1942-04-30

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FltANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a private Liberal member of this hon. house I rise to a question of privilege.
On April 28, Colonel the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, is reported at page 1968 of Hansard as having spoken as follows:
There are a certain number of professional soldiers, and thank heaven there are, because we did not treat our professional soldiers any too well, at least during the period when I was Minister of National Defence previously. I take my share of responsibility for that. From 1926 to 1930 the army and national defence services were nearly starved, and I make that statement now. It seemed to me that perhaps the most popular indoor sport in those days was cutting amounts off the estimates for national defence, and the hon. member for Temiscouata did his share of advocating that this be done. Now I say to my hon. friend that in spite of all that, the men who were professional soldiers did keep on.
With regard to the two first above quoted sentences, such a confession of incompetence and incapacity has been delayed for a considerable time indeed, but it had to be made in due course and it is duly acknowledged.
The second part of the above quotation is even more absurd than malicious. Who would believe that the then Minister of National Defence did ever substitute for four years or for a minute the advice of the member for Temiscouata for that of all the pompous brass hats that adorn the Department of National Defence?
What are the facts? The hon. Minister of National Defence was elected for the first time to the House of Commons in September, 1926.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. On a question of privilege the hon. member is of course entitled to refute anything that has been said which he thinks is a breach of the privileges of hon. members, but I would not wish the hon. member to think that he can make an extended argument-


Mr. POULIOT:: I am not making an argument, Mr. Speaker; I am stating facts.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You certainly are.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend should keep quiet and listen to learn what I am doing now. I am not making an argument; I am stating facts, which is the privilege of an hon. member. I do not contend that any hon. member is supposed to withdraw what he said about another hon. member if he does not use unparliamentary language, but when a statement of fact is made in relation to an hon. member, that member unquestionably has the right to state the relevant facts as he sees them, and that is what I am doing now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Make it short.


Jean-François Pouliot: Between September 1926 and 1930 there were four sessions of parliament. I have the index of Hansard for each of those sessions, and in those for 1926-27 and 1929 I challenge the minister to find anything that I said1 concerning his department. The only question that I asked him in the session of 1928 was on the estimates and in connection with the establishment of a landing field at Riviere du Loup. The minister answered that he had nothing to do with it. That was all for that year.
With regard to the session of 1930, in order to prepare my speech on Mr. Bennett's amendment to the budget I had asked all the cabinet ministers what they considered their greatest accomplishments, and I assumed personal responsibility for what the Minister of National Defence and his colleagues told me when I included their notes in my speech to boost my party before the general elections of that year.
I have sent the four Hansard indexes of those sessions to the Minister of National Defence, and they are on his desk. I challenge him to prove his erroneous contention that the hon. member for Temiscouata did his share of advocating the most popular indoor sport in those days, cutting amounts off from the estimates for national defence.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot

With regard to the last sentence of the above quotation, the truth shall never be falsified even by a self-centred miniature navel of the whole world.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has been speaking in the light of the privilege which he has as a member of this house, and he has also been speaking on a question of privilege. In so doing he referred to members of the staff of the Department of National Defence as "pompous brass hats". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that at this time when many of those members are offering their lives on the field of battle this house should not countenance a characterization of the kind in these halls of parliament. I think, Mr. Speaker, you would be justified in asking that those words should be withdrawn by the hon. member.


Georges Parent: I did notice with regret that remark made by the hon. member; I thought it was uncalled for and contrary to the sense of the house of which he is a member. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the statement should be withdrawn, not only in justice to the members of the forces but also in justice to the hon. member himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask, under what rule?


Georges Parent: The ordinary rules which obtain in debates in this house, that persons who are not in a position to defend themselves here should not have a derogatory statement of this kind go out to the country as an expression of the views of this house. I think the hon. member should withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: If that is your ruling, sir, I bow to it.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment.-Mr. Turgeon.
First report of special committee on land settlement of veterans of the present war.- Mr. Macmillan.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise not for the purpose of
opposing this motion, which of course is purely pro forma, but to call attention to the fact that a large number of committees are now meeting simultaneously and, as has been represented to me, it is obviously impossible for hon. members who serve on more than one committee to attend the meetings of committees which occur at the same time. I merely ask that some provision be made for staggering the meetings of committees so that hon. members who are on more than one may have the opportunity of attending and taking part in the proceedings of those committees. These reports are illustrative of what I have in mind, and if 3'ou will look at the Votes and Proceedings you will see that many of these committees are meeting at the same time. Members of our party particularly, since we have a limited number, cannot possibly perform their duties when they are members of committees which meet at the same time, and I would ask the minister who is looking after the distribution of the business of the committees, if I may so describe it, to see that the meetings are staggered.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	That is
being attended to. The chairmen of the various committees have been asked to meet together and arrange their work accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City) presented the first report of the special committee on canteen funds, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
TUG "bally"
['1.\tYes.\n2.\tThe Lovat Steamship Company, Limited, of Halifax, N.S., has been subsidized for a number of years past for a service between Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, during the season of navigation in each year. The', "\n\nQuestions as Orders jor Returns\nsubsidy paid in 1941-42 was $42,500. The service consisted of two trips a week from the opening of navigation until the end of November, and one trip a week in December, with trips from the Magdalen islands to Halifax every three weeks, at the contractor's option.\nThe service is being continued during the present season, with the exception of the Halifax trips, but the contract has not yet been completed.\nThe Clarke Steamship Company's subsidized service between Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe extends its trips every two weeks from Gaspe to the Magdalen islands, but this extension is not subsidized by the federal government."]
Mr. McGREGOR:: .
1.	What vessel was purchased by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services to replace the tug Ballyl
2.	From whom was she purchased?
3.	At what date was she purchased?
4.	What was the total purchase price?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City).
1.	Restico.
2.	Restigouche Power and Paper Company.
3.	July 3, 1941.
4.	$11,000.

Questions



Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is any portion of the Alaska highway to be constructed by Canada, or under the authority of the government of Canada?
2.	If so, how many miles and what is the location thereof?
3.	Upon what basis are the contracts to be awarded ?
i.	Have any contracts been awarded as yet? If so, to whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The United States government, by agreement with the Canadian government, has undertaken the building and war-time maintenance of the Alaska highway from Fort St. John to Fairbanks. Present plans provide for the construction of a pioneer road which will be built by the United States using United States troops for surveys and initial construction. The highway will be completed under contracts made by the United States public roads administration and awarded with a view to insuring the execution of all contracts in the shortest possible time without regard to whether the contractors are Canadian or American. No portion of the highway is to be constructed by Canada.
2,	3 and 4 answered by No. 1.


SASKATCHEWAN PENITENTIARY-SCRAP IRON OR STEEL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Did the Department of Justice during the year 1941 sell or dispose of any scrap iron or steel accumulated in the Saskatchewan penitentiary ?
2.	If so, to whom and what was the amount thereof and the price per ton realized therefor?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	Saskatoon Metal Company, Saskatoon, Sask., on salvage minutes 16848 and 17046, through salvage office, Department of Finance:
23,190 lbs. wrought iron, mostly pipe,
$2 ton	 $ 23 19
40,365 lbs. cast iron, $6 ton		121 10
600 lbs. cast iron lasts, last stand,
etc., ic lb	 3 00
2,490 lbs. scrap steel, $2 ton		2 49


$ 149 78 SHIPMENTS OF CATTLE AND MEAT PRODUCTS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many head of cattle have been shipped to the United States in each month between July 1, 1941, and the date hereof?
2.	What was the corresponding export during the said months in each of the years 1939 and 1940?
3.	How many pounds of beef and meat products were shipped to the United States during each of said months and years?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1 and 2. Exports of cattle to the United States:
1939	1940	1941Month	No.	No.	No.July 	.. 43,402	21,024	30,748August 	.. 28,91S	22,992	28,242September	.. 16,360	21,540	25,079October	.. 23,647	19,751	28,638November	.. 22,048	25,810	18,505December 	.. 6,122	8,924	23,2921940	1941	1942January 	.. 10,178	16,950	37,561February 	.. 8,434	12,066	16,772March 	.. 12,700	9,086	10,1913. Exports of	beef, fresh,	to the	UnitedStates:	1939	1940	1941100 lb.	100 lb.	100 lb.July 	.. 876	696	81August 	.. 939	167	43September 	.. 895	454	13October 	.. 362	317	272November 	.. 46	73	982December 	.. 39	1,218	6,1241940	1941	1942January 	.. 361	304	15,898February 	.. 226	121	12,204March 	.. 247	98	13,050
Other exports of meat to United States:
1939	1940	1941100 lb.	100 lb.	100 lb.July 	... 2,S09	2,634	18,303August 	... 1,855	5,913	2,169September ....	... 2,682	4,586	3,226October 	.... 4,604	6,699	2,106November ....	.... 3,845	7,425	2,742December 	.... 3,788	6,787	4,2091940	1941	1942January 	.... 2,910	12,725	4,882February 	3,278	17,325	4,275March 	,... 3,153	18,587	3,094


MAGDALEN ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Does the government give subsidies or grants to shipping companies for services with Magdalen islands, Quebec?
2.	If so, what are these subsidies or grants, to which companies have they been given, and for what services?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Lovat Steamship Company, Limited, of Halifax, N.S., has been subsidized for a number of years past for a service between Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, during the season of navigation in each year. The



Questions as Orders jor Returns
subsidy paid in 1941-42 was $42,500. The service consisted of two trips a week from the opening of navigation until the end of November, and one trip a week in December, with trips from the Magdalen islands to Halifax every three weeks, at the contractor's option.
The service is being continued during the present season, with the exception of the Halifax trips, but the contract has not yet been completed.
The Clarke Steamship Company's subsidized service between Montreal, Quebec and Gaspe extends its trips every two weeks from Gaspe to the Magdalen islands, but this extension is not subsidized by the federal government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Minister of Naval Services any statement to make as to the opening of the naval college and has his attention been called to a statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty on March 11, last, as to the condition of the personnel and their avenues of promotion and standards of training in the Royal Navy?
2.	What provision will be made by way of aid or scholarships or otherwise, in secondary Canadian schools to those whose parents cannot afford expensive training, to attract the youth of Canada to service in our navy and merchant marine?
3.	What is the method of selection now in vogue ?
4.	Who are the staff of the college and what actual naval experience have they had either in the Royal or Canadian navies or merchant marine at sea?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the number of unemployed in each Canadian city, of a population of ten thousand or over?
2.	How many in each of these cities are receiving direct relief?


MAGDALEN ISLANDS AIK SERVICES
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Are there any air line companies receiving grants, subsidies or allowances for certain services in Magdalen islands, Quebec?
2.	If so, what are these companies and what amounts are they receiving or have they received and for what reason?



PRIVILEGE-MR. ESLING OBJECTION TO REMOVAL OF JAPANESE NATIONALS TO MUNICIPALITY OF KASLO, B.C

Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would ask to be permitted to make a statement on a matter of immediate and vital importance to my riding. As is well known, there is in progress a movement of Japanese from the British Columbia coast to areas east of the Cascade mountains. According to a Canadian Press report from Vancouver under date of March 10, the chairman of the British Columbia security commission, under whose direction the movement is being carried out, is credited with the statement that Japanese will not be moved to any area until opinion is unanimously in favour of that being done.
Recently officials at Kaslo, a community on Kootenay Lake, invited the chairman to send a contingent of Japanese into that city, and preparations are now under way for the housing of women, children and aged Japanese men. On the other hand I have a protest signed by 112 Kaslo citizens protesting vigorously against the bringing in of the Japanese. In last year's census Kaslo was recorded as having a population of 463. In the opinion of the dominion statistician 30 to 40 per cent is a conservative estimate of the proportion of children in a municipal census. It may be accepted therefore that the 112 who protested are a representative proportion of the adult community. It is in order that we might avoid factional feelings, ill will and perhaps bitterness that I have been requested by those who protest to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to interest themselves in this matter, in the light of the statement by the chairman that these Japanese would not be placed in any community without unanimous approval.
This matter is of real importance not only in its relation to Kaslo but in its relation to other communities. Perhaps the difficulty has arisen because of the original statement that the northern boundary of the prohibited area in West Kootenay was to be the fiftieth parallel. In that event Kaslo would have been included in the prohibited area. But for some reason perhaps best known to the Minister of Justice that area was changed; thus we have the difficulty to which I direct the attention of the government.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: It is difficult to get unanimous agreement to put the Japanese anywhere. I believe in almost all cases where we have
(Mr. J. A. MacKinnon.]

Privilege-Mr. Esling
been, able to move them there has been a considerable body of opinion against their being moved to particular localities. In view of the situation at the coast I think in the national interest too much notice should not be taken of that.
A request came from the board of trade of the district to which the hon. member has referred, and there was a further request from the mayor of that community. I believe it would be fair to say that Kaslo is what might be known as a ghost town. A number of ghost towns in that area sent in requests- four of them, to be exact-that the Japanese be removed to those communities. The commission sent in an inspector, and after investigation contracts were let for the repair of houses in which Japanese women and children cculd be placed. It is estimated that we can put about 5,000 persons in those particular communities.
I have been out there and looked over the ground, and it does make it very difficult for those charged with the responsibility of facing up to this problem when it is found that everyone wants them to go but no one wants to take them. A decision has to be made by somebody, and in the light of all the facts I can think of no better place to put those Japanese than in the ghost towns to which I have just referred. The climate there is comparatively good; the Japanese women and children will be treated well, and there will be ample protection. It should be remembered by hon. gentlemen that we are removing Japanese to other provinces, and we have had similar objections from certain quarters. But if this movement is to become effective in the most dangerous areas we must at times overlook some of the objections raised.
So far as I am personally concerned, as I said before I do not know of any better place than those ghost towns up in the Crow Valley to which these women and children might be moved. All facilities are available; it will be comparatively easy to carry on the education of the children, and all necessary sanitation and housing facilities are there. The houses need only a little repair, and when that is done those people will be out of harm's way. In view of the requests received and the investigations we have made I do not think that at this time we should be asked to change our decision in the matter.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would the minister care to tell the house whether or not the dominion government has assumed responsibility for the expense of educating the children of these Japanese people? Obviously if a considerable number of people are brought
44561-127J
into a community the local people will object on the ground that there must be increased school facilities. Again, who assumes the responsibility for looking after these people after they have been placed in those communities? Does the dominion government shoulder the financial responsibility, or must the province do so?


Humphrey Mitchell: The dominion government.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. The special committee to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations presented its report to the house on June 4 of last year. In that report was the following recommendation:
11. Your committee recommends that for the duration of the war a special committee of the house should be appointed at each session to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations and matters incidental thereto.
Having in mind particularly the fact that there has been a change in the head of the department since those recommendations were made, does the government contemplate the establishment of such a committee, as recommended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer in
the affirmative, yes.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, as to-morrow is the first day of May, I should like to know if the government is in a position to make any announcement about the housing situation, first under the Dominion Housing Act and, secondly, with respect to taking care of the soldiers under the war-time legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question had better stand as notice.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member sent me notice of the question he has just asked. It is an important one, and raises a question with respect to additional moneys which will have to be appropriated to carry on operations under the Dominion Housing Act. That matter
v Labour Conditions

is not yet definitely settled, but I believe I shall be able to make a statement in regard to it within about a week.
The remainder of the hon. member's question relates to the department headed by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), under whose jurisdiction Wartime Housing Limited operates. I do not believe he has had notice of the question. It may be that he would like to look at it and, if he so desires, he could make a statement later.



POSSIBILITT OP REVIVAL OF HOME IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Mr. LOCKHART:: As the Minister of
Finance in his annual review will no doubt be making a statement on the housing situation, would he give consideration to commenting on the possibility of reestablishing some form of home improvement plan to help relieve certain aspects of the housing situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I will give consideration to that matter and make a statement with regard to -it as well.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask a question of
the Minister of Munitions and Supply, of which I sent the minister notice on Tuesday. This matter arises out of a telegram which I have received from the secretary of the steel workers union in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. It states that work at the shell plant in Trenton was being curtailed to two shifts of eight hours a day each, because one company finishing shell forgings had cut down on its order. Can the minister explain why a plant working on shell forging parts should curtail its orders at this time?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have a report from my
office on the subject matter of that wire and my advice is that this plant has always worked two shifts a day, that it was organized on that basis. Our total requirements of forgings of the size in question are 20,000 a month. These are being provided currently and have been right along on the basis of two shifts. This production of 20,000 forgings a month takes care of all our requirements for finished shells.



STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES OF BANQUE CANADIENNE NATIONALE IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I have just been informed by telephone from Montreal that the employees of the Banque Canadienne Nationale have gone on strike this morning. The immediate cause of the strike is the refusal of the management to negotiate with the representatives of the employees, and of the regional war labour board to set a date to hear their grievance. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if his office is aware of the situation and if he will see that the rights of these employees under the special legislation are properly looked after.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have knowledge of the strike at this particular bank. On the 2Sth of this month Mr. Pat Conroy of the Canadian Congress of Labour stated that they were having some difficulty in negotiating with the bank. Through the agency of the conciliation staff of the Department of Labour a meeting was arranged. I understand that this was the first time they had sat down with the management of that institution, but unfortunately no agreement could be arrived at. I say "unfortunately" because of this day and age. I would point out that while this matter does not fall primarily within the jurisdiction of the federal government, we felt that if we could be of any assistance in conciliating this dispute we would be ready to give it. With regard to the other question raised by my hon. friend, I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the Quebec regional board.



ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OP UNION WORKERS BY MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, on the 23rd of April the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked a question arising out of complaints he had received from one Allan C. Wright, Canadian Congress of Labour organizer at Vancouver, alleging intimidation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with the examination of his registration card, and also in connection with the conduct of one security officer in the plant of the Dominion Bridge company. I stated at the time that I would have an investigation made and give the result of the investigation as soon as it was available.
[Stage Direction]
Tax Concessions-Metals
An investigation has been conducted and has established that Allan C. Wright's registration card was examined by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the request of the divisional registrar, Department of National War Services, Vancouver, as a routine check-up. Mr. Wright was not intimidated, no other matter was discussed, and he did not offer any objections.
In connection with the allegation that employees of the Dominion Bridge company, Vancouver, have been intimidated by a plant security officer and questioned regarding union membership, an investigation established that this complaint has no foundation in fact. No restrictions have been placed on any employees at the plant of the Dominion Bridge company, and access to the plant has not been denied to any accredited trade union organizer. Furthermore, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have no connection with this matter. If the hon. member wishes to have full details of the investigation I have made I shall be very glad to communicate them to him.


[Stage Direction]
' On the orders of the day.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Return No. 303D of June 5, 1941, states that it is not permissible at any time to call de Kuyper's gin, a gin. I was greatly surprised to see an advertisement in the Montreal Standard of April 25 describing this concoction as gin. I ask the minister if he will be kind enough to submit this matter to his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), for a legal opinion at the earliest possible opportunity.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): My attention has not been drawn to the publicity referred to by the hon. member, but I shall act immediately on his suggestion.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: I should like to direct the attention of the ministry to the fact that 75 per cent of the
members in this house do not hear what is said in this chamber. I do not think we can accuse the ministers of not speaking clearly, but there should be a loud speaker on the desk of every minister. AVhen certain ministers are speaking I can hear what they say, but when other ministers are speaking I cannot hear a word. I am sure that this house would heartily approve of having a loud speaker on the desk of every minister so that we may be able to hear what is going on.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to make a brief announcement of a tax concession which will be contained in the budget and which is designed to encourage prospecting in Canada for base metals and strategic materials. Certain of these metals, such as tungsten, chromite, molybdenum and manganese, for example, are vitally necessary in our war equipment and in manufacturing processes. The demand for them may increase sharply. Some present sources of supply hinge upon precarious ocean transportation. We must cut down wherever possible the risk of failure of supply. It is more than possible that we have undiscovered sources of these metals right under our very door-steps. It would be inexcusable to neglect this possibility, and the government has decided to assist in the search for these metals.
The tax concession, -which will be available to both individuals and corporations, will be in the form of an allowance against income for income and excess profits tax purposes in respect of amounts contributed to prospecting syndicates registered with provincial authorities. A person may not claim an allowance of more than $500 in respect of any one syndicate, and there will be an over-all limit of $5,000 on the total amount which one person may claim/ This would allow a person to participate up to $500 in each of ten syndicates. These allowances will be subject to the provision that in no case shall the tax saving to any person by reason of the allowance exceed 40 per cent of the amount of deductions. In addition, in registered prospecting syndicates it is proposed to allow mining companies and bona fide exploration companies a deduction up to $5,000 for
2008	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction Bonus
expenditure in sending out their own prospectors. This allowance shall also be subject to the 40 per cent limitation on tax saving previously referred to.
The syndicates and companies would be required to satisfy the Minister of National Revenue that they had been actively engaged in prospecting for the metals and minerals in question under qualified persons during a substantial part of the 1942 season, and in the case of syndicates that they had carried out the purpose for which they were formed. An audited statement of expenditure will be required. These tax concessions will be given for one year only and will apply in respect of income for 1942. I am making this statement now because this prospecting should begin at once.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should
like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In view of the ruling of the oil controller in respect to category A, that twenty-four units must be used in the summer months and only eight in the winter months, which will make it necessary for people with permanent homes in the country and offices in the city to close those homes in the winter and move into the city, will the minister look into the matter and see if this ruling can be changed so that these units may be available all the year round?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I feel quite sure that my hon. friend's interpretation of the ruling is not correct, but I shall refer the matter to the oil controller.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to ask the Minister of National War Services why the radio broadcasting committee, which was set up on March 13, has not yet been organized. When may we expect this committee to begin its work? I think we ought to have some explanation as to why it has not been set up before this?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: The committee
will meet early next week.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Yesterday I agreed that when we
reached the orders of the day I would give certain information with regard to payments under the wheat acreage reduction plan. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the house, if I may give this information without prejudice or without setting a precedent for the bringing down of lists of names in answer to questions on matters of this kind, I should like to give this information now.
The information desired is with regard to the persons who received payments of $5,000 and upwards under the wheat acreage reduction plan. It will be recalled by the house that under the regulations of last year provision was made for payment to any person who reduced his wheat acreage in the western provinces in the year 1941 as compared with an established acreage for the year 1940. There were seven cheques issued which exceeded $5,000 in amount, and the information desired was the names of the persons to whom these payments were made and their addresses.
The first name on the list which I have in my hand is Mrs. Marie Wilson, of Harris, Saskatchewan. The total decrease of wheat acreage made on the farms of Mrs. Wilson was 3,170 acres. The total number of acres of the reduced acreage that was placed in coarse grains was 977, which at $2 per acre amounted to $1,954; and in summer-fallow, 2,193 acres at $4, which amounted to $8,772, or a total of $10,726.
The second on the list is the Canada Permanent Mortgage company. The payments made appear on the list as having been made through the Regina office, although I think the head office of this company is in Toronto. This payment covers 218 farms located throughout the prairie provinces which I think are operated under a central organization that has been set up by the Canada Permanent Mortgage company. It is not for any one single farm. The total reduction in acreage made by the company

War Expenditures-Mr. Blackmore
on these farms was 20,320 acres. Coarse grains were seeded to 9,047 acres, which at $2 per acre made a total of SIS,094; summer-fallow, 11,273 acres, which at $4 amounted to $45,092, or a total on the 218 farms of $63,186.
The next name on the list is G. H. Wesley, of Wrentham, Alberta. I am not familiar personally with the facts of this case. I do not know whether Mr. Wesley is an individual farmer or a man who operates a farm on a company basis, but the payment was made to Mr. G. H. Wesley, of Wrentham, Alberta. The number of acres put into coarse grains was 615, which at $2 amounted to $1,230; grass, 50 acres at $2, amounting to S100; summer-fallow, 3,145 acres at $4, or $12,580, making a total of $13,910 for a wheat acreage reduction of 3,810 acres.
Next on the list is Noble Farms Ltd., Nobleford, Alberta. The number of acres put into coarse grains was 149, which at $2 amounted to $298; summer-fallow, 2,635 acres at $4, $10,540, or a total of $10,838 for a reduced wheat acreage of 2,784.
J. T. Heninger, Lucky Strike, Alberta, put into grass 138 acres, which at $2 amounted to $276; summer-fallow, 1,441 acres at $4, or $5,764, making a total of $6,040 for a total wheat acreage reduction of 1,479.
H. Newfeld, of Lethbridge, Alberta, put into summer-fallow 2,250 acres, which at $4 amounted to $9,000. His wheat acreage reduction was 2,250 acres.
Wm. Kynock, of Maybutt, Alberta, put into coarse grains 805 acres, which at $2 amounted to $1,610; summer-fallow, 1,793 acres at $4, or $7,172, making a total of $8,782 for a total wheat acreage reduction of 2,598 acres.



HONG KONG COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he tell the house when we may expect the report of the royal commission set up to investigate the Hong Kong expedition? The commission in the United States which was appointed to investigate the Pearl Harbour bombing flew to Pearl Harbour and tabled its report with the President of the United States on January 24. I imagine that most of the members of the house would like to have the report on the Hong Kong expedition as soon as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The entire proceedings of the Hong Kong inquiry have been under the direction and complete control of the Chief Justice of Canada. The Chief Justice has been giving his time continuously to the inquiry. I believe he has of necessity experienced delays in obtaining some of the evidence which had to be obtained from a distance and there may be other reasons as well, but I understand that he expects to be able to present his report to the government very shortly. As soon as it is received it will be tabled.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the government's intention at this decisive hour to grant immediately to the province of Quebec the representation in the cabinet to which it is entitled?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being carefully considered, I may say.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the appointment of a committee on war expenditures.
Mr. J. Ii. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday I was giving some attention to the apparent duties of the committee according to the somewhat indefinite wording which I find in the resolution, and making suggestions as to how the committee's effectiveness might be improved. I should like briefly to refer to one item which I did not take time to cover yesterday, and after that I shall be done with this question. I refer to the words:
-to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein,
As these words stand, they are capable of an exceedingly wide interpretation. If I understand aright, the government's policy is to have a total war effort. In order to have a total war effort a great many things
2010	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Blackmore
require attention in Canada which at the present time are not being considered. I do not suppose the Prime Minister has in mind the inclusion of all the subjects which could properly occupy the attention of the committee, but may I just suggest one. In order to have a total war effort it is extremely necessary that we should have a high degree of morale in the country. While this is not the place to discuss the question-I intend merely to refer to it very briefly-matters of this kind ought to come before some committee somewhere. I have in mind the question of non-pensioned veterans' war widows. This properly comes under the scope of other committees, but it is not specifically pointed out what this committee shall cover, and the war widows have been presenting their case for a good deal of time now. When veterans who are receiving war veterans' allowance die, the widows, no matter in what condition they may be, according to the information I have, are deprived of the income. The result is that we are causing a great many people in Canada to feel exceedingly unhappy, and that unhappiness is spreading in a way which is not building up the morale of the people at home or of the troops.
That is just one matter. I referred yesterday to the fact that the committee's duties might easily involve the consideration of the production of food and clothing and many other things. However, in the interests of cutting short the discussion so that the government may go on with its business, I will defer until some other time anything else I may have to say.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking yesterday afternoon he mentioned that the war expenditures committee had not investigated any of the war contracts. It was my understanding, as I looked across at the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), who was chairman of that committee last year, that he did not agree with that point of view and insisted that war contracts had been investigated. Now I have every Tegard for the minister, but, so far as my observation goes I must disagree with him. I was on the committee during the session of 1941, and no contracts were investigated at that time- that is, up to June 3. I was not present at the sittings of the committee between July 7 and August 21, but my reading of the report leads me to believe that no specific contracts were examined. Yesterday the Department of Munitions and Supply was specifically mentioned, and my understanding is that the
fMr. Blackmore.]
chairman of the committee at that time said that contracts were investigated. I must repeat that while I was attending the sessions of the committee, contracts were not investigated. We did investigate the procedure. We had the deputy minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply before us, and I really believe, in view of all the circumstances, we expended too much time on acquiring information on the procedure followed from the time the Department of Munitions and Supply gets a request for material from any of the other departments. If my interpretation of the department's function is correct, it is largely a purchasing department. Orders do not initiate within that department; they come from some other department. I was on subcommittee No. 3, of which the Minister of National War Services was chairman. All our time was taken up with the investigating of the financial controls and the financial set-up in the various branches of the armed forces. I believe that the work was worth while and that good did accrue from it.
I have in my hand the report which was tabled on November 3 of last year. From a reading of it I cannot see that any contract as such was investigated by any of the subcommittees or by the committee as a whole. Subcommittee No. 1 dealt with precisely the same matters while it sat during the recess as it did while the house was in session-that is, contracts for civilian flying clubs, associations or companies, airports, aerodromes or air force building construction, specification or design, or such projects or inspection thereof during construction.
While the methods of calling for tenders and such things were examined, no specific contract was examined, so far as I can find. The paragraph in the report of this subcommittee dealing with those contracts reads as follows:
The subcommittee finds that great care is exercised to assure secrecy of bids and assure competitive bidding. The subcommittee finds contracts are let on a lump sum basiB or on a unit basis depending upon the nature of the work to be done. The subcommittee also finds that where all of the tenders are considered to be too high the contract is not awarded until tenders are again called for. In every instance the contract is av'arded to the lowest bidder. Before the contracts are awarded the whole project is checked by the timber controller's office and the tenders are also submitted to the defence department interested for its approval. The subcommittee finds that the construction branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply _ is very efficiently managed and that precautions are taken to protect the public interest. During the year 1940 something over 92 million dollars worth of buildings were constructed.

War Expenditures-Mr. Maclnnis
This is clear proof that it was not the specific contracts that were examined, but the method and the procedure by which contracts were let.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Then what did the committee do?


Angus MacInnis: Just what I said; it examined procedure. And there may have been a great deal to do in that regard. I want it to be quite clear that I am not finding fault with what the committee did;
I am simply pointing out what the committee did not do, and it needs to be done.
Subcommittee No. 2 dealt with the matter of medical, dental and hospital services, also I believe with the matter of salvage and such things. Subcommittee No. 3 dealt with precisely the same matters as we dealt with when the house was in session last spring and summer. The three parts of the report are as follows:
Part 1 deals with the recommendations and principles enunciated in the interim report of former subcommittee No. 3.
Part 2 deals with the recommendations by the subcommittee in the light of the evidence submitted to it.
Part 3 deals with the evidence before the present subcommittee. It is an insight of the financial controls and checks operating within the Department of National Defence.
These are the matters that were investigated during the time the committee sat in 1941. While it was desirable to do this as a preliminary, I think a wider and more specific investigation should be carried out. It is more than time that we had a specific investigation of contracts, if for no other reason than to allay the suspicion that all is not well in our war production.
I think almost everyone admits the need for this committee. The Prime Minister, when proposing the committee to the house last year, stressed the desirability of having such a committee functioning. But there is a contradiction between this admission and the reluctance to start the committee going and the seeming hesitancy about having it investigate these very important matters. It is most desirable that the committee meet this year without delay. It should investigate and report on specific contracts that may be brought to its attention so that the public may be assured that no one is making financial gain out of the distress of the people at this time. A further function would be a continuation of what we did last year in regard to promoting thrift and efficiency in the organization and handling of our war production.
As was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), such reports and such scrutiny would have an important effect on the morale of the people of this country.
It cannot be denied that in the setting up of war organizations and war boards almost the whole control has been put in the hands of big business and its representatives. This is a standing disgrace to the government. I wonder if this government remembers the investigation that was made by a committee of the house in 1934 into the activities of business organizations in Canada. Do they remember what was brought out and not contradicted? Have they forgotten the price spreads commission? I have under my hand a typical case of the kind of appointments made to responsible positions. Someone forwarded to me a press clipping from New Westminster referring to the appointment pi a man to a position in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The headline reads:
Byron Johnson gets R.C.A.F. building post.
The item gives Mr. Johnson's biography. Let me read it:
Byron Johnson of New Westminster has been appointed representative of Hon. C. G. Power, air minister, in connection with the building of new air bases forming part of Canada's air defence programme, the Royal Canadian Air Force announced yesterday.
Mr. Johnson will act as technical adviser to the minister and deputy minister, S. L. de Carteret, reporting directly to Ottawa on the progress of various aerodromes and buildings in course of construction for the R.C.A F., particularly in western Canada.
Here are his qualifications:
Mr. Johnson has been loaned to the dominion government by the firms with which he is associated. He is managing director of Gilley Brothers, Limited, and vice-president and director Evans, Coleman and Gilley Brothers, Limited, of New Westminster.
One of these is a fuel company and the other deals in lumber and building materials.
He has had long experience in operation of quarries, gravel pits, dredges and towboats and in the contracting industry.
Evidently this man's experience in dredging, quarries, tugboats and such things has eminently fitted him to be a supervisor of the building of airports. This is something that is continually going on, and it is sapping the morale of the people of Canada, to the extent that almost every person you meet is so cynical that people are just ready for anything. When people get to the state that they say nothing matters, then nothing does matter; they are ready for fascism or for anything that may come. This is what



War Expenditures-Mr. Maclnnis
happened to the people in many parts of Europe. They lost faith in their government; they took the attitude that things could not be any worse than they were. It was not true, of course; things could be worse, but things were so bad that the people believed that when they were told it.
Then we have the investigations that are taking place in the United States into what the Standard Oil people have been doing. These matters have appeared in Canadian newspapers, and people realize that there is a very close association not only between big business in Canada and big business in the United States but between big business all over the world. According to the New Statesman and Nation, of London, under date of April 4, in the course of evidence given by the representative of Standard Oil this came out:
Later in the year Standard Oil made arrangements with Mitsui of Japan, because, as it delicately put it, "As we fear the U.S. government, in the near future, may have grounds for action unfavourable to American and British trade, we consider it timely to organize with our Japanese partners."
In other words these representatives of big business realized that if hostilities broke out between the United States and Japan there would be a blockade, and they were getting ready to break the blockade. Let us remember also the evidence that came out after the last war with regard to the Briey iron mines in France, which were neither bombed nor attacked by artillery during the entire period of the war, and in which British, German and French investment was recognized and respected by all the belligerents.
These are facts which we must keep in mind. I suggest that this committee get to work as quickly as possible, and look into specific contracts. I doubt if there is a member of this house, at least on the opposition side, who has not had a number of contracts drawn to his attention in connection with which everything does not seem to be quite right. These contracts should be brought before the committee and investigated in every detail. I am satisfied that such an investigation will have a good effect upon the morale of our people, and will enable us to fight this war to a successful conclusion.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee that was set up last year, and I attended its meetings not only while the house was sitting but also during a portion of the time it sat during the recess. I have a few suggestions to offer which occurred to me during the sittings of the committee, as well as certain criticisms in regard to the set-up of
{.Mr. Maclnnis.]
the committee. I am one of those who believe the committee had a great work to do, and I think the challenge to do that work is still before the members of the committee which will function during the present session, to contribute something worth while to reassure the people of Canada and to increase the morale of this nation.
At the outset I must frankly say as a member of that committee that I do not believe the committee discharged the responsibility which was placed upon it. I was on the subcommittee that dealt with air matters; with contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations and companies, and also with army, navy and air force buildings, construction, and so on. With regard to my relationship to the other members of the committee, I shall always look back upon it as a very happy experience. Let us look at the number of contracts that have been awarded since the outbreak of this war. I do not know the figure at the moment, because there has been no statement by the Department of Munitions and Supply since last September as to the number of contracts let. This committee, which was at least suggested in the fall of 1940, during last session sat for a period of only six weeks, during which time it was actually in session for a matter of only some thirty to forty hours in all. Then last summer, when the committee sat during the recess, the three subcommittees had a total of only eighty-three meetings. Subcommittee No. 1 had 29 sittings and called 49 witnesses. That was the subcommittee on which I served for part of the summer, until it became necessary for me to leave in order to attend to certain personal matters. During the entire period of my absence, however, the chairman was kind enough to have forwarded to me copies of the evidence that was taken, so that I know what was actually done while I was away. Subcommittee No. 2 had 29 sittings, and 15 witnesses appeared before it. Subcommittee No. 3 held 25 sittings and called 25 witnesses. In other words last summer these three subcommittees had a total of 83 sittings. The average length of a sitting was not over two or two and a half hours, but make it three hours, if you will. The committee which was set up by parliament to investigate the billions of dollars' worth of contracts that have been let sat in the aggregate since its inception for a total of not more than 280 hours.
That will give you the picture, Mr. Speaker. That will tell you whether it would have been possible to look into any contracts whatever. Personally I do not know of any individual contracts that were inspected and examined

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
during the time I sat on subcommittee No. 1. We did study the question of the awarding of general contracts by which the training at air observer schools and elementary flying training schools was placed in the hands of civilian companies. That was all we did in so far as the matter of contracts is concerned, and a little later I am going to deal with the results of our work in that connection.
The recommendations made by the committee appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of November 3, 1941, and comprise some sixty or seventy pages. They represent findings based on the essence of the evidence that was taken; but to-day not a member of this parliament knows whether any of these recommendations has ever been carried into effect, and as yet we have not had an opportunity of discussing them. It was on November 3, 1941, that the Minister of National War Services placed these recommendations of the subcommittees on the table of the house. Yet to-day, months later, there is not an hon. member who has any idea whether all our work, short as it was and incomplete as it necessarily would be having regard to the scope of the task and to the all too few hours we spent on it, or whether any portion of the findings, the essence of which is to be found in the records of the said Votes and Proceedings I have mentioned, has ever been looked at, or has even been considered by any department of government.
The tremendous field before us was and is enough to overwhelm. Hon. members will realize the extent of the work undertaken when I say that if the members of the committee had taken up the contracts which had been awarded before the committee was set up, and if we had sat twelve hours a day from the date the committee was first thought of, in November, 1941, and had taken a reasonable length of time in the consideration of each contract, we would now be approaching only one-eighth of the contracts which had been awarded up to that time. For this reason we believed that the proper approach was simply to take under consideration first the general scheme of awarding the contracts and to ascertain whether or not improvements could be suggested in connection therewith. It was manifestly impossible to go further than that. I would have appreciated being on the committee again this year, were it not for the fact that I believe, because this is one of the major committees of parliament, the duty of serving on it should be passed around to the various members of one's group. The problem is so tremendous that the mere mention that contracts were being awarded at the rate of fifteen hundred
44561-128J
a week when the committee commenced its sittings is enough to make anyone realize that it was not a public accounts committee where individual contracts could be looked into in particular.
We were not looking for scandal; we were not looking for wrongdoing. We had no opportunity to do so. Everything we did ascertain is concealed behind the secrecy established in the subcommittee on which I served.
Let us consider the set-up of the committee, and in that connection we might first consider the resolution forming it. I mention these points because frequently people will say, "Well, you have not shown any wrongdoing in connection with contracts awarded." In answer to that suggestion I reply that we never investigated any contracts, and I point out furthermore that we have no power to report to the house anything of an improper nature which may come to our attention.
The resolution reads:
Resolved that a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war-
I am in agreement that it is possible for the committee to investigate contracts in the Department of Munitions and Supply. I believe its powers are wide enough for that, and I agree with the view to that effect which was expressed yesterday by the Minister of National War Services. You can investigate, but how much can you report? The resolution continues:
-and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
In other words the only power we have is to investigate behind closed doors, and, having investigated, to report nothing but economies consistent with government policy. I point out, too, that when speaking on June 10 of last year in the house the Minister of National War Services explained that what took place in the committee was secret and that it could not be divulged, even to parliament-the parliament which had created the committee. At page 3751 of Hansard for June 10, 1941, I find this:
Mr. Thorson: I rise to a point of order. The committee decided that the sessions of subcommittees should be held in camera. I think that means that the evidence given before such committee must be regarded as privileged. If the rule is relaxed in respect of one statement, then the whole value of "in camera" sessions is gone. If it is permissible to refer to a statement of fact given in "in camera" sittings, then it would follow- that statements of expressions of opinion given in camera might also
2014	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
be stated in this house. I suggest to your honour that the distinction should be this: If any evidence or any facts are available from a source other than statements made in camera,-
And I emphasize the word "other"-
-then such evidence or facts may be given in this house. But statements that are made in camera and expressions of opinion given in camera ought to be regarded as privileged. Otherwise the purpose of "in camera" sessions is completely defeated.
So that the chairman of the committee, a minister of the crown, has stated that the proper view to take of the evidence placed before the committee is that it is entirely secret and cannot be referred to. Of the evidence given before the subcommittee, of which I was a member, there was not a line, not a word which by the greatest stretch of the imagination could have been considered as of possible benefit to the enemy. But there was evidence placed before that subcommittee which it was our duty and responsibility to place before parliament and the country, to the end that the people might be in a position to judge whether or not the system in effect of granting to civilian companies the right to turn out men for service in the air force of Canada is a proper one.
One objection I took at that time, and which I now repeat, is that if the committee is to be worth while, if it is to canalize the war effort of the nation by improving the morale and by making the people realize there is nothing wrong, while at the same time digging fearlessly to find out any wrongdoing, then the size of the committee should be extended. It is too small now, and is too overwhelmingly composed of members supporting the government.
I realize that in a time of peace there are certain regulations with respect to committees providing for distribution based on party membership in the house. Mr. Speaker, these are no ordinary times; this was no ordinary committee. I repeat my suggestion to the Prime Minister this year to do something he refused to do last year, namely to equalize representation on the committee so that we may have equal representation, with the exception of the chairman, the vice-chairman and the chairmen of the subcommittees. If that were done all of us could go to work in the committee realizing that there are no political considerations whatsoever, and we could work together to the end sought by the Truman committee of the United States 
senate, when it gave a unanimous opinion, irrespective of party, and when, summing up its activities, stated its aim to be that
The committee, however, wants the war to be won as soon as possible

That is the purpose of this committee.
-and at a minimum expenditure of life and property. Carelessness and inefficiency have already cost us a great deal and, if continued, can cost us much more, even though in the long run we will win the -war because of the sheer extent of our resources.
That committee was composed of members from both sides of the United States senate. It was not overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat. It handed down a report in the month of January to the United States senate which has resulted already in the saving of millions of dollars. I repeat that the membership of this committee should be equalized as nearly as possible between the opposition and the government. If the Prime Minister will not agree then I contend that there should be more subcommittees, that more members of this house should be given an opportunity of serving. In Great Britain there are seven committees-army, admiralty, air, supply, home defence, trade, agriculture, economic warfare, and finally a coordinating committee to coordinate the work of the other committees.
The private members of this house have asked for an opportunity to serve; therefore I contend that the size of this committee should be increased. It would then be possible to appoint a large number of subcommittees and would be enabled the better to attack this problem differently from the way we did last year because we had so few members. In my opinion the evidence given before this committee should be made available to the members of this house except in cases where the committee determines that it would not be in the public interest to do so. The secrecy of the evidence taken and thereby the concealment of the true situation from the people is something that I condemn and will continue to condemn. The secrecy of the proceedings is condemning this parliament before the people. Because of this secrecy people at home are saying that there must be something wrong. They are saying that this government has never made an admission of any shortcomings, and they realize that with the tremendous work that has been done, there must be some shortcomings. To-day the membership in this house is controlled entirely by the government of the day. It is a trend which has been accelerated during recent months; parliament w more and more being

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
convened merely for the purpose of voting supply. The members of this parliament should be something more than voiceless vassals in connection with everything but the voting of supply. We have a right to know, the people have a right to know what is going on.
Following the results of the plebiscite, the Prime Minister the other day used some very significant words. I quote from page 1920 of Hansard:
The questions that will have to be considered are all important and fortunately all members of the ministry and members of the House of Commons are now free to speak their minds without its being assumed for a moment that they are bping influenced by any past commitments-
If the sentence stopped there it might have been all right, but it continues:
-or considerations other than those which bear immediately upon the questions they are discussing.
What other considerations can there be that would prevent members of this house from speaking their minds? When members of the opposition rise in their places to voice fair and honest criticism, I cannot see what justification there is for members of the government invariably to point out that the war effort is being harmed thereby. Continue that trend and you destroy the independence, of parliament.
Private members' days have been taken away. Why? Because there is an overwhelming majority supporting the government. Regardless of the fact that we insist on there being private members' days, these have been taken away. The right to place before parliament the things that we believe are necessary has been denied us. It was not denied in this chamber in the last war until 1918, just three or four months before the end of the war. The other day I looked up the records and I find that in 1916 private members debated such matters as the civil service, divorce reform, liquor restrictions, labour bureaux, wheat marketing, and women's suffrage. In 1917 such matters were debated on private members' resolutions as granting the franchise to women and the establishment of a department of physical welfare. In 1918 the coal policy was debated. As it should, the war took up then as now a large portion of the time, but I see no reason why private members' days should be denied, or at least should not be allowed in a restricted sense.
When the opposition asks questions to-day it is invariably met with the answer that it is not in the public interest to give the information asked for. Only yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said
that it was not in the public interest to tell the people of this country what was being done with their money in connection with agricultural payments. To-day, when he gave the information asked for, he did so in a way that I think this parliament should not accept. He said that he gave it without prejudice or without setting a precedent. If this trend is continued, if private members' days are taken away, if we have secrecy in a committee set up by parliament, if there is the extinction of our right to ask questions, what justification will there be for this house?
The other day Your Honour ruled that it was not proper that a question should be asked before the orders of the day unless it was of immediate importance. That ruling was quite right, but I would point out that in the British House of Commons, where the war is much closer than it is here or has been during recent months, two or three times a week members are allowed to ask questions of the ministers and to cross-examine them upon their answers. We are asked to accept the principle that ministers of the crown can answer by saying that it is not in the public interest to give the information, when the only justification for such an answer is some reason other than matters of state. I suggest that members on all sides of this house should get up and demand that answers be given.
If this practice is continued, regardless of the attitude adopted by other members around me, I intend to oppose it. If we can be put off with the reply that it is not in the public interest to answer, then our position as members of parliament is a mere sham. If this trend continues, this parliament will become nothing more than a sounding-board of the nation. If we are denied information on the ground that it is not in the public interest, the time may not be far distant when parliament and this country will be permitted to hear only the things and secure only the information which sounds well to the government, which in the opinion of the government will be to its interest to reveal. Against that I protest. The refusal to give information asked for from time to time is a serious infringement upon our parliamentary rights. I was glad to-day to find that three questions I had asked two or three days ago were answered. If the government would follow that example and provide us promptly with answers to the questions that are asked, there would not be so much objection to their not answering questions in the house on the orders of the day.
I protest against the secrecy of the war expenditures committee. Findings were made
2016	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Diefenbaker
with some of which I disagree and I wish to take this opportunity to refer to some of the findings with which I disagree, for the reason that as yet we have not had the opportunity to discuss them which was promised us by the Prime Minister at the time the findings were brought down.
I was not present when the various findings of my subcommittee were made, and other members of the committee were not present. I point out that the recommendations made here are based upon the evidence that was taken before the committee, but I dissociate myself from the conclusions based on some of the evidence referred to herein.
The report sets out the number of flying training schools in Canada and the number of air observer schools-22 elementary flying training schools and 10 air observer training schools. These schools have on their shoulders the responsibility of turning out pilots and observers for the Royal Canadian Air Force, or at least of contributing to the training that leads to the final graduation of the pupils entering these schools. This system of turning over to a private company or to civilian corporations the training of the members of one branch of the military forces of the nation is not followed in Great Britain. A system somewhat along this line existed until the outbreak of the war, but when war came the stand taken by the British government was that there was no justification for training men for the army or for the tanks or for aircraft or other of the armed services in civilian schools operated by civilians for the profit of civilians. The report says, at page 551, referring to the elementary flying training schools:
They are highly efficient and are carrying on their task without any thought of profits to the company or to private individuals; but the subcommittee also finds that under the great pressure of war work sufficient care has not been taken to safeguard the public interest as to what may happen in regard to profits after the war and when the war incentive will have ceased to exist.


Mr. RALSTON:: What page is my hon.
friend reading from?


John George Diefenbaker: From page 551,
the last sentence of paragraph 4. The elementary flying training schools in the main were set up and sponsored by flying clubs throughout the dominion. Very good salaries are paid to the operators. Those who put up the capital, $35,000 being the capital, receive 5 per cent, and if there is a surplus at the end of the war it is to accrue to the flying clubs in the interests of civil aviation. There were no controls, to speak of, which would have assured that these moneys would

go to the flying clubs when the investigation commenced and last summer recommendations were made to prevent the shareholders of the elementary flying training schools from taking over the profit after the war, when patriotic incentive might very well tend to disappear. I think this house and the country has a right to know whether that recommendation of the committee was put into effect. Paragraph 5 of the committee's report says:
The subcommittee recommends that all of the common stock of all elementary flying training companies should be held in trust for the flying clubs sponsoring the companies, and that in no instance should any individual be permitted to hold the beneficial interest of any common stock other than the qualifying shares of directors and that a declaration of trust should be taken with respect to these shares.
Was that done? Has anything been done along that line? As yet we have no information in that regard.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Have you asked for it?


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I
am dealing with the fact that the information has not been given.


Hughes Cleaver: This is the first opportunity to give it. You have not asked for it before.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be making
further remarks with which my hon. friend may not agree, and he can make his speech when I have finished.
The committee recommended that the profit of 50 cents per flying hour received by the company should be reduced to 25 cents. Parliament met after that, and we were assured that that reduction had been made. Yet when our committee met in July and August of last year we found that these reductions had not up to that time been accepted and adopted.
At page 554 of the report the subcommittee recommended:
That all profits should be invested in noninterest bearing Dominion of Canada bonds so that all profits earned will be available for war purposes until the end of the war. Most of the companies are already following this practice. The subcommittee has already recommended that the agreement should be amended making this compulsory.
Parliament has a right to know whether or not this recommendation was carried into effect.
I come now to what I consider is a subject of fair criticism, namely the establishment of air observer schools under civilian operation in this country. There are ten of them. These schools have received contracts from the government to train airmen as observers. The companies are capitalized at

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
150,000, and there is no limitation whatsoever on the profits which the companies are making. They are purely private companies. These companies have none of the justifications for their existence that the elementary flying training schools have, except in the results they achieve. I submit that the time has come when in the interests of the war effort of this nation the air observer schools should be taken over by the dominion and not be operated by civilian companies. At the present time these companies operating the air observer schools receive a management fee of $2,700 per month, and any saving they make on that basis goes to the operating company. In the matter of operation and maintenance, which includes salaries for pilots, engineers, electricians, mechanics, and so on, the agreement calls for the payment of a monthly target price, which in the first agreement was set at $17,500. The agreement also provides for a revision of the target price to make adjustment for changes made from time to time in the training syllabus. It further provides that every twenty-four weeks the target price will be revised in the light of existing costs and that any balance on hand in this account at the conclusion of the contract-and most of these contracts will end in March of 1943-will be divided on the basis of 75 per cent to the crown and 25 per cent as profit to the company.
Finally, there is provision for the payment of one dollar profit for every flying hour flown during the period.	The committee recommended that that said amount be reduced to thirty-five cents. As yet we have no information as to whether this has been done. There is one item in the report which I challenge. At page 556 it is stated:
The subcommittee has carefully considered the question of profits which will be earned by the operating companies. Partly on account of highly efficient management and partly on account of the pupil intake as fixed by the contract being increased without proportionate increase in management costs it was found that substantial profits were being earned.
It will be noted that this finding is surrounded by a good deal of explanation before you get to the fact, that "substantial profits were being earned". Then it says:
The following examples of lunar monthly-profits from one of the schools show an average profit of $1,112:
Example No	1	
$1,176Example No.	2	
1,340Example No.	3	
819
This company is awarded a contract by the government to train men for the armed services, and even on the basis of this report
would be making a yearly profit of $14,456, "under favourable conditions". I challenge, Mr. Speaker, the right of the members of the committee who drafted this report to reveal only part of the story and not the whole story; I challenge their right to try to explain away the very large profits at the air observers' schools which the operating companies are receiving. I do not know whether this is No. 1 or not, because there is no indication as to which it is, but I think this is the company which, in addition to showing the net profit here stated, paid to its parent company during one year $15,658.32 over and above what they showed as profit earned. In other words during the period of the first year this company made approximately $30,000, but was able, by showing payments to the parent company, to show that its profit was in fact less.


James Layton Ralston: On what account were the payments?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister asks, on what account. The payments were made to cover experience and responsibility on the part of the parent company, experience having been gained by its operations during the days of peace, and the other item for its responsibility to return the goods placed in charge of the company.


Hughes Cleaver: And services. The hon. member has omitted a very important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend may explain this.


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is referring to evidence given in secrecy and to matters not included in the report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just as you did.


Hughes Cleaver: I was stopped, and I am suggesting that the hon. member should be stopped. It is not fair. He is giving only half the picture.


Robert Henry McGregor: He is telling what you do not want to hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think that that is a point of order.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I object,
and I ask for a ruling as to whether the hon. member who is speaking has the right to quote from secret evidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
quoting from the report.
2018	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker


Hughes Cleaver: No, it is not in the report. What my hon. friend is referring to, is services rendered by the parent companies, and this is not mentioned in the report. If he wanted it in the report he should have been there when the report was prepared and asked that it be put in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no point of order.


Hughes Cleaver: I must press for a ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: As a matter of fact the question has been raised before with regard to what was said in secret not being available to the house. I believe I then ruled that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) who has now spoken and who has raised the point of order could not refer to matters which were secret as before the committee, and he accepted the ruling and did not do so. With reference to the hon. member for Lake Centre who is now speaking, I did not know that he was alluding to something which was in a secret paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was replying to a question of the minister.


Hughes Cleaver: That is not fair. He made the statement before the minister asked him.


James Layton Ralston: I asked him, what
account? I am just as ignorant as my hon. friend is; I was following the report and chasing down to find where the figure was which the hon. member had mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: My time has
elapsed, but may I conclude with just one reference, because I do not want to go beyond my time. There are ten of these air observers' schools in Canada, and the time has come when they should be taken over by the government and profits should not be permitted to continue to accrue to -private companies which operate the schools.
I point out in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that most of these schools are owned to-day by a great corporation, or should I say an auxiliary of a great transportation corporation -not the Canadian National Railways, which so far as I know has no interest in any of them. The time has come to take over these schools, and to take the profit away from private individuals in connection with training men for armed services. The government should take over these schools so that when the war is over Canada as a nation will be in a position to extend and develop her air services in all parts of the world.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: At the outset I should like to express regret that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) will not be a member of the war expenditures committee this session. He did excellent work in the subcommittee of which he was a member, he contributed valuable criticism to the work of that subcommittee, and the vigour of his presentation was very helpful indeed.
The fourth report of the war expenditures committee last session recommended that the inquiry should be continued and that a committee should be set up this session for that purpose. Indeed, the work of such a committee as this can never be concluded; there will be plenty of work for a body of this kind as long as the war lasts.
Last year there was no restriction whatsoever upon the activities of the committee. I so stated yesterday; I also said that there would be no restriction upon the activities of the committee this year. The whole field of war expenditures is open to the committee for investigation for the purpose of recommending what economies are possible in connection with war expenditures consistent with government policy in the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But nothing else.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is the function of this particular committee. The committee in the course of its sittings last session laid dowrn certain fundamental principles. Some of them were referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre a few minutes ago. It was, I think, generally agreed that the war expenditures committee is not a public accounts committee and is essentially different in its functions from a public accounts committee. I think there was general agreement among all the members of the committee to that effect.
For example, it is not a primary function of the war expenditures committee to examine a particular transaction or to investigate charges in respect of a transaction.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the point of disagreement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think there was general agreement in the committee last year on that subject.


Angus MacInnis: I never agreed that that was not a function of the committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do they not examine contracts in England?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I was very careful to point out that it is not a primary function of

War Expenditures-Mr. Thorson
this committee to examine any particular transaction or any past transaction or to investigate any particular charges. The function of this committee is to recommend economies that may be possible. In order to enable it to recommend such economies it may have to go into particular transactions and examine them, but there is an essential difference between the functions of such a committee as this and the functions of a public accounts committee. May I say that it is open to any hon. member to bring any particular transactions before the public accounts committee. He may move that a particular transaction be referred to the public accounts committee. But I think it will be agreed that there is an essential and fundamental difference between the purposes of this committee and those of the public accounts committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the public accounts committee for war expenditures.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Similarly any account, any contract, any transaction may be referred by any hon. member to the public accounts committee; he may move that any particular transaction go to the public accounts committee. That is his prerogative and his right.
Similarly it was agreed that this committee is not primarily a fact-finding committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then it is utterly useless.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, it is not utterly useless. The work this committee did last year was exceedingly valuable-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The money spent on it was utterly useless, if that is all it produces.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -and was instrumental in bringing about a good many economies, as I shall elaborate as I proceed.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Does the minister believe that the function of this committee is to examine the expenditures?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Then does he not think the committee has to make the examination by looking into the transactions?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They may-


George Hugh Castleden: They should.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -and they will. If the hon. member will allow me to continue, he will see that the work of the committee proceeded in an orderly manner, first, for the purpose of ascertaining what controls and checks there were, then to indicate what controls and checks there ought to be; then the
intention was that the committee would move from such inquiries into any particular transactions that the committee wished to investigate. I think hon. members will see the plan upon which the committee operated and the sound reasons that lay back of that plan of procedure.
I think it was agreed that the committee is not primarily a fact-finding committee. It could not possibly examine the hundreds, the thousands of war contracts individually. If it had started in with the examination of individual contracts, it could not have accomplished the functions for which it was designed.
The committee is not restricted, as the British committee is, to the examination of present expenditures, it may loot into past expenditures, but its purpose in looking into past expenditures is to ascertain what economies might be possible for the future.
The wording of the reference, which is exactly the same as the reference in the case of the British committee, subject to what I have just said, is that the committee should "examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein."
Therefore primarily the committee is an economy recommending committee. That, I think, makes its functions essentially different from those of a public accounts committee or those of any special committee that may be set up for the ascertainment of any particular sets of facts.
The committee is the master of its own procedure; it is also the master of its subjects of inquiry. It consists entirely of private members; no member of the government is on the committee; there are no governmental instructions to the committee; the reference is as broad as it is possible to devise. There were no restrictions upon its activities last year; there are no restrictions upon its activities this year.
Last year when the committee opened its inquiry it held open sittings. Six sittings were devoted to the Department of Munitions and Supply for the purpose of ascertaining the manner in which that department functioned, the manner in which it awarded contracts, the extent to which it awarded contracts on the basis of tenders, the extent to w'hich it departed from that basis in awarding contracts and the principles subject to which it awarded contracts on a basis other than by tender. We explored the organization of the department, the checks and controls that

War Expenditures-Mr. Thorson
existed in the department to see that matters were conducted with regularity and economy; we investigated such subjects as cost accounting in the department itself, the controls exercised by the comptroller of the treasury, the controls exercised by the joint inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada, the controls exercised by the treasury board and by the auditor general.
Later, as subject after subject was brought to the attention of the committee, it became clear and obvious to every member of the committee that we must operate by subcommittees if we were to make the best use of the services of the members of the committee and cope with the tremendous volume of work that lay before the committee. That was essential. Consequently the committee resolved itself into three subcommittees, which sat during the period the house was in session and for six or seven weeks during the adjournment. When these subcommittees concluded their work, during the adjournment of the house, they made individual reports which were the basis of reports of the whole committee, which reports were all tabled on the reopening of parliament on November 3.
The fifth report dealt with contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies; the sixth report with army, navy and air force buildings construction, specifications and designs for such projects, and the inspection thereof during construction; the seventh report with medical, dental and hospitalization services in the army, navy and air force; the eighth report with food and other supplies including miscellaneous services for the forces, the inspection and distribution thereof; the ninth report with the salvage of waste; the tenth report with such subjects as financial controls over army, navy and air force expenditures, and headquarters establishments in army, navy and air force.
All these reports indicate that the first subjects to be explored were activities which were initiated in the departments of national defence. There was a reason for this. The House of Commons sees the war appropriation bill for the first time when it is introduced in this house. The war appropriation is based upon estimates that come from the departments of national defence after going through a certain procedure; through the treasury board, to the war committee of the cabinet and to council. Then they become the basis for the appropriation bill which is submitted to parliament. But these estimates are themselves based upon war establishments, and it was thought that it would be wise to see what economies were possible in the defence departments, where these expenditures

originated. Therefore a great deal of our time last year was devoted to an investigation of checks and controls. I believe hon. members will find an excellent statement of the checks and controls in effect at the present time over army, navy and air force expenditures-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister would permit an interruption, that was all academic. Did the committee, after some six or eight sessions, make any recommendation to improve or remedy conditions with respect to those checks and controls?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was that recommendation?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I pointed out that the estimates themselves are based upon war establishments. Perhaps the outstanding recommendation of the subcommittee which dealt with that particular subject was that there should be a war establishments committee in every defence department where such a committee did not already exist; furthermore, that a financial superintendent should be appointed in each of the defence departments where such an office did not already exist, and that such financial superintendent should be a civilian, responsible to the deputy minister and be a member of the war establishments committee. That was recommended on the ground that there was need for civilian authority and control in the matter of army, navy and air force expenditures; not on the assumption that there should be civilian authority over the service personnel, or service personnel superiority over the civilian authority, but with the idea that each should be in aid of the other and complementary to the other, so that the matter of financial control should not be restrictive of the war effort but in aid of it. That is why the committee adopted as its objective a certain purpose, namely, that the people of Canada should know that there was at Ottawa a committee of private members of parliament concerned with seeing that a dollar's worth of war effort should be given in return for every dollar contributed to the war effort by the Canadian people, either by way of taxation or by way of loan.
These recommendations to which I have referred have been adopted, actually or in principle. In respect of the appointment of a financial superintendent, there already was such an officer in connection with the army. Since our recommendations were made, a financial superintendent has been appointed in the Department of National Defence for Air, and a similar appointment is proposed

War Expenditures-Mr. Thorson
in connection with naval services. A war establishments committee was already operating in the army, and in November of last year, after our report was made, the financial superintendent was made a member of that committee. The principle has been adopted in the navy. In the case of the air force, a war establishments committee has been appointed, of which the financial superintendent has been made a member. I think these basic recommendations made by the committee will result in complete cooperation between the civilian authority and the service personnel in the matter of those controls and checks which are essential to the most efficient performance of the duties that are assigned to those departments.
In that regard I think a valuable contribution was made by this committee to the work of the defence departments, all three of which have expressed their appreciation of the assistance given by the committee in enabling them to put into effect the reforms that were recommended in the report, which reforms not only effect economies but promote efficiency in the departments as well. The primary purpose last year was to investigate that field of war expenditures that actually lay behind the war contracts, because it was in that field that the greatest economies were possible, and it was in that field that there was the greatest need for checks and controls.
A very full and complete statement of the existing checks and controls is contained in pages 627 to 643 of No. 15 of the minutes of proceedings of the special committee. This also appears at pages 585 to 601 of the Votes and Proceedings of November 3, 1941; I commend the reading of that statement to members of this house. They will see that we have a system of careful checks and controls of war expenditures, starting with the very origin of these expenditures.
They will understand the importance of the recommendations made by the committee in the matters of checks and controls. I am sure hon. members will be glad to see the manner in which the defence departments have acted in respect of these essential and fundamental recommendations of the war *expenditures committee.
The war expenditures committee having explored the checks and controls that are in existence, and having indicated the additional checks and controls that there ought to be, then it was a logical matter to go into specific transactions and specific departments. The war expenditures committee, having explored these fundamental and foundational
matters may now, with some understanding, go into the subject of war contracts and specific transactions generally. The committee may investigate any war departments, indeed any department of the government that receives war appropriations, and explore any of their activities connected with the war.
I suggest that there is reason in going about this exploration in an orderly manner. We have written into the record what I think is a valuable contribution to the system of checks and controls that there ought to be in the case of war expenditures. I think the committee may now usefully explore the activities of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Indeed, if I had been honoured with the chairmanship of the committee this year, as I was honoured last year, I would have suggested to the committee that the whole subject of war contracts should be made the subject of study during this session of the house. May I say this, that the government invites the closest scrutiny of any war contract and has no hesitation in extending that invitation. May I say again something I could not have said last year, on my responsibility as a member of the government, that there is no restriction whatsoever upon the activities of this committee. This is a committee charged with the duty of examining all war expenditures for the purpose of recommending economies. May I say further that if hon. members of this committee run into anything that they think should be referred, any member of the house has a right to move that such transaction be referred to the public accounts committee. That is a right any member has. It is open to any member to do that.
As we explored the subject of checks and controls last year, so the committee this year may study the subject of war contracts. I have no hesitation in saying that the Department of Munitions and Supply is one of the achievements of this government. It started off by being the central purchasing agent for all defence departments, after the awarding of contracts had been taken away from those departments. There was first of all the defence purchasing board, then the war purchasing board and, finally, the Department of Munitions and Supply. When the history of that department is written it will be one of the romances of the war effort of this country-and I say that without any hesitation at all. It started off as a central purchasing agent, but it has gone far beyond that. It is now also the controller of supplies. It has gone far beyond the simple function of being a central purchasing agent.

War Expenditures-Mr. Thorson
It has been instrumental in capital assistance. That is one subject that members of the committee should thoroughly and carefully explore. It has also set up a large number of government-owned companies for purposes of the war. Capital assistance has amounted to approximately half a billion dollars. There are eleven government-owned companies directly associated with the war effort. Their names, as set out at page 641 of the minutes of proceedings No. 15 of the special committee on war expenditures, are as follows:
Allied War Supplies Corporation
Federal Aircraft Limited
Research Enterprises Limited
Small Arms Limited
Wartime Housing Limited
Fairmont Company Limited
Melbourne Merchandising Limited
Plateau Company Limited
Citadel Merchandising Company Limited
Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited
War Supplies Limited.
The functions of these various government-owned companies are varied. Some of them are supervising companies; others are manufacturing or construction companies. Again, others are commodity procurement companies, while others are purchasing companies. To a very large extent the government has embarked upon public ownership of the production and procurement of munitions of war.
I suggest that these are all exceedingly interesting subjects for inquiry-the whole subject of war contracts; the whole subject of capital assistance; the whole subject of publicly-owned companies engaged in the war effort of the country.
Reference has been made to the matter of war contracts. There are thousands of these contracts. It would be a most stupid method of procedure to start in to examine each individual contract. There would be far more sense in examining the principles subject to which these contracts are awarded, the considerations governing the awarding of these contracts and the general principles involved, so as to indicate in what way there may be an improvement in the situation, from the point of view of economy and efficiency.
Approximately 95 per cent in number of all contracts awarded is by the tender system. But there are some purchases made where the tender system cannot be used; these purchases fall into the following categories, as detailed at page 640 of minutes of proceedings No. 15:
(a)	Where extreme military urgency requires immediate delivery.
(b)	Where the requirement is so large that the productive capacity of the entire industry must be harnessed.

(c)	Where the technical nature of the article required narrow's the field of supply to one or two sources.
(d)	Where, in the interests of military secrecy, it is considered unwise to give plans and specifications to more than one or two firms, such to be chosen because of their aptitude in this particular type of manufacture.
_ I know that some feeling has been created in the house because on a number of occasions the government has stated that it is not in the public interest to give certain information. We have given far more information than the British government has ever given. We are proud to be allies of Great Britain in this great conflict; the fact is that the British government has asked us not to give out information that we have been giving out. This is not done for the purpose of hiding anything. The government has nothing to hide. We can give this information to committees sitting in camera. I say again, if any member of this house thinks that a transaction ought to be referred to the public accounts committee, he can rise in his place and move to refer such transaction to that committee.
This raises the whole question of "in camera" proceedings. I do not know why members use the phrase "sitting in secret", when the proper phrase is "sitting in camera".


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the difference?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is a vast difference. The committee did not sit in camera for the purpose of hiding anything; it sat in camera for the purpose of finding out things. The British committee on war expenditures sat always in camera, both the committee of the whole and the subcommittees. There was not a single session of the British committee, either sitting as a whole or as subcommittees, that was held otherwise than in camera. There is no parliament anywhere in the world that is more jealous of its rights and prerogatives, or more deeply concerned with doing its duty than the British parliament. In this regard the British parliament is an excellent model and example for us to follow, as we follow the British house in so many respects.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many sittings have they had in the last two years?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They have had a good many. A number of the recommendations made by the British committee have been in effect in Canada for a long time; it is only recently that the British government has been following some of the examples that we have set in the matter of a Department of Munitions and Supply, a central purchasing agency for all defence depart-

War Expenditures-Mr. Thor son
ments and so on. Our action will be also a model for the United States. They have acknowledged freely the value of the system that we have set up for the central purchasing and control of materials and commodities such as exists in our Department of Munitions and Supply.
There are arguments for sitting in camera as well as for sitting in open session. Last year we sat in open session part of the time, and in camera for most of the sittings of the subcommittees. The committee is completely master of its own proceedings; it can decide whether they shall sit in open session or in camera. The example of the British committee indicated the value of sitting in camera, and I express my own opinion as to the value of sitting in camera. There are arguments both ways, but I have not the slightest hesitation- in saying that the argument in favour of an inquiry of this sort sitting in camera is overwhelming.
I know there is value in having the press present and in having the proceedings open, but if the essential purpose is to make recommendations for economy, as is the purpose of this committee, then it can best discharge this duty by sitting in camera. It is not a matter entirely of secrecy, although all matters of secrecy must be carefully guarded. I do not put the case for sitting in camera on the basis of secrecy; that is only a small part of it. I put it on a much wider base, and I indicated that base in the speech I made in this house last session. I gave two reasons, and I put forward one of them quite frankly and without intending to give offence to anybody.
If members sit in camera they will give more direct and more concentrated attention to the subject that is at hand than they would if the sittings were in the open with the press present. There will be fewer speeches made by members; there will be fewer efforts made to catch the head-lines. When I make that statement, I intend it to be general and applicable to all members. If there is no press there, if there is no competition to make the head-lines, members will be inquiring into what is before them rather than making speeches about something. Making speeches does not advance an inquiry. An inquiry is something that must be made with undivided attention to the subject that is at hand. That is one point, but it is not the most important reason for sitting in camera.
This committee is charged with the duty of recommending economies. In order to discharge that duty intelligently it must get information from either service personnel or civilian members of the various departments
who have all the facts, who know all the surrounding details, who know whether economies are possible. Therefore it is necessary that there should be the freest and fullest interchange of opinion between those persons, whether service personnel or civilian, and members of the committee. Everyone who has had experience with parliamentary inquiries knows that you cannot have that full and free exchange of opinion-not statements of fact-except in confidence. It is only human for persons who are in the public service to freeze up when they know that everything they state, that every opinion they express may possibly be blazoned on the head-lines. There ought to be a free exchange of opinion, a mutual searching between the officers of the departments and the members of the committee for ways and means of effecting economies.
Let me say again that this is not a fact finding committee; this is a committee for the investigation of transactions, if you like, but for the purpose of recommending economies. There is another committee that can investigate particular transactions if it is felt that an investigation of such transactions should be made. I say again it is open to any member of the committee to move that a particular transaction be referred to a standing committee of this house, the public accounts committee.
The experience of that free exchange of opinion last year was splendid. It was valuable. It enabled the committee to recommend outstanding reforms, many of which have been put into effect and practised, with increased economies and increased efficiency resulting.
In the subjects that are before the committee this year, such as war contracts, there is the fullest possible scope for inquiry as to the various bases upon which contracts are awarded, when they are awarded otherwise than on the basis of tender. That opens a great field of inquiry, but a field that could not be fully or properly explored by sitting down and indiscriminately seeking to analyse all the facts of each individual contract. There has to be a certain amount of confidence in the fact that we have people in the department who are devoted servants of the public and are seeking to do their best.
So far as tenders are concerned, I should like to suggest to hon. members that they read the statement on checks and controls relating to war contracts and relating to purchasing in the Department of Munitions and Supply contained in pages 635 to 643 of volume No. 15 of the minutes of proceedings, and they will see what system of checks and controls there

War Expenditures-Mr. Thor son
is in that department. How can that system be improved to bring about economy? That is a first-class and important subject of inquiry.
Then there is the matter of capital assistance. Are the conditions subject to which capital assistance is granted satisfactory-and we have spent approximately half a billion dollars in capital assistance? Can the conditions be improved? Can economies be effected in that field? Similarly with respect to the operations of the eleven government-owned companies set up for the purpose of aiding this country in its war effort, are those operations being carried on satisfactorily? All of these subjects are open to the committee this year.
Last year, as I pointed out a moment ago, the committee adopted as its chief objective that its purpose should be to see that Canada should get a dollar's worth of war effort for every dollar contributed by the Canadian people. I think I can say that last year the committee did excellent work. It was concerned with results. Not one of the members of the committee sought to glorify himself. They could have brought in estimates of large amounts of proposed economies. They did not do so, but they brought forward recommendations that will result in tremendous economies, and economies that are possible without in any way reducing the efficiency of our war effort. All of the war departments of national defence have expressed their appreciation of the cooperation of the committee. The committee last year was a stimulating factor in the promotion of economy reforms. The very existence of the committee has an extremely salutary effect, for no war department knows when its affairs may be examined or its expenditures scrutinized. The committee may well follow up all of its recommendations of last year to inquire what progress is being made in implementing them where they have not already been adopted, because there is always a value in following up an inquiry of this sort.
The work of this committee is not easy. It is very difficult. It is also very interesting and exceedingly important. Of course there are differences of opinion, but I think they have been bona fide differences of opinion.
I think I may speak fully and freely when I say that the government invites criticism.
I have myself frequently expressed appreciation of the value of criticism, and on this first occasion to speak on this subject as a minister of the crown I invite criticism. Criticism is helpful. But there must also be an appreciation of certain fundamentals. There is a vast difference between giving out facts in this

house and giving information to a committee sitting in camera, and I am sure that members of the house on both sides will appreciate those fundamental differences.
Cooperation is essential; differences of opinion are unavoidable, and they are valuable because "it is only upon the anvil of discussion that the spark of truth is struck." I forget who was the author of that saying, but it is a very helpful one. We must have discussion. But at the same time we are engaged in a war effort in which every person in this country is vitally interested, and we must avoid giving information which may be of value to the enemy. Very frequently, again and again and again, for reasons which it cannot even properly give, the government is handicapped. It could answer certain criticisms easily if it felt that it could properly say certain things. But it often cannot safely make the answers without disclosing facts that should not be disclosed. While the government invites criticism, may I also suggest this, that members of the house extend a certain amount of confidence and faith in those who are engaged in this country's administration. I think they are entitled to that, and I believe that members of this house know they are entitled to have it. We would gladly give on the floor of the house the information asked for if we could properly do so, because I am satisfied that we have nothing to hide. Members of the committee, however, can get the fullest information. Members may not always be able to get information on the floor of the house for reasons of public policy, but I do not remember a single instance when a person came before the subcommittee, of which I was chairman, where information was refused. Sometimes the information was given off the record when it could not be given otherwise. There has to be cooperation, and a certain amount of faith and confidence in those who are charged with the administration. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are just as deeply interested and concerned in the successful issue of this war effort as hon. members opposite are, and there is upon our shoulders a very heavy responsibility. .


John Ritchie MacNicol: On everybody's shoulders.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And upon everybody's shoulders. I believe that this committee can do a marvellous job. I think it did a fairly good job last year, although perhaps it is not for me to say so. I regarded it as a great privilege to be chairman; I was deeply appreciative of the cooperation that was given me from all sides. Differences of opinion-

War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow-River)
yes, but unity of purpose-likewise yes. I hope that when this committee sits again there will be that same unity of purpose in the discharge of a very difficult but very interesting and important task.
I hope that this motion will pass the house with unanimity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of what the minister says of the marvellous job which has been done by this committee- and I agree with him-will he tell us why the committee was not set up at the beginning of the session rather than at this late date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was impossible to secure the names of some of the members of the committee; that is the reason.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, being one of the newer appointees on this committee, I wish to say a few words with regard to it. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee which worked last year, but I have read very carefully the report of its proceedings and have noted with a good deal of interest what the minister has said to-day with regard to carrying on the committee's work of last year. I was pleased to hear of its work and I thought I had some idea of its functions, until the minister in charge finished his speech. I confess that I am now rather confused as to what the real purpose of the committee was. For instance, he said that primarily its function was not to investigate any particular contract. I assume, therefore, that it was not the privilege of the committee or any member thereof to bring up any particular contract, but it w'as their privilege, as it is the privilege of any member of the house, to ask that that particular contract be referred to the public accounts committee. To me that is very confusing.	*


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The committee may
inquire into any contract into which it wishes to inquire.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, but the minister said that primarily that was not the function of the committee.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Primarily-no.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the committee is going to rule that that is not a primary function-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There has never been a ruling at any time that there could not be an
inquiry into a particular contract, and it is open to the committee to inquire into any contract. I cannot be too clear on that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It never
got that far.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is
a little confusing, because the chairman knows as well as I do that a majority of the members of that committee were supporters of the government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Exactly, and you could
not get anywhere.


Charles Edward Johnston: When
there would be brought before the committee the question of investigating any particular contract, it is useless to say that a member had the right to investigate it, because he had not. I would point out to the minister that it would be a great deal more satisfactory if he would accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that this body should be made as non-political as possible, by having an equal representation of government and opposition members, possibly with the exception of the chairman. I supposed that I had the purpose of the committee straightened out in my mind, and I can now quite well understand why there has been much confusion with regard to the matter.
The minister said that one of the primary functions of the committee was to see to it that a dollar's worth of work, goods or services, was obtained for every dollar spent.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is the objective.


Charles Edward Johnston: I submit
to him that that is an utterly impossible ideal to set before the committee in view of the fact that it did not investigate a single contract. How in the world could they find out, for example in connection with a contract submitted for the manufacture of aeroplanes, whether a dollar's worth of services was rendered for each dollar spent. That would have been a useful avenue to follow with regard to some of the larger contracts.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Name some of those
contracts.


Charles Edward Johnston: I could
name some of the aeroplane contracts. I could also name some in connection with gasoline. My information is that it would be well worth our time to go into some of them.


George Hugh Castleden: And wartime housing.
2026	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


Charles Edward Johnston: There is
suspicion all over this country-the minister will admit it-that huge profits are being made. In instances where it is suggested- and there are good grounds for the suspicion -that excessive profits are being made, it would have been well for the committee to make an investigation. It would have cleared up a tremendous amount of misunderstanding and, by tending to raise the morale of the country, have definitely helped our war effort.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Edward Johnston: When the house rose I was discussing the apparently confused . operations of the war expenditures committee. It seems that there has been a great deal of confusion over the order of reference relating to this committee. It must be evident to the house that there should be a clarifying of this order of reference. I was interested in the remark of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) in regard to the Department of Munitions and Supply when he said it was one of the greatest achievements of the war. He pointed out that under this department something over a billion dollars had been spent in the setting up of government-owned industries. I think the minister is perfectly right in saying that the Department of Munitions and Supply is one of the most important departments of the government at this time. I have persistently maintained that that department, which controls the production of this country, is most important, and we should not overlook the fact that that department should have, shall I say, a thorough investigation, not that I am trying to imply that the minister in charge is inefficient in handling that department, but in view of the great importance of that department.
The Minister of National War Services also tried to differentiate between a secret session and a session held in camera. I agree with the greater part of that statement; I can see a decided advantage, if it is properly handled, in the committee itself sitting in camera, if it is clearly understood that when the report of the committee is brought back to the house and concurrence in that report is moved, the members of this house in secret session be allowed to go into every detail of the work that was carried on in the com-Jiittee. I do not think it is right that that committee should carry on its work in camera and the members of this house as representa-

tives of the people of Canada have absolutely no information as to what was going on. It is also a matter of note that members of this house are ignorant of what policies or recommendations of the committee were accepted by the government itself. I recall just lately one of the members who was on that committee stating that he did not know of one recommendation of the committee that was adopted by the government. That seems to make the committee useless.
I also note that in the entire work of the committee they had only eighty-three sittings. That does not seem to be anything approaching a thorough investigation of the problems set before that committee. The work was thought to be so voluminous that the committee divided itself into three parts, each part taking a separate portion of the work. But my understanding is that never did those three subcommittees sit at the same time, on the same day; the reason being that there was a shortage of reporting staff. That is rather shocking, when 3-ou think of a committee of that size going to all the trouble they did go to, staying here in Ottawa away from their own work during those six weeks; yet one of those committees at least had to sit idly by because the reporting staff was not large enough to. take care of the three subcommittees sitting together. Therefore it seems to have been useless to set up three subcommittees, especially when they worked only two or three hours a day.
I am not trying at all to belittle the work of the committee, because from reading the record I know that a great deal of strenuous work was carried on by it. Yet I am told that there was a great deal of confusion among the members of the committee themselves, not knowing where they were going. I hope that having had the experience of the past year's work in that regard, the Prime Minister will see to it that those difficulties are removed.
The work of the committee must necessarily entail a great deal of interviewing of officials from different departments to get the detailed information that the committee requires. But I cannot bring myself to believe that the committee will ever get anywhere unless it examines more thoroughly into the contracts, regardless of what the Minister of National War Services said, as chairman of that committee, that it was not a fact-finding committee. I really do not know what that term involves. He said it was not the function of the committee to investigate particular contracts. I think there will have to be a reexamination of the order of procedure of the whole thing.

War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Giving all due credit to the members of the committee for the work they did and the laborious time they had, I often doubt whether the results were worth the efforts made. It may be recalled that, speaking in the house a couple of weeks ago, referring to this committee, I expressed the opinion that the scope of reference should be widened to include production and the organization of production. I am more convinced now than I ever was that that is our problem, and that is why I referred a moment ago particularly to the Department of Munitions and Supply. If we are going to win this war we must get rid of that inferiority complex, saying that we are doing well enough. When a question is put to a minister in regard to contracts with a certain company, the reply is usually, "Well, that company has more contracts now than it ever had in its history." That is no answer to the question at all. Surely to goodness in war time it should not be a matter of whether or not a company has more contracts than it ever had before. The point should be, is it producing to capacity; could it produce more if certain changes were made. Perhaps we have now reached the point where some headway can be made, for in my opinion that is the most important question confronting this nation at the present'time, and it seems to be the question that is most evaded.
I do not want to belittle the suggestion that the saving of money is important, but, after all, that is not my great concern at this time. I think money should be made the servant and not the master of this nation. I do not want to criticize the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) too severely, but I am quite convinced that he is not capable of carrying on the tremendous work of placing orders, checking those orders, checking costs and all the other work that is entailed in seeing that the production organization of this country is such that we can carry on at maximum capacity. The expression has often been used, even by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, that we are doing a marvellous job, that we are producing 100 per cent to capacity. Certainly that is not correct, and I think it is the wrong sort of propaganda to be putting out to the country. The fact is that though I have visited a number of factories I have never found one which, in my opinion., was doing what it should be doing, that is, working to anywhere near capacity. For us to go out and tell this nation that we are producing to capacity is, in my opinion, breaking down the morale of the people. They have only to walk by the factories to see the situation. They see
some of them closing at five o'clock in the afternoon. They go by the employment offices in the cities and see hundreds of men unemployed. Finally they reach the point where they say, "Well, if the government is not more concerned about the safety of the empire than that, why should we worry?"
I have spoken to men working in certain factories. I have been told that the manager of a plant deliberately told his men that they must not work so quickly. One chap told me that the manager of a factory producing war material had this to say to him. This man's job was boring holes in pieces of iron. The foreman of the factory said, "We want you to drill fifteen holes to-day". The man replied, "Why, I can drill thirty." The manager said, "We are not asking you what you can do. We are telling you to drill fifteen." The man answered, "All right; I will drill two if you say so." This is the sort of thing that should be looked into by this committee, I contend, and this is exactly what I want to point out to the Prime Minister. I do not think the Minister of Munitions and Supply has time to investigate all these cases, but when members of this house have information such as this, I believe the committee should conduct a thorough investigation. Another man in the same factory, whose job was sawing metal, told me that the foreman said to him, "When anyone comes by, pretend you are cutting this piece of steel in two." Imagine that; he was to pretend he was doing some work!
We know that in the past delegations of workmen have come to Ottawa to interview various ministers. These skilled mechanics have come here from factories producing army trucks, and so on. They did not come to ask for any increase in wages; they came to complain because the factory was deliberately slowing down its .production. I do not need to tell hon. members what plants I have in mind; they know. These are perhaps the three largest plants in Canada. If the cabinet have not already interviewed another of these committees, they soon will be meeting a group of men who are coming down to see them in regard to paper production in Canada. I was astonished to hear, as I think the Prime Minister will be astonished when he hears, that although those in charge of the salvage campaign are advertising far and wide that there is a great shortage of paper and that we must save every scrap of paper we can, there is one large paper mill in this country which, in war time, is working only three days a week.
2028	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is that?


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the Abitibi plant.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: And the St. John
Paper company in Quebec.


Charles Edward Johnston: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that with a situation like that there is simply no use in talking about an all-out war effort, or in trying to keep up the morale of the people. These fellows said to me on the train, "You ought to walk down the streets of our town and hear what the people are saying about our war effort."


Mr. McIVOR:: I do not think that is generally true, and I can give examples to the contrary.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not going to permit the hon. gentleman to interrupt like that.


Georges Parent: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to ask you this, Mr. Speaker. Is it true in one instance? If it is, that is a crime. If it is true in the case I mentioned and in connection with the factory mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), here we have two factories at least that are working only part time. The mere fact that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) knows of one factory working full time is not evidence of an all-out war effort.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know of more than one.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think we should be so narrow-minded as to confine all our attention to one little town on the map. It may be a nice little place;
I am not trying to cast any reflections on it, but there are many more important places in Canada.
Within the last little while I have heard the Minister of Munitions and Supply say there was a shortage of steel. I do not believe that. I think that statement is absolutely incorrect, and I am going to tell you why. The rolling mills in Calgary quit work at five o'clock every afternoon. One of the men in the factory told me that they could produce three times the supply that they are producing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where will they get the scrap?


Charles Edward Johnston: There is scrap all over the country.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Charles Edward Johnston: Who is making this speech? I should like the hon. member to rise in his place and tell what he knows about the war effort-or possibly tell what he does not know about it. I am not concerned about that.


James J. Donnelly: We asked that question of the president of the Canadian National Railways and he says he cannot get steel.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then let the hon. member ask this of the Canadian National: how many cars have the Canadian National given over to the Canadian Pacific?


James J. Donnelly: The Canadian National Railways president told us this afternoon that he could not get steel.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a different subject which we will bring up later on. We have a little information in regard to that, too.
I have had the pleasure, too, of visiting different kinds of war factories. I have not visited one aircraft factory yet that has not told me that with a very small amount of change and without any great expense involved they could almost double their production in planes. That is supposed to be one of the most important things we need. They told me that certainly there would have to be a little expansion. But for us to sit here idly by, when the next six months may see either success or defeat in this war, and sit as members of parliament knowing that these manufacturers are deliberately held back by the government-well, I think that is a shame, and I think it is time the Prime Minister knew it.
Mr. MACKENZIE* KING: May I say to my hon. friend that if manufacturers say they are deliberately held back by the government, they are saying something which they know nothing whatsoever about-less even than what my hon. friend knows. It seems to me my hon. friend has been made an easy mark by some of these concerns.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: Go ahead and clap! Clap this one off: I had the president of the Ottawa Car and Aircraft in this city tell me that he was working on planes for which he did not have a government contract, and he said, "The only reason why I don't shut down is that we are in hopes that the government will accept it. But we cannot wait on the government; they are too slow."


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you say the Ottawa car?

War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, the Ottawa Car and Aircraft. Others were the same. It was in the paper that five hundred men were laid off, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister: Have they been put on again?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that my knowledge of these things is not as full as my hon. friend's knowledge appears to be.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not that omniscience, that knowledge of the entire war effort that my hon. friend appears to have.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then I
am sony for the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is taking
everything that is being said to him as gospel truth. If he is prepared to make a charge with respect to any contract which is irregular or concerning any industry which is not performing its function because it is being held back by the government, then I will certainly ask the house immediately to grant him a committee of inquiry or have the matter referred to the public accounts committee. But if he cannot he had better not make such reflections.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad to see the Prime Minister is becoming alive to these issues. I think he is very much interested in them. I am not trying to cast reflections on the government at all, but I am endeavouring to draw its attention to a very important part of our war effort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon.
friend is casting reflections on the government, on the war effort and on industry, and he is seeking to support his reflections by hearsay evidence.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Prime Minister should withdraw that statement, because I made a reference before in the house to these 500 men being laid off in the Ottawa Car and Aircraft, and made it to the Department of Labour. What did they do? They did not know about it. I asked a question on the order paper as to how many war industries were working twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, and the department did not know. Then I asked how many were working only part time, and they did not even know that. So I say that is a commencing point from which the Prime Minister could start his investigation. How are we going to know whether we are making an all-out war effort or not? That is a proper function of the house committee.
I have a further suggestion to make, that the scope of this committee should be extended to include purchasing and production. My only desire is to see that every man we can put to work is out there working, and that every factory in this country is working 365 days in the year. My only wish is to see that the work is proceeding. Let them have things right at their finger-tips to go ahead, and let them do as much expanding as they would like to do. The statement made by the Prime Minister in the house that everything physically possible would be made financially possible-I believe that was the expression-had not, I think, much effect. I do not think that has been followed out.
One of the great fears under which this government is working, probably one of their own making, is that'industry or big business has prevailed upon the government to such an extent that it has had to caution manufacturers that if we extend our war effort too greatly we are going to have too great a production, that we shall be making propeller shafts we cannot use, that we shall be making army trucks we cannot get rid of, and that we shall have too many things we shall not be able to use. It has a fear of what is going to happen after the war, instead of doing everything it possibly can to increase our war effort so that we shall be sure to win the war.
I am convinced that that is what is holding us back, or that that is one of the major factors. I believe one of the other factors to which reference has often been made in the house is the oil and gasoline supply. We are given to understand that we require oil and gasoline, and that this war might be lost for want of oil. Here again I direct my observations to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I do not believe the Minister of Munitions and Supply has time to look into all these things; but I do believe he has taken his advisers from the wrong sources.
I have some information in connection with the production of oil. I do not wish to go into too much detail, but my information-and incidentally I got it from the department- is that one of the reasons why the Alberta tar sands are not being developed is that the government believes it is not practicable at this time. So far as I can find out the only source from which the government has got its information is the heads of the big oil business, men who are either directly or indirectly financially controlling or interested in the production of oil in this country. My information is that it is a definitely established and proven fact that we can get oil and gasoline out of these tar sands and sell them on the commercial market to compete with the big oil companies, and that the by-products obtained
2030	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
will more than pay for the manufacture of the gasoline. I have that from what I believe is a reliable source, from men who are interested in the oil business. They have never been able to make any headway with the government. I think there should be an investigation of this. I am quite convinced that Imperial Oil are not going to expand our oil industry unless they are forced to do so, or unless some other steps are taken to expand this industry. They are going to make the present supplies last, cross their fingers and hope that we shall win the war, so that after the war we shall not have increased production which would force them to bring down the price of gasoline.
Let me bring up another matter in this regard. Mention has been made about carburettors and other inventions, I believe by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I think this is one matter that should receive consideration. I am referring to the carburettor which was advertised so widely in the papers. It will be recalled that it was stated that a carburettor had been invented which would take a car two hundred miles on a gallon of gasoline. In fact it came out in the press that this carburettor had been put on a car and an actual demonstration made with witnesses present.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Do not believe everything you read in the papers.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister should not believe everything he reads in the papers. He is a member of the government and he should see that these things are investigated. I should like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: has the government ever made any investigation of this Pogue carburettor? The minister shakes his head. It is my opinion that the research bureau here in Ottawa does not even know that such a carburettor exists. I have gone a little further in my investigation; I know that it does exist.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The carburettor certainly could not run a car two hundred miles on a gallon of gas.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why would that be?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have heard a good deal about that.


Charles Edward Johnston: If we are going to go into the science of this thing we might take an hour or two to debate it. I doubt the minister's remarks because I do not think he knows whether a gallon of gasoline can be made to run a ear two hundred miles.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I know there was no such carburettor ever made that could take a car two hundred miles on a gallon of gas.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to know how the minister knows. Here is another instance where there should be a thorough investigation. The minister doubts that there is a carburettor made which, when put upon a car, will run that car two hundred miles on a gallon of gasoline.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not doubt at all; I know there is not.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is so sure of this, but I doubt his w'isdom in this regard. I will put the minister on the safe side and say that if the car would go only one hundred miles on a gallon, half that distance, would it not be a matter worth investigating? If it would go only a quarter of that, just think what it would do for our present supply-it would double it. I say that if there is any possibility at all, it should be investigated.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Get hold of Mr. Pogue and ask him to send it to the inventions board which checks on these things. You will find out that there never was such a carburettor.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is. If the minister does not know it, he should. We are in the midst of a war. The Minister of Munitions and Supply contradicted the Minister of National War Services because the former said in this house that the very carburettor about which we are talking was thoroughly investigated by a man in Winnipeg, and that this man in Winnipeg had spent 140,000 to see if it was any good.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It was a different
carburettor entirely.


Charles Edward Johnston: Than the one you are speaking of?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The one you are speaking of now.


Charles Edward Johnston: No; it is the same carburettor. The minister is trying to back out of his statement because the Minister of Munitions and Supply did make that statement in the house.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were totally different carburettors.


Charles Edward Johnston: Hon. members across the house have taken a tremendous amount of my time, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will be a little lenient with me until I finish. I shall not be much longer.

War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


Georges Parent: I regret to have to inform the hon. member that his time has elapsed.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is fine. I will remember that even though it is a minister speaking.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the argument about carburettors and the bickering back and forth across the floor of the chamber during the course of this debate, I for one have learned more about the workings and objectives of this committee than I knew before the debate commenced. I had not intended taking any part in the debate until the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the minister himself had spoken. I am not going to detain the committee at any length. The hon. member for Renfrew South, as reported on page 1992 of Hansard, said:
I laugh when I read the personnel of the committee, and I laugh at myself when I am put on the fisheries committee, when I do not know any more about lobsters or the fishing industry than other hon. gentlemen know about medicine.
I congratulate the hon. member for Renfrew South upon the contribution he has made to the debate. I hope that when the membership of committees is being considered, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other leaders in the house will remember what the hon. member has said. I am one of those who believe that a member appointed to a committee should have some knowledge of the matters that may be brought before that committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a good way to acquire knowledge.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The four members from this side who have been appointed will, I believe, render excellent service on that committee. Two of them are manufacturers with large plants, and their long business experience in buying and selling, in organizing and building their plants should fit them to sit on a committee of this kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How about
the lawyers?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Another one has had long experience in dealing with labour and in business. The fourth is a well known barrister who has sat on the bench and who has had the experience of weighing and sifting facts. I am quite pleased with the members from this group who have been placed on this
committee. I have nothing to say about the other members of the committee; they are all good men, having a good deal of experience in many matters. Of the twenty-four, I believe fourteen are barristers; four are manufacturers, while the other four are farmers or closely associated with the soil in some way.
The hon. member for Renfrew South did not pass any comment on the members of the committee, nor do I. I agree with what he said, that the committee should be enlarged if it is to do better work. If that is to be done, I looked through the red book to see what hon. members could render excellent service on this committee. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell), has had considerable experience, not only in business but in the erection of oil stations, buildings and so on for the distribution of oil.
He must have had a lot of experience that would be valuable to any committee set up to delve into contracts. The same thing applies to the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), who is a contractor of some note over the whole province of Ontario. His experience ought to be of material assistance to a committee inquiring into contracts. The same thing applies to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin), who is a manufacturer, a dealer in lumber, a builder and contractor, and so forth. The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) is a business man with a lot of experience who would be valuable on the committee. Another hon. member who would be valuable on the committee is the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). I have observed him on committees and have always admired his keen ability to bore right into the centre of things. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), is one of the big business men of the maritime provinces. Another valuable member on the committee would be the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hill). The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley), who is not in his seat at the moment, is a man with whom I have had much conversation, and I am convinced that with his wide knowledge of business and manufacturing he looks at business from a practical point of view. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), whom I see in his seat to-night, would be a valuable member of the committee. He has had much experience in matters pertaining to lumber, timber and business of that kind. Many lumber contracts will come before the committee, and he could give excellent assistance to the committee. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt) has
2032	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. MacNicol
been associated for years with a large manufacturing business. I believe his family are one of the largest manufacturers in one line of business in Canada. I believe he would be an excellent choice for the committee. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) *would be of great assistance to the committee. There is, in my judgment, no more able man in matters pertaining to business. The hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, (Mr. Fraser) is another business man who is an employer of labour and operates large plants. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) has had a lot of experience in manufacturing. Who has had more experience in timber and lumber contracting than the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson)? Then there is the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), an able engineer. He would be an excellent member on such a committee. I do not believe that an engineer has been named to the committee. I am afraid I am leaving many out. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) is another prominent business man with a wide experience in contracting which would be valuable to the committee. The hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is associated with one of the large paper businesses in Canada. While that line of business has not been much discussed in parliament lately, it was referred to by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Johnston, Bow River). He would be a valuable member of the committee. Then men like the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, (Mr. Desmond), the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff), the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), are all farmers with wide experience in cattle raising and in the meat industry. All of the men I have mentioned, as well as many others I could name, would be of great assistance to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) ? Has my hon. friend forgotten him?
Mr. MacNlCOL: Others have had more experience than I have had. Therefore, if the suggestion made by the hon. member for Renfrew South is to be considered and the membership widened, I suggest that some of those I have mentioned be appointed to the committee. It might also be necessary to appoint one or two more barristers who are trained to look into contracts, but I would not have a committee composed entirely of barristers. I would have a good number of practical men on the committee. I am not saying that barristers are not practical men, 
but they are not as practical as men who work in business and in industry, such as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and other members I have named. That is all I have to say about the personnel of the committee.
The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) this afternoon lauded the government plants. I am not going to say anything against them because I do not think that criticism of the government plants would help the war effort, and by criticism I mean denunciation of them. I suppose the government built its own plants, or had others build them, because manufacturers may not have wanted to assume the first cost of manufacturing special munitions of war without being compensated. But I disagree with the minister when he states that these plants are operating at 100 per cent efficient capacity in all cases. He may not have said that in so many words, but he gave that impression. I tell the minister that, in my opinion, no government plant can be operated 100 per cent efficiently, and that is not finding fault with the plant itself. It is merely because of the fact that it is the government that is operating the plant instead of a private individual or company. It is no reflection on the government, and so I hope the government will not take that as a criticism.
Let me give an example. My long experience in plants enables me on going through a plant to form my own judgment as to how the plant is being operated, whether it is being operated as I had to operate a plant.
I have been in different plants operated by the government where I have seen at times many men standing idle by their machines for some considerable time. It was not the men's fault because I have talked with these men and asked them why they were not working. They told me that their machines were not operating because the materials for their machines were not available or because the plant could not get the materials, and I presume that the government, being a benevolent employer, does not do what a private operator is compelled to do when there is no material available to keep a machine operating. There is only one thing the private operator can do in such a case, and that is to send the men home. But the government does not need to do that because it has all that is required, so far as finances are concerned, to operate the plant. Let me say right here that I am not in accord with sending men home simply because the material is not available for them to work with. It is not fair to the workmen, and I

War Expenditures-Mr. MacNicol
hope when this war is over and the whole setup pertaining to labour is reorganized, that men present and willing to work in the plant in -which they are engaged but not having the material to work with, will be compensated if they are laid off through no fault of their own. I think the time has gone by when the working man-and I was one for years-can be called back and forth at the will of the operator of the plant. It is not fair to the working man. It is not just. So perhaps, when the government or those who are operating these plants for the government, when they keep a man on, standing around doing nothing, are doing it because of humanitarian reasons. I look forward to the day when the working man will be treated throughout the whole of industry as he ought to be treated. But as I said, the minister was wrong, if unintentionally. He must know that a government-operated plant cannot function with the same degree of efficiency as a private institution properly managed.
The hon. member for Vancouver East said, if I remember it correctly, that not a single contract had been investigated since the committee was set up. The hon. member for Lake Centre asserted that the committee of which he was a member had not sat for more than thirty or forty hours altogether since it was constituted. If contracts are not to be investigated where necessary-I do not mean all contracts, for, as the minister well said, that would be impossible-the committee is not performing one of its most important duties. I do not suggest that the purpose of investigating a contract should be to unearth a scandal. I would be opposed to blazing before the public any scandal in connection with a government contract. Where the chairman or the minister has received evidence of something wrong, I would endorse an investigation in camera; first because, as the minister said, the publicizing to the country of scandals in time of war will not help the national effort; second, the purpose of such an investigation should not be to publish scandal but to encourage responsible authority to take the measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of what has been found wrong. There is a saying handed dow-i by the Great Teacher, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." All my life I have been careful about casting stones against anybody. You can never tell how far they are going to roll.


An hon. MEMBER:: They might rebound.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are things which a committee could find out that might be rectified. I myself have made a number of investigations. Recently I inspected a building
which had been erected under the government's direction. I am not condemning the government on account of what contractors or the men under their direction do, nor am I relating this to show that there is anything wrong other than extravagance. The boards on the exterior of the framework were planed on both sides; tarpaper or some other kind of insulating paper was attached to the outside planed surface, and then another, better sheathing was put outside that. On the inside, of course, the scantlings were lathed and plastered. The building was a large one and required a great quantity of this kind of lumber. As I went through the place, examining it, I thought to myself, for what reason would many, perhaps hundreds of thousands of feet of lumber, which is covered on one side with scantling, lathed and plastered, and covered on the other side with paper, be planed on both sides? Lumbermen may say that it costs no more than rough lumber, but it does not seem to me that that can be so; surely lumber costs more planed than unplaned. This is not a crime, but it is an extravagance. In these times, when the minister by means of large paid advertisements is begging everybody to save every scrap of paper, every bit of brass, every piece of iron which can be saved, for what reason is such high-class lumber used only to be covered up?
Let me mention another ease. Perhaps the boiler part of the John Inglis plant is not under the government, but at any rate one section of the plant makes boilers and another part makes small arms. In a government building only a stone's throw from the John Inglis plant two boilers were installed which, if my memory serves me aright, came from a plant many miles away. Perhaps the John Inglis company did not have boilers on hand; but it struck me, after twenty-five years of keen business experience, as a most peculiar thing to transport boilers a thousand miles for installation in a building so close to a plant which is under government direction and which manufactures boilers.
One day I talked to a man who was trucking material from Hamilton. Its final destination was Niagara Falls, but first it was brought to Toronto and then it went to Camp Borden. I asked the man, "Why are you going to Camp Borden?" He said, "Oh, that is where it is to be inspected." So it was to be taken to Camp Borden, in Simcoe county, fifty miles or more from Toronto, then brought back to Toronto, then along the Hamilton highway to Niagara Falls, where the material was to be installed.
Perhaps such things as these cannot be avoided, but I believe if they were brought

War Expenditures*-Mr. MacNicol
before a committee examining into contracts they would represent only a few of very many instances where savings could be made. At this time everybody should exert the utmost possible effort to economize. The main purpose of this committee should be to bring about economy; if it does that, it will have done something worth while.
In the course of his address the minister, as I understood him, referred to the eighth report, which was in connection with medical work. At that time I said to myself, "I will check over the names of the committee to see if there is a doctor on it", and I did not find one. I assume that that fact is what inspired the very apt remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew South. In any event, how a committee composed of everyone but doctors can issue a medical report is more than I can understand. So I will say to the hon. member for Renfrew South that I agree that there should be a doctor on the committee. As the hon. member for Danforth said, the question of hospitals was considered by the committee, and on anything pertaining to hospitals of course the hon. member for Renfrew South or the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) or any other medical * doctor in the House of Commons would be an excellent addition to the committee.
Last year on June 10, the hon. member for Danforth made some very constructive remarks. In some of them he went after the committee or the committee's report pretty hard, which led me to believe that the committee was a useless committee as I said this afternoon, but perhaps it was not as useless as the word would imply. The hon. member said, as reported on page 3764 of Hansard of June 10, 1941:
Let the private serving in the ranks know that we are helping. Let the contractor who wants to obtain a government contract know that we are not only helping him but also watching him, in order to see that the contract is fair and right.
That is good, sound doctrine; no one can object to that. The hon. member was not seeking scandal when he said that; he talked as a business man of many years' experience, for he has to operate his plant with the greatest care. He cannot afford to pay two prices for the material he buys, nor can he waste money; he has to run his plant in a business way, and that is why he made this statement:
Let the officers in our camps, who are looking after the men, know that we are anxious to help them, but that any extravagance on their part is going to be checked.
I hope that when the committee reconvenes, all matters such as the hon. member for

Danforth has mentioned will be subject to scrutiny by that committee; not to find scandals, far from it, but to effect economies, as the minister says is the purpose of the committee.
That, I think, covers all I have to say in connection with the committee. H the Prime Minister does follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Renfrew South, I hope he will nominate some of these able members that I mentioned or others I could have mentioned, who would bring to that committee a wealth of experience in handling contracts, in buying, in selling, in engineering, in various lines of big business, experience that would enable them to present to the government something constructive and to assist the government in carrying on this war activity as these men who are in business have to carry on their own businesses.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker the preamble of
the resolution now under discussion reads as follows:
Resolved that a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein,
The committee of inquiry on war expenditures with which the house is now dealing should not, this time, be content with skimming the subject. The Canadian people, who are staggering under a heavy burden of taxes and who lend their savings to the government for the prosecution of war, have a right to know how the public moneys are spent. It is high time that light should be thrown upon these abuses that are so frequently pointed out to us.
I have condemned in parliament and on the hustings the wastefulness which has been discovered in the granting of contracts for foodstuffs by the government to some companies which have made profits of 18 to 20 cents per pound on the butter sold to military training camps. I have urged the government to curb the wanton greed of the same contractors, who are still delivering to the army, at prices varying from $2 to S2.50 a bag, potatoes that were put in storage at 50 and 60 cents a bag, at the beginning of last fall and winter. I have directed the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply upon the theft of foodstuffs intended for the soldiers at Valcartier. I ask the government, moreover, to conduct a searching inquiry upon the disappearance of 240 wool blankets

War Expenditures-Mr. Lacombe
out of 5,000 delivered to military district No. 5 by a manufacturer of Cap St. Ignace. The Canadian people, as well as parliament, have the right and the duty to track down at all times and everywhere those who are guilty of dishonesty. Is it true that there was a shortage of coal at the Petawawa military camp last winter, while the temperature was 20 or 30 degrees below zero?
If this is so, what are the causes of this shortage and who is responsible for it? The proposed investigation should bear on all irregularities and abuses which, rumour has it, are occurring in our war plants. It is the government's inescapable duty to investigate the wastage of materials and man-power which certain persons, employed in these industries as foremen or labourers, unceasingly report to us. It is high time parliament reassumed control over public expenditures. The bureaucracy and the civil service have everywhere replaced the representatives of the people, and responsible government is about to expire in the hands of a man, who, in 1926, showered Lord Byng of Yimy with the thunderbolts of government responsible to the people. "The king reigns but does not govern," he cried at the time. Who is governing to-day? A gang of bureaucrats who ceaslessly trample underfoot the privileges of the elected representatives of the people. Who is governing to-day? Boards established by order in council without consulting parliament. Who is governing to-day? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the most pernicious instrument of election propaganda ever known. Who is governing to-day? The Wartime Prices and Trade Board, where flourishes already the most cynical favouritism toward trusts and companies in the very good graces of the administration. Who is governing to-day? Shady contractors dealing with the department of munitions and supply, who pay the cost of monstrous advertisements for the purpose of eliciting a "Yes" vote from the people at the plebiscite. Who is governing to-day? The trusts, friendly to the government, who, under the minister of revenue's signature, were already abusing those who would vote "No" on plebiscite day, comparing them to Hitler.
Mr. Speaker, never, in the course of the last century, has our country assumed a more colonial status in the hands of this oligarchy which threatens to make short-work of provincial autonomy, of our constitution, our laws, our agriculture, our industries, our commerce, our man power, our youth and all the living strength of the nation.
How deplorable is the ignorance of dishonesty of the bureaucracy who recently froze
the price of maple syrup at last year's level, without considering the cost of labour which has increased threefold. This is not all. The public accounts committee, who seem to be nothing but a name, should hold meetings as soon as possible. This committee should be empowered to scrutinize all war contracts and first those awarded to the government's pets, Messrs. J. A. A. Leclair and J. H. Dupuis, the first being the chief organizer of the Quebec provincial Liberal machine. Here are the values of the contracts awarded to Messrs. J. A. A. Leclair and Dupuis: $29,591.63, $34,684.13, $7,793.64, $27,700; and the amounts already paid to the same contractors, Mr. Speaker, are as follows: $29,591.63, $34,684.13, $7,792.64.
After this contractor is paid a further amount of $27,500, he will have received approximately $100,000. In view of the peculiar position of J. A. A. Leclair in the Liberal party set-up, it is essential that we have all details and correspondence regarding these contracts.
As to the provincial member for Laval, Mr. Frangois Leduc, civil engineer, this foremost promoter of an affirmative answer to the plebiscite question, has received from the federal government, from September 7, 1940, to December 1, 1941, the sizeable amount of $14,379.69. What for? In payment for professional advice and inspection services in connection with the Bagotville and Mont Joli airports.
From now on, there will be no mystery as to why the provincial member for Laval seconded the amendment to the Chaloult motion at the Quebec legislature.
Let us now revert to the present administration's abuses. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, during the plebiscite campaign, which has cost millions of dollars to the country, have resorted to shameless discrimination. Who will pay for the broadcasting of the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the cabinet members and the party leaders who supported him?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the motion before the house does not warrant a discussion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation nor of government administrative orders. The matter submitted to the house is the expediency of forming a committee to investigate war expenditures. The hon. member may not review the various contracts awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply, as this will be the task



War Expenditures-Mr. Lacombe
of the committee. The matter submitted to the house is simply the advisability of forming' such a committee.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, submitting to your ruling, I now revert to the subject.
What a prodigal spirit seems to animate our governments. Never have expenditures been higher, never have so many gifts been made at the expense of our national economy. According to reliable information, our forest resources are being dissipated on the spot. Considerable quantities of wood, copper, steel and even oil and gasoline are being shamefully wasted in our war plants. When will these reprehensible abuses come to an end? Let the committee see to it and enquire into the smallest details.
Moreover, the R.C.M.P. should be authorized to search and keep an eye on registrars' offices throughout the country. We all know, Mr. Speaker, the disgusting transactions that have taken place in some of these offices. Exemptions have been sold to Rumanians, Syrians, and even to citizens hailing from countries now at war with us. I have often been told that favouritism, bought with gold, has covered up many other cases to the detriment of fairness and honesty, of the war effort and the defence of this country.
Lastly, there is another matter which the committee should not overlook, that is the expropriation of lands required for war industries, aerodromes, military camps, and so forth. Why should the 4,000 acres of land formerly belonging to Georges Vandelac, of . Montreal, and which he purchased from the Terrebonne county council for less than $200, for the taxes owing on the property, have been sold to the authorities for a price of $44,000?


Mr. FAUTEUX:: I rise to a point of order.


Liguori Lacombe: That should prove to be a very interesting matter.


Thomas Vien: Order! The hon. member for Sainte-Marie has risen to a point of order.


Gaspard Fauteux: I believe that the hon.
member for Laval-Two Mountains, discussing in this house the advisability of forming an investigation committee, has no right to name certain persons and to bring against them charges of having obtained favours and money under false pretences. He named a moment ago Mr. Leclair, among others. I think-


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, on this
point of order I would remind my hon. colleague for Sainte-Marie that he is out of

order. He is not entitled to make a speech aside from the point of order he has raised.


Thomas Vien: Are there any
members who wish to speak on the point of order? If not, I must once again bring to the attention of the hon. member who has the floor that he must not go into facts which will be examined later by the committee. I have already pointed out to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, that it is not in order to cover details when one is speaking on the question of principle, on the advisability of forming a committee. I trust that the hon. member will heed this further warning.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks in a few moments. However, since the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, speaking on a point of order, has taken a hand in the debate, I wish to tell him without further ado that I have brought no charges against anyone. I merely pointed out to the house the amount of certain contracts awarded to certain people and I asked that they be scrutinized. That is all. I did not make a'ny charge. The committee will attend to that. It will be its duty to do so. The honourable member has not understood me; neither have the electors of St. Mary at the last election and still less on the occasion of the plebiscite.


Gaspard Fauteux: That is why your candidate was defeated.


Liguori Lacombe: I believe the hon. member will be defeated by a majority of 22,000 at the next election and that he will swallow his pill once for all.


Thomas Vien: I must direct
the attention of the hon. member to the matter that is now before the house. The plebiscite is not under discussion. The honourable member has no right to discuss it at this time.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to discuss the plebiscite, but the holding of that plebiscite was ordered by the house on a matter closely connected with the war.


Thomas Vien: The matter is settled by the decision I have given. Will the hon. member now discuss the subject that is before the house?


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, let the
committee which will sit shortly be relentless and adamant; let it summon all witnesses whose examination may be essential if the necessary evidence is to be obtained, and it will render a splendid service to the country and the Canadian ratepayers.

War Expenditures-Mr. Castleden


George Hugh Castleden: War Expenditures-Mr. Castleden
should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to give the house the assurance now that it will be the duty of this committee to investigate all expenditures. The resolution reads:
That a select committee he appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war.
There is a question of what interpretation may be placed upon the phrase "other services directly connected with the war". I suppose it is possible the committee may decide that it should not investigate wartime housing because that is not directly connected with the war. I maintain that it is connected witth the war, and very directly. All expenditures of money passed by parliament should be a matter of investigation by parliament, and a report should be handed down and discussed here. Otherwise this parliament is not doing its duty to the Canadian people.
The Canadian people want to know that when their money is being spent they are getting a dollar's value for every dollar expended. They should be given the assurance-and this is most important whether the government thinks it is or not-that when they are giving their sons and their brothers, their fathers and their husbands to die in this conflict, no person will be permitted to use this terrible crisis as an opportunity to fill his pockets with a lot of tax-free bonds.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, the making of steel is a gigantic enterprise. I am prompted to refer to this industry because of some statements which were made by the hon, member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). His remarks showed that he was getting into pretty deep water when he attempted to discuss the manufacture of machines fabricated from iron and steel. Last year the amount of ore shipped from the head of the lakes was some 80,000,000 tons, and enormous shipments were made from Newfoundland to the steel Mills of Nova Scotia. The ore is brought down to the steel mills, which are generally located conveniently to coal.
The first process is in the blast furnace. These blast furnaces are constructed of a great variety of materials, and many other materials enter into the process of making pig-iron. The next development is the production of steel and steel alloys made with combinations of nickel, chromium, molybdenum and other things brought from various

parts of the world. The hon. member for Bow River referred to the plant at Calgary, and we are all proud to know that there is the beginning of a steel and iron industry in that city. This industry will make use of pig-iron produced in these great blast furnaces as well as scrap iron collected in that part of the country. We must, however, realize that the manufacture of special steels, such as are used in aeroplanes, is not possible in a small plant of that kind. Steel that is used for different purposes must possess different qualities, such as elasticity, elongation, resistance to fracture and so forth.
The making of aeroplanes is also a gigantic enterprise. Aeroplanes are not constructed of one material; their manufacture necessitates the use of textiles, rubber and many other things. The first operation in constructing an aeroplane is carried out in these wooden buildings here in Ottawa-the designing that is done on the draughting tables and so forth. The next step is the manufacture of gauges, dies, tools, et cetera. In order to assemble an aeroplane, the products of many industries must be brought together. These include propellers, precision instruments and the products of industries in all parts of the country. I am giving this picture to indicate, first, that it cannot be expected that a small industry like this one in the west, far removed from the great volume of business of the eastern plants, whose production is devoted almost wholly to structural steel, could produce the great varieties of iron and steel that are required in our war industries.
In the production of an aeroplane it cannot be expected that there will never be any shortage of parts or materials. It is a well known fact that as the process of manufacture goes on, certain parts will pile up, while others will be missing due to unforeseen causes. This is not the fault of the manufacturer or the assembler; these delays have arisen in plants perhaps one or two thousand miles away, and they may have been caused by the non-arrival of certain component parts or materials from distant parts of the world. One cannot speak lightly of or criticize a situation about which he knows very little and into which so many elements enter.
All this gives us some idea of the responsibilities that rest upon the shoulders of our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and of the wonderful work he has done in building up the organization we have here. It has been necessary for him to call in experts from every line of industry in order that he may have the best advice, so that

War Expenditures-Mr. Gladstone
the whole effort can. be coordinated with the least possible delay and bring forth the greatest efficiency.
During my seven years in parliament I have seldom taken a strong political attitude. I may be regarded as rather a poor politician in a sense. It is my desire rather, always to view the problems that come before us from a business point of view and to contribute something, if I may, from that point of view. I had an opportunity during the past year of serving on the war expenditures committee, and I for one see many very important results of its work over a few months. The object of the committee is to promote efficiency, to save money, and to correct conditions that hamper our war effort and hurt our people. I am sure that in some respects the work of the committee has contributed a great deal toward giving confidence to our people as to the necessity of the efforts being put forward. While errors have been discovered, there has been a willingness and a desire on the part of those affected to have them corrected.
The statement was made to-day that there is a widespread feeling that enormous sums of money were being wasted, or possibly the statement was to the effect that millionaires were being created. That is a totally inaccurate statement. I am sure the people are confident that no millionaires are being created in this war, and there is also the circumstance that if they are being or should be created, there will, at all events, be no reward in the form of titles after this war is over.
There are many things for which the committee might well be praised, but it would not serve any useful purpose. I think it would be much better if I were to mention some ways in which we might improve our methods for the future, and this I shall endeavour to do briefly. Possibly I may be taken as criticizing the government's effort; but the function of this committee, I believe, is to act as a non-political group, looking to the promotion of efficiency and the saving of money in our war effort. I believe the attitude of the public so far has been that there has been justification for the committee, and that through the experience already gained there will be further opportunity for making corrections and promoting efficiency. If there has been any weakness or any handicap at all, I think it has been due to political psychology, a sort of feeling, perhaps, that the Liberals may mistrust the Conservatives and the Conservatives the Liberals, and even some of the other parties may be involved, for I think it may be said that they, too, are
rapidly acquiring some of those qualities or attitudes of the older parties which come under public criticism most frequently. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that for the greater effectiveness of this committee we should endeavour to get rid in every possible way of this bone of contention that the committee may be desiring or is endeavouring to serve some political purpose to cover up certain situations. From my experience I would say that that is far from the truth.
This attitude of political fear seems to be closely associated with the question of open or closed meetings. There are advantages in some respects in closed meetings, and at other times there are advantages in open meetings. As has been stated, open meetings discourage at times the giving of evidence freely, and they may also foster the political viewpoint. Consequently, in an open meeting a member often makes a statement which gets a headline in the press; in using the head-line the press will refer to the speaker as a member of a certain political party, and so the press report itself gives a tinge of politics to the work of the war expenditures committee. It is inevitable that the press at open meetings should attempt to give publicity to the proceedings of the committee. That factor is eliminated in closed meetings. If we could have the assurance that political considerations were entirely eliminated by all parties represented on the committee, then I think the suggestion that has been made by some members of the opposition, that the membership of the committee be increased, could very well be regarded as having some merit. I believe that additional members of the opposition groups could contribute to the work of the committee.
One hon. member has referred to the fact that only eighty-three sittings were held during the year, taking up some 280 hours. That to a large extent is due to procedure and red tape. It is my feeling that even though the war expenditures committee is a committee organized to promote economy and efficiency, its own procedure in some respects was not of the best. Much waiting resulted from the fact that every word of evidence had to be taken down. I do not believe such a thing would be countenanced by a board of directors discussing a large business undertaking, and without this necessity of taking down every spoken word there [DOT]would have been the opportunity of holding a great many more meetings than were held. It is, I think, a weakness of the committee that we have had too much of this documentary procedure. There has been a great deal of interviewing witnesses beforehand, of

War Expenditures-Mr. Gladstone
which procedure one can hardly see the ifecessity; this, in turn, has imposed much work on the chairman of the committee. It seems to me that his work should be lightened by a wider distribution of the work among the members of the committee.
I believe that in some respects we were overstaffed, and that the money provided for the carrying on of the committee was expended too quickly. This caused postponements and adjournments and shortened the time that the committee operated. As a war expenditures committee we might set an example of economy, and in that respect we certainly were open to criticism.
The estimate provided for the committee contemplated the possibility of continued sittings during the adjournment of parliament. It seems to me that this committee should sit almost every week -while parliament is in recess, and that in the estimates a generous sum should be provided so that the committee should not be under the necessity of adjourning through lack of funds. I am sure that every economy will be exercised, but the committee ought not to be handicapped in this direction.
A good start has been made; much experience has been gained, and I am sure that, realizing some of the imperfections of the past, we shall be able to expedite the work and get more direct results which will be well worth while. We ought to replace to some extent the rigid system of public administration by the more direct methods employed in any well-ordered business. Let us develop a new pattern of approach, using new methods, enliminating red tape, of which we had some, and adopting a procedure whereby we shall get at the kernel of the matters before us with the least possible expense.
I believe there is a great purpose to be served by this committee. Generous provision should be made so that, in whatever numbers are decided upon, the committee may sit continuously until we have a new parliament; and I trust that we shall rid ourselves of any thought of suspecting one another of playing for political advantage, and get down to the real work of correcting situations which are not right, and of assisting the government and the great organization associated with our enterprise, so that we may put forth the greatest possible effort on the part of Canada in the struggle in which we are engaged.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take about five minutes to put on record the facts -with regard to three or four points which were mentioned by the hon. member for Lake

Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with respect to recommendations of the committee affecting the administration of the elementary flying training and air observer schools.
The hon. member indicated that the house had not yet been told whether these recommendations had been implemented. I think he was unduly critical in that respect, because obviously my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) will be here in connection with the resolution which is now before the house and will be giving a statement on matters which came up in connection with that committee, as those questions are raised. I do not believe there has been any opportunity yet for the army, the navy, the air or other departments affected formally to make a report to the house as to whether the recommendations have been put into effect. I want to say, speaking for the air force, the army and, I am sure, the navy as well, that reports have been prepared by these services to be presented to the committee in order to indicate the extent to which the recommendations in the report which was presented in November have been carried out.
Since, however, my hon. friend has mentioned two or three points and has indicated that we do not know whether they have been carried out, I should like to give the house this information.
In the first place my hon. friend said-I do not know where he got the information-that elementary schools are not conducted on a civilian basis in the old country.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to-day, was the evidence which was given.


James Layton Ralston: Whether that evidence was given or not, the information I have is that some of the schools in England which were run on a civilian basis were turned to a service basis for a short time, but they are being turned back now and put on a civilian basis; and many of them were never changed.
I want to say also to my hon. friend-and I think he knows, although he did not mention the United States-that in the United States elementary schools are run by civilians. And by the way I do not see in the report of the committee any recommendation that the schools be changed from a civilian basis to a service one.


Mr. GOLDING:: Far from it.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: When was that done?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon. friend the exact date, but it was done some months ago, I am advised by the controller, Mr. Apedaile-


George Hugh Castleden: Is that a net profit?


James Layton Ralston: It is the profit which is referred to in the report of the committee, and the committee recommended that the profit be changed from 50 to 25 cents per flying hour.
Another recommendation was made that the training contracts with elementary flying training schools should be further amended to provide that all profits of the schools should be invested in non-interest bearing Dominion of Canada bonds; and that recommendation has been implemented.
Next, there was the recommendation referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre that all contracts with air observer schools, which are also operated by civilians, should be amended to reduce flying hour profits by 65 per cent, that is to say, from $1 to 35 cents. That recommendation was implemented, and the reduction was antedated to June 1, 1941.
Another point which my hon. friend mentioned was a suggestion that the stock of the companies should be held in trust for the elementary flying training clubs. The committee recommended a change in the dominion Companies Act whereby it would be provided that no private individual would receive anything by way of profits in the shape of dividends or distribution of assets. The proposal was that all the companies should have a uniform charter. I am advised that that matter has been fully gone into and that investigation of the matter discloses that a form of charter can be granted to the flying clubs under part 2 of the Companies Act without requiring amendment of the act except that the disposal of any residue of funds after winding up is not specially provided for. That is not considered a serious matter, because it is considered that no flying club would wind up except for lack of funds to carry on, and the matter is now under active consideration by the Department of the Secretary of State, the Canadian flying clubs' association and the deputy minister for air. I am told that the matter of uniform charters is practically completed, and that will be carried out.
Those are the four points mentioned by my hon. friend. I want to mention one other
thing that came out in the debate to-night. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) dealt at some length with a device called the Pogue carburettor. I recognize the name because I had some correspondence about it some time ago. The hon. member rather insistently intimated that the government had paid no attention to the Pogue carburettor and that it was a revolutionary device which would save a tremendous amount of gasoline.
Last fall the master-general of the ordnance, having had the device brought to his attention -of course in that branch they have a great many load-carrying as well as fighting vehicles, and we are just as anxious as anyone to save gasoline-brought in Mr. Pogue. He was put on an allowance of $10 a day for six weeks. We provided in the department Doctor King, a mechanical engineer of the national research council who is a special expert on carburettors. They went out to the proving grounds, and for six weeks worked there with Captain Irvine, a highly trained technical man on dynamometers, by putting the carburettor itself to practical test on motor vehicles. That test was conducted for six weeks. I am sorry to say that from the point of view of practical application of the carburettor and the saving of gasoline, the test did not prove it a success. Mr. Pogue, I think, would be as ready to admit that as anyone. As a matter of fact, I think he saw what the defects were. I do not profess to be able to discuss the thing scientifically, but I can say that he gets increased mileage with his carburettor at a sacrifice of power or of speed. That is to say, if you do not have to have much power or go at slow speed, you can get a larger mileage, but if you have to increase the speed of the vehicle or require power for a full load, the mileage per gallon goes down or, to put it the other way, the gasoline consumption goes up. Therefore, with load-carrying vehicles, it proved quite impracticable because they have to have the full pull all the time, and it was impossible to get his carburettor attachment to work under those circumstances. Mr. Pogue has never been able to give the branch a carburettor which works without being constantly adjusted. I mean that literally; you have to get out from time to time on the road and adjust the carburettor, which, of course, makes it absolutely impracticable.
Mr. Pogue went home. He was told by Major James with whom he was in contact, that we were ready at any time to consider any improvements he could make. He has been working on his carburettor ever since. In fact I think he is in town at the present
War Expenditures-Mr. Howe

time. I know Major James arranged for him to get into B class in regard to gasoline rationing so that he could have an opportunity of developing his carburettor.
I have an idea that my hon. friend must have known something about that, and I cannot understand his attitude when he suggests that the government has paid no attention to this matter. Mr. Pogue has had the fullest opportunity of demonstrating his device. That opportunity is open to him now. All the help that the department can give is there for him and he knows it. He has been the first to express appreciation for the way in which the department has treated him. He said that the help he received was far more than he expected.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know whether the minister iwas referring to me when he said I knew it, or whether he meant Mr. Pogue.


James Layton Ralston: I said I assumed my hon. friend knew it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have had correspondence with Mr. Pogue. My information is they are still working on it, but not with the government.


James Layton Ralston: I have stated that the government worked with him for six weeks; he comes to see Major James from time to time now, to report on the progress he is making in trying to find something which will do the work that has to be done, and Major James has cooperated with him to the extent that long after he ceased to work with the department, Major James arranged for him to get special gasoline privileges in order that he might continue his experiments.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is still being conducted, is it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the course of this debate much has been said about the duty of the war expenditures committee to investigate the Department of Munitions and Supply. I think anyone who followed this debate would assume that up to this time someone had prevented this committee from investigating the Department of Munitions and Supply. Let me say that that department was the first department of government investigated by the committee. My officers were before the committee for, I think, some two weeks, were excused, and fully expected to be called back. We were visited by a man who said he was chairman of a subcommittee of the main committee to investigate the Department of Munitions and Supply. We gave him the information for
(Mr. Ralston.]
which he asked. I had a special officer delegated to see that the committee was served in any way that was required. It was the duty of this man to meet any members of the committee and to see that officers having special knowledge of the problems were placed at the disposal of the committee when required.
We have heard in the course of this debate many loose statements about the Department of Munitions and Supply, many from members of the committee. I suggest that the members of the committee are criticizing themselves when they make loose statements about the Department of Munitions and Supply. Here was a committee charged by parliament to investigate war expenditures, and now members of the committee rise in their places in this house and criticize the transactions of the department without ever having given the department a chance to lay the facts before them. I think it ill becomes any member of the committee, which has had all the facilities of the department placed at its disposal, to criticize the transactions of the department.
We have heard suggestions that there are men in plants who are not working as hard as they could work, and that there are plants which do not have all they could do. Surely it is the duty of the members of the committee to look into any case of that kind, obtain information on it and bring down a judicial finding, not just to make loose statements in this house. I believe two hon. gentlemen opposite visited my city and made a statement that they knew of thirty men who were out of work. I suppose thirty out of about 750,000 is a serious matter and worthy of comment. I am not objecting to statements of that kind, but I do say that when the information is readily available to members of the committee, such statements should not be made. It is very damaging to the war effort to have distrust built up about the Department of Munitions and Supply. I think the public in general have confidence that my department is carrying on its work honestly and with some efficiency. That being so, it is extremely important, when we are asking every man, woman and child in this country to buy war bonds, that that confidence should be preserved. If there is anything wrong with my department, there is no one more anxious to know about it than I am. We have special men constantly on the watch for irregularities or wrongdoing. We brought two or three men before the courts; they were brought before the courts, not by any outside investigators but by our own internal investigators. We shall be delighted if someone from the outside will give us a hand in finding any irregularities that may exist. I can assure hon. members

War Expenditures-Mr. Marshall
that if there has been any irregularity, the guilty party will be punished to the full extent that the courts provide punishment.
I do not know that I should go into the specific charges that have been made in rather a loose way, whether or not it is worth dealing with them. I do say, however, that during this debate I have heard nothing which I am not prepared to discuss fully with the committee at any time. The files in my department are open to the committee. By international agreement we have undertaken not to publish lists of contracts, or to make public certain information. Those rules are much stricter to-day than they were a few months ago; but as far as the committee is concerned, and as long as it meets in camera, we are prepared to lay any document in the department before it or to have any of our officers appear before it to discuss any situation the members might wish to discuss.
I felt that I should say this. I believe every member of, this house knows that what I have said is the situation, but just to keep the record straight I thought a statement of this kind on my part was warranted.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I was honoured by my group by being appointed to the committee set up last session to investigate war expenditures. I regret that circumstances over which I had no control did not permit me to attend all the sessions that were held, but I wish to say that my relations with the other members of the committee were of the most cordial nature. I looked upon the work of the committee not in any partisan or political light but rather as a service I might give my country, because of my inability to serve in any other capacity. I gave up my work on the committee quite willingly, and for the balance of the time this group was represented by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who, I believe, carried on in a very creditable manner. I feel sure that the hon. member who will represent us this year, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), will bring to the work of the war expenditures committee the same high purpose and high motives which inspired those who performed this work last year.
I listened with strict attention to the remarks of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and as a private member I desire to say that I agree with the minister in almost every particular. I fully realized from the beginning that we were not engaged simply in a fishing expedition. Rather our object was, as the minister stated,
to view the situation in the broadest possible way and bring to the government and to the officials of the department helpful recommendations. I did not delude myself into thinking that this was a one-year job or a two-year job. It is a job that will tax the ingenuity of the members of the committee during the entire period of this war.
As a member of the war expenditures committee I understood that there was a definite and clear distinction between its work and that of the public accounts committee. I understood, further, that if anything came to our attention which seemed irregular, we could pass the information along to the public accounts committee for investigation. We spent a number of the early sessions in becoming thoroughly conversant with the routine operations of the Department of Munitions and Supply. This, to me at least, was fundamentally essential to the work which was to follow. If I were to offer any criticism in regard to the work done during the time I was a member of the committee, I should say that our meetings were too infrequent. We should have met more often in order to clear away the preliminary work with dispatch, and get down to matters of greater consequence.
I desire now to say a word or two about sittings in camera. As I understood it, there was more or less unanimity among the members of the committee with respect to this question. It was understood and agreed that we should sit in open session most of the time, but that if any matters came up of such a nature as to warrant a session in camera, the general committee or the subcommittee would weigh the facts and, if they were found to be sufficiently significant, would readily agree to such a sitting. But after many years of working on committees of various kinds I have come to the conclusion that sittings in camera are a joke. They are made such by the members themselves, who do not appear to know the meaning of the term "in camera" or the words "on your honour." I will admit that a very large amount of information which was given to us in the various sittings which were held in camera was of such a commonplace nature that it could have been given quite properly in an open session. One of the most informative articles I have ever read was published in Maclean's Magazine, and the information which formed the basis of that article was given in camera in a session of the committee of this house. I discovered that information of a more or less confidential nature was being constantly given out with perfect freedom and with utter abandon; and for that reason I believe the sittings in camera are a joke.



War Expenditures-Mr. Marshall
There seems to be some confusion, in the minds of some hon. members about the war expenditures and the public accounts committees. It has been stated that the war expenditures committee has superseded the public accounts committee. If that is actually the situation, then I deplore it. I believe a very important part can be played by both the war expenditures committee and the public accounts committee.
As a member of the public accounts committee I frankly confess I have been disappointed because it has not been functioning. It should function, not for the purpose of washing dirty linen or of endeavouring to make political capital out of some situation, but rather to run down some of these insinuations, accusations, rumours and allegations which crop up from time to time. Let me cite an example. On one occasion I heard a member of the house make the statement that a building which normally would cost a million dollars would eventually cost two million. The information was given in such a way as to lead one to believe that something was radically wrong. I recall that the Minister of Munitions and Supply said he would see that a matter of this sort would be thoroughly investigated, and that an individual making an allegation such as that would be compelled to substantiate his statement. I have waited a long, long time, but nothing has come of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a member of the committee may I ask the hon. member why, if he considered that situation serious, he did not investigate it at first hand, and call for documents. I cannot be expected to run down every rumour.


James Alexander Marshall: We were told definitely by the chairman of the war expenditures committee that matters of that sort did not fall within the purview of the committee, but rather were a question for the public accounts committee. It should not be necessary for any individual to rise in his place and make direct accusations in order to bring the public accounts committee together. The simple fact that a statement has been made should be the basis upon which we would be called together to run down an allegation, and see what it was all about.
I believe most of the recommendations made by the war expenditures committee would have been put into effect eventually, even if they had never been recommended by that committee. They were too obvious to be overlooked by a first-class business executive. I claim that nothing has been done thus far by the war expenditures committee which could not have been done in

less time, at less expense and with less fuss by one good civilian cost accountant, one good office management expert and an experienced businessman. A committee of three men of this calibre would have accomplished more in one month than the war expenditures committee accomplished in the whole year.
However, the ground work has been laid, and the committee can build from that ground work. If irregularities can be found, I suggest that they be referred to the public accounts committee. I believe we who constitute the membership of that committee will endeavour to find out the real saboteurs of Canada's war effort, and recommend to the house what treatment should be meted out to them.
Canada is fighting for her national existence, and has given the "full speed ahead" signal to her Prime Minister. I assure the Prime Minister that I for one stand ready to do my part to see that we win this war, and to see, too, that proper punishment is meted out to those human vultures who would feed on the lives of patriotic Canadians.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to be brief and explicit in what I have to say. I am prompted to rise at this time by the remarks of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), who was chairman last year of the war expenditures committee. According to what he said, the committee did not have a very clear conception of its duties. In defending the activities of the committee this afternoon he made the statement that the probing into war contracts let by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was not the function of the committee, that it was not a fact-finding committee.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I did not say it was not
the function of the committee; I said it was not the primary function.


Clarence Gillis: That is only quarrelling with words.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is a big difference.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Munitions
and Supply now tells us that the vouchers and records of his department were open to the committee at any time they wanted to make an examination. I consider the work of the war expenditures committee to be one of the most important functions of this parliament.
I believe one of the best ways of maintaining the morale of the Canadian people at the present time is to guarantee that the money appropriated by means of war taxation is being spent to the greatest advantage in Canada's war effort. In going through certain sections of the country from time to time I find

War Expenditures-Mr. Gillis
serious misgivings on the part of the people as to whether this is being done. In my opinion the committee should have been functioning since the outbreak of the war. It has a task of great magnitude before it; it will have to go back into the business which has been transacted since the outbreak of the war. A statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) which appeared in the Monetary Times of January 10, 1942, gives a clear picture of what the committee is up against at the present time. Referring to the war effort generally and war expenditures, he said:
Its efforts in this direction are being stimulated by the war contracts awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply, which at the end of September had reached the enormous total of approximately $2,600,000,000. In order that our industries may be able to carry out their contracts, some $550,000,000 has been provided in the form of capital assistance for the construction of new plants, the extension of old plants, and the installation of new machinery and equipment. Again, since shipping is required to win the battle of the Atlantic and to carry our products to overseas markets, a programme of some $500,000,000 of new shipping has been authorized and some of these ships have already been launched. Indeed, our shipbuilding industry employs eight and nine times as many workers as it employed at the outbreak of war.
The wages of most of these workers have been frozen. From time to time the general public get the picture from the press that the workers in Canada consider that they are not getting what they should get in the way of wages and working conditions. They believe that production is not what it should be as exemplified in the steel industry, the mining industry and the shipbuilding industry. Union men have set up, of their own volition, production committees to see if industry cannot be speeded up. They are not quarel-ling about the question of wages.
The war expenditures committee is the only guarantee that the Canadian public have that the money is being spent to the greatest advantage. As I see it, the committee has avoided inquiry into the expenditures made by the different departments. According to the report which the committee made last year, I consider that its work was wasted. It inquired into the headquarters set-up of national defence, air, navy and army. There was no necessity for that. The different ministers come before the house with appropriations for their respective departments and we can make our inquiries from them. There is no necessity of a committee sitting in camera to inquire into the normal or natural expenditures of these departments. What is needed is an inquiry into the enormous expenditures made by way of contracts let,
44561-130}
not only by the Department of Munitions and Supply but by the Department of National Defence. There is a great necessity to dispel the rumours that are being circulated. As an example, I would mention the airport at Sydney, Nova Scotia, a national defence project. People whom I consider as responsible have asked me questions about this. One of the tenders for the original contract for the construction of the buildings at this airport was $250,000, but it was refused. Yet the buildings were finally completed at a cost of $1,500,000. Why was this tender not accepted? This is the rumour, and I do not know whether it is true or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I suggest to the hon. member that he should not help to spread rumours of that kind. As a member of the committee he could get the facts.


Clarence Gillis: I am not a member of the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely the hon. gentleman
has friends. They only need to meet tomorrow and ask for vouchers on that, and the documents will be right there and every question will be answered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The committee has not met since August.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose it will meet when this debate ends. As far as I can see, my hon. friend is preventing it from meeting.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have not prevented it from meeting during the last three months.


Clarence Gillis: If the war expenditures committee were functioning as it should be, I could answer these rumours by saying that that was not possible, that there was a stop-block in the war expenditures committee which was checking these things. But the committee has not been fulfilling this function.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that the hon. member's criticism should be of the committee and not of the way in which contracts are let.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It should be of the government for not setting up the committee sooner.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It was not our fault.
Mr. COLDWELiL: It was not our fault because we nominated our men early in the session.


Clarence Gillis: That is not the only rumour I have heard. The hon. members for Halifax might have heard this one. The exhibition buildings in Halifax were taken over by the navy and were occupied" for a short time.
War Expenditures-Mr. Oillis

When they moved in, the 'building was completely equipped with new plumbing. Then the army took over, and all the heating and radiation equipment and the plumbing was taken out and a new set-up put in. That should be investigated.


James Layton Ralston: I am here waiting to go on with the details of the appropriations for my department. That is a question my hon. friend could ask me to-morrow or to-night if we finish this debate. He does not need a committee to do that.


Mr. G ELLIS:: The war expenditures committee should have been functioning since the outbreak of the war and then these rumours would not be circulating. We would have the machinery provided to stop such matters, or to investigate them. As I said before, it will not be possible to check current matters for some time because the committee is going to go back over the war expenditures of the last two or three years. This afternoon the Minister of National War Services, the chairman of the committee, pointed out that there was some misconception about the duties of the committee. It certainly did not perform the functions I thought it was set up to perform.
Another matter that should be checked is the ability of those who receive contracts to carry them out. Most of the criticism I have heard along this line is with respect to contracts let by the Department of National Defence. When a firm of undertakers is given the contract to construct buildings, put in runways and so forth on an air field, it certainly does not look good. The opinion among many people whom I have met is that it is simply pouring money down the sink. As the minister said a moment ago, the workers are being asked to buy war savings certificates, and they are doing it. They are doing their best to win the war. But the general opinion is that it is a partisan war, so far as the government is concerned, in the letting of contracts, and the committee can perform a useful and constructive service to the country if it will get down to business and make an examination of the many criticisms that are being levelled at the government on that score. I do not know whether it is true or not; I should like to know; it is the duty of the committee to find out.
Many members of the committee have stated in the house that the committee could not do this or could not do that. I think it is the duty of any member of the committee, if he is not satisfied with how the majority of the committee are handling its business and filing its reports, to come before this house with a minority report and let us know just what the trouble is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think the best service it is possible for me to render to the committee and to the country in this matter is to make as brief a speech as possible and let the committee get on with its work immediately. There is little to be added from the government benches to what has already been said by my colleague, the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). In his address this afternoon the minister reviewed very comprehensively the work of the committee, and what had been accomplished by way of organization and investigation. I think he left the impression on the house, which indeed has been left generally by those who have spoken, that there is now a distinct agreement on the part of members of the committee that its objective is eminently desirable, that there is opportunity for very valuable public service in its work, and that while not as much has been achieved as members would naturally wish, there has been a measure of real accomplishment by the committee in its work thus far.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked-and I think a similar request was made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell)- that I should state distinctly the view of the government with respect to the scope of the committee and give the house an assurance that there would be no restriction on its work by seeking to narrow down the extent of the committee's authority as set forth in the resolution. I wish to give that assurance emphatically and unequivocally. The desire of the government in establishing this committee is to have it investigate as fully and as completely as it possibly can matters which its members or others may bring to the committee as proper subjects for investigation. No group of members of the house could feel more deeply concerned about the expenditure of vast sums of money than the government itself does, and we look upon this committee not as a body that is investigating the government but as a body that is assisting the government in its control of public expenditures. I should like that view to be fully appreciated by all hon. members on the committee. Indeed, nothing has been more satisfactory, I think, to those of us who have this responsibility to carry than to observe that the members of the committee themselves have felt that the opportunities they have on the committee lie so largely in that direction. It is encouraging to know that they have felt that they do not regard themselves as a committee searching for

War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King
scandal but rather as a body of members of this house who are seeking to render a public service in the matter of seeing that all possible economies are effected in connection with war expenditures and that matters which should be still further investigated may be brought to the attention of the government or of some committee of this house for that purpose.
In that regard I should like to draw the attention of the house to the significance of one statement in particular which was made this afternoon by the Minister of National War Services. Let me preface my remarks on that by saying that many have criticized the fact that the proceedings of the committee are in camera. But as my hon. friend the minister said, the purpose of sitting in camera is not that of seeking to conceal information. It is really a method of procuring information which could not be possible if the committee's proceedings were in public. That point, I think, has not been sufficiently dwelt upon. The very fact that the committee is sitting in camera and can bring before it any of the officials of any department connected with the war effort and can examine fully and in detail all matters that come before it, enables the members of the committee to obtain much more information than would otherwise be possible.
May I supplement that by drawing attention to what has been said so often in the British house, which is that while the public is not being informed daily of the proceedings of the committee, hon. members of that committee gain information and knowledge to a degree that would not be possible in any other way. If, in acquiring knowledge with respect to government contracts and matters of one kind or another, they feel there is need for fuller inquiry, there is nothing to prevent them from bringing up on the floor of the house questions which they think ought to be investigated further and asking for information from the ministry or seeking to obtain further inquiries before the committee of public accounts, if they wish so to do.
Viewed in that light I think it will be seen that there is an opportunity much greater than appears on the surface in the work of the committee. The members of the committee at Westminster have come across matters which they thought would not bear the light of day. They did not wish to expose them to the public gaze in a sensational way by having the proceedings carried on in public; they have felt that by having these matters appear in the press it would-I will not say be of assistance to the enemy, but be
a comfort to the enemy, who delights in anything which will tend to create discord and suspicion in a country to which he is opposed. The opportunity, however, has thereby been afforded members of the committee to go to the minister of the department concerned and bring to his attention matters which they thought ought to be discussed.
Let me say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that if the members of this committee in the course of their investigations have reason to believe that there is some transaction that is not creditable or if there are good grounds of suspicion that there is some dealing that is not honourable, I invite them to bring these matters immediately to the attention of the minister who is at the head of the department; and if the minister does not find means to have the matter satisfactorily dealt with, then I would suggest that a direct request be made of the government to have the matter investigated by the committee on public accounts.
The reason why the war expenditures committee is not being regarded as a committee on public accounts is that we already have a committee on public accounts, a standing committee of this house, to deal with matters that should be dealt with in relation to public accounts. As I have indicated, the function of the war expenditure committee is not that of a committee on public accounts. Its duty is to investigate with a view to protecting the government's war effort in as many ways as may be possible, particularly in relation to unwise expenditures and unwise methods in regard to these expenditures.
The question of publicity has been fully explained by my colleague, and the question of the extent of the powers of the committee I think I have dealt with in a way to confirm the views already expressed by the minister in that regard.
Something has been said about the length of time which has been taken in setting up the committee, the insufficient time which the committee has had for looking into expenditures, and the lateness of the session at which the committee is now being constituted. I would be the last to deny that there has been ground for fair comment and criticism in that direction, but I would ask hon. members, when they speak about the committee not having been established at the very first session, to recall the matters to which the government had to give immediate attention. It seems to me that we would have been inviting unnecessary suspicion with regard to our own departments and administrators if, before we had begun to incur expenditures to any considerable extent, we had undertaken to form the
2048	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King
committee, with other committees we already had in existence, at a much earlier time than we did.
Moreover, as hon. members themselves have found out, in the work of the committee the matters to be inquired into are so vast and extensive, the numbers of contracts so great, the whole business so large, that unless the methods of the committee were properly organized at the outset, unless the committee got a bird's-eye view, so to speak, of the whole field to be surveyed and a dhe appreciation of its own functions in the clearest possible way before entering on examination in detail, the time of the committee would have been very largely wasted and very little in the way of effective action would have followed.
I think hon. members who are on the committee will agree that, under the direction of the chairman, who was then a private member of the house, an excellent foundation was laid for the further work of the committee, and that much of the time that was taken up in organization will begin from now on to bear fruit in abundance.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and others have spoken of the desirability of enlisting as largely as possible the services of the various members in connection with work on committees. I can assure him and other hon. members that the government is only too anxious to have the members' time employed as actively and efficiently as possible. There are now-it may surprise hon. members to hear me say it-no less than twenty-two committees; there will be, when the defence of Canada regulations committee is appointed, twenty-three committees at work this session. There are seven select committees, and the fifteen standing committees. That is a considerable number; indeed, some complaint has been made to-day that so many committees are meeting it is difficult to have members attend to the extent that they should.
Possibly there is room for improvement in the arrangement of the meetings of the different committees, and, speaking for myself, I should be wholly favourable to having the committee on war expenditures enlarged if that is going to help to further the work for which the committee was intended. I shall be glad to take up that matter with my colleagues; I think they will view it sympathetically; and if the committee itself, after a meeting, feels that its work could be better performed by having its membership enlarged to some extent, I for one shall be prepared to do what I can to have that recommendation favourably received by the house.
I might say the same in respect to other recommendations that may come from the

committee to the house. I believe, now that the work is generally recognized to be of the importance that it is, this house will be ready to approve almost any recommendation which comes to it from the committee itself.
I do not know that there is more I should add at the moment; indeed, I do not want to have this debate go over to to-morrow. I would, however, not like to conclude without expressing appreciation to members of the house, and particularly to the members of the committee, of the general acceptance of the resolution which is now before the house, and which I believe will pass unanimously to-night.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Will the Prime Minister state whether it will be possible at this session for private members to attend the sessions of the committee, not to take part in them, but to attend? It was allowed at some sessions which were held last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe that is a privilege of private members at all times. I feel certain, if the committee themselves wish to have that liberty granted, it will be granted in a moment. I can see no reason why private members should not be permitted to attend at. any time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 1, 1942