did not want to bring that up this afternoon because my colleague wants to ask the
Minister of Munitions and Supply about another matter, and I do not wish to occupy his place too long because his question is important.
I am making a plea now for the ministry to take into consideration over the week-end breaking down by departments, and under suitable and proper headings, every dollar of the $1,300,000,000 that they are asking for now, save and except such as they say are secret, and I certainly shall never ask for that. I am prepared to take the word of the minister that they are secret and that details cannot be published. But with respect to those that are not secret with respect to those on which it is our duty to the country to get information, I do ask the ministry, and it ought to have been done by the Minister of Finance quite a while ago as soon as he brought down his appropriation, that we be given the information for which I have asked. I know that we have been given general figures which are on Hansard, but we have not been supplied with a printed statement showing the expenditures by the various departments and under proper headings. I should like to have that information, broken down as far as would be reasonably necessary for intelligent examination and discussion. I do plead with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National War Services and all the other ministers who are spending this huge sum of money to give this information to the house and the country. I do not think it is very difficult. If the Minister of National War Services were to allow me to see that portfolio in front of him, I venture to say it contains a breakdown of every dollar of proposed expenditure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give it if the hon. member will let me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why cannot we get it in the form of a pamphlet? It would involve only the cost of the printing. I asked the other day, in addition to the figures that were given, for the cost of transportation of the trainees to the camp. That is an important item. It goes into the cost of training these young men. It is part and parcel of the equity we have in these young men for future war services in Canada. That has not been given to us yet, and it is over a week since we asked for those figures. I communicated with the deputy minister; he told me they were not available. I cannot quite understand that. These men were called up first in October. The transportation cost must have been heavy. All the bills for the October camp, for taking the men home, and for bringing up the next group must have been submitted and paid before the end of
War Appropriation Bill

the year. I should like to get that information. I should like to get the cost for the January camp and, as far as possible, down to date. I want the total cost of the thirty-day training plan. I believe that when the house and the country get the figures on this plan they will be astonished at the cost.


James Garfield Gardiner: How much does the hon. member think it will be?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have an idea, but I want definite data. T do not want any guesswork about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is right here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government has it, and they have never given it to us. I ask that it be given, as a matter of right, to the membership of this house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I will tell him just what we expected would happen when we brought this in. We supposed that the opposition would ask me, as Minister of Finance, how the sum of approximately $1,450,000,000 was made up, and that I would tell him. I would give that in lump sums; such sums, for example, as six hundred and sixty-six millions, some hundreds of thousands, some odd dollars for the army; whereupon, I expected, in all probability some member of the opposition, probably the leader of the opposition, would say, "How is that made up?", and the Minister of National Defence would tell him in so far as he could, without divulging military secrets or giving information to the enemy. I thought that possibly the opposition would go through the whole sum in that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, we
are going to do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We were prepared to give that information. I made it very clear at the outset that these were not ordinary estimates and that there would not be anything definite about them-as there is in ordinary estimates -nor were we bound to spend not more than the sums which we would mention. There is a certain amount of vagueness and looseness about the amounts which enter into a war appropriation bill. But we have not been withholding a single thing. We just wanted to know what the opposition required, and we would give it in so far as it was possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Our minds are coming together very rapidly. In other words, the minister was saying that it was not the duty of the government to give these figures at all; it was our duty to pry them out of the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do suggest that, as trustees of the people of this country, as guardians of the public treasury, as tax-collectors of the people of this country, it is their duty to give an accounting without being asked to do it. Any trustee is bound to give an accounting to his cestui que trust.


James Lorimer Ilsley: An accounting!


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the implications of the minister's statement. I understand his implication is that the opposition has been derelict in its duty. I deny that absolutely.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe they have been.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right. I thought that was exactly the position the minister was taking. Well, better late than never.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, go ahead.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We want the detail of this, and we will ask to have it given to us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How much?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The whole thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, sir.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Except
those with respect to which I have already suggested that I would be quite agreeable to the reservation the minister made. If it is a secret fund

and yet I can scarcely imagine such a situation-how far is this matter of secrecy to go? I should like to think over the implications of that. What is the necessity for secrecy? In what respect? I assume it applies to $655,000,000. I deduce that from the statement of the Minister of Finance, and I do not know enough about it to know what would be secret and what 'would not. But we will find out before we are through.
How can we know if the thing is not given to us? I resent the suggestion that, in order that these details may be given, we must ask for them. That is not a principle of responsible government. That is a denial, a negation of the principle of responsible government. It is fascism in an incipient form.


Gordon Graydon: It is a waste of time, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly it is a waste of time. I would not wish to hold up this resolution if I thought that to do so would delay the government's war effort. If delay would bring any aid or comfort to the enemy, if it would help Hitler to lick England or to invade Canada, I would say "Pass the resolution this minute." But nothing like that is going to happen, and no

War Appropriation Bill
argument can be based upon that supposition. I see now that it is based on the theory that there is to be non-disclosure of fact unless it is pried out of the government. That is the theory of the government's war appropriation resolution. Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough for the Canadian people. It is not only not good enough for the people's representatives who sit on this side; it is not good enough for hon. gentlemen who sit opposite or who sit in the corners of this chamber to my right and left. Let us have an end of this attempted suppression of the facts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, all this
language is quite unwarranted and quite unj ustified.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a histrionic display which surprises me very much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope the minister liked it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly did not experience any feeling of uneasiness or discomfort as it
proceeded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As long
as the minister has a crowd behind him, he is as brave as a lion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not thinking about that aspect at all. The leader of the opposition said, why does the government not come forward and account? In the speech with which I opened this debate I stated exactly low much money had been spent to the end of January and how much money we anticipated would be spent by the end of the fiscal year; and, with regard to the coming year, I gave a total. It is only the total which we are asking the committee to vote; we are not asking the committee to vote any particular items.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the
more reason why we should have the items.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps it was no more the opposition's duty than it was that of any other hon. members-although that is what they are there for. But if the opposition, instead of launching this curious campaign of editorial writing and attacks on my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply, had exercised a little bit of judgment and applied a few business principles to the examination of these amounts, they would have had this information long, long ago. When was there the time to give this information before this loud onslaught was delivered? When have we been asked for the information? We have been giving the information in large sums,
totals, and we have not been asked for anything else. When the hon. gentleman speaks about suppression of facts and the government waiting till the facts are pried out of them, he is dealing in old-line stuff which does not fool a single member of this committee a single minute.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You ought to know. Between 1930 and 1935 that is the sort of thing you fellows put over every day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There wasn't a war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, there was an economic war just as serious as this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The conditions were not like the conditions now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Pretty bad.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the opposition had told us a week or ten days ago what detail they wanted I would have tried to supply it, and if I could not I would have got my colleagues, the service ministers, to do it. But instead of that we have been listening to speeches. We have not been asked questions until this afternoon, and now we are not being asked questions but are being treated to a display of attempted parliamentary eloquence by the leader of the opposition, in which he says he is going to ask questions. What is the information the hon. gentleman wants?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Far from the facts bearing out the minister's suggestion as to what we should be doing, I would point out that I have had on the order paper since February 24 a question which his colleague the Minister of National Defence could answer:	.
1.	How many regiments are now included in the reserve army of Canada?
2.	What is the annual cost to Canada of pay and allowances of reserve army who are on full-time pay?
That had a distinct bearing on the matters under discussion now, and I have been keen to get an answer. In view of the fact that this question has been on the order paper since February 24, I cannot see how the Minister of Finance can say that we have not asked for information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I meant in the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), which started all the discussion. I believe I stated as I sat down that I was prepared to answer questions now or later, and the first question with reference to the matter came from the member for Weyburn. It was a proper one. He asked whether I had information and whether I could give it now or would prefer to give it at some other time. I have consulted with
War Appropriation Bill

the Minister of Finance and he states that this is the proper time to deal with it. It could be dealt with again on the bill but now is the proper time to take it up.
So far as general information is concerned, I think it would be well to put the figures on Hansard this evening so that hon. members might have it before them between now and Monday.
The amount expended in my department is very small as compared with the total amount, but it will give some idea of the information in a part of the service in which I do not think there are any items that are secret. I believe that all the items in my department can be given to the members and to the public. I will read the general figures which will give an outline of the expenditures.
Taking departmental administration, the expenditures to January 31, 1941, amounted to $24,083.35.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is giving the figures since the department was set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The amount
expended was the sum I have just mentioned and the estimated expenditure to the end of the financial year, March 31, 1941, is $16,24594. The total expenditure for 1940-41 is $40,329.29 and the estimated expenditure for the next year is $65,290.
For human resources, the first item is national registration, the amount expended to January 31, 1941, being $792,480.41. The estimated expenditure to the end of the year is $128,007.41. The total is $920,487.82. The estimated expenditure for the next year is SI,000. It is just a matter of keeping the records up to date.
Next is the bureau of statistics. As hon. members know, the bureau is in the Department of Trade and Commerce but it is doing work for us. It is not the intention of this department to set up any new branches where there is a branch already in existence which can do the particular work, and we use the bureau of statistics for all statistical work. This year the expenditure up to January 31, 1941, was $193,069.94 while the estimated expenditure to the end of the year is $153,454.49. The total is $346,524.43. For the next year the estimate is $129,360, which will again be only a matter of keeping up to date those records which I produced last evening.
The next item is recruiting. The expenditure to January 31, is $217,770.57. The estimated expenditure to the end of March 1941, is $498,472.90.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that include transportation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Does it include transportation both ways, to and from the camp?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. After they go to
the camps the national defence takes care of it. The total for recruiting for 1940-41 is $716,243.47, and the estimated expenditure for 1941-42 is $547,040.
With all due respect, I would venture to say that these figures are smaller than my hon. friend thought they would be, so far as our department is concerned. The next item is human and material resources. The expenditure to January 31, 1941, is $3,809.88. The estimated expenditure to March 31, 1941, is $34,445.82. The total is $38,255.70, and the estimated expenditure for 1941-42 is $63,210.
Next we come to voluntary services. The expenditure to January 31, 1941 is $8,434.99. The expenditure to the end of the year is $12,343.17. The total for 1940-41 is $20,778.16, and the estimated expenditure for 1941-42 is $27,080.
The last item is publicity. The expenditure to January 31-that is to say, the actual moneys paid out-amounted to $105,173.30. The estimated expenditure to the end of the year is $334,000.33. The total for 1940-41 is $439,173.63, and we estimate for next year a little more than double that amount, $956,420.
The total expenditure, 1940-41, is $2,521,792.50, and the estimated expenditure for 1941-42 is $1,789,400.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to thank the minister for the break-down. I must say, however, that he is hardly fair in the statement he made. As I remember this procedure last year, when a similar resolution was brought down providing for $700,000,000, he first of all presented a general break-down of that figure and then each minister whose department was involved gave a statement of general policy and a break-down of the figure as it related to his department. If I remember correctly that was the policy followed last year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not the minister then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By the present Minister of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: He certainly got under the skin of the government.


James Layton Ralston: All right, I am glad. I am
supposed to foe one of those meek people who take it lying down. I say that there is no suggestion of suppression. It is not a fair statement to make such a suggestion. I understood my hon. friends wanted to get on with this resolution. They are entitled to all information possible as to past expenditure; as to the future we can tell them as best we can what the programme is, what we are trying to work out, but I think that is all. When you come to hang up the dollar sign in front of it, it is much more difficult than they think. Therefore I am here ready to give all the information I can in connection with any particular function, unless it is something secret, and there is not much that is, but it is subject to so many factors and events that it is not much use. There are so many unknown factors which one cannot take into account beforehand, and which must be considered as constituting conditions and reservations that it is difficult to give accurate information.
The hon. member for Souris said he had not received any answer to his question. I say to my hon. friend that I personally called him no less than three times on the telephone at his room with reference to that very question. I should have written him a letter or rose in my place in the house; I am sorry. But the form of my hon. friend's question makes it difficult to know just what information he wants.


James Arthur Ross: I am sorry. But I was in the house each time the minister asked that the question stand.


James Layton Ralston: He asks:
What is the annual cost to Canada of pay and allowances of reserve army who are on full-time pay?
War Appropriation Bill

I think my hon. friend is asking for the pay and allowances of those of the reserve army who are working in connection with the reserve units. The question of pay and allowances of those in the reserve army involves much more than that, because many are on a camp staff somewhere else altogether. They may be in England. I wanted to ask my hon. friend just what he wanted, and that is why he has not been given the information before.


James Arthur Ross: I wanted the estimated cost of the reserve army in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what the
question says at all. The only people who are on full-time pay are the officers who are working with the units, it might be a quartermaster sergeant or some sergeant at headquarters. There are those of the reserve office who are on full-time pay and allowances who are not working with and whose duties do not concern the reserve army at all; they are working in connection with some staff duties. I have the information in two ways; I thought my hon. friend was really concerned with the reserve units, but I did not want to give an answer and have him say I gave the wrong information.


James Arthur Ross: With regard to what the minister has just said, is it necessary that those officers or non-commissioned officers so employed be of a category which would take them into the active service army?


James Layton Ralston: It depends upon what
the job is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the Minister of Finance give us for the other war departments a statement and break-down similar to the one that has been placed on the record by the Minister of National War Services? These figures are large; they are numerous; I have a pretty good head for figures, but I cannot remember them; I certainly would like to investigate and examine them. I think that by consent we could eliminate discussion about a good many of these items, if this were done. Certainly I do not want to go through the whole array.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give, and put it on Hansard so that hon. gentlemen can have it for Monday', a list of the amounts which make up the total-I said approximately 81,450.000,000; it is almost exactly $1,400,000,000. I will put them on Hansard now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or we
could take it as read, and save time. If the minister has a spare copy and could send it to my office, I should be greatly obliged.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can get a copy for my hon. friend but I do not have it here. This will not give the kind of break-down that the Minister of National War Services just gave the committee; this will give much larger items.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We can get the break-down afterwards.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend can get that from the respective ministers. Here are the figures:
Amounts Submitted by Departments to January 31, 1941
National Defence-
Departmental administration	 $	746,660
Army services	 666,574,659
Naval services	 181,000,000
Air services	 386,000,000
Internment operations	 8,232,697
Censorship	  207,636
Dependents' allowance board	 342,240
Royal Military College	 434,492
Northwest territories and Yukon radio	 177,500
Inspection board-United Kingdom	and Canada	 3,510,640
Munitions and Supply-
Administration	 $ 2,750,000
Expansion of industry	 177,928,100

War Appropriation Bill
Amounts Submitted by Departments to January 31, 1941-Concluded
Other departments-
Agriculture	
Auditor General	
Civil service commission	
External Affairs	
Finance	
Fisheries	
Justice	
Labour	
Mines and Resources	
National Revenue	
National War Services	
Pensions and National Health.
Post Office	
Prime Minister's office	
Privy Council office	
Public Works	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Secretary of State	
Trade and Commerce	
Transport

Government-owned enterprises.
100,000
32,497,608


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are the figures the minister gave before, are they not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think I gave them all. I think I spoke very generally when I introduced the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that $603,000 for fisheries in connection with the war?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I shall have to leave it to the minister to explain.
I will ask hon. members to recall that the general picture indicated by these figures was presented at the beginning of the debate, and at that time I added certain qualifications. For instance, there is the matter of duplication in respect of the proposed vote for munitions and supply. It is not just clear to what extent this will be true, but it may be that this $180,000,000 is to some degree a duplication of amounts voted for the defence services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is not able to say to what extent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it is impossible. I dealt with that in the speech I made at the beginning, and I said why it was not possible. Then, as I recall, there were two other H873-86
considerations I wanted the house to have at the time the figures were given. One, of course, was with reference to the uncertainty about deliveries. That always would have to be taken into account. I think the other uncertainty was as to the nature of the developments in the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is very reasonable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those are the qualifications; and with those three considerations these are the figures. It was because of the qualifications that I did not want to ask the house for $1,460,000,000. I thought that to ask for $1,300,000,000 was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked a question to-day with regard to Eastern Passage airport contracts. The hon. member is not here; I have inquired and found that he has left, but I spoke to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition about the matter and I wish to say that I have been in communication with the staff of the ministry for air and that Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C., was asked by the minister to examine into the matter referred to and to give the minister a report. That report is expected shortly.

The Late John Hall Kelly


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he will break down the figures for the army into the amount spent last year for the non-permanent active militia; the amount spent on the active service force; the amount spent on the trainees; the amount spent on the administration of general headquarters; the amount spent on the administration of the different districts; the amount spent on ordnance and stores; the amount spent for construction and repairs, and the amount spent for transportation. I should also like a break-down of what it is expected will be spent during the coming year under the same divisions.


James Layton Ralston: I am not sure that I have the expenditures for the coming year in that form. The way I have them here is in formations or functions, but I shall endeavour to see if the information can be put in the other form. My hon. friend has given us quite an order there.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRERAR moved the adjournment of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What will be the business on Monday?


Mr. CRERAR:: The business on Monday will be a continuation of the discussion on this resolution. If we get it out of committee, and the house is agreeable, we would like to proceed with the bill. Should that not be possible, we will take up the resolutions on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Public Works, also the second readings on the order paper. None of them is very contentious, and probably they will pass quickly. I do not wish to imply that this necessarily will be the order in which these matters will be taken up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But generally speaking?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Generally speaking.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this all the auditor general's report we are going to have to help us look into these matters? If so, it will take a long time to get through.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is only the one report for the year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am asking if this is
the only report we are going to get from the auditor general with reference to expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1940.

There really is not anything at all in this report. If we are compelled to ask all the questions we may find necessary, I can see us sitting here until next Christmas.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am pleased to hear there is nothing in the report.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at
six p.m.
Monday, March 10, 1941.