1942-04-29

Hon. C. D. HOWE (for the Minister of Transport):: I wish to lay on the table the
financial budget of Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1942 and to move that the same be referred, to the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following annual reports for the year 1941 which were laid on the table of the house on March 19 last:	Canadian National Railways, Canadian
National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways System; also the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1941, tabled March 23, 1942, together with the following items of the estimates for 1942-43:
400.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways eastern lines;
401.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National Railways;
410.	Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advances;
411.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1942.
And that the resolution passed by the house on the 20th February, 1942, referring votes 400, 401, 410 and 411 to the committee of supply, be rescinded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: A new and comprehensive extradition treaty between Canada and the United States was signed this morning in Washington. The signatories of the treaty were the Canadian minister in the United States, Mr. Leighton McCarthy, for Canada; and Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State for the United States.
The new treaty, which governs the arrangements between Canada and the United States for the extradition gf criminals who have fled from one country to another, replaces a series of treaties and conventions which began with the Ashburton-Webster treaty 1842, which was subsequently modified by conventions in 1889, 1900, 1905, 1922, and 1925. In 1931 a new treaty, similar to that now signed between Canada and the United States, was entered into between Great Britain and the United States. While the 1931 treaty replaced the Ashburton-Webster treaty and other conventions, it had no effect upon the position of Canada and the United States. Such modifications as have been made in the new treaty are designed to bring the regulations governing extradition into line with modern conditions.
The new treaty is subject to ratification. It will not be published until arrangements have been completed for its presentation to parliament and to the Senate of the United States.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On what goods and materials, domestic and imported, are subsidies now being paid?
2.	What subsidy is paid on each kind of goods and materials?
3.	How much has been paid to date on each kind of goods and materials?
4.	What are the names and addresses of the persons or companies who have been paid subsidies and how much has each received?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I request that this be made an order for return, but with clause 4 dropped



Questions
for the reasons that I stated the other day in the remarks I made to the house with regard to subsidies.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I suppose this is not debatable, but there is a matter of principle involved, just as there is in regard to question No. 2, which has to do with the wheat acreage reduction bonus.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have been looking into this question and the principle involved. I believe the principle to be this: if the minister will state on his responsibility as a minister that it is not in the public interest to divulge names in answer to an inquiry of this kind, he takes the responsibility and the matter stands there. That of course does not relieve the ministry of the responsibility of giving the information if some other method is adopted of asking for it. For instance I think it would not apply on a motion for a return. Bgt I am bound to say that with some surprise I find the rule laid down in May and Bourinot could be such as I have stated.
With respect to the principle underlying question No. 2, the minister has never yet stated that it is not in the public interest to divulge these names; he has given another reason, a reason which no doubt commends itself to him, that it would not be desirable to divulge all the names to those who are seeking them for ulterior purposes. As to question No. 3, as I appreciate it the reason might be on an entirely different basis, namely, that these persons who are to be the recipients of subsidies have these subsidies more or less forced on them-I do not understand that they are applicants for subsidies, but by reason of government policy they are entitled to subsidies. I can well understand that individuals coming within the category of those who are to receive subsidies might get a good deal of undesirable publicity if their names were mentioned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The subsidies are not forced on them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But by reason of government policy they are entitled to them and must receive them if they are to continue in business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct in most cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Therefore I can understand that it might prejudicially affect their business in the mind of the public. For instance a mortgage company might receive $10,000 for summer-fallowing and carrying on good husbandry. I am not

saying there is such a recipient of government largesse, but there might be, and I think the two things ought to be distinguishable. We ought to be able to work out some satisfactory method which will protect the public interest and at the same time leave to hon. members some of the rights of which I am sorry to think we are being deprived.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I am going to take up this matter as one concerning the privileges of the house. It seems to me that the privileges of the house are being infringed by the refusal of ministers to give information regarding the expenditure of public money. I have been looking up some authorities. I have before me Durell's "Parliamentary Grants". The case that has been made by the opposition for the presentation of accounts of the kind asked for in two of these questions is supported by the practice of the British parliament. I quote from page 2 of Durell:
The bed-rock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes. This can only be properly and intelligently discussed if the general principles of the whole system are understood. A preliminary consideration of the English financial system generally is therefore advisable, before dealing with the more restricted subject of control and accounting.
Then it goes on to quote the British practice regarding appropriation and accounting. Again I quote from page 4:
The power of appropriation drew with it the necessity for estimates being regularly laid before the House of Commons, and, by exposing the management of the public revenues, has given the house not only a real and effective control over an essential branch of the executive administration, but in some measure made parliament a partaker in it.
I would like to draw particular attention to these words:
Appropriation alone is, however, of little avail if no provision is made for securing compliance with it. The right of appropriation must be accompanied by the right of parliament to satisfy itself as to the expenditure of the money on the services for which it has been voted.
Then again we have this:
The supreme control of the Commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which those grants are spent.
I should like to quote what the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone said in this connection:
It is undoubtedly the business of the House of Commons to be responsible not only for the inception of all public expenditure, but also to follow the money raised by taxation until the last farthing is accounted for.
This authority also deals with the question of withholding information from the house. It
says:

Information in connection with the accounts may be required either for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the accounts-that is to say, for the verification of computation, appropriation, authorities, and regulation; or with a view to investigating the propriety of the expenditure;
or, finally, information may be required not directly connected with the accounts, but relating to the system. Information under the first head cannot be withheld by a department.
In other words it seems to me that the contention that it is the right of this house to demand an accounting of these expenditures "to the uttermost farthing" is perfectly sound and perfectly valid; for we can have no real accounting unless we know where the funds have been spent. I submit we are on sound ground in asking that these questions be answered.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question before the
house, I take it, although not so stated, is in the form of a point of order with regard to the answer of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) respecting paragraph No. 4 of the third question. What the hon. member has just quoted deals with the merits of the position taken by the minister with regard to something in his department. The responsibility of course must be upon the minister, but what we have before us now is a query with regard to a question which the Minister of Finance is willing to make an order for return subject to the exclusion of part 4 of the question. We must confine ourselves to what the minister has stated. In that connection question No. 2 has already been before the house, and I recall that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in making his reply stated that it was not in the public interest, as he understood it, to give that answer. If any other hon. member wishes to speak I shall be glad to hear him, and then give my ruling.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I do not know that the
point I am going to raise in this connection is purely a point of order. But I should like to point out that the Minister of Finance seeks to stipulate the kind of question that may be passed as an order for return. He moves that this question be made an order for return on the understanding that clause 4 be dropped. We must object to that, because clause 4 is the very one which relates to the furnishing to the house of the information asked for. [DOT] If we allow this clause to be dropped without a protest we shall be creating a precedent. I suggest that the proper way to proceed would be to pass this question as an order for return as it stands, and then if the minister is not satisfied he can ask that the question be amended. There would then be an opportunity for discussing it.
Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A word as to the question of privilege which the hon. leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has raised. The hon. member has cited from Durell the principles which govern the control by the Commons of all its grants. There can be no question at all as to the Commons having the full right to control all expenditures and the full right to a most complete examination into those expenditures. The point in question is not one of the principle involved; it is a matter of procedure, as to the time, the place and the manner in which control and examination is to be exercised and the possible harm which may result if information is given to parliament in one way rather than in another. The minister has drawn attention to the fact that if the information is presented in one form it might further ulterior purposes which hon. members of the House of Commons would not wish to have served. On the other hand, as my hon. friend knows, in committee of the whole and before other committees and at other times there is ample opportunity to have all the information requested extracted from the ministry if it is desired that this be done.
Of course the rule that governs in these matters equally is that an answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of the public interest. Unquestionably that is why the answer is not being given by the minister at the present time, but that does not mean that at another time, in another place and in another way the Commons may not exercise its full control over the expenditures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may ask a question, I do not understand that either minister has insisted on the ground which the Prime Minister has just mentioned, I believe referring to Beauchesne, which is the same as that appearing in Bourinot. I have not understood that either minister put the refusal on the express ground that it would not be in the public interest to divulge these names. If I may be permitted further-I do not know that I have any right to speak at all-I would say that if the information can be obtained in another way, perhaps in committee of the whole as the Prime Minister suggests or by some other modus operandi, is it not just a farce to say that members cannot obtain it by putting a question on the order paper? There is a principle behind all this, and I am going to ask the ministry to take it into consideration. Is it not in the public interest that we should know where public moneys are going? There can be only one answer to that.
Questions


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to this matter, on April 23, 1942, at page 1881 of Hansard, I said:
After very careful study of this subject, I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely not in the public interest currently to give the names of persons to whom subsidies are being paid, or the amount paid to each.
Then I went on to give the reasons, and continued:
At the same time my feeling is that at the appropriate time information as to the individual recipients of subsidy payments should be given to the members of the house. I have carefully considered methods by which this can properly be done.
I went on to consider two methods, and expressed my preference for the second method. I then concluded that portion of my remarks with these words:
My present view is that after the end of each fiscal year there should be a complete report of some kind along the lines 1 have indicated, and that course will be adopted unless, in the meantime, some compelling reason appears why it should not, in which case I will make a statement to. the house before the end of the pr'esent session, a statement that the house will have full opportunity of debating.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I stand
corrected so far as the minister is concerned. I was not here at that time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it would be of much advantage if I should give further consideration to this question; I have given so much already. I am as fully aware as any other member of the salutary effect upon public officials and upon applicants for subsidies of the knowledge that these payments may be made public at any time, or at some time. I do not regard it as an advantage to myself or to the government at all to keep these matters secret. It is not for that reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think anyone suggested that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I am not taking this position on any ground of convenience to the government, or anything of the kind. I am taking this position because, after full consideration, I do not think it would be a salutary or wholesome practice for persons in business to be able to rush in from day to day, place questions or motions on the order paper, and find out whether their competitors were getting some payments, and how much, particularly since that information cannot be given, unless accompanied by a lengthy explanation, without leaving a complete misunderstanding of the situation. That information cannot be given piece-meal without doing a great deal fMr. R. B. Hanson.]
of harm and considerable injustice. Por that reason I stated that my present view was that the information should be given as part of the whole picture, that the whole picture should he presented at once. If I find some objection to that of which I have not thought so far, I have undertaken before the end of the present session to make a statement that can be fully debated.


Georges Parent: This matter of answers to questions came up previously in the house, and perhaps it may be as well to clarify and amplify the position as much as possible now.
When the question came up whether a member could withdraw a question and what procedure he should follow, I quoted citation 355 in Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", which states a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Marcil on January 13, 1910, in which he said:
In my opinion there are only two ways in which a question can be properly withdrawn when once it has been presented for answer in the house, that is, first by written notice by the member putting the question to the clerk of the house, stating that the question is withdrawn, or by the member in his place in the house informing the Speaker that he desired the question to be dropped or withdrawn.
Now we have the question on the order paper; the minister has taken the position that he will give an order for return subject to the deletion of paragraph 4, and the point is whether or not he can be compelled to answer that question. The rule is perfectly clear. The practice here is the same as in England and, as already mentioned by the Prime Minister, citation 353 of Beauchesne states:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of public interest.
Bourinot, 13th edition, at page 314, states:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by a minister on the ground of the public interest, nor can the question be replaced upon the notice paper, nor the refusal of the minister to answer be raised as a question of privilege.
So that there has been no diminution of the powers of hon. members of the house with regard to questions. The practice which is now followed is the practice that has been followed in the past and, as I have already said, the practice which exists in the British House of Commons. When the minister, therefore, on his responsibility takes it upon himself not to answer a question because of the public interest, an answer to the question cannot be insisted upon. There is nothing before the Chair and the Chair is not obliged

Questions
to give a decision. All that happens is that the question is dropped and the next question called.
Question passed as an order for return with the deletion of paragraph 4.


WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the
persons to whom cheques were issued, (a) for over $10,000,	(b) for $5,000 to $10,000 on
wheat acreage reduction bonus?
2.	How were the amounts made up?
3.	How much did each receive?


Mr. GARDINER:: When this question was called a moment ago I asked that it stand. Now I should like to have it dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister asked that the question stand, and I am going to ask to have it stand, on the theory that later he may not think it is not in the public interest to give the answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought I had said and argued on two previous occasions that it was not in the public interest to answer. I state now that it is not in the public interest to give the answer.


Mr. HAZEN:: Before this question is
dropped I should like the opportunity to say a few words about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: The question is in the hon. member's name; he should be allowed to speak on it.


Douglas King Hazen: I put this question on the order paper over a month ago. The Minister of Agriculture on a number of occasions has objected to answering it. In view of the position he took I thought it might be advisable for me to withdraw it, but on giving the matter further consideration I came to the conclusion that I should not do so.
The information for which I asked means the publication of the names and addresses of 7 persons, and the particulars as to the amount each of them received. I do not know the total amount those 7 persons received, but I believe it is well over 850,000.
I was under the impression when I asked the question that those 7 persons were farmers, but from the statement made in the house a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture it appears that 2 of them were corporations. This, it seems to me, is another reason why the question should be answered.
The other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said he had asked for information on the floor of the house about
some of the men in the lower brackets who had received these subsidies, and that he had been given the information. I do not believe that creates a precedent, because I do not think it is necessary to create a precedent in this matter. We are dealing here with the well-established principle that the government and the ministers thereof must account for public moneys passing through their hands.
A reply to this question involves the publication of only 7 names, not 186,000. I would point out that until January 31, 1941, thr enormous sum of nearly 826,000,000 was pair to 186,000 farmers-and, it now appears, cor. porations-under the wheat acreage reduction bonus plan passed by order in council on April 30, 1941. In my opinion, while a good deal of clerical work, a good deal of departmental work and a good deal of time might be involved if the question were asked-and it has not been asked-as to details of that enormous amount of money, there is no sound principle upon which there could be a refusal to furnish information of that kind.
I believe there are only two grounds on which information respecting the expenditure of public moneys can be refused by the government. One is that such information would not be in the public interest; the other, which arises in wartime, and which is probably included in the first one, is that to furnish it would afford information of value to the enemy.
It cannot be argued that the answer to the question I have asked would afford information of value to the enemy, and I do not think it can be seriously argued that it is not in the public interest for the government to give a complete accounting of the manner in which it spends the money it obtains by taxation and loans from the people of Canada. It cannot be argued that it is not in the public interest for the people's representatives in the House of Commons to know the names of the individuals who are paid money by the government, why they are paid that money, and how much each receives.
When the house passed1 the War Measures Act in 1914-


Georges Parent: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member's explanation. I did wish that he should have an opportunity to speak on the question appearing under his name on the order paper. I did not expect, however, that he would develop an argument with regard to the merit of the minister's refusal. After all, that is a matter for which the minister must take the responsibility. As I have already said, I am bound by the rule under which the minister has now stated that
Questions

in the public interest he is not prepared to give that information. I am bound by the rules of the house, and I shall have to rule that question No. 2 must be dropped from the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I
understand it, Your Honour has now ruled that question No. 2 should be dropped. I believe this matter ought to be settled, so far as we can settle anything here. Therefore I am under the obligation of respectfully appealing from Your Honour's ruling. I should like to indicate that my appeal is not intended to involve any reflection upon Your Honour, but is taken as the only means of expressing our dissatisfaction with the position taken that the information sought in this question should not be given.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put may I say, as I have said on earlier occasions when this matter has been discussed, that there is no objection on my part or on the part of the government to giving the information sought, to hon. members, or, under conditions or circumstances other than those involved in the asking of this question, to a committee of the house, to the public accounts committee or to any other body set up for the purpose of obtaining such information. The objection raised is to the publication in Hansard, as a result of answering this question, of a list of names and the amount paid to those individuals. The reason for the objection is that requests have been made to the department for lists for collection purposes. Those lists may not have been exactly the same as these, but there have been similar lists, sometimes involving one group of people, and sometimes another. We have always objected to giving such lists. To have a question asked in the house and a list of this kind published is an indirect way of getting that information. I have stated I do not think it is in the public interest to have lists of that kind published, and therefore I have suggested that the question should not be answered.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is an expenditure of public money.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the house desires to have the information with regard to those seven or eight persons, and will permit my giving it, without in any way involving the necessity of answering similar questions with regard to a long list of people from among the 186,000, I have no objection to giving it, and can give it at this time.


Georges Parent: The leader of the opposition has raised the question of appealing from the ruling of the Chair. I would point out
TMr. Speaker.]
that at the present time we are dealing, not with a point of order, but only with a question which, under the rules of the house and in view of the answer given by the minister, should be dropped. I therefore proceed to the next question. There can be no appeal against such ruling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then on a question of privilege may I not appeal from the ruling?


Georges Parent: No, not even on a question of privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I suggest to the minister that he give us the names of these seven or eight people now, and the thing will be over with. A matter of principle is involved and the government must take the responsibility.


Georges Parent: I have pointed out already that Bourinot states that an answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by a minister on the ground of the public interest, nor can the question be replaced upon the order paper after a refusal by a minister to answer, nor can the refusal of the minister to answer be raised1 as a question of privilege.


Mr. POULIOT:: Permit me, Mr. Speaker-


Georges Parent: Question No. 2, Mr. Hazen, is dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before it is actually dropped, I would point out that the minister has offered to give us the names. Let us have the names.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Did I not
understand the minister to say that he is willing to give the names? The question should not be dropped if he is willing to do that. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, it is merely a matter of how the information will be given.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did state that I was willing to give it now. I think probably it would be better if we agreed to the Speaker's ruling. I can give this information without prejudice and without establishing a precedent, on the orders of the day.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have only one thing to point out. Bourinot has been quoted, but Doctor Beauchesne's book contains the rules of the house. When Bourinot's treatise was published, the public accounts were completed and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Question dropped.

Questions
soldiers' dependents allowances Mr. COLDWELL:
1.	Have any changes in policy been made recently in deciding what allowances shall be made to soldiers' dependents?
2.	Are such changes based upon alleged differences in the cost-of-living indexes in localities where soldiers' dependents reside?
3.	Have dependents of volunteers serving in the Canadian fprces, West Indies, had their dependents' allowances reduced recently? If so, what were the former allowances? What are the new allowances, (a) to wives, (b) to children, (c) to dependents?
4.	Poes the government approve of drastic reductions to dependents of men who came to Canada to volunteer at their own expense?
5.	If reductions in dependents' allowances are
being made by the board, is it the policy of the government to pay dependents' allowances in accordance with the cost-of-living indexes of standards of living in different parts of Canada including Indian reserves?	_	_
6.	Does the government consider that discrimination against certain classes of men serving in the armed forces would be conducive to the morale of our people, or beneficial to our war effort?


Mr. RALSTON:: I spoke to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar about this question, and I think in view of the statement I made yesterday with regard to this matter of dependents' allowances the hon. member is willing that the question be dropped.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I am agreeable to the question being dropped. The minister answered it in committee yesterday.
Question dropped.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Have arrangements been made to have Canada represented on the munitions assignments board at Washington?
2.	If so, who will represent Canada?
3.	Did the Prime Minister while in Washington make arrangements for improvement of Canadian war information facilities in the United States?
4.	Have any changes been made in respect to the duties and personnel of the Canadian legation at Washington?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 and 2. Arrangements to this end are in progress.
3.	This matter was taken up by the Prime Minister during his recent visit to Washington and is continuing to receive attention.
4.	No.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: 1.	What was the total number of cattle (a) in
Canada, (b) in Alberta on the 1st April in each of the last ten years?	.
2.	What was the amount of beef in store m Canada on the same date in each of the last ten years?
3.	What was the total number of cattle exported from Canada (a) to the United States, (b) to countries other than the United States in each of the last ten years?
4.	What number of cattle were marketed in Alberta in each of the last ten years?
5.	What number of the cattle marketed in Alberta in each of the last ten years were beef cattle?
6.	What was the total tonnage of beef cattle marketed in Canada in each of the last ten years ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	The total number of cattle on farms in Canada and Alberta at June 1, 1932* to 1941, inclusive, was as follows:
	(a)	(b)
	Alberta	Canada
1932	
1,223,600	8,529,7001933	
1,471,800	8,916,5001934	
1,570.200	9,011,5001935	
1,604,200	8,896,9001936	
1,554,100	8.840,6001937	
1,457,300	8,840,5001938	
1,361,600	8.511,2001939	
1,337,400	8,474,6001940	
1,365,900	8,565,4001941	
1,458,000	8,797,800
Figures not available for April 1.
2. The amount of beef in store in Canada at April 1, 1932 to 1942, was as follows:
1Q32 			Pounds 9,088.000
1Q22 			8,683,000
1 Q34		9.810,000
] Q35 			14,907,000
IQSfi 			16,659,000
] Q27 			15.694,000
1Q28 			17,339,000
1Q2Q 			14,480,000
1Q40 			25,630,000
1Q41 			16,508,000
1Q49! 			21,894,000t
tPreliminary.		
3. Exports of i	cattle to United	States and
other countries	during the calendar years	
1932 to 1941:	Other United States countries	
Year	No.	No.1932	
12,865	20.4201933	
5,734	54,4001934	
6,567	58,4081935	
123,501	10,8571936	
241,689	43,7251937	
306,958	14.8021938	
146,745	32,4791939	
284,463	8,9621940	
229,514	4,2671941	
250,573	3,554
Questions

4. The total number of cattle marketed in Alberta, 1932 to 1941 was as follows:
Numbers
1932		 106,923
1933		 134,272
1934		 183,519
1935		 257,782
1936		 363,811
1937		 311,506
1938		 264,505
1939		 248,748
l949	 257,823
1941	 292,083
5.	No information available.
6.	The total dressed weight of beeves and calves slaughtered in the slaughtering and meat-packing industries in Canada, 1931 to 1940 was as follows:
1932
1934
1936.
1937.
1938.
1939.
1940.
Beeves
lbs.
338,545,602
311,364,225
338,167,377
403,349,183
411,399,566
460,178,824
457,544,311
443,727,104
450,550,155
454,110,866
Calves
lbs.
42,918,685
42,710,417
48,981,963
61,977,659
67,564,599
73,432,349
86,532,559
75,605,017
77,713,251
80,999,915


EMPIRE WAR CABINET
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did Canada object to the government of Great Britain creating an empire war cabinet as m the last war?
2.	What stand did Canada take in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question as to the advisability of creating an imperial war cabinet has, at different times, been a subject of consideration and consultation between the governments of the several nations of the commonwealth. No formal proposal was made by the government of Great Britain.
The Canadian government expressed the view that the methods of consultation which have come into existence since the last war were more effective as a means of reaching conclusions and decisions as between the several governments of the commonwealth than those afforded by an imperial war cabinet would be. It was also represented that under war conditions it was inadvisable for the prime ministers of the several dominions to be absent from their own countries for any length of -time.


CANADIANS INTERNED IN EIRE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many Canadians of His Majesty's forces are now interned in Eire, and for what reason ?
2.	Have any representations been made to the government in Dublin for the release of them, and what is the reason for their internment?
3.	Do we still retain a minister in Eire?
4.	If so, for what object and purpose, at what cost and "who are the personnel of this office?
5.	What action will be taken regarding the internment of Flying Officer Jack Calder of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
6.	Will any steps be taken to secure his release and the release of all other Canadians so interned in Eire?
7.	Have any representations been made w'ith leterence to the use of the Eire bases by the government or her allies, on behalf of Canada"
0.	It so, what are they?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	There are nine Canadian airmen interned m Eire. Two of these are members of the Royal Air Force and seven are members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The government of Eire in accordance with their policy of neutrality have followed the practice of interning any members of the armed forces of the belligerent countries on either side who, while engaged in operations, have landed in Eire.
2.	Beyond the answer to No. 1, it is not considered advisable that a statement should be made at the present time.
3.	Canada is represented- in Dublin by a High Commissioner.
4.	The function of the Canadian High Commissioner is to represent the Canadian government and- to conduct negotiations with the government of Eire. The cost of maintaining the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in Dublin for the year 1941-42 was approximately $24,000.00. Mr. John D. Kearney is High Commissioner. The following is the personnel of the High Commissioner's office: secretary, office of the High Commissioner, Mr. E. J. Garland; stenographer, Miss E. O'Malley; clerk-messenger, Mr. P. Beirne; janitor, Mr. W. Murray.
5.	Answered by No. 2.
6.	Answered by No. 2.
7.	It is not deemed in the public interest to give any information at the present time with respect to representations made or not made on behalf of Canada concerning bases in Eire.
8.	Answered by No. 7.

Questions
workers' registration forms


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Have employers the approval of the government for using mimeographed copies in lieu of official registration forms for workers?
2.	Has the government any means of ascertaining whether the information given by workers on mimeographed forms is correctly transferred to official forms forwarded to the department ?
3.	Has the government considered the extent to which the practice of using these mimeographed forms may lead to abuses?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Under order in council 1955 of March
13, 1942. the employer is responsible for the registration of his employees on forms provided by the unemployment insurance commission. The method of obtaining the required information from employees is left to the employer.	-
2.	The information given by the employer must agree with the pay-roll and the unemployment insurance commission has developed a system of inspection to check the payrolls and the accuracy of the official registration forms.
3.	Penalties are provided for non-compliance with the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission, and any information given on the registration forms will be subject to the close scrutiny of the insurance inspectors.


RENFREW COUNTY DOLOMITE DEPOSITS
Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: 1.	On what date, or dates, did Mr. Robert Jowsey and Mr. Walter Sedgsworth carry on and finally consummate their arrangements to develop the Renfrew county dolomite deposits under the sponsorship of the government?
2.	What cash investment, if any, have the directors of Wartime Metals, Limited, in this particular company (Wartime Metals Limited) ?
3.	What salary, if any, do they receive for their services?
4.	In what manner, or proportion are the shares of Wartime Metals Limited, distributed?
5.	What is the name of the government official, or officials, -who negotiated with Messrs. Jowsey and Sedgsworth, in respect to the government's investment in the development and processing of the dolomite deposits in Renfrew county.


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The "Go-Aheadl" letter authorizing Dominion Magnesium Limited to proceed with the construction of the initial plant of the Dominion Magnesium Limited project in Renfrew county is dated January 13, 1942, and was addressed to Dominion Magnesium Limited and1 signed by the deputy minister,
Department of Munitions and Supply. Prior to this, several conversations took place, the first official interview being between Mr. Robert Jowsey, President of Dominion Magnesium Limited, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply, on November 1, 1941.
2.	The directors of Wartime Metals Corporation have no cash investment in this corporation.
3.	None.
4.	Wartime Metals Corporation is a .wholly-owned government company. It is
incorporated under Part II of Dominion Companies Act and does not have shares.
5.	Mr. G. C. Bateman, Metals Controller.


JAPANESE NATIONALS IN BRITISH COLUMBLA
Mr. REID:: Is it the intention of the government to remove all Japanese in the coastal areas of British Columbia to east of the Cascade mountains ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Confirming statement already made on Thursday last which appears in Hansard page 1866 and in reply to the hon. member's question, the movement of Japanese from the coastal area in British dian Red Cross society or to the International
The responsibility for working out the details has been placed with the British Columbia security commission and already over two thousand males have been placed in work camps in the interior of British Columbia and on the trans-Canada highway in Ontario. The movement of 500 families to Alberta for cultivation of sugar beets and the same number to Manitoba is well in hand and within a very short time the transfer of these 1,000 families or approximately 6,000 individuals will have been completed.
Buildings in four abandoned mining towns in the interior of British Columbia are being repaired and made ready for the housing of women and children and just as soon as the repairs are completed a large group of women and children will be sent to these locations.
The movement of all Japanese from Vancouver island and from the vicinity of harbours and other especially vulnerable points has been completed.
It is the intention of the government, as stated on Thursday last, to proceed with the movement rapidly and I believe it can fairly be said that very satisfactory progress has been made and the problem is well on the way to solution.

19S0
Questions


LORETTEVILLE, QUE., AIRPORT
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did the government purchase land since 1938 for an airport at Loretteville, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) what land was purchased, (b) what are the names and addresses of persons
from whom this land was purchased, (c) how much was paid to each person for such land and when were payments made?


Mr. HOWE:: Questions as Orders jor Returns


PRISONERS OF WAR IN JAPAN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What arrangements have been made by the government to insure that Canadian prisoners of war now in Japanese hands will receive the services of the Red Cross and the protection of a neutral power?
2.	What is the number of Canadian prisoners now in Japan, upon what work are they engaged, and what medical services are given them in the way of hospitalization, food or other rations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1. It is not clear whether the first question refers to the Canadian Red Cross society or to the International Red Cross committee.
The Canadian government have been in frequent touch with the International Red Cross committee at Geneva which have instructed their delegate in Japan to do everything possible to secure information about Canadians, and, whether civilians or combatants, to assist Canadians in Japanese hands. The committee has already transmitted a report on conditions in an internment camp for civilians in Japan and has transmitted some communications concerning Canadians in Japan and Shanghai where the Japanese government is in control.
Up to the present the International Red Cross delegate in Japan has not been able to transmit any- communications to or to receive information about Canadian nationals, whether prisoners of war, interned civilians, or others, in territories such as Hong Kong where the Japanese military authorities are in control.
Both the delegate of the International Red Cross committee and the representative of the protecting power for Canadian interests in Japan have transmitted lists of Canadian nationals interned there. Next of kin of all persons on these lists have been informed and the list was published in the press several weeks ago.
The Canadian Red Cross Society has already provided food parcels for British and Canadian prisoners of war in Germany. Arrangements are being made to extend this service to Hong Kong and also to provide clothing, medical supplies and other necessities for prisoners of war and civilian internees in the Hong Kong area, as soon as it may become possible to send them forward. These arrangements involve correspondence between the various governments and National Red Cross Societies concerned, and negotiations through the protecting power and International Red Cross committee. As they have not yet been completed, it is not thought advisable that information about them should be made public at this stage.
2. So far as is known there are no Canadian prisoners of war in Japan. There appear to be about 70 Canadian civilians interned there but they are not classed as prisoners of war. Information so far received appears to indicate that the interned civilians are being employed only on work in connection with the maintenance of the camps. No official reports have been received about Canadian prisoners of war in Hong Kong. The Minister of National Defence has given to parliament statistics of the members of the Canadian forces who were in Hong Kong before the Japanese invasion and of a report which had been received on the number of casualties. Information received from diverse scources appears to indicate that there are about 2,000 Canadians including members of the armed forces and civilians interned in Hong Kong and Kowloon by the Japanese. It does not appear that any of the Canadians detained by the Japanese in	Hong Kong and
Kowloon are being employed by the Japanese although it may be assumed that they are doing work about their camps. No definite information is available on medical services and hospitalization, although reports received from various sources would indicate that medical services and hospitalization are inadequate. No information is available from official sources on food rations being supplied but information from China which has reached the government indicates that the food situation is unsatisfactory, the staple diet provided the prisoners being soup and rice. It is reported that some additional food supplies can be purchased by prisoners and internees but no information as to the amounts or kinds is as yet available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On what goods and materials, domestic and imported, are subsidies now being paid?
2.	What subsidy is paid on each kind of goods and materials?
3.	How much has been paid to date on each kind of goods and materials?


PRICE CEILING-BEEF
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any statement to make to the house on the beef situation?
2.	Have complaints been received that the price ceilings have been exceeded?
3.	If so, what action will be taken?
4.	Have any subsidies or bonuses been paid? If so, to whom?
44561-126$
Questions, as Orders lor. Returns

5.	Do speeches made by the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board herein, and orders made by the board represent government policy?
6.	Were the orders and speeches first approved by the government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: As this question, involves
more than one department it should be made an order for return, subject to the latter part of clause 4 being dropped, for the reasons mentioned in connection with question No. 3.


SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS-COST OP LIVING BONUS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government reconsider the whole question of paying a high cost of living bonus to dependents of his majesty's forces?
2.	What boards have been set up in each military district to give effect to the veterans' assistance regulations adopted last November?
3.	What amount of money has been paid out at Toronto, military district No. 2, for such work, how many have applied, how much has been paid out and to what, number of dependents?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


TEMPORARY BUILDINGS ERECTED SINCE OUTBREAK OF WAR
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Since the outbreak of war how many temporary buildings have been erected by the government for war purposes?
2.	Where are such buildings located and how are they designated?
3.	What was the cost of each building?
4.	What temporary buildings are now under construction and what is the estimated cost of each?


James Layton Ralston: I should like to speak
to the hon. member about this. I really do not think the hon. member intended to ask the question as it now stands. The first clause reads, "Since the outbreak of the war how many temporary buildings have been erected by the government for war purposes?" I rather think that what the hon. member had in mind was temporary buildings erected for administrative purposes. To answer the question as it now stands would mean the taking of a census of all the buildings erected in camps all over the country. There are at least sixty training centres in connection with the army and I imagine there must be 125 establishments of the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
the hon. member meant to limit it to Ottawa.


James Layton Ralston: Administrative buildings, I should think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I imagine so.


James Layton Ralston: It will be noted that this question is being passed as an order for return, subject to the amendment that it applies only to administrative buildings in Ottawa.


PLEBISCITE-PERCENTAGE OF ELIGIBLE ELECTORS VOTING
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many names were on the lists of people eligible to vote on the plebiscite?
2.	How many of these people voted on the plebiscite?


PLEBISCITE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What was the total cost of the plebiscite?
2.	What was the cost of the radio broadcasts on the plebiscite for. (a) chains, (b) individual stations?
3.	How much did J. H. Fitzgerald and his firm receive for their work on the plebiscite?
4.	What was the cost of the printing in connection with the plebiscite?
5.	How much did the work done by the Department of National War Services through the information bureau on the plebiscite cost?
6.	What are the names of all persons employed by the national plebiscite commission?
7.	How much did each receive in, (a) salary, (b) expenses, (c) travelling expenses?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing-1. A list of the price ceiling subsidies issued, the estimated amount of same and on what articles, or in what trade and commerce.
2.	A list of the members of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, a list of their chief officers, servants and agents, showing where they are located, the number thereof, together with their salaries and other allowances.
3.	Estimated cost of one year of maintaining the ceiling prices staff herein, and the aggregate number of officials and total payroll.
4.	The estimated cost per annum of the operation of this corporation.
5.	The walks of business life that are not yet supervised or directed by any departments of state.
6.	What training the members of this corporation and their chief officials have had in actual trade or commerce, or in a competitive business.
7.	What minister of the crown is responsible to parliament for the work of this corporation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that there
is any objection to this provided that the request for a list of the price ceiling subsidies issued is interpreted as meaning a list of the articles or classes of articles upon which subsidies are paid rather than a list of the names of the recipients. Subject to that, I think it is in order.

Motions jor Papers


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point- of order. I should like to direct the attention of the Chair to the authorities which I quoted in the house on this very matter on March 26, 1942, as reported on page 1807 of Hansard. Some of our rules apply to this question-, but there is a summary rule which says that where our rules do not apply, we are bound by the rules and regulations of the British parliament on questions and motions for papers. I will read the authority. It is only about ten lines.


Georges Parent: I understand that the
minister is agreeable to the order passing subject to the interpretation he has given.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want any amendment made, and I have the authorities to support my contention. The rules of the British parliament bind this house because the last clause of our rules provides that where they are not specific with regard to a point, the rules and regulations of the British parliament shall apply. Here is the authority; it is only ten lines in length.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I read the following:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions "turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service." (Lowell, i. 332.) Their chief object is "the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events," and "they are often arranged by the government itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way."
We are entitled to this information as asked.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not accept the amendment and I ask for a statement of the authorities on the point. We are not here to play. I have raised an important principle, the control of expenditures under the minister, because the minister is responsible for this board. I ask for your ruling on the point of order. I do not accept the amendment.


Georges Parent: Order. The motion is not debatable. It has been placed before the house and has been carried.



MOBILIZATION OF INDIANS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the legal opinions given to the Department of National War Services relative to the mobilization of Indians.



VULCAN, ALTA., LEGION BUILDING

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, agreements and other documents exchanged between the government or any department thereof, and any person or persons in respect to the renting of space in the Canadian Legion building at Vulcan, Alberta.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANTS

Mr. McGREGOR:: For a copy of all governor general's warrants, issued since the 31st of March, 1941.
1941 VICTORY LOAN


Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing-1. How much of the 1941 victory loan is general savings, and how much is bank and insurance companies created credit.
2.	The ratio of the total amount raised, subscribed by, (a) banks, insurance and other companies, (b) private individuals.
3.	The details of a breakdown of the 1941 victory loan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion stand, and I would suggest to the hon. member that he redraft it because it is ambiguous as it stands and I would not know how to comply with an order for a return if it passed.
Question 1 asks how much of the 1941 victory loan is general savings. There is no way of telling what proportion is general savings. It occurred to me that the hon. member may have meant genuine savings, rather than general, but even that would be hard to answer. The latter half of this question is also difficult to understand unless it means how much of the loan was purchased by banks and insurance companies. If that is what is meant, this information was given in answer to a question by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) which appears at page 4463 of Hansard of 1941-42. If the hon. member refers to bonds financed on the official instalment plan or by loans from chartered' banks, this information was also given in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River.
Question 2 has already been answered, the information having been given in reply to the question by the member for Battle River.
Question 3 should be more specific. The word1 "breakdown" may refer to provinces.
In its present form it would be impossible to decide what information was desired, and so I suggest that the hon. member read what I have said about his motion, redraft it and put it on the order paper again. In the meantime I ask that it stand.
Motion stands.
1984	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King



WAR EXPENDITURES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent . with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members, as follows: Messrs. Abbott, Bercovitch, Black (Cumberland), Boucher, Bradette, Chevrier, Cleaver, Douglas (Weyburn), Fournier (Hull), Gladstone, Golding, Graham, Harris (Danforth), Homuth, Johnston (Bow River), Macdonald (Halifax), Mayhew, Mcllraith, Picard, Pottier, Reid, Ross (Moose Jaw), Sissons, Winkler, with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this resolution is
identical with the one which I moved a year ago, and is similar in all particulars to the resolution with respect to war expenditures which was adopted at Westminster, and which has been the basis of any inquiries which have been made with regard to war expenditures in Great Britain. The only change in this resolution from the previous one is that the name of Mr. Boucher is substituted for that of Mr. Diefenbaker, and that of Mr. Homuth for Mr. Green, and Mr. Winkler for Mr. Thorson.
The committee appointed last year made several reports to the house during the last session. At one time I thought of including in this resolution some of the additional powers which were given to last year's committee in accordance with its requests from time to time, but upon reflection it seemed preferable to introduce the resolution exactly as it was introduced a year ago. No doubt the committee at its first meeting will ask the house to renew the additional powers given to it last year.
When I introduced the original resolution I made a comprehensive survey of British procedure, cited numerous British precedents, and generally sought to give to the house an expression of the British attitude in dealing with this all-important matter of public expenditures relating to the war. I do not intend to-day to repeat what I said at that time. There is no necessity for doing so, because it appears on Hansard.
I should like on behalf of the government to take this opportunity to thank members of all parties who served on the committee last year for the sustained and devoted labour given piece-meal without doing a great deal

I have no doubt that the members who are to be on the committee this year will find through membership on the committee as did the members last year an opportunity for service of the highest character to the country at this particular time.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the members of the war expenditures committee will have a very ungrateful task before them. Its work will be tremendous if the committee goes into all expenditures by war departments.
There is one thing I do not understand. It is that the public accounts committee has been nominated each year for the last eleven years, and yet has not sat in all that time. I do not see the use of appointing a public accounts committee that does not sit. I would point out that during the last war in particular all these matters of war expenditures were studied by the public accounts committee, and its reports were made public.
If we are to follow the Westminster practice, I do not see why we should not have a committee on national economy to study items of expenditure in the war departments as well as in the others. There is a great difference between our new system and that at Westminster and also the system in the United States congress. At Westminster they have complete public accounts, and at Washington the estimates, which they call the budget, are given in a book as large as the telephone directory of the city of New York. Here we give much simpler information, and I wonder whether the public accounts com-miteee will be called to do something with regard to public expenditures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are two observations I
desire to make in respect of this motion for the setting up of this committee. The first is that the proceedings of the committee should be published on every occasion and be open to the public and the press. The second is that there should be no limitation or restriction of the power of the committee to investigate any and every contract which it might wish to investigate.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): I have been named on this committee to replace the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I am quite willing to accept that responsibility because I consider that this committee can do good work; but
1	accept the responsibility as a member of the committee from the point of view not so much of trying to find out whether we are getting No.
2	apples for No. 1, or whether we are getting

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
cow beef for the beef specified in the contract, but in the belief that if the committee is going to deal with the idea of Canada going into an all-out war effort, we must realize that there are a great many industries in the country which to-day are producing nothing in the way of war materials. They are not producing these materials because in the early part of the war the government paid for the tooling up of certain industries to produce certain commodities which we needed. Today we let our contracts by tender, and we do so because we think it is the proper thing to do. The industries that were tooled up are able now to underbid industries that never made any of those products, with the result that the industries originally making these products are crowded with orders and it is impossible to produce the amount they ought to turn out, whereas a good many nonessential industries which to-day ought to be doing the same thing are not doing it because the government or the departments-and I find no fault-feel that it would be wrong for them not to ask for tenders, and that they must accept the lowest tenders. I suggest that in view of the vote on Monday, in view of the fact that to-day we are engaged in an all-out war effort, we must make up our minds. It is not a question of the cost of one or two cents on a unit that costs $2.50 or $4 or $5. It is a question of putting all the effort of our man-power and every machine into the war work in which we are engaged. I am one of those who are not prepared to find fault with the government if they say to industry, "It is going to cost a little more to produce things in your industry than the cost of the lowest tender, but we have to get the goods we need."
Our idea in studying these matters in the committee is not that of trying to uncover scandal or some things that might hurt the government, because I am not interested in that, much as I should like to see them out of office. I am concerned with the war effort, and I feel that the committee could do better work-I am not saying this to belittle what was done in the past-by trying to work with the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and other ministers of the government in an endeavour to put the whole industrial force of the country behind the war effort, instead of going ahead as we are doing today, perhaps giving some industries far more business than they can handle, while other industries which are more or less non-essential are not doing any job for the war. It is with that proviso that I accept the responsibility as a member of this committee.


Major James William Coldwell: As a member of last year's committee during the latter part of the year, I think that in spite of the limitations under which they laboured they did a good job. In the fields which they examined they went into the matter quite thoroughly and, I think, presented to this house something of a comprehensive report on the subjects into which they had inquired. In that regard, I say, they did a good job. But I rise primarily in order to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to interpret to the house the order of reference in this particular resolution.
Last year, I remember, there was some discussion as to what the powers of the committee really were, and it was contended that we were to inquire into defence services and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government, might be effected therein and that, therefore, we were limited in certain respects by the order of reference. It seems to me that if this committee is going to be useful this year, it should go into the much wider and more important field of the department which is providing the supplies for the defence departments. I refer particularly to the Department of Munitions and Supply.
If this order of reference is sufficient to enable the committee to deal adequately with all matters which they may wish to examine in connection with the operations of the Department of Munitions and Supply, then I am satisfied with the order; if on the other hand the committee is to be narrowed down to the recommendation of economies which may be effected in relation to the three defence services, then I contend that this committee is not going to do the job which really must be done this year. I feel that we have reached the stage in Canada, where, without endeavouring only to uncover scandals dr anything of that sort, we ought to look into the operations of the department which is making large expenditures in relation to the provision of supplies for the army, the navy, the air force and in other fields.
I am-and I state it quite frankly-alarmed at the state of things in this country. Since the war broke out we have seen powerful industrialists, and those who serve powerful industrialists and monopolies, placed in key positions in connection with the purchase of supplies and the control of the economic side of our war effort. I do not believe that is wise or good. I do not believe it is wise, because it undermines the confidence of the great masses of the people in what is being done in this country. I have heard it stated over and over again by people of quite moderate views,

War Expenditures-Mr. Coldwell
not extremists by any means, that when they look at the names of the people who surround the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) they wonder whether the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and all their friends are not assembled in that department. I think I said in the house during the debate on the address that in my opinion this was dangerous to the country; that if our war effort is to be properly and effectively controlled in a manner that will command and retain the confidence of the Canadian people, then much wider representation should be given in the control of these economic organizations. I am thoroughly of opinion that this war expenditures committee this year-without any reflection whatsoever on the minister or those employed in the department-ought thoroughly to investigate the operations of that department. I think it is our obligation to do this.
I quoted a little while ago from Durell's "Parliamentary Grants," and one of the most interesting sections in that authoritative volume deals with grants made by parliament in wartime. It deals with the experiences of the British in the South African war, and deals particularly with their experiences during the great war. The book itself is dedicated to the Right Hon. David Lloyd George, and much of it was written during the last great war. It points out that it is the duty of the civil authority to examine very carefully all expenditures made in connection with the operation of war. It says, and rightly, that war is an extravagant business, a wasteful business, even if it is a necessary business; that during wartime the normal peace controls must be removed; that decisions have to be made quickly, some of them involving perhaps certain expenditures which are necessary but which turn out later on to be extravagances; that it is more essential in wartime than in peacetime that every detail of public expenditure should be thoroughly scrutinized.
I have been following with some degree of interest the work of the committee in the United States. I do not know what the condition is in our own country in regard to the power of some of these great organizations which are so well represented in the Department of Munitions and Supply. But I have read of the attitude of the Standard Oil company, of the situation created by the steel corporation, the aluminum company, the great corporations of the United States and so forth. I think it is the duty of this House of Commons to make sure that nothing of that kind has happened or is happening here. That ought to be one of the duties of a committee fMr. Coldwell.]
of this kind. Its scope should not be narrowed down as some of us understood it was last year.


Mr. THORSON:: There was no restriction
whatsoever upon the scope of the committee's work.


Major James William Coldwell: I would say to the minister, who was chairman of the committee last year, that quite often it was said it was not the business of our sub-committee to go into the Department of Munitions and Supply and particular contracts.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There was an inquiry into the Department of Munitions and Supply, and it was indicated later on that there would be the fullest opportunity of making any inquiry that the committee might wish to make into the operations of that department. There was no restriction last year; there will be no restriction this year.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know there will be no restriction this year. I know of no investigation being made into that department last year, although I think the members of the committee were all agreed that when the committee sat again that should be its principal job. I am urging that if there is any doubt as to the meaning of this order of reference it should be clarified, so that we may have a clear understanding that the committee this year may devote the major portion of its time to a study of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) raised the question of the public accounts committee. That is a peace-time organization. That committee should be sitting all the time to examine our normal peacetime expenditures. The committee which it is now proposed to set up is a special war committee to examine expenditures in connection with the war. Of course I recognize immediately that there are certain questions regarding the provision of supplies for the army, such, for example, as the number of guns, number of tanks, number of aeroplanes, the places where they are, the cost of them and so on, that, if answered openly in this house, might give information of value to the enemy. But it seems to me that there is no reason in the world why a committee of this house should not go quite thoroughly into the matter of expenditures for the provision of equipment.
I am therefore in support of this resolution. But I urge that this year there shall be no doubt as to what the committee is going to do -I will put it that way-that instead of dividing the committee into three subcommittees to look into three parts of the war services,

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell
the committee make it its main business, its entire business if you will, this session, to look into the expenditures and operations of the Department of Munitions and Supply and the contracts that hon. members would wish to examine that have been and are being let by that department. At the same time I suggest that the committee think over carefully the large expenditures that have been made by this government and with the British government in their establishment of government-owned industries in this country, so that we may understand how they are controlled and what the implications of those controls may be for the future; for there is vividly in my mind a recollection of a suggestion made that even during the process of this war a committee of business men might examine those organizations and might recommend how they shall be salvaged when the war ends. I think it is the duty of this parliament to see, not how these new industries and new plants can be salvaged after the war but how they may be utilized for the good of the Canadian people when the time comes; and that meantime this country should be protected against those who consciously or unconsciously on account of their economic interests are anxious to see that their interests rather than the interests of the great masses of the people of this country are protected.


Ernest George Hansell: In rising to speak to this motion, having been a member of the committee that sat last year I should like to make a few remarks and perhaps a few suggestions for the consideration of hon. members who will comprise the committee this coming year.
I must say I was a little surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) with respect to restrictions on the work of this committee. I well remember my first experience with this committee, when I asked definitely as to the scope of its work. I recognized that all war expenditures were not mentioned in the little stereotyped programme that was handed to us, and I asked the chairman of the committee, the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), whether or not we had a right to investigate all war expenditures. I used this illustration: "I do not notice ships mentioned in this little programme. Have we the right to investigate the money that has been spent in the construction of ships?" The minister replied, "Yes, we have the right to go into any war expenditures."
Even at that, the point is not that we do not have the right to go into any sort of war expenditures whatever. The point is that
we do not have time to go into these matters. For instance, this committee has not met,
I think, during the last nine months. It was not set up until late in the session; after the session was concluded it adjourned for a couple of weeks, then came back and sat for five or perhaps six weeks. Then it adjourned again and nothing has been done until now. As a result, though the committee was divided into three subcommittees, I am sure all those who served on the committee will agree that we only began to touch the mere fringe of war expenditures in this country. The subcommittee on which I served had the opportunity to investigate expenditures in respect to the medical services of the various branches of the Department of National Defence. Well, I am sure we only touched the fringe of that, subject. We had the right to investigate expenditures in relation to salvage. We did not even get into that question. We had the right to investigate expenditures in respect to gasoline and oil, but we did not even get into that matter. If this committee is to be of any value at all to this house and the country, if it is to accomplish that which it should be designed to accomplish, it will have to work hard and long, and will have to remain in session almost three hundred and sixty-five days in the year.
In dealing with the work of this committee, Mr. Speaker, and also with the work of the committee that is about to be set up, I wish to say a word in respect to secret sessions, or sessions held in camera. It seems to me that this sort of thing is becoming more or less a joke. We speak of sitting behind closed doors, but we might just as well throw the doors wide open and let the public in. If we have any objection to letting the public in, however, I suggest that we might just as well let the press in. I am sure the representatives of the press would play ball with us. If there should1 be a little bit of evidence of such a nature that we could not possibly let it go out, I am confident those men would say, "All right; that is off the record, and we will not print it". Some of us regarded these sessions as being secret, only to find after a few days, a few weeks or a month or two that information coming from some source appeared in the newspapers and periodicals of this country in bold type. I have here a clipping which I took from a newspaper. You cannot read it, Mr. Speaker, but you can see that it includes several columns, and it contains a report of the work of this committee. I do not know how that got out, when the committee was supposed to be sitting behind closed doors. I might mention another occasion, when none

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell
other than Air Commodore R. W. Ryan, who was director of the Royal Canadian Air Force medical services, was on the stand. That afternoon the press were excluded, and I recall that Air Commodore Ryan said, "Now, I am giving you something that is absolutely confidential". I need not mention what it was, but we regarded it as confidential and treated it as such. The committee concluded its work in August, I believe, and on November 25 there appeared in the press a report almost a column in length, dealing with that afternoon session. Someone must have had access to the records. They must have gone to the office where the records were kept, taken out the records, looked them over and reported upon them.
I have no particular objection to these matters being reported. My point is simply that if a session is regarded as secret by all of us, then somebody somewhere is breaking confidence. I might mention as a further illustration another committee which sat about a year ago. A secret document was brought before the committee by an officer from the Department of Justice. He would not even let that document out of his hands. He would not permit it to be passed around. It was something that he had received from a foreign legation here. But what happened? We regarded it as secret, but not long afterward a certain member of this house read that secret document over a national radio hook-up in Canada. When I placed questions about that incident on the order paper last session the hon. member who read the document thought I was finding fault with him. I was not. The fault did not lie with the hon. member. I suppose most of us, if we could get access to something of that kind and broadcast it over a national hook-up, might do the same thing; in fact I do not think we would lose any time in doing so. But I place the responsibility for that occurrence upon the Department of Justice, whose representative considered the document to be secret and would not even let the committee see it. Then it was given to one of the members of this house, on the government side, to read over the radio.
I say that at that time the government, through the Department of Justice, broke faith with the work of the committee. I put a question on the order paper asking if any other hon. member would have the same opportunity of having access to such documents and reading them over the air. The answer was that that was a matter of government policy. The only conclusion one can make with respect to an answer of the land is that the govern-
ment policy is to let one of the Liberal members read it, but not to let any member of the opposition read it. That is the only conclusion one can come to.
Now, to get down to the work of this committee, last year we investigated some of the medical services of the army and the air force. May I say in passing that this is the only opportunity we have had in a year to discuss the work of that committee. It has reported several times-I do not know how many. There has been no motion for concurrence in any of the reports, and while we have been able to discuss war expenditures in the various branches of the service, through the defence ministers, in committee of the whole, we have not been able to carry on a discussion on the basis of the work of the war expenditures committee.
To me at least it was a glaring fact that there was not sufficient coordination between the army, the navy, the air force and the Department of Pensions and National Health with respect to the medical services of these branches of the forces. Perhaps my language would not be considered vulgar if I were to say that each seemed desirous of running its own little show. It did seem to me that there was an element of that principle, all through the evidence. While the suggestion may not be acceptable to the Minister of National Defence and to the other defence ministers, my own observations lead me to suggest that there should be one department or, shall I say, one great organization for the conduct of the medical services of all, and that this organization should be under the Department of Pensions and National Health. I know that the suggestion will not be acceptable, but to my mind there is no good argument against it. It was the view of one of the outstanding medical witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. I see no reason why it could not be carried out, and it would effect the saving of a great deal of money.
The Department of Pensions and National Health purchases its own supplies, while the Department of Munitions and Supply purchases the medical supplies, for the rest of the forces. It seems logical that if a man has appendicitis it makes no difference whether he wears the uniform of the air force, the army or the navy; he has appendicitis just the same. If a man has a fractured leg, it does not matter whether he is in one branch of the service or the other. Not only could there be greater coordination, but in my view if the medical services of the country were under one department and one head they could be carried on more efficiently.

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell
The evidence before the committee showed that the Department of Pensions and National Health had a good deal of bed space to spare, while some of the other branches of the forces were overcrowded. I recall that the committee took one trip to Toronto and while there visited a small hospital which in peace-time was known as Grace hospital, situated at the corner of two busy streets. It had been abandoned by the hospital authorities of Toronto as being inadequate for hospital purposes. When we went in there it seemed to be full of patients. The corridors were narrow and the equipment was anything but what it should have been That hospital came under the medical services of the army. From there we went to the magnificently equipped Christie street hospital, operated by the Department of Pensions and National Health. There we found about 800 beds available. I believe that condition could be duplicated right across Canada. I can see no reason why the medical branches of the three armed services could not be coordinated with the medical services under the Department of Pensions and National Health. I know the present rule states that no man may come under the Department of Pensions and National Health until he reaches category E or is discharged. Well, a rule can easily be altered. After all, it is only a rule, and one of the functions of governmental administration is the altering of rules. The government has altered plenty of rules in the past few years, and there is no reason why a change could not be made in this instance.
I have something further to say which may not be strictly in line with the idea of economizing in war expenditures. Each war service controls its own medical branch and has its own hospitals. Each air-training school, for instance, has hospital accommodation, either small or large. May I make a suggestion to the government which, I believe, would coincide with what was said a little while ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in connection with the salvage of this equipment after the war. I suggest that wherever possible, instead of building hospitals in air training schools and military camps they should build additional permanent space in the civil hospitals, and equip those hospitals for the added responsibilities they will have to shoulder. If this were done, when the war ends the communities concerned would have assets. There can be no question that there are hundreds of communities in Canada which lack proper hospital facilities.
There is a number of air training schools in my constituency. The government has
been very liberal with me; I believe there are more in my constituency than in the constituency of any other member of parliament.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: You must have some good will.


Ernest George Hansell: I have ways. A number of these air training schools are situated within a few miles of town. For instance, take the town of Macleod-I am sure the picture will be the same in other constituencies -with a population of nearly 2,000 people and a hospital of twenty-five beds. There is a huge air training school just across the tracks, right on the edge of town, and this school has its own little hospital. Why could not the amount of money spent on that hospital, or a little more if you please, have been put into an addition to the hospital already located in the town, making it a permanent feature that could service the air training school and yet be an asset to the community when the war is over? I think that is worth considering.
I do not believe I shall be breaking any of the rules if I read part of the evidence that was given to the committee, because it was not in any sense confidential. We had the evidence of a man who was an authority on hospitalization. I asked him:
What would be your attitude to a suggestion that an addition be built to that hospital at the hospital's expense but the government underwriting that additional expense for so many years; guaranteeing the loan, and so forth- underwriting it-so that the hospital could care for the army or air force patients in those districts and when the war is over still have the accommodation for their civilian purposes?
This is the answer:
Yes. I foresee at the end, if this war goes five years or four years even, if there is no building of civilian hospitals at the end of this war we are going to be very short of accommodation if these people are going to be thrown back on the civilian institutions; and that was one of the purposes of my letter to the Prime Minister, to try to get something that would cushion the shock of the change-over.
I do not think I need to read all this. The argument is used that the air force must have a hospital at its quarters in case of crashes, but the reply would be that crashes do not always take place over the airport. They may occur thirty, forty or fifty miles away, and the men involved are rushed to the nearest hospital. I make that as a suggestion, and I ask the government to give it serious consideration.
There is another point I should like to raise in connection with the work of the committee that will sit this year. It will experience the same difficulty in extracting evi-

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell
dence from those who are in the different services, in the army, the air force and the navy, as was experienced by the committee that sat last year. The members are going to find it difficult because of the military attitude that is to be found throughout the services. An officer in the army appears and attempts to give evidence, but when he finds that he does not agree with his superior officers, I challenge the committee to get evidence out of that man.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Not if it is in open session.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not only in the closed sessions that that occurs.


John Gordon Ross: Oh, yes.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says, "oh yes," but I should like to read some of the evidence. I will not give the name of the man who was on the stand, but there was nothing private about this matter because no information was revealed. When we found that we could not get any information, the chairman asked this question:
You notice the point we are concerned with -the duplication of agencies. Have you thought about that at all-how to eliminate and still perform the task-how to eliminate the unnecessary duplication?
The answer is:
I think that is a question for the senior men in charge of the services to decide among themselves; it is not for me to pass any opinion on anybody else; it is their duty, it is their prerogative, shall we say.
I am not blaming that man for adopting that attitude; I suppose he could not help it. Another question follows by the chairman:
We are in camera, and it is our duty as members of parliament-
A. And I am in the army.
Q. Mr. Picard: But we are here as a committee to investigate some aspects of army administration.
A. Sure.
Q. The Chairman: We represent the taxpayers and you are one of them.
A. Very much so.
Q. And we would like to draw on your wide experience. Have you any thought on that?
A. No. I do not think it is right to ask me.
I am convinced that that gentleman had the facts. I am convinced also that he was a witness who knew whereof he spoke, yet because he realized that he disagreed with his superior officer he dared not venture the evidence. That is the position in which the committee found itself on that occasion. I am not a lawyer; perhaps some hon. members of the committee who were lawyers could have extracted the evidence. I understand that the chairman is a lawyer, and there were a few

others, but they could not get it. It may be necessary sometimes to go outside the services altogether in order to get evidence, or there may have to be some principle brought into play under which these men will be completely protected.
Another matter to which there has been little reference is that of patents and inventions. Quite often we read a news item stating that some man has invented something that may prove useful to our war services. Eor instance, a few years ago a carburettor was supposed to be invented by some gentleman that would run a car a hundred miles or some very large mileage on a gallon of gasoline. There was a good deal of reference to it in the press.


Major James William Coldwell: The Pogue carburettor.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know whether
it was Pogue or Poke; anyway it never came into general use. Perhaps the Minister of Munitions and Supply or some other expert will tell us that it never did exist, but there is a feeling throughout this country that the inventive genius which may be inherent in Canada can sometimes be sabotaged by the big interests if it happens to interfere with their private profits. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I do know that in the United States of America the government has set up what is known as a national inventors' council under their Department of Trade and Commerce. That council will receive any invention that anyone under heaven cares to send them. All the ramifications of copyrights and all that are avoided, so that even if a young high school lad has discovered some little twist or something of that kind to improve something, he can send it direct to the council. All these suggestions are looked over by the council and if there is any merit whatsoever in any idea submitted, it is passed on by the council to their research board, by whatever name it may be called, and is tested. If the test proves that the invention is worth while it is passed on to the army, navy or air force or whatever branch may be involved, and the person who first suggested the idea is given adequate compensation for his discovery. Something like that should be done in Canada. I believe it would be a tremendous encouragement and of great benefit.
There is another point about it. We know that inventions, royalties, copyright and all that sort of thing constitute a tremendously complicated question. Anyone in this country or any institution in this country which would take any such invention and sabotage it in the interests of their own profits is performing an act of treachery, if that is not too strong

War Expenditures-Mr. McCann
a word. They are saboteurs indeed. This is something that is well within the realm of possibility because the other day I saw by the press that a committee of the United States senate was investigating this sort of thing. The clipping which I have here says:
Among other things the committee was told of a vast patent pool linking the General Electric company with Krupp interests in Germany which prevented greater manufacture of cemented tungsten carbide. [DOT]
Another cartel agreement between German interests and the Remington Arms company had at one time impeded American sales of military ammunition to Britain and other parts of the empire.
I do not know what goes on behind the scenes at the Department of the Secretary of State, who has copyright and inventions under his administration; but I am quite certain that all the inventive genius which there is in this country and which could have been utilized should be brought into play and be used in the prosecution of this war. If there is a carburettor anywhere in this country that will save only one mile a gallon on gas we should know it, and if that idea has been sabotaged the saboteurs should be dealt with accordingly.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Ernest George Hansell: I have not much time left.


Robert William Gladstone: Has he not seen in the evidence that an expert made the statement before one of the subcommittees in the United States that the Pogue carburettor was impracticable?


Charles Edward Johnston: That is
not borne out by what Mr. Pogue said himself. I have corresponded with him.


Ernest George Hansell: Answering my hon. friend's question, I do recall evidence given to that effect, but I also recall that when that gentleman gave that evidence he said, "Hush now, boys, this is not to go on the record," and that is why I did not. mention it this afternoon. My hon. friend has mentioned it; I have not. The gentleman said that that carburettor was so much boloney. I do not know whether he had seen it or not. Maybe it is so much boloney, but this country was given to understand that it was not, and that such a carburettor was in existence. I am not finding fault with the work of the committee. I am simply making the suggestion that the government set up a council on inventions, to which a man can bring his ideas or discoveries or inventions, without having to go through all the various ramifications
of the copyright office, for which procedure he requires a lot of money, and many a poor inventor has no money.


John Gordon Ross: Why waste time when there is an inventions board now?


Ernest George Hansell: If there is a national
inventions council in Canada I have not heard about it. That may be my fault, but if I have not heard about it, and I am here for five or six months of the year, I conclude that the rest of the country knows nothing about it. In the United States the work of their inventions council is publicized. They say in effect:	"Come on, you Americans;
if you have any suggestions to make, make them to us." Certainly that is not being done in Canada, even though an inventions board may be in existence here.
May I say in conclusion that I am, of course, in harmony with the government and with the committee in desiring to reduce, so far as practicable, war expenditures. If, however, we attempt to reduce war expenditures in this country at the expense of efficiency, we shall be making a huge mistake. We have found- and I know the committee will agree with me -that some departments needed more money than they were able to lay their hands on for particular purposes. We went down to the hospital at Petawawa and were taken through the nurses' quarters.


Mr. FAIR:: Oh I


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend does not
like to think that we were taken through the nurses' quarters. We saw the nurses sitting on nail kegs because they had no chairs in their rooms. What they needed there was a little more money, instead of a little less. The brigadier who was showing us around said, "You ask us to cut down our expenditures. I wonder what we could cut out here." There was not very much they could cut out in those quarters.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time
has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall take not more than half a minute to conclude.
The Social Credit philosophy is simply this: if a thing is physically possible, let us make the treasury reflect that fact. Let us save in every possible way every material thing we possess, but do not let us impair our efficiency by paring down expenditures where that does not seem to be absolutely necessary.


Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: The brief observations I have to make have to

War Expenditures-Mr. McCann
do more with the motion before the house at the present time than with the discussion of the report of the war expenditures committee of last year. In passing, however, may I say I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) in several of the remarks which he has made. As a matter of fact, I appeared as a witness before the war expenditures committee last year, and several of the recommendations which I made are recommendations which the member for Macleod is making to-day. I am very glad to tell him that some of those recommendations made by myself a year ago are being acted upon. For instance, with reference to hospitalization, grants have been made to civilian hospitals in different parts of the country with a view to augmenting and extending their facilities to be used in wartime purposes for our armed forces, and they may in later years be used for the civil population.
In looking over the personnel of the present committee I observe that geographical considerations appear to be given more prominence than either the capability or the experience of those on the committee to hold the type of investigation that will come before them. In a committee consisting of twenty-four members, there are fourteen lawyers. Fortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has seen fit to put along with them one or two preachers to guide them along the right path. Last year there was quite an investigation with reference to hospitalization and medical and1 dental services. The heads of the dental services of the three branches of the armed forces appeared before the committee.
A very considerable amount of money has been expended in connection with hospitalization. Much more will be expended in other years, and enormous quantities of supplies are being bought for the three branches of the service. It will be noted, however, that on the committee that is appointed there is not a single medical man, although there are fifteen or twenty medical men in the house. In. the matter of selection that is an oversight. If we want to use the capabilities and facilities which are at hand in this house, then they should be put in the places where they can be of best service, and I submit to the Prime Minister, or whoever is responsible for this and similar committees, that there are in the house engineers, dentists, doctors, and other men, especially medical men, who could give valuable service on committees with reference to hospitalization, expenditures 
on construction, expenditures on medical and dental supplies. Yet their services are not used.
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. If such a situation applies to myself, I do not doubt that on analysis it will be found to apply to a great many others. I suggest to the Prime Minister, therefore, that in the setting up of the committee they utilize the services of some medical men who could give them valuable information as a result of their lifelong experience in the medical field, and the same thing applies to dentists with regard to the matter of dental services. Valuable assistance could be obtained from the experience of these men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to take a few moments to lodge a vigorous protest against the manner in which parliament has been compelled to conduct the nation's business, particularly during the war. I am sure that every person who cherishes democratic institutions to-day must be concerned with regard to the fact that parliamentary institutions in this country have to some extent fallen into disrepute. One has only to read the daily press and some of the popular periodicals and listen to conversations in railway smoking cars and on the street to realize that parliament has become fair game for punsters, wits and columnists. While it is true that some of the criticism is not fair or justified, it must also be said that we ourselves in this house must accept some share of responsibility for the fact that there is a growing feeling that parliament has become largely a talk-shop rather than a workshop.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The "hear, hear" does not affect me. I have taken very little time in this house in the past few weeks, but I assume that hon. members approve what I say.


John Gordon Ross: You are right, whether you take time or not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the hon. member what is the date of that report?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was tabled in the British House of Commons on May 28, 1940.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the
very reference I quoted last year as an example of the kind of thing our committee might be expected to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that is a
good example I should think the Prime Minister would have had this committee appointed about January 28, rather than April 29. I have a number of reports here. I need not bother to quote them all, but I would refer to one which refers to propaganda in Great Britain. Many of us have been critical of the type of British propaganda that has been carried on, and it is rather interesting to see what the committee has to say about the films issued by the British ministry:
Against the three films which the ministry was able to influence and assist must be set a number of cases in which commercial producers made films -which they thought were excellent propaganda but which in the opinion of the ministry were disastrous and were calculated to have precisely the effect which the minister did not desire. This state of affairs would be ludicrous if it were not intolerable. It has arisen through the lack of sufficiently close cooperation and mutual understanding between the industry and the ministry, the need for which has already been emphasized. Day-to-day interference by the minister in the affairs of commercial producers is to be deprecated.
I need not quote the many other reports I have; hon. members can obtain them from the parliamentary library, but I do invite hon. gentlemen to give them some consideration. In England they have made use of practically every private member of the house,

War Expenditures-Mr. Church
working on subcommittees. At a time like this, when the tentacles of government have reached into almost every aspect of our economy, for its own sake and for the sake of the morale of the Canadian people, as well as for the reputation of parliament, the government should have every aspect of its activity constantly subjected to the scrutiny and examination of members of this house. I feel that the government would do well to make use of hon. members in this way. The Prime Minister has sitting behind him a great many private members who have had experience in various walks of life and who are given very little opportunity to do any work of the sort being done in England. I feel that it would be of tremendous help not only to them but to Canada as well if subcommittees of this type were set up. Now, almost three months after parliament was convened, we are setting up a small committee of twenty-four members, broken up into three subcommittees of eight members. They cannot begin to do the work that should be done. There is no reason why a dozen subcommittees should not be set up dealing with the various aspects of Canada's war effort. There is no reason why hon. members could not be grouped, not necessarily by provinces or by parties, but according to their particular training and experience. I feel that they would greatly assist the ministers; that through these committees the ministers would get advice based on the experience of the members, instead of having, as we have had for the last two or three days, members rise in committee of the whole and present individual cases to one minister or another. We cannot conduct the business of a nation in that way. If every hon. member of this house were to bring from his files all the individual cases which have come to his attention and place them before the Minister of National Defence, that minister alone would be here for six months. But if we had committees to go over these cases, they could come to some conclusions with respect to them; they could make suggestions as to changes in policy; they could offer recommendations to the ministers, and many of the cases of hardship or injustice or miscarriage of administration would never come into this house at all. Then this parliament would become what it should be, a place for the discussion of policies, and matters of administration could be dealt with by a large number of committees made up of private members of this house.
I do not offer this suggestion merely because I want to see private members have more to do, or merely because I want to find some new opportunity to criticize the government.
I offer these suggestions to the government because I am convinced that if we are to win this war we must maintain the morale of the Canadian people. We are constantly repeating in public statements that this is a war for democracy, but we have [DOT] to convince the people that democracy is a reality; that it is not some outworn shibboleth that belongs to the nineteenth century but is something which can operate in our day; that it can operate more efficiently and more effectively than the totalitarian states can operate; that it can harness the experience and ability of private members representing the people, and use that experience and ability in the common task of winning the war. I feel certain that if we do this the position of parliament will be much enhanced in the mind of the Canadian people, and the government will be greatly assisted.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, if this resolution passes to-day, in my opinion parliamentary government will be at an end in Canada. Over a hundred years ago they had a civil war in England in order to obtain control over the executive and of all expenditures. Since this war started this parliament has had no such control over anything. Here the session is almost two-thirds gone

this is the fifty-third day of it- and the government bring in a motion at this late hour to appoint a committee, to do what? To take out of the hands of this parliament any remaining control it may have over the expenditures in connection with the war or discussion of it from now on. So far, that control has been very little and is a myth. We have rules and regulations of the house; we have statutes; we have the auditor general and an audit act; we have a treasury board, which is supposed to pass on estimates, allotments and commitments and guard the treasury. We are simply going around as a parliament in a circle because control is daily taken from us. For many years I was a member of the public accounts committee, but since the Bren gun matter in April, 1939, I doubt if that committee has had a meeting; at least I do not remember one.
To-day with these rising billions of dollars in uncontrolled estimates, the people are wondering what kind of parliament this is when we allow money in astronomical figures to be spent like water by the government absolutely without any control or authority on the part of this parliament or its knowing a thing about it. What audit is made of the nearly $4,000,000 a day which is being expended on the war by the various departments of government and all these outside boards and commissions? I raised that ques-

War Expenditures-Mr. Church
tion last year in connection with the estimates of the Minister of Finance. I asked: Does the auditor general audit each account in detail, and, if not, what check or audit is provided by law, statute, custom or usage, and by whom? Here we are at the fifty-third day of this session, and at this stage we are asked to pass this resolution by which we consent to hand over to a select committee all these billions without any check or control or say in it, over our heads.
What is the object of appointing this select committee? Speaking on the appointment of a similar select committee on war expenditures last year, as reported at page 1257 of Hansard for March 5, 1941, I said:
What is the object of having a select committee if it is going to have its hands tied behind its back through the failure of the government to give it the power which any committee should have ill order to function properly regarding war expenditures, manpower, recruiting, munitions and overseas policies. . . .
I notice by the explanation which the Prime Minister gave of the resolution last night that the committee has no power to go into any question of government policy.
If it has no power to do that, why is the committee appointed?
As far as this war is concerned the committee will have its bands tied behind its back because it has no power to deal with any question of government policy regarding the war. .	.	.
My second point is this: the government has decided that it is to be the tutor, custodian and guardian of the committee. The committee is not to be allowed to do anything but what the government allows it to do. The government will decide, so far as its war effort is concerned what information shall be kept secret and what not. No member of this house wants to give the enemy any information-
But I say this, that at the present time Canada needs an auditor general like the late Auditor General McDougall. Auditor General McDougall, thou should'st be living now! Canada hath need of thee, right at this very hour-as Wordsworth said of Milton-because "never were there as many who knew so little about so much." History will condemn this House of Commons for having allowed all these expenditures without the power to deal with this matter in the manner indicated.
I am dealing only with the system and great principle of parliamentary control. The men nominated to the committee are all good men. They have done admirable work. I have sat on committees with some of them, and they are some of the best men in the House of Commons. It will be understood, therefore that I am not saying anything about the personnel of the committee, but the system functions and policy herein. When

the committee has its hands tied behind its back, and is refused power to function, when secret meetings are held and we have reports made thereof to parliament and no concurrence in the findings; when we have an estimate made by the treasury board of $1,325,000 for war expenditure and have a deficit of over $135,000,000 at the end of the fiscal year and when we get up in the clouds this way, then I say it is high time parliament had some control over war expenditures, because the minister can himself authorize them when the treasury board is not meeting.
The figure for the next year's expenditures is set at S2,200,000,000.	What control has
parliament over those expenditures? It has no control whatsoever. I am not a believer in this lack of any system. We know that in the mother of parliaments there is a war expenditures committee. But that committee sits nearly three hundred days in the year. It sits when the house is in session. On the other hand, the committee in this parliament, has not, up to this fifty-third day of the session, held a single meeting. It is not yet appointed. Neither has the public accounts committee sat.
As I said last year with regard to these particular matters:
I have already expressed the hope in this house that this committee will not be in any sense a whitewashing committee but will deal thoroughly with Canada's war effort. I hope it will consider the whole war effort, not from any partisan point of view but for the purpose of letting the people know the real facts with regard to what Canada is doing, and be in effect a fact-finding committee. If the committee is intended to be a business committee, appointed to go over all exjtenditures incurred since the war-expenditures past and current- in connection with defence and all that sort of thing, very well and good. But I hope that the committee when appointed will cover all the ground and will see to it that the Canadian people are given the real facts about our war effort-
And value for their money. I may say that that was not carried out. What was done at almost the first meeting of the- committee? They passed a resolution to the effect that they had nothing to do with past expenditures on the war, and that they were only conducting a post mortem and decided on a whitewash of the war money spent. That is all this committee is doing; it is just conducting a post mortem over expenditures, and it sits mostly and almost entirely when the house is not sitting, and meet as various subcommittees to find out nothing, owing to the text of the resolution.
The committee of this parliament operates in an altogether different fashion from the

TFar Expenditures-Mr. Church
committee in England. I hold in my hand the last report 'of the war expenditures committee to the house, and I can say that the house has not yet seen it, and the house has been refused the right to deal with concurrence in this report. In the old country, almost every day the house meets, fifteen to twenty pages of questions on the orders of the day are asked about war expenditures, and it saves extended debates such as this. On the other hand, we in this parliament who are proceeding to spend billions of dollars are doing so without any control over the executive.
On November 3, 1941, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked if it was the intention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) to move concurrence in interim reports 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the special committee on war expenditures, which had been tabled that day. The Minister of National War Services who, I believe, was chairman of the committee, said that he did not think there was any intention of doing so. Following that, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked if an opportunity would be given to discuss the report. To this hour no discussion has yet been held.
What is the object of the committee, if the house is to have no control over it or deal with its findings? Here we are, spending these large sums of money. As we go about the country we see lots of waste. I could take any hon. member right to Toronto, and I could show him around the normal school where there has been a great waste of public money in connection with the erection of buildings at that point, when the government could have obtained other buildings, possibly at no expense of public property and schools, for the same purpose. Just look out of a train window when passing along the Toronto waterfront, and one will see the numerous huts built along there. Many of them are vacant. I am not attempting to criticize the three war ministers-far from it. But it was stated by one minister in the house at the last session that those ministers had not located the various camps from Vancouver to Halifax, but that they had been located by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I can tell the house that after some of those camps were established it was most difficult to get sewers, water supply and transportation facilities, and in the winter weather get proper training.
Then, let us consider the purchase of ships. What information can we get about them or about those sold before the war for a trifle? The history with respect to select committees
has always been the same. The standing committees are all right, because they stick to their task. It is altogether different, however, in regard to select committees. I have been in the house since 1921, and I have never known a select committee to do anything useful. I am not making these observations in any partisan sense, but it is a fact that the party in power selects the members of a committee, and it prepares the text of the resolution appointing such committee and drafts the report to the house. These select committees are bound by the resolutions setting them up, and they must operate within the four corners of their orders of reference. They cannot go beyond those four corners.
We had a committee on Atlantic shipping. We had a committee in connection with the customs scandal. We had another committee which dealt with Beauharnois. There was another committee to consider pric.e spreads, and another to consider the Canadian National estimates and the public accounts in connection with the Bren gun. All those committees did not find a thing useful, made reports to the house, and they were discussed, except the Bren.
I am not casting reflections upon such committees, but I do know that the government has always had one or two ministers on each committee, and that majorities have always written the reports. There has always been a good deal of partisanship in the work of such committees, and that is bound to take place under this parliamentary government. It is true that the report of a select committee when presented to the house is to a great extent a partisan report, and sometimes a minority report is made also.
I understand all parties are united in the war effort, and for the remainder of the session I should like to see all other domestic discussions, except those having to do with the war, excluded. We have now reached the fifty-third day, and it is only at this time that the motion has been presented to deal with war expenditures. The committee which sat last summer did not deal with the important question of rearranging of soldiers' pay. There should be a better system of soldiers' pay, for the lower paid groups. That matter was not heard of until, after I dealt with it many times, it was discussed in the house. Then, these dollar-a-year men, and many price and trade controllers have been appointed since that committee sat, and there should be some discussion on that point, because they are a law unto themselves and spend millions over our heads as they like.

War Expenditures-Mr. Church
I notice the resolution states:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members. . . .
And then the members are listed. When the committee of last session presented its report there were no discussions in the house. No concurrence was moved in any of its work.
We are spending money like water. Large amounts of money are spent in an unknown way, and we have no control at all over expenditures when a mint of money is being spent. Since the last- committee met there have been several innovations.
We have this price ceiling board and many others which have been set up under the War Measures Act. They have roving commissions to go all over Canada and there is no control over their expenditures. Six weeks ago a motion was moved by me for particulars about the dealings of this board and corporation on ceiling subsidies, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to give any information. During the Easter recess the chairman of the board announced that the expenditures on subsidies were up to $2,000,000, and two weeks later the Minister of Finance gave out approximately the same figure. We have information with reference to victory loans and war savings certificates, and we are told that $9,000,000 was the amount of the expenses in connection with the 1941 victory loan. The details have been refused. Entertainments of various kinds have been held; many expenses have been incurred, and yet the public are denied information, although these will add to the interest to be paid on the loans. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), who was a member of the war expenditures committee, dealt with this matter on March 5, 1941, when he said, as reported on page 1267 of Hansard:
We can go back to other days. I do not use the word "whitewash" which was employed by my hon. friend (Mr. Church) a few minutes ago. It describes rather well, however, what happened in the days of the customs investigation, what happened in the price spreads investigation, yes, and what has happened in every committee that has sat on any special problem in the last twenty years to my own knowledge.
These outside boards have been spending money like water. Last session I asked the Prime Minister what the other legislative body that meets in another place in this building was doing and if he would give them useful
[Mr. Church.)
work to do. They have met for about six hours since last June. Why should their services not be utilized? They have a number of financial men and able parliamentarians there whose services could be used to advantage in doing some of this work in such a war crisis as this. Why are they not summoned and given some of this war work to do? They might be asked to do this work, even though it meant that they had to meet every day. The system is all wrong and it cannot go on much longer. The country is heading for bankruptcy unless we protect the business man and the taxpayer. Too much money is now being taken from him. The small business man has been put out of business. Without any authority from this parliament the small retail business man in Toronto and other cities has had so many artificial burdens, barriers and restraints of trade placed on him in connection with the conduct of his business that he is losing his business and the right to make a living. We are sitting here as a parliament; yet we do nothing about it, and this is the fifty-third day of the session. The whole system is wrong and it must be changed. Parliament must regain control over the expenditures of these bodies. It is now or never. If we do not do so, then parliament might just as well be abolished. We may as well go home and leave the conduct of business to the executive. No matter what motion is proposed, objection is raised by the Minister of Finance.
With all due respect to the present Minister of Finance and without intending any disparagement whatever of him, I must say that he has not had the necessary financial training or experience for this important position in times like these and relies on men who are not experts in finance. A total of $2,200,000,000 may be spent over parliament's head for next year, without any adequate control. They would not allow that in England or in Washington. As a member of the House of Commons I wish to protest against these outlandish expenditures being made without any control by this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. When the house adjourned last evening the minister who was leading the house made the distinct statement that to-morrow we would continue with the present discussion, which had to do with the resolution for $2,000,000,000. When we met to-day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved this motion to set up this committee, and a debate has developed, unexpectedly to me.
Mr, RALSTON: And to me.

War Expenditures-Mr. Blackmore


Richard Burpee Hanson: The effect has been to prevent us from reaching the orders of the day, for which hon. members have been waiting all afternoon. I suggest to the Prime Minister that someone move the adjournment of this debate just before six o'clock so that we can have the orders of the day called. I think that is only fair in view of what occurred last night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is understood that the references that are made to the matters to be taken up for consideration relate to those items which stand on the order paper as government orders. It is always understood that a preliminary motion is liable to be discussed, unless there is some special question raised about it. I do not think there are many who still desire to continue the discussion this afternoon, and I should think that it still may be possible to give an opportunity to any hon. member who wishes to ask a question on the orders of the day to do so before we adjourn. I would be the last speaker on the motion, and I promise to make my remarks exceedingly brief. I think we ought to continue.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have been impressed more or less with the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I was not a member of the committee which sat last year, but I was in close contact with its activities through our own members. I believe that altogether too little time is being allowed1 for so extensive a task as is assigned to this committee by the resolution. I should like to divide what it is proposed that it shall do. First, this committee is to examine the expenditures defrayed out of money provided by parliament for the defence services. Second, "and for other services directly connected with the war." That could cover the raising of wheat, the production of honey, the production of wool, and so on. Third, "and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein."
I agree entirely with the purpose of the committee as set forth in this resolution, but to expect hon. members to accept in sincerity that as being the real purpose of this committee is to execute a farce. This committee has only twenty-four members, and even though it sat every day from now to the end of the year it would have no chance whatsoever of accomplishing any one of these three tasks, let alone all three. I do not wish to be merely critical. I aim not to speak any more in this house than I feel it
my duty to do. There are members who talk about the amount of time that wre spend talking, but I should like to ask any one of those members who spoke a few moments ago what on earth else they think a member of parliament can do in this house except talk? What is he sent here for if it is not to talk? There is an attitude developing in the minds of members and some people throughout the country, and in certain newspapers, which is altogether subversive to democratic government. I am not in favour of wasting the time of the house or of spending it in unnecessary discussion, but there is business for the members of this house to do. How on earth they can go through a time like this, travelling uncharted ways, without spending time in discussing matters, I should like to have the Toronto Telegram and three or four more Canadian newspapers tell me.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Leave the Telegram
alone.


John Horne Blackmore: Name any one of them, I do not care which; most of them are tarred with the same brush.


Gordon Graydon: The Evening Telegram is a great supporter of the working man.


John Horne Blackmore: Then let us support the Evening Telegram. I have three or four suggestions which may be of value in connection with the work of the war expenditures committee. Could the Prime Minister not arrange it so that the committee would have power to add to its numbers indefinitely? That has not been provided for here. Can not the Prime Minister say to the committee: "Look here, this job we are giving you to do is no joke. We want you to understand you must do this job and do it right, and then come back here and report to this house in a manner that will not only satisfy the house but the country. We will give you all the facilities that will enable you to do that, not only in the amount of time at your disposal, but in the number of members you shall have power to appoint."
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Broadview was a good one, that the services of the members of the other house should be used. I do not know what on earth this country is paying the members of the other house $4,000 a year for, if it is not to come here and do something; and why in the world they should not in these times participate in the work of this committee is beyond me. They will have to explain why in order to satisfy me.

War Expenditures-Mr. Blackmore
Why should the war expenditures committee not have power to add to its numbers indefinitely, from the members not only of this house but of the other house; and if the membership is still thought inadequate, why not bring in public-spirited men from the outside who are prepared to cooperate with the committee?
I must confess that no one, no matter what his previous business may be, can come in here and undertake to deal with the tremendous affairs of a country like this in a time like this without being bewildered by his own inability to comprehend the hugeness of the whole thing, be he as earnest and sincere as he may, and no party in this house lacks either earnestness or sincerity in dealing with the conditions we are facing to-day. Nevertheless we must have some facilities through which to work. Why not let the war expenditures committee be one of these facilities?
Having given the committee power to add to its numbers, the Prime Minister should then say to them: "You are free to sit whenever you like." It will be argued that this would cost a great deal of money, but I do not think any business concern ever lost money by paying it out for adequate supervision, and I do not think this country will lose money by paying it out for adequate supervision of its affairs in these times.
The details of the task of the committee suggest another thought to me. It will be noticed that the committee is to consider contracts which have been awarded. I am really surprised to hear that the contracts let under the Department of Munitions and Supply were not brought under review by the committee of last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not been in the house. All that was explained a short time ago. The contracts were under review when the committee met last year. There is no limitation in that respect.


Major James William Coldwell: We did not reach them.


John Horne Blackmore: I beg pardon for bringing up that point on which I should have been better informed, but I was unavoidably out of the house when that explanation was made. I had understood that the committee did not reach those contracts last year.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There were many sessions of the committee devoted to munitions and supply.


Major James William Coldwell: When?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Right at the commencement.


Major James William Coldwell: Not to my knowledge.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: The hon. member was not on the committee at that time.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear
that the committee was more effective than I had been led to believe, but let us hope that it goes even more fully into these matters in future. All one has to do is to look at these thick blue-backed books which are coming to us from time to time, listing the contracts which have been let under the Department of Munitions and Supply, to know that about all the supervision that the committee was able to give to those contracts was what we give to estimates that are being considered in the very hot weather after midnight when we s'ometimes pass millions of estimates with a wave of the hand. I do not think that is good enough; I should like to see the committee go into these contracts with much greater care.
There is another thing with which I believe the committee should deal. Since arriving in Ottawa in the winter I have had come to my desk about twenty letters, speaking from memory, from various parts of Canada. They are more or less confidential letters, telling me about waste, inefficiency and irregularities in various war activities. I would not blame the government for this at all. I have not risen and said anything on the floor of the house about these complaints. In many instances I have not even spoken to the minister about them, which would be the first thing I would do, for the simple reason that I realize that under the circumstances the minister cannot possibly take care of such matters. But why should not this committee as a part of its work investigate these complaints which are brought to the attention of members of the house? Some of the complaints are very bad; I am sure that if the Prime Minister heard about them, he would have more difficulty in resting at night. But he is not to blame, nor is the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). The work is so big and the means of control are so meagre, that these things cannot be avoided until they are brought to one's attention. There must be a way of getting around the difficulty. I would suggest that one way is to let the committee consider the complaints which come in to the members of the house, and which they could present to the committee either by word of mouth or by means of the letters.

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
There is one other matter which was hinted at by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), and that is this-


Georges Parent: Six o'clock. Does the
hon. member wish to move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 30, 1942