1943-03-26

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs:
Blackmore
Castleden
Coldwell
d'Anjou
Dorion
Douglas (Weyburn)
Gauthier
Gillis
Hansell
Kuhl
Lacroix (Beauee) LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency) Maclnnis Roy-14.
Mr. MARSHALL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. McNevin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament and thank you for it sincerely. .
Athlone
Government House, Ottawa March 24, 1943.



FUEL SHORTAGE

Mr. FAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
excise act, 1934
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the schedule to the Excise Act, 1934, and to provide:
1.	That the duty of excise on spirits distilled in Canada be increased from nine dollars to eleven dollars per proof gallon, provided that duty paid spirits owned by any distiller at the close of business on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three shall be subject to the following additional duty of excise on every gallon of the strength of proof two dollars and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon.
2.	That the duty of excise on Canadian brandy be increased from seven dollars to nine dollars per proof gallon, provided that duty paid Canadian brandy owned by any distiller at the close of business on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three. shall be subject to tbe following additional duty of excise on every gallon of the strength of proof two dollars and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any jess quantity than a gallon.
3.	That any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolution shall come into force on the third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three.	.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at twelve o'clock midnight.
statement as to application of subsidy on FUEL WOOD
["No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what decision has been made about that. There was some discussion some time ago as to the desirability of setting up a committee. I do not think there has been any decision on it.\nI* am entirely dependent upon the unanimous consent of the house for anything I do this afternoon, and therefore I do not want to raise any rules of order or the like, but I should be glad to give consideration to the request made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). It is not as easy as it might appear to deal with estimates all through the session, and it is a question how much is gained by it, because there are always half a dozen matters which are extremely urgent, and it is just a question what is the most urgent matter to be brought before the house. However I will give consideration to the hon. gentleman's request.\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair."]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 at the conclusion of the debate which followed the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) I told the house of various policies which were being adopted in an effort to stimulate the production of fuel. As there appears to be some confusion as to the application of the subsidy on fuel wood I should like to elaborate on my previous statement, particularly to define clearly what is meant by a dealer. I think it possible that my reply to a question from the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) which appears at page 1317 of Hansard may have given rise to some misunderstanding.
A subsidy of $1 per standard cord of 128 stacked cubic feet will be paid to wood fuel dealers on all commercial wood fuel contracted for and cut on or before June 30, 1943, and held to dealers' account on that date. In recommending dealers, the office of the fuel controller will be guided by the following definition of the persons and fuel eligible for the bonus:
1.	The coal controller will have authority in his discretion to recognize as a dealer any person who was a dealer in wood fuel and who held a wartime prices and trade board licence as of March 5, 1943.
2.	The coal controller will have authority to recognize as dealers those holding licences granted since March 5, 1943, in special cases where, because of a real contribution to increased wood fuel supply, it would be in the public interest to take such action. All such special cases will require approval from the controller's office at Ottawa.
Fuel Shortage

Replying to a question by the hon. member for Souris, I said this:
If the man in question cuts one hundred cords of wood and sells it himself, he is a dealer and would be entitled to the bonus as a dealer.
The special circumstances of a transaction of that kind would be inquired into by the coal controller. The coal controller would of course eliminate cross-transactions between farmers, and any transactions outside of those by bona fide dealers in wood fuel.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The other day when tne fuel problem was being discussed in the house I referred to circumstances under which wood fuel was cut by community effort. The farmer allowed the people to come in to cut fuel, and for every cord they cut he received one cord for himself; thus the people who did the cutting were able to get sufficient fuel for themselves. They paid all the costs of the saw, and so forth. This meant of course that the farmer's wood bush was depreciated; would he not be entitled to the dollar subsidy on the quantity which went to the village? He is actually not a dealer; it is a community effort.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The transaction in question would be one of those the regulations are planned to prevent. The man neither cut the wood nor delivered it as a dealer. He sold standing wood and was paid in wood. He must be a bona fide dealer; his effort must be different from the ordinary effort of settlers who ordinarily cut wood for their own use.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Will this
apply to wood cut by mills more or less as a by-product? The minister is reported on .page 1315 of Hansard as follows:
It is to pay a bonus of $1 a cord for wood cut before June 1 and in the hands of dealers on that date.
There appears to be a conflict as to the date; in another place it is given as June 30.


Clarence Decatur Howe: June 1 is the date. It does not matter who cuts the wood; if it is in a dealer's hands on the first day of June and offered for sale to the public, the dealer will get the bonus of $1 per cord.


Percy Chapman Black: Does it apply to wood cut by mills as a by-product and sold as fuel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If there is a cooperative enterprise by which a number of persons gather together, purchase a wood lot and cut wood for their own particular town or village, would the dollar a cord subsidy apply in that case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Only if the wood is delivered to a dealer for sale to the public at large, not for sale back to the people who cut it. A man who cuts wood for his own use is not entitled to the bonus.


Mr. HATFIELD:: In my constituency
probably sixty per cent of the wood is cut by farmers and sold direct to the users. Would the farmers get the bonus?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A farmer selling direct to a user gets the ceiling price for his wood, whereas a farmer selling to a dealer gets the dealer's price, and the dealer makes his profit. A man who cuts wood and sells direct to a user would not be entitled to the $1 per cord, unless he stocks it and sells it to the public.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Would a farmer cutting 100 to 200 cords of wood get the subsidy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The subsidy is paid to
dealers. If a farmer can qualify as a dealer to the satisfaction of the fuel controller he will get the subsidy. If he simply sells to one customer or two customers, he will not get it. He must be a dealer stocking wood and offering it for sale to the public. If he is simply cutting a supply for a customer, he does not qualify.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand the idea of the bonus or the subsidy is to obtain greater production. If the producer does not get the bonus, how will you get more production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have explained that.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to whom I had directed notice of this question, perhaps the minister who is leading the government for the moment will answer me. I understand that in another place the visit of the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary, has been given some consideration and an announcement has been made. I understand that he is coming here soon. * I should like the acting leader of the government to give the house some indication of the plans which are afoot with respect to this visit. We are now almost at the week-end, and if Mr. Eden is coming at the first of the week an announcement to the House of Commons at this time would be most appropriate.

Privilege-Mr. Diejenbaker


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As a matter of fact the council adjourned at about a quarter to three o'clock. This matter was not taken up, but I shall endeavour to give the house some information before six o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with respect to the visit of Mr. Eden. The statement in fact did get to the Prime Minister's office, and was intended to have been announced by him, at the opening of the house, had he been here.
The announcement is that the Right Hon. Mr. Eden, British Foreign Secretary, will speak to members of both houses on Thursday, April 1, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. May I add that special gallery arrangements and other details are being worked out. It is believed that full particulars of the visit will be communicated to members of the house on Monday.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. DIEFENBAKER


MOBILIZATION ACT-REFERENCE TO INCOMPLETENESS OF RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: On March 1 a motion for papers was passed, as reported on page 777 of Hansard. This motion reads:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, and other documents received by the Minister of Labour or by Mr. MacNamara, in answer to mobilization act interpretative letter No. 1, dated February, 1943.
Discussion then followed, and in reference to the question whether or not certain documents would be privileged, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said:
What would they be? What privilege could possibly attach to answers to that letter? The minister placed the original letter on record. I happen to have seen a copy of one of the replies, which was most constructive, and I cannot see that there is any privilege attaching to this at all.
The return was brought down yesterday, but it is not complete. It fails to disclose replies from various boards in Canada. It refers to only three boards that have replied, and the reply of the one referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury is not included. As a matter of fact, there are four or five replies which do not appear in this return. I bring this to the attention of the house because it is a serious matter that a department of government should refuse or fail to bring down a complete return. If members
of this house are to be denied full and complete information, if they are to be given only that portion of the information sought which suits the minister or the person compiling the return, there will be a serious derogation of parliamentary government. One reply by a board that I know to exist is not brought down. I protest against this action as being a patent denial of the rights of the members of this house to full information.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Apparently the hon. member knows more about these things than I do myself. Let me say to him that I have never and do not intend to mislead this house. I will say to him further that if there has been any slip-up-there may have been a slip-up; we cannot all be as perfect as my hon. friend-he can rest assured that I will see to it that any documents left out of the return are brought down. I think he could have approached the problem in a more, shall I say, gentlemanly fashion-


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me put it, in a friendly way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the withdrawal of that suggestion. I have a right as a member of this house to full information without being lectured by the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should have said, in a friendly way. I might add that I do not think my hon. friend has a right to impute motives.


BEEF AND PORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MARK C. SENN (Haldimand) r Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a request of the Minister of Finance. According to the newspapers certain changes have been made in the wholesale and retail price ceilings on beef and pork which are to come into effect, I understand, immediately. I would request the minister to make these orders available to members of parliament, either by laying them on the table at the earliest possible moment or by sending them to us through the mail or in any other convenient way.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I think perhaps the best way would be to lay the orders on the table. I shall make inquiries and see if I cannot do that on Monday.

Military Service


MILITARY SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, if I may-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Be careful 1


Gordon Graydon: I shall do it in as gentlemanly a way as possible. In the debate a couple of weeks ago the attention of the minister was directed to the calling up of men who were already on active service, some of- whom were overseas, and some of whom had unfortunately lost their lives in the war. The minister at that time said he was taking every precaution to avoid the recurrence of such cases. I bring the matter to his attention and that of the house again because of a recent instance. What actually is being done to prevent a recurrence of these incidents? What actual machinery is the minister putting into operation to make sure that such cases do not occur? I hope he will not merely tell us that the matter is being attended to. I bring this before the house without any apologies because it is so important. Here is the report with respect to a young man in Toronto who has been invalided home-


An hon. MEMBER:: In what paper?


Gordon Graydon: In your favourite
journal, the Toronto Telegram. This young man had been overseas for some considerable time. Yet twice, since he was injured in commando manoeuvres overseas, which cut short his army career, he or his family have received call-up notices, one last October and one two weeks ago. I shall not read the article, but I would ask the minister to assure the house, and not in any general way, that steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of these incidents. I do not know of any single thing which is causing more concern at the moment to the families of the men on active service than to be receiving call-ups for men already overseas. I appreciate the difficulties, but surely there is some means of going through the files of those who have enlisted to make sure that no calls are sent out to men who are already on active service.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to my hon. friend that every precaution is being taken. I am sure that he will appreciate the difficulties. A man may have registered in Vancouver, say, and joined up in Toronto. At the time of regis-

tration a mistake may have been made-and often happens-in his Christian name, or something of the kind. In the very nature of things these circumstances make a compilation of the lists difficult. My hon. friend can rest assured that everything that is humanly possible is being done from day to day in crosschecking our records with those of the armed services and in every other way to see that these incidents are brought to what I may call the irreducible minimum. I cannot guarantee that they will be entirely eliminated, but our staff is constantly working to see that incidents of the kind are reduced almost to zero.

On the order:
House again in committee of supply (the message of His Excellency with estimates, and further supplementary estimates, referred).- The Minister of Finance.


Gordon Graydon: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the minister may have some remarks to make with respect to the programme which is to be followed this afternoon. I understand that first we are to go into interim supply on non-war estimates, and having that in mind I should like to draw the attention of the minister-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the order was called for the house to go into committee of supply, and there is no motion before us on which a debate can arise.


Gordon Graydon: I could make my remarks in committee of supply, but I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre not to be so technical this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is just following the rules, which I hope my hon. friend will do.


Gordon Graydon: If my hon. friend always followed the rules of the house we might take his remarks with a little better grace. If I may be permitted to make one or two remarks, Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, hon. members will remember what happened during the last session of parliament so far as the estimates are concerned. Without attaching any responsibility to the government or to any member of the house or anyone else, I do not think that we as a House of Commons can afford to allow a situation to arise such as occurred at the end of the last session in regard to estimates. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and the government and those who have under their supervision and control the bringing of estimates before this house that an effort be made to have the

Interim Supply Hill
business of dealing with estimates of the various departments more evenly distributed throughout the session. I have called from time to time for some revision of the rules of the house, and members here and there on both sides have supported me, at this session and in other sessions, in this suggestion. But if we are to have no changes in the rules at the moment, as the Prime Minister said, we must try under the present rules to meet the demands of public opinion and see to it that the estimates of many departments are not left for consideration to the last few days of the session but that they be presented to the house in an organized way and distributed evenly over the session so far as that possibly can be done. The responsibility is on the government, and I would ask the government to discharge it by so organizing the business of the house in relation to consideration of the estimates that hereafter we shall not be subjected to the criticism which I think was -quite justifiably made last year, when millions and millions of dollars were voted in the dying hours of the session.


John Gordon Ross: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is all out of order. I do not think there can be any further discussion.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I add one word? I understand that a proposal has been made with regard to referring some of the estimates to a committee.


John Gordon Ross: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister know how that proposal has been received?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what decision has been made about that. There was some discussion some time ago as to the desirability of setting up a committee. I do not think there has been any decision on it.
I* am entirely dependent upon the unanimous consent of the house for anything I do this afternoon, and therefore I do not want to raise any rules of order or the like, but I should be glad to give consideration to the request made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). It is not as easy as it might appear to deal with estimates all through the session, and it is a question how much is gained by it, because there are always half a dozen matters which are extremely urgent, and it is just a question what is the most urgent matter to be brought before the house. However I will give consideration to the hon. gentleman's request.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $40,314,665.57, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1944, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943.


Gordon Graydon: Prefacing my question with the remark that it is a happy position to be in, as described by the minister a few moments ago, that one in the opposition assumes such tremendous control over the house, even for one afternoon, I should like a little information from the minister.
This interim supply, as I understand it, is a matter of providing before the main estimates have been passed for contingencies which arise in connection with the government services for a short time. I should like to know why, in view of the fact that in all probability we shall be in session for some considerable time, the minister would not ask for one-twelfth of the amount, rather than one-sixth, as has been suggested by the chairman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of saving the time of the house. If I remember correctly, last year I estimated for one-sixth and was granted one-twelfth only. "Granted" is the correct word, because this is an occasion on which I simply have to ask the opposition for what they will let me have. But all that happens in a case of the kind is that about a month later we have to go over it again, and I do not see any advantage in doing that; it means that at some time there will be two or three hours' discussion without anything being accomplished. The supply is always granted. It does give an opportunity for a little crossargument which otherwise would not take place. But I am sure there is no possibility of getting all the main estimates passed before the end of two months; and I suggest that if we want to economize the time of the house, the granting of one-sixth supply would be more desirable than the granting of one-twelfth.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any special
reason why we should depart this session from the plan and the procedure which we adopted on a prior occasion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has been done both ways in the past. At times two months' supply
Interim Supply Bill

is granted, and sometimes one month's. I believe that in the war appropriation last year one-fourth was granted; it was some $500 millions out of $2,000 millions. That is my recollection, at any rate.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister asked for it, but I am not sure that he got it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I did. There were two bills, one for $500 million and a later one for $1,500 million.


John Gordon Ross: One month later what will the date be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will take us to the end of April.


John Gordon Ross: Then it will be near, or during the Easter reeess.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. That is a far better argument than the one I used.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has received some excellent assistance. I do not know whether the hon. member for Moose Jaw will be his parliamentary assistant in the days to come; at any rate he provided at least one argument for him this afternoon, namely that at the end of April wTe shall be in the Easter recess. My understanding, however, is that the minister will not require before the end of May the money which would be voted in this way. I should like to be informed about that, He now has his payments until the end of March; his April payments would have to be made out of this appropriation only at the end of April, and at the end of May he would find himself in the position of having to ask for one-twelfth. Is not that so?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The debts of the government incurred before the end of March may be paid in April out of the appropriation for the current fiscal year ending March 31, but any accounts incurred in April must be paid out of the appropriation for the next year, and it may very well be that they will have to be paid at once, that there will be no period of credit. It might be necessary to make some purchase early in April which would have to be paid for at once.


Gordon Graydon: In May.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, that had to be paid for in April. That could not be paid for out of the appropriation for the present fiscal year.


Gordon Graydon: It could be paid out of the one-twelfth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It could be paid out of the one-twelfth or the one-sixth that was voted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on aeeount of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1944, the sum of $40,314,665.57 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before second
reading is given I would ask the minister to indicate to the house, if he has the information before him, the increases in the general non-war estimates for the year 1943-44. On another occasion during a previous debate in this house the minister made some reference to those estimates, but before this supply is granted I think we should have from the minister a statement giving the information in greater detail. There is a feeling which I think is widespread throughout the dominion that while loans and taxation to raise funds for war purposes should receive every support, sometimes the money raised by such loans or taxation does not all go into actual war expenditures, and the public are not inclined to regard the ordinary peace-time estimates in the way they regard expenditures which are closely connected with the war effort.
There is a responsibility upon the minister and the government to indicate to the people that so far as lies within their power strict economy shall be practised, particularly in regard to the non-war groups which from time to time appear in the estimates. This does not mean that there should be any let-up in the economy that is applied1 to war expenditures, but there is a disposition on the part of the public to be even more careful about what the government is doing, to make sure that expenditures which have to do with matters not directly connected with the war are not being increased. I am not so sure that the statement made by the minister on a previous occasion sufficiently explained the stand of the government in that regard, because large numbers of our people to-day are exerting every effort to cooperate with and help the government in every possible way, by giving

Interim Supply Bill
them all the money possible with which to carry on this great war for our treasured way of life. But hon. members of this house who are closely in touch with the people will corroborate my statement that they are watching the government very closely, particularly in regard to what has been done in the way of economy with respect to peace-time estimates. Time after time, eloquently and to the best of his ability and capacity, the minister has told the people of Canada that they must forgo many of the things they would1 be enjoying if we were in the midst of peace. The minister has taken that stand, no doubt with the full support of the government of the day. In effect he asked the people to tighten their belts during this period of war; to use the words of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), the people have been asked to end this carnival spirit, to cease all unnecessary expenditures, to direct all their energies to the winning of' the war, and to give where they can and to the last cent. Once that policy -was announced by the Minister of Finance the responsibility of the government became even greater to see that the government itself should do the same thing, because nothing is more necessary than that governments as well as individuals should practise what they preach. I have given some indication of what the government has been preaching from one end of Canada to the other, and now I ask the minister to give us some indication of what the government is practising.
I realize that this year the non-war estimates are considerably higher than they have been in previous years. I listened to the minister's explanation of a portion of that increase, but I suggest to him that indications have come to light here and there of a lack of economy throughout the administration. It is not always possible for members of parliament, in the limited time at their disposal, no matter how conscientious they may be, or how anxious they may be to do so, to find out whether or not war economies are being practised. Now, however, we have before us the non-war estimates, and in view of the little information that has come to light from time to. time with respect to lack of economy in these departments, the minister ought to make a statement this afternoon, and I ask him' to do so, to indicate just what has been done since the close of the last session of parliament to effect economies in peace-time operations of the various departments of government. I do not suggest that these should be ordinary economies, because the minister has not asked the people of Canada to exercise just ordinary economy; he has asked the people to go much farther; he has asked them to go the limit. I do not think we are asking too much when we suggest the minister should give a statement in regard to these non-war expenditures. We will deal with the war-time expenditures when the time comes; for it would not be proper to deal with them now. But the Minister of Finance must satisfy this house, and the country, on this the first occasion on which the estimates for the ensuing year are before us, that the government is exercising not an ordinary but an1 extraordinary economy, and that not a dollar is being wasted in these departments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure whether the
leader of the opposition expects me to reply while you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, or in committee. I have no objection1 to replying now.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister closing
the debate?


Thomas Vien: I allowed the leader of
the opposition to continue, but it will be recognized that on Thursdays and Fridays the Speaker leaves the Chair without debate. At present the bill following the resolution which has been before the house has not even been introduced, and really the debate should take place on the second reading of the bill.
Mr. ILSLEY thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 9, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1943.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the second reading of the bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to say a word following the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in this regard. I know the country does look to the government and to this house to see that there are no wasteful expenditures. But to my mind economy is of two kinds. There is wasteful expenditure, and there is the economy which comes sometimes from worthwhile expenditure. We have to be careful even in war-time that we do not cut down the ordinary services of the country to the extent that we penalize necessitous people and lose the benefit of services which we have built up over a period of time. While I am sympathetic with the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that the minister should lay before the house any steps that have been taken to bring about worth-while economies, I should not like it to go abroad that this house considers that in this time of war some of our services that have been instituted over a period of years should be reduced to the

Interim Supply Bill
extent of becoming worthless or practically so, to the people. I am thinking at the moment largely of the social services of some of the provinces, where already there have been reductions in the amounts paid to old age pensioners, and expenditures of the kind. I am thinking also of some of our own employees, who, notwithstanding the higher cost of living, are still receiving a remuneration which is entirely inadequate. I learned not long ago that at the Indian Head forestry farm, where we employ seasonal help, married men who have to maintain homes and provide themselves with work clothes and heavy gloves to handle the shrubs and trees are being paid twenty-seven cents an hour, which is altogether out of proportion to the present cost of living.
We have departments such as mines and resources, which should be going forward with their work so that we may be laying plans for the public use of our natural resources when the war ends. Indeed I think that one of the real economies-the house knows that the group with which I am associated believe the same thing-would be the public development of some of our great natural resources.
A short time ago I had the opportunity of hearing an outstanding man in the city of New York say that we have in this country undeveloped in this time of war a source of oil that would be of immeasurable benefit. He quoted from one who is an authority in the field of oil. Afterwards I secured the series of lectures delivered by Mr. Wallace E. Pratt, an outstanding geologist, formerly chief director of mines bureau of science, in the United States and now an executive director of the most powerful oil corporation in the world, Standard Oil of New Jersey. I should like to see public exploration and development carried on so that we can economize in a real way in obtaining revenue. I happen to have that series of lectures in my hand and I should like to read one paragraph, as follows:
Challenging, also, to the oil man is the occurrence of the Athabaska tar sands, spreading over thousands of square miles of the central portion of the Williston basin.
Stretching away down beyond the Dakotas.
These so-called tar sands display a volume of oil greater than any other so far discovered on earth. Well considered estimates place the volume of the oil-equivalent of the Athabaska tar sands at from 100 to 250 billion barrels; yet the total discoveries of all time over all of the earth, as we have already noted, do not exceed 81 billion barrels. Moreover, the Athabaska tar sands are not a variety of oil shale as has been commonly assumed; they are literally oil-saturated sands. All the shales contain a kerogen-like compound which, like coal, can be converted into oil through retorting 
under appropriate pressure-temperature conditions. But the Athabaska tar sands contain oil itself. At the surface to be sure the oil is waxy and inspissated but underground, down-dip from the outcrop, the tar sands yield a heavy oil through wells. There is little doubt that as a source of oil they could be exploited commercially to-day; eventually they may well come to be looked upon as one of the important energy resources of North America.
Those are the words of a man who has spent his lifetime in oilfield exploration. A real economy at this time might be the expenditure of public money for the exploration and prospecting of natural resources that we might put to good use now in wartime. Let me caution the house that if we give away these great natural resources as we have been doing and are doing to-day under war conditions we shall rue it. It is not only the lending of money to the Aluminum Corporation to which I particularly object, but the alienation in perpetuity of one of the greatest waterpower resources of the world.
Every attempt should be made to economize where economy is possible. Hon. members know that there are places where expenditures could be cut to some extent-advertising, for example. I saw an advertisement the other day with regard to hogs; it was meant entirely for slaugther-houses, but it was published in papers all across the country instead of in the trade papers where the three or four hundred operators of abbatoirs would see it. There is-also the quantity of literature, both mimeographed and printed, that comes to our offices from government departments. Certainly there are places where there can be economies. But what I am particularly interested in is that we shall not practise false economy. Sometimes expenditures of money on projects such as I have outlined, and particularly at this time when we are preparing for the aftermath of this great war, are justified and might be productive of great good in the future.
So that while I support what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has said, I wanted also to place before the house what I might term a word of caution in respect of economies. Economies of the right kind are beneficial, but economies of the wrong sort may do harm to services we have built up,, and to extensions of our public endeavours that ought to be made both now and in the period which follows the war.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can add a great deal to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) have said. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar,.

Interim, Supply Bill
in his recognition that economies of one sort and another should be made, has given to us a wise piece of philosophy. Getting down to rock bottom, the philosophy of this group is one of spending rather than of saving. It is the philosophy of spending something into existence, rather than that of saving and putting it into existence by way of debt.
There is a difference, however, between the economy of money and the economy of materials. Of course in war time the whole country is called upon to make sacrifices. We must make sacrifices in war time; we recognize that. Our whole national economy must be brought into line with the best possible war effort, and that means sacrifice. But it is a wrong principle to have an economy under which our people must sacrifice miserably; they can make sacrifices, and still do it happily. We can bear our burdens, but the people are not going to bear unnecessary burdens.
Let me say a word or two with reference to the psychology of waste. It is one thing to waste our money by excessive expenditures. It is another thing entirely to waste the materials we must have for an effective war effort. This psychology in the minds of the people can either be a tremendous help to our war effort or a tremendous hindrance to it. We call upon our people to save, to cut to the bone. But when they see waste they are not going to make sacrifices happily.
In the past I have had amazing things brought to my attention. Some of them I should not care to bring to the attention of the government from the floor of the house, because I should not want to embarrass the government to that extent. The conditions I have in mind may not be entirely their fault. Some of them are of local application, and it may be best that they remain so. But these are conditions which do not help the public to make sacrifices happily for the war effort.
For instance in some respects there is a wastage of gasoline. The waste may not be great, but I approach the subject from the point of view of its psychological effect on the thinking of our people. Men have told me that when the spout of a gasoline tank is transferred from one aeroplane to another it is sometimes not shut off, with the result that gallons of gasoline are sprinkled on the ground. While it may be a small wastage, and while it may be said that one should not take up the time of the house in discussing it the fact remains that people see these things happening.
I was told of a farmer on whose field an aeroplane had crashed. When he went to -he scene of the crash he saw oil dropping on
the ground. He asked permission to buy the oil, and the reply was, "Oh, no, we cannot sell you that oil; we have no authority to do so." I suppose there was some red tape involved. He dismissed the matter from his mind. But the next day after the wreckage had been hauled away he found that a small area of ground on which the oil had fallen was spoiled. What was the reaction in that man's mind? He said to me, "I should have liked to get it for nothing, but I offered to buy it. I could not buy it, and now it lies on the ground, wasted." A few square yards of ground were spoiled. True, it was not a very large area, but the point is that there was wastage.
That is the type of waste we do not want. Every man of us, whether he be in the services, in business, on the farm or in the street, must strive to cut down that kind of waste. We must help to bring that about through our contacts with our people.
So far as money wastage is concerned I would point out that we have two committees in parliament who are working on this matter. The duty of the committee on war expenditures is to investigate every type of war expenditure in which they believe they can discover any waste, and it is their duty to recommend to the government where expenditures can be cut. The scope of the committee is huge, including everything from salt on the soldier's table to battleships. I do not know how that committee can complete its work. It should be sitting nearly every day, deciding as to where we can best effect economies.
The public accounts committee, one of our standing committees, has had certain specific items referred to it for investigation. These committees can deal with expenditures of money, and I am satisfied to leave that work in their hands, in the belief that it will be done thoroughly. I join with the leader of the opposition and the leader of. the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in asking that unnecessary expenditures be cut down. Government waste should be looked into carefully. Let us not waste one single particle of material which can be used in our war effort.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of national economy and wastage reminds me of a clipping which I took from a Toronto paper during the plebiscite last year. This paper, objecting to the plebiscite on the score of expense, had this to say:
In terms of war the cost of the plebiscite could buy 8,000 machine guns, or 2,000 small boats, or 40 cruiser tanks, or 40 flying boats.
Interim Supply Bill

It could pay for 12,000 Bren guns, or outfit 2,500 soldiers, or motorize 12 infantry battalions. It could buy 500 training planes, or seven minesweepers.
At that time I was lying in the hospital at Edmonton. I took exception to the article because I had already answered a request by an Edmonton paper to give my opinion of the plebiscite. I had said that since the government had given certain pledges when they were elected, I thought they were in honour bound to seek the consent of the people before departing from that policy. I took the opportunity to point out that in terms of war production the mining of gold wastefully used the labour of tens of thousands of skilled men as well as immense quantities of materials such as oil, steel, explosives, chemicals, rubber and so on. The value of the annual gold production is $200,000,000, which I suppose roughly represents the cost of the labour and the materials involved in the mining of the gold. I do not make the mistake of claiming that $200,000,000 would buy so many tanks and other articles. What I am saying is that $200,000,000 worth of labour and material would produce certain war munitions in these amounts:	.
Four hundred thousand machine guns, or
100.000	small boats, or 2,000 cruiser tanks, or
2.000	flying boats, or 600,000 Bren guns, or outfit
125.000	soldiers, or motorize 600 infantry battalions, or produce 25,000 training planes, or 350 minesweepers.
I do not know how the cost of a minesweeper compares with that of a corvette, but we are being told that submarines constitute the worst menace we have to face to-day and that thousands of our gallant merchant seamen and1 naval seamen have been drowned as a result of this menace. The mining of gold in this and all other allied countries during the war is directly responsible for the loss of thousands and thousands of lives. If that is an example of national economy during the war, then I say, God help the country after the war.


Gordon Graydon: With regard to passing one-sixth of the estimates I should like the minister to indicate that our rights with respect to discussion on the remainder of the estimates are still preserved and remain as though the one-sixth had not been passed. Will the minister give us that undertaking so that we shall have the matter on record?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the matter just mentioned by the leader of the opposition, I am quite prepared to give the usual undertaking. The language in which it was put last

year, as reported at page 1674 of Hansard, is as follows:
Mr. Stirling:	We are quite prepared to
facilitate the passage of this interim portion of the estimates, with the understanding, of course, that we shall not be precluded in any way from discussing them, item by item, when they come up in the estimates.
Mr. Ilsley: That is the understanding, yes.
That is the understanding which always exists and which exists now with regard to interim supply.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It is the same every year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) have spoken on the subject of economy, and their remarks taken as a whole illustrate the difficulty of dealing with this subject. From the beginning of the war the effort of the government has been to reduce the non-war estimates to the utmost possible degree. I give much more credit to my predecessor, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), for what has -been done in that regard than I give to myself.


Gordon Graydon: Do not give him too much.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have a vivid recollection of the manner in which he slashed the nonwar estimates. If anyone thinks that they were not pared to the bone, he is mistaken. I have challenged all expenditures which I thought could possibly bear reduction. A great many submissions have been altered by the Department of Finance or in the treasury board, but I do not think it is possible for us to maintain our services in any defensible shape and make much more reduction. When a reduction is suggested there are always those who argue, just as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has done this afternoon, that it is false economy to make reductions. Sometimes I do not know whether it is false economy to make certain reductions that are proposed. As hon. members know, a great many members of the civil service think they are underpaid.


An hon. MEMBER:: Many of them are overpaid.


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That statement will get some applause here and there, but I do not know that I would be prepared to agree to that. Generally speaking, I think the treatment of the civil service is fair enough. I know that the rigidity with which we have held down salaries in the permanent civil service has

Interim Supply Bill
been very great since the outbreak of the war. It is hard to give much consideration to demands for economy unless they are specific. Certain members of the house have made specific requests for economies which have not been granted; nothing has been done about them. In most instances the difficulty of doing anything has been very great. That has not been on account of a lack of courage; it is on account of a fear of dislocations and perhaps the creating of inefficiency by reduction of services, and so on. In any event the amounts have been very, very small.
The leader of the opposition asked if I would make some comparison between the estimates of last year and those of this year and state where economies have been made and what attempt had been, made to effect economies. The total amount of the estimates this year is $610,880,000. The total appropriations for the current fiscal year were $565,563,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that include the
supplementaries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Those are the total
appropriations. It does not include the supplementaries which are before1 us this afternoon.


Gordon Graydon: Only the ordinary supplementaries, not the further supplementaries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. Included in
the $565,563,000, as well as in the total of $610,880,000 for 1943-44 is the sum of $84,427,643.90, representing the amount provided under the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1942, as compensation to the provinces for vacating the fields of income and corporation taxes. Deducting this special statutory item from both figures leaves the comparison between a total of $526,453,000 for 1943-44 and a total of $481,136,000 for 1942-43.
The increase of $45,317,000 is far more than accounted for by various additions to expenditures which are due solely to the war or result directly or indirectly from war conditions. The more important of these are as follows:
Increase in interest on public debt
and other debt charges	
Increase in cost of administration of income tax and excess profits
tax	
Increase in post office service expenditure	
Increase in cost of administration and government contribution to unemployment insurance fund....


[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
In addition, an increase of $661,000 in subsidies to provinces was the result of the revision
of population figures based on the recent census.
Continuance of the policy of restricting normal peace-time expenditures to the minimum required for the maintenance of essential services is found in the fact that no fewer than 166 items show some reductions. The total of these reductions amounts to over $35,000,000.
Gordon Graydon: In that reduction of
$35,000,000, there is included $24,000,000 under the wheat acreage reduction plan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was just coming to that.
However, a substantial amount of this, namely, $23,910,000, is accounted for by a decrease in wheat acreage reduction payments for which further provision, although smaller than last year, will have to be made later. The total net decrease in the case of the Department of Agriculture is $24,244,000. Other departments showing substantial net decreases are:
Transport	 $1,390,000
Trade and Commerce	 539,000
Public Works	 405,000
Mines and Resources	 281,380
I should like to point out that of the estimates I have mentioned, namely, $610,880,000, no less than $441,511,000 are totally uncontrollable. They include:
Interest on public debt and other
debt charges	 $231,714,000
European war pensions (1914-18)..	37,500,000
Government contribution to unemployment insurance fund	 15,000,000
Old age pensions	 31,246,000
Other pensions and superannuation	5,295,000
Care of returned soldiers (1914-18)	14,000,000
Subsidies and special compensation
to provinces	 98,856,000
Maritime Freight Rates Act		4,250,000
Sundry other items	 3,650,000
Total	 $441,511,000
Consequently when it is considered that the war has brought about an increase in a number of uncontrollable items in our non-war expenditure, such as interest on the public debt, increased expenditures of the Department of National Revenue and the Post Office Department, and so on, I think the net result is very good. Great care is taken to ensure that the items which belong in the non-war estimates are put into the non-war estimates. I understand that during the last war, before the end of it, there were no non-war estimates; they all went into war estimates because it was found impossible to distinguish war expenditures from non-war expenditures. But we realize that there is greater parliamentary control over non-war estimates than there is over war estimates, and the treasury board and the Department of Finance are insistent that the



Interim Supply Bill
items which are ordinarily regarded as noil-war estimates, including such items as interest on the public debt and the greatly increased amounts required by departments like national revenue, which has doubled or trebled' its staff as a result of the war, should be included in the non-war estimates.


Mr. MARTIN:: Does that include interest on war bonds?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that properly classed as a domestic obligation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It can be argued. We treat it in that way. We put it before parliament; it goes out to the papers as an increase in the government's non-war expenditures, and it is asked: Why does the government not cut down these expenditures to S400,000,000 or $500,000,000? We are putting the worst foot forward continually by the process we have adopted.


Gordon Graydon: Yours is an exceptional department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not say that. I do not say that it is a line to which it is easy to adhere, because there will be some debatable items which might go into war or non-war estimates. But we put everything in here that we think we can, and put it before parliament,.
I rather welcome speeches such as that made by the leader of the opposition this afternoon.
I like them a little better than the speech made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: We have not the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill is purely a formal document. It is just like every other interim supply bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: We should like to see the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-$40,314,665.57 granted for 1943-1944.
John Ritchie MacNicol: While we are reading the section-the bill has come into our hands only this minute-^perhaps we may have some explanation of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am simply following the usual practice in not having the bill distributed. Interim supply bills are never distributed, but I will read the section:

. From and out of the consolidated revenue tund there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding in the whole $40,314,665.57 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of tne public service, from the first day of April, 1943, to the 31st day of March, 1944, not otherwise provided for, and being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, set forth m the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 3,1st day of March, 1944, as laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament.
A question which may arise in the minds of some hon. members is: why is the amount so small; this is not a sixth of $610 millions; it is far less? The reason is that it is one-sixth of the items to be voted. A large part of the $610 millions is statutory and does not require to be voted.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It is covered by the words "not otherwise provided for".


Thomas Miller Bell: My understanding is that over $400 millions of the appropriations are statutory commitments over which we have virtually no control so far as economy is concerned?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: In that event, of course, the point made by the hon. member for Essex East should be brought out very clearly, namely, that these statutory commitments are bound to increase every year as our debt increases.	*


James Lorimer Ilsley: Some of our statutory commitments are constant; they do not increase at all; it may be possible that some may decrease. But the debt is increasing; the interest on the debt is increasing fairly rapidly, as well as a number of other items. Over $440 million, are completely uncontrollable.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the house should know that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Ernest George Hansell: I have not a copy of the bill, and evidently no copies are available. But before the preamble carries, I should like . to know what rule is followed in determining what is war expenditure and what might be an expenditure for domestic or other purposes. We talked a little while ago about cutting expenditures to the bone and yet not economizing to a point where it would hurt the country or injure our war effort. There must be some things of a domestic nature, some public works, for instance, which might ap-

Interim Supply Bill
pear at the moment to be of a domestic nature, and which, if carried out, would form a permanent feature of our national life, yet would aid tremendously our war effort. What rule is followed in determining whether money for such projects is to come out of the war appropriation or out of public funds by way of the estimates?
I might give a concrete example. Last year the town, of High River was flooded. Some years ago the federal government put some money into a public wrorks scheme for diverting the flow of that river, thus preventing floods from entering the town. Last year some of that work was washed out and the town was flooded. Adjacent to the town is an air training school, which was in danger.
I am not sure whether it was flooded, but it was in the flood area and certainly it would not have taken very much to flood that school. Public works should be done on that river to .prevent any more floods. Any such work might be more or less of a permanent nature, and would be an asset to that part of the country; the town of High River would no longer be flooded; it would also prevent damage to the air training school.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Non-war, I would say.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister would say that a project like that is not war expenditure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would say so.


Ernest George Hansell: I thank the minister for the information, but I wish he could have answered the other way, because I wish to get some work done on that river-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is just the point.


Ernest George Hansell: -^so that no flooding will occur there again. I fancy the minister knew what I was after. Perhaps I am not persuasive enough to change his mind; at least I failed to keep in the background the motive I had in raising this question. But the question has not been answered; the minister has answered only the specific illustration I have given. Is any rule followed in determining what should be a war expenditure and what should be a non-war expenditure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. There are a number of border-line cases on which treasury board passes, and there is considerable argument on some of these cases. I do not know that, without giving it some thought, I could state the rule in unexceptionable terms; but when I have to make an immediate reaction in any case, I say "this is properly chargeable to war appropriation" and "that is not." A number of requests have come in for development
projects of one kind or another which apparently would be very beneficial to communities and which might help production to some extent; but if they are mainly long-range projects and beneficial for the post-war period rather than to the war effort as such, they are ruled out. It is not an easy matter, I can assure the hon. gentleman. There are several members of this house who have pressed with great zeal their requests for grants of one kind or another, which perhaps would be beneficial, and have asked that they should be charged to the war appropriation. We have always felt that this could not be done. If an expenditure is primarily for the promotion of the war effort, or in some instances, if it is necessitated solely by the fact of the war, generally speaking those are-regarded as properly chargeable to the war appropriation. But if they are primarily expenditures for the benefit of the people as a whole, or expenditures which have long-range rather than short-range benefits; if they are merely extensions of the work of departments engaged in non-war activities, and so forth ordinarily they are put in the non-war estimates. For instance, I believe the Post Office Department have some expenditures which they charge to the war appropriation, but generally speaking the greatly increased expenditures of this department, even though they are occasioned by the war, are indistinguishable from the main expenditures and have to go in with them as non-war. We do not try to strike a proportion; we do not try to say the work of the department has increased by twenty-five per cent as a result of the war and that therefore twenty-five per. cent will be charged to the war.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sure the minister has very cleverly answered the question, but I still intend to ask for the money for that proj ect.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that a sum not exceeding $648,333,333.33 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any
War Appropriation
[Stage Direction]
advances for loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1944, for the purposes and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set out in the resolution presently on the orders of the day, to provide that sums not exceeding $3,890,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, and being one-sixth of the said amount of $3,890,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Gordon Graydon: I have only one suggestion to make in regard to this matter. On March 3 of this year the minister was good enough to table a break-down of the estimated expenditures in connection with the proposed appropriation bill, which break-do^n will be found in Hansard for that day. In addition to this break-down of the estimated expenditures I would ask the minister to have prepared, for the information and assistance of the committee when the main appropriation bill is before the house, as far as possible under the headings which appear in Hansard for March 3, the actual expenditures that have been made by the government each year since the war broke out, under the various appropriation bills. I believe it would be of considerable assistance to lion, members in discussing the various parts of the war appropriation bill if we could have in handy and easily accessible form the expenditures made under these 'various headings for the preceding war years.
I would ask the minister to give consideration to this suggestion, because I think it would be of great help when the discussion takes place.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give consideration to that request. The hon. gentleman must realize, of course, that many of the headings have not remained the same, that there is no such consistency in the war appropriations as there is in the non-war estimates. However, I w-il'l see how far I can go in meeting his wishes.


Gordon Graydon: I think that is all I can ask the minister to do. I realized his difficulty before I made the request, but I believe there is a solution of that problem, and I would ask him to bring down the expenditures under these headings as far as that may be done.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Am I right in assuming that this is one-sixth of the war appropriation, provided for the coming year? Mr. ILSLEY: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This one-sixth is being passed now in order to permit the minister to carry on in t)he meantime?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to speak at any length at this time, but I feel that in connection with the voting of an amount such as is being asked for by the Minister of Finance, we as an opposition have a tremendous responsibility to discharge in scrutinizing with care and attention the expenditures that are. being made. We realize that, during war time, on occasion the necessity for speed brings about extravagance and extra cost.	Our attitude	as an
opposition has been to cooperate with the government, but since the beginning of this war I do not know that I have ever heard any minister of the crown admit in the house that in the main the attitude of this opposition has been to criticize where necessary but to cooperate to t'he one end of winning the war. If that attitude were adopted by the government, it would make a great deal of difference in the expedition of the business of the house and, in particular, in the assistance which might be rendered to the government by the opposition.
Here we have a tremendous amount of money to be voted. There is not one member of this committee other than the minister who has any idea whatever how it is to be expended, except in bulk as broken down by the figures of March 3. All we have is a record of large amounts. The attitude of the government in thie last year and a half has been steadily that of failing in greater and greater measure to give such details to parliament as would make possible fair and careful scrutiny and examination.
There are only two ways in which we can assist in. assuring the people of Canada that expenditures are being made properly. The first is, say in connection with the Department of Munitions and Supply-I see the minister is in his place-that there should be publication of contracts let by that department. At the beginning of the war information along that line was received.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Six
months late.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, late; nevertheless, having regard to the circumstances, we at least knew to whom contracts were being awarded. That has been done away with. To-day there is not, I repeat, a private member who has any idea whatsoever as to what contracts the government has entered into during the last year as far as the Department of Munitions and' Supply and. other departments are concerned.
The next point is that there has been a tendency on the part of the government during the last year to rely more and more on the

War Appropriation
answer that "it is not in the public interest."
I was reading to-day excerpts from "Parliamentary Grants" by Durell, in which he sets forth the duty of an opposition as far as supply is concerned. At page 473 this very apt statement is made:
By many individuals the possession of public money is regarded merely as a trust which they will have fully discharged when they have spent their funds on utilitarian objects, and laid them out in the manner vdiich they consider best in the interests of the public service. This idea is prevalent even in peace time. In war the danger is enormously increased not only among those who are for the first time placed in charge of public moneys, but even among those who have had a peace training, but are inclined to think that a state of war automatically removes all financial restrictions.
Then he goes on to say that in time of war one of the most necessary safeguards, having in mind the protection of the public interest, is that the people who deal with the government must realize that the transactions they enter into are open to public scrutiny at all times. And he says:-
A reckoning will be demanded, though the recollection that this is so is likely to be swamped by the flood of money which is being poured out.
The mere availability of vast sums of money, which is a necessary accompaniment of war, is no excuse for greater expenditure than is necessary for the fulfilment of military requirements.
But war inculcates what Gladstone calls "the spirit of expenditure", and the availability increases the temptation to spend, and such temptation increases in proportion as the possibility of a reckoning appears to be distant or unlikely to be strict.
In time of war there should be reasonably strict accountability. How can there be that accountability when none of us knows what contracts the government has entered into?
It is time we have an opportunity to ask questions. But those questions will be merely in the nature of fishing expeditions unless we have information as to the contracts that have been awarded or entered into.
We are approaching another victory loan campaign. All of us wish to see the campaign a success. A few months ago when the minister was about to make an important announcement over the radio to the Canadian people he gave advance warning and we were all listening. No more useful piece of work could be done by the Minister of Finance to-day than to go on the radio and ask the people of Canada for their cooperation, ask them to bring to the attention of the government any instances of extravagance or waste that they know of, giving assurance that when that information is brought to the attention of the government that appropriate action will be taken-I have no doubt there would be an avalanche of it-


John Ritchie MacNicol: And have copies sent to the leader of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: By following this suggestion you will have the people of Canada believing that an effort is being made by all of us in this house to ensure that reckless and improper expenditures shall not be condoned by this parliament. It is a very simple suggestion; but if the minister follows it, men and women from one end of Canada to the other, in village, town, city and in the country, who know of instances, or at least believe they do, in which there has been overexpenditure would feel that now the government will take the matter in hand, and that their money will be utilized so as to secure the greatest possible return in helping to win the war.
What has been the attitude of the government in recent weeks? Too frequently they are hiding behind the answer, "It is not in the public interest". Let me mention several specific instances. I have had Hansard examined for the purpose, and I find that, generally speaking, in 1940 and 1941 the occasions when the answer, "It is not in the public interest" was given were fair and reasonable, and that the national interest in war time was the prime consideration. There were two examples that were rather difficult to understand. On March 17, 194)1, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) asked for certain information in regard to incomes in Canada. His question, as reported at page 1565 of Hansard of that date, reads:
How many individuals in Canada are in receipt of incomes, as shown by the income tax returns filed in 1940, (a) $10,000 to $25,000; (b) $25,000 to $50,000; (c) $50,000 to $100,000; (d) in excess of $100,000?
An answer was given in regard to the first two groups, but regarding the last two it was said that it was not deemed in the public, interest to answer these separately.
There may have been some reason for that answer, but it is rather difficult to understand it.
On April 2, 1941, a perfectly reasonable question was asked the Minister of Munitions and1 Supply (Mr. Howe) by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). The question was whether or not the government had purchased, directly or indirectly, a vessel named the Winchester. The second part read:
2. If so, (a) from whom; (b) upon whose recommendation; (c) at what price; (d) where *was delivery made?
Why should this information not be given? Yet the answer given was:
It is not in the public interest to give details of this purchase.
War Appropriation

This is the type of answer which arouses a degree of suspicion which may or may not be warranted.
In 1942, generally speaking, the occasions on which the answer "not in the public interest" was given appear understandable, with two exceptions. On April 23, 1942, the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) asked:
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?
The answer was that it was not in the public interest to give the information. Since when has it not been in the public interest for the people of Canada to be told how their money is being expended? Why should those *of us who ask these questions be denied information which by no stretch of the imagination could be of assistance to the *enemy?
In 1942 several of this kind were given, to none of which I take particular objection. But in the last few weeks the trend has been toward denying the members of the house information to which they are entitled. I point to an answer given on March 1, 1943, when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) moved:
For a copy of specifications and plans of the proposed permanent houses to be built by Wartime Housing Limited at Hamilton, Ontario.
The plans are in the possession of the contractors when they are asked to submit tenders on work of this kind. Yet the Minister of Munitions and Supply, answering for the government, said it was not in the public interest to allow members of parliament to examine the plans. In what other way could a member ascertain whether or mot a fair return is being secured from the .expenditure of millions of dollars for the construction of houses by' Wartime Housing Limited?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may be permitted to interrupt my hon. friend for a moment, he *leaves the impression that those plans and *specifications had been in the hands of the *contractors. The fact is they had not been; and to have tabled them in the house before 'tenders were called and the contractors could *get the plans would be in my opinion a treatment not ordinarily accorded contractors tendering for government work.


Gordon Graydon: That is not the answer the minister gave that day.
IMr. Diefcnbaker.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I said the houses had not been built.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer given at that time was, as the minister now says, that-


Mr. JACKMAN:: That it would not be fair to the architect.


John George Diefenbaker: He said:
They are the property of the federal government, prepared for the government's use.
And at another place:
These plans and specifications are documents of the department.
And he added:
The houses were not built and will not be built so far as present plans go.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend will agree there is all the difference in the world between plans which have served their purpose and plans which have not. In other words, the government prepared those plans for a purpose. They have not served that purpose. I have no objection to tabling plans in the house which have been in the hands of contractors, and certainly not if the structures have been built.


John George Diefenbaker: But those plans are identical, are they not, with plans in other war-time housing projects?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I think I am correct in saying that those plans are similar to the other housing plans about which there has been so much argument on the question whether or not fair value has been secured by the government in the awarding of contracts, on the basis and terms upon which they have been awarded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I straighten my hon. friend out on that point?-and I do not wish to interrupt unnecessarily. I must explain, however, that the plans for the Hamilton project were for a totally different type of construction from what had been done before, in that they were permanent houses, whereas the others were temporary. They were a lay-out of houses which Wartime Housing was suggesting the government should pay for. The government has not yet decided to adopt that suggestion. It may later, but it has not yet. That is why we did not wish to bring them down.


John George Diefenbaker: The only explanation the minister can give now is that he does not know whether the plans are going to be used. The fact remains that a large sum of

War Appropriation
money was paid for the production of those plans. When members of parliament are denied the right to see what has been done when expenditures have been made, then one of the prime reasons for the existence of parliament is being disregarded.
Furthermore, on February 8, at page 202 of Hansard this question was asked:
1.	Since the beginning of the war has the government issued any orders to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate the activities of certain war industries or those performing subcontracts for same?
2.	If so, (a) when, (b) what industries or private individuals, (c) with what results?
This was the answer given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
It is not in the public interest to disclose this information.
I am not going to argue seriously against that answer-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope not.


John George Diefenbaker: -so long as it is not used as an answer in respect of all questions concerning prosecutions.
The minister went still further. On February 15 he was asked this question, at page 392 of Hansard:
1.	Has the government taken any steps to prevent irregularities discovered in certain war industries since the beginning of the war?
2.	Has the government employed the services of chartered accountants to inquire into the operations of such companies?
3.	If so, (a) when, (b) in connection with what companies, (c) with what results?
The answer given by the minister to the first two questions was, yes, and to the third:
It is not in the public interest to give the information.
Justifiable it may have been to answer that it was not in the public interest to give the information when an investigation was in the hands of the mounted police. But the answer the minister gives to the last question will fortify those who are wrongdoers in the belief that under no circumstances may parliament secure information respecting irregularities committed by them. If there is one way to prevent irregularity it is to see to it that those who do wrong shall know that parliament will be granted every opportunity by the government to ascertain the wrongdoing and to demand that it be properly punished. When an answer is given by the government that it is not in the public interest, that is the end so far as parliament is concerned. Your Honour gave a ruling last year, as reported on page 1976 of Hansard, as follows:
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 raised as a question of privilege.
That shows how carefully a minister should consider the matter before giving an answer that denies information to an hon. member of this house. One thing I have noticed in travelling throughout the country is that men and women are asking us who are in parliament, "What are you doing to check wasteful expenditures?" That is why I make this plea to the Minister of Finance, whose courage I admire and whose industry merits the praise of all. If he would give the assurance I have suggested it would result in a feeling of determination on the part of the people and, what is more, a new incentive to them to give all that they have to the country at this time.
I consider it	my	duty	as a	member ofthis house to point out that in the last loan campaign the argument was raised all. too often as an answer for not contributing that the government was not demanding the discontinuance of overexpenditure and extravagance. I realize that in the vast amounts that are being spent there will be expenditures here and there which may be extravagant, but the people should know that those who overexpend, those	who	take	advantage of thegovernment, if	you	will,	those	who realizelarger profits than- any person in time of war has a right to realize, will be proceeded against. Wherever there is a suggestion of overexpenditure the names of the wrongdoers must be brought to the light of day in parliament,	and	they	must	be made to
disgorge all they have wrongfully taken from the state.
There is nothing partisan in this suggestion. It is simply an appeal to the minister, and I ask members on all sides of the house to support it. If it is acceded to it will give new hope to the Canadian people. The minister and the Prime Minister are the only two men who can do this. I am asking in all sincerity that the suggestion be not brushed aside, that it be accepted. If that is done, when the next victory loan comes around the results will be more than can otherwise be expected. If that is done, I will do what I did in the last campaign, and what I believe all hon. members did-I will give of my time and energy to the utmost. I shall then be able to go to the people and say that the rumours they have heard have been investigated and have been found to be false, or have been found to be true and the wrong-
War Appropriation

doers have been punished. If that is done, the response to the next victory loan will be greater than ever before. Show the people that where waste and overexpenditure can be prevented, it will be prevented and punished, and we shall have done much to improve the determination and morale of the Canadian people.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to refer to the statement made the other day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) when we were discussing the matter of capital assistance to war industries and the centralization of these industries in two provinces. The minister stated that this investment by government amounted to SI,723,827,099.	It has
been pointed out already that eighty per cent of these industries are located in two provinces. I just want to say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that along with many other people I think that that is a very unfair expenditure of money. It does not speak well for the future of this country.
The Minister of Finance was referring the other day to the chairman of the price control board and to the price ceilings. At the conclusion of his remarks I made this statement, as reported on page 1429 of Hansard:
I have expressed myself in favour of the principle of price ceilings. Can the minister tell us why parity remuneration for the agricultural producer who is producing foodstuffs and who composes one-third of our population has not been placed on the same basis as that of industry and organized labour?
Mr. Ilsley:	I cannot answer that question
until the hon. gentleman defines "parity". If he will do that I think I can answer his question.
Mr. Ross (Souris): You set a base period for industry and organized labour, but you neglected agriculture.
In an answer made to the house yesterday it was pointed out that Mr. Gordon still retains his post as deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. He is also a member of the wartime industries control board, of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and of the national war labour board. Another return shows that the board which he heads has an annual payroll of $5,000,000 and a staff of 4,600 persons.
As to this matter of parity, I am satisfied that the minister realizes that parity simply means the .purchasing power our commodities have to obtain the necessities of life. In the United States they have taken the commencement of the last war as their base period in considering parity. Seeing that the chairman of the control board, Mr. Gordon, is still deputy governor of the Bank of Canada,

I should like to refer to the report of that bank, particularly to page ill, section 8, of the statistical review. This review sets out the wholesale prices in Canada for farm products in the different years, going back to 1926. Taking 1926 as a base of 100, farm products now lag at 87 in Canada, whereas in the United States they are at 113'8 as compared with 1926. The Canadian government established 1926 as the base period for industry and organized labour, and they now recognize the index of 117 for the cost of living bonus for them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is only a half-statement of the facts. I would ask hon. members not to get off into these discussions that have nothing at all to do with what is before the committee. What my hon. friend is saying appears to be a continuation of something that was started here the other day, and if we are going to get into it we can go on for any length of time.


James Arthur Ross: This is an expenditure of public money. I do not want to get into any controversy with the minister, but I should like to ask him wherein I have made only a half-statement. The cost of living bonus is approximately sixteen or seventeen per cent, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Then I do not see where the half-statement is. These are the facts so far as I have been able to gather them from departments of government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, this little
argument is just an instance of the impropriety of getting into these discussions. To answer the hon. gentleman I have to go back and refer to the order in council relating to the first cost of living bonus that was awarded to labour, and then to the alterations from that time down to this. There was no guarantee to labour of the 1926-29 level plus a cost of living bonus to cover the increase in the cost of living since August of 1939. There was a direction to conciliation boards that if the facts showed that the wages were as high as 1926-29, that would be considered a fair and reasonable level of wages. It was a direction to conciliation boards. But the way the hon. gentleman puts it, the government in some way or other put wages up to the 1926-29 level and then piled the cost of living bonus on top of that. Then he argues that we ought to do the same for the farmers, and he says that the prices for the farmers are below

War Appropriation
parity, when the fact is that a great many of them are above parity, on the definition he has given.


James Arthur Ross: What, for instance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Agriculture went into that very fully, but do not let us get into an argument now on the cost of living bonus, statistics and parity prices, when I am trying to get this resolution through.


James Arthur Ross: I do not intend to take very much more time. These are the facts I obtained from the departments.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would ask the members of the committee to confine themselves closely to the resolution.


James Arthur Ross: I think that what I am saying is within the resolution, Mr. Chairman.
I do not think the minister will dispute that agriculture is one of the most important munitions of war. It is one of the most vital undertakings on the north American continent for the welfare of the united nations. The figures given by the Minister of Agriculture, to which the Minister of Finance has referred, call for an immensely increased production over previous years. Yet the farmers have lost some 400,000 men to war industries and the armed forces, and I do not see how we can obtain the results desired by the government and the people if something is not done' about it.
There is just one other matter I shall refer to, namely, coarse grains, as to which I obtained an answer the other day. These come under the price ceiling, and the exporter who exports grain to-day receives a nice profit over the price allowed to produce under our price ceiling. I think something should be done bv the government to see that the producer gets this profit rather than the exporter. It is but another example of the unfairness of the present controls.
As to waste, I think there is evidence of it in many places. The other day a return was brought down showing that 100,000 men had been discharged from the armed forces. I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence in his seat, because I am satisfied that that is altogether too great a percentage, having regard to the fact that the Canadian army has not yet been in battle. To enlist and equip these 100,000 soldiers at approximately $200 apiece would cost $20,000,000. I imagine that these men would serve on the average not less than six months, and that would be another $20,000,000. There is at least $40,000,000, which in my opinion is a direct waste of public money. For the benefit of the
Minister of Pensions and National Health let me say, by way of contrast that I do not think some of these men are given enough money to spend for the purpose of clothing and rehabilitating themselves upon their discharge. The Minister of National Defence should explain to the house why there is such a large percentage of discharges from the armed forces. The percentage is altogether too great, and it costs this country too much money. I want to be clear on this point. I am satisfied that no taxpayer begrudges a single dollar that is spent to see to it that our army is the finest and best equipped in the world, but the taxpayers do begrudge these wastes that are taking place.
There are many other wastes. Take for, instanoe the wartime information board, about which a return was brought down to the house the other day. It showed that since the middle of last summer the board has cost us over half a million dollars, and that we have 134 publicity men, 25 of whom have salaries exceeding $3,000. It is interesting to note what the status of some of these people was in the newspaper business before they received these appointments and the salaries that go with them.
There has been built up in this country what I think cannot be called anything but a bureaucracy. You might term these controllers the white collared army of this country. I know that many of them are giving splendid service and are probably receiving less money than they made in their own private business. But many of them are enjoying a larger salary than they ever obtained before, and I doubt whether very many of them are returning anything in the way of war effort to the country. The Minister of Finance should assure the nation that these wastes will be eliminated. The people are prepared to lend and give all they can to the war effort because they know that everything is at stake. But the Minister of Finance, above all other members of the government, must assure the people that these wastes which are taking place under their own eyes out in their own communities will be eliminated. Then the people will be prepared to go without some of the luxuries of life and in some cases without some of the necessities to assist in putting over the loan. As was stated by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am satisfied that every member of this group will do all he can to help in putting the coming loan over the top, as we have done in the past. But let me repeat that the Minister of Finance and the other

War Appropriation

ministers must assure the people that these wastes that are taking place will be eliminated. Otherwise the loan may not be the success we hope for.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was going to ask the minister a question about the statement he made on March 3, but if that is not in order, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that it is not in order, but I am not in a position to answer about other departments than my own, and I am doubtful whether I am in a position to answer about many parts of my own department. I would have to have the information here. I think it would' be better to take the matter up when the main resolution is reached.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister thinks I had better ask the question at some other time when he will have full information here, I am quite satisfied.


James Arthur Ross: May I ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply as an outcome of the statement he made this afternoon? I am not clear on one point. There is a price ceiling of $4 on certain classes of wood in certain areas. Wood cut in the Interlake area in Manitoba costs another S4 to transport to my town. That would be $8 altogether. Suppose my neighbour with a small wood-lot goes out and cuts wood and then sells it in my town; is he entitled to the $4 or to the $8? That is the question I have to answer in my own community.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is allowed the price ceiling of the particular area. There is a price ceiling for consumers, and whatever that price ceiling is, he is allowed. I cannot say, of course. But I am sure that the wartime prices and trade board office in the hon. member's locality would give him the figures.


James Arthur Ross: It would be the dealer's price in that town or centre?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If he delivers his wood to a dealer of course he gets the dealer's ceiling, which is a lower ceiling than the consumer's ceiling.


Mr. BOUCHER:: We are dealing briefly with an appropriation of $648 millions, and in view of the fact that before long we shall be embarking upon another victory loan drive, perhaps I may be able to contribute something to the ' debate by suggesting to the various ministers, particularly the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and possibly the Minister of Labour, the advisability at an early day, before the launching of the victory loan campaign, of giving a

statement to the house on two or three matters which are uppermost in the minds of the people in relation to our war effort.
In the last couple of months there has been considerable criticism and discussion in the daily press and throughout the country concerning the prevalence of so much absenteeism in industry, and why it is so difficult to get men who are working in our war industries, and in our peace industries as well, to put into production the effort by w'ay of overtime which is absolutely necessary. The situation is so serious that a statement as to what remedy the ministers in charge of the various departments have to propose would be appropriate at this time.
Now that the war is in its third or fourth year, the time has come when we should be pretty well over the period of slow-downs in industry caused by plants being converted from one type of production to another, or being tooled and set up for one particular type of production, where companies have large staffs of men but not sufficient orders, plans or material to continue in orderly production and keep their payrolls intact. The time has come when the public has reason to expect a more definite statement as to *what is the actual condition in industry in regard to slow-downs by the men employed therein and the consequent reduced production which inevitably results in increased costs and causes dissatisfaction with labour.
We are approaching the Easter recess, before we get into a full discussion of munitions and supply production, and particularly before the victory loan campaign is launched, there should be given to the Canadian people a statement indicating the seriousness of the problem and the government's policy in regard to it.
Coupled with that there might be a statement from the minister as to what he is doing in regard to a serious situation in industry, as also in agriculture, under which men who have some particular knack or skill in certain types of production enlist before they are called for military service or before they are forced to leave; at any rate they leave these particular jobs, necessitating serious difficulties in replacement. New men undertaking work requiring this particular knack or expert ability have to be taught; it may be necessary to teach three or four to do one particular job in view of the possibility of future calls being made. I believe that generally across Canada for the past year or two this condition has been quite prevalent, and it is an annoying factor in war-time production. Certainly it has increased costs and lowered efficiency. I

War Appropriation
do not intend to go into the matter now in detail, but I would urge upon the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Labour, as well as the Minister of Finance, that they give the house at the earliest possible moment a full and complete statement of their policy with respect to that situation. It would do much to raise or restore the confidence of the people and promote subscriptions to the victory loan, as well as ensure their approval of the house passing a bill of this size, $648 millions, in so short a time as we are asked to do it this afternoon.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say a word
with regard to some observations of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I do not propose at this time to go into the whole question of discharges from the army, because I am having a full statement prepared with regard to it; but in order that there may be no misapprehension I want the committee to understand now one or two features in connection with the matter.
Enlistments in the army, as everybody knows, have been to a considerable extent of men slightly older than the men of the last war. The younger men have gone into the air force. There has been a constant pressure on me from every direction-and that means industry, agriculture, and my colleague the Minister of Labour-to take in men who are perhaps not category A or A-l in order to give them a trial in the army. I have endeavoured to do my best, but we have seen to it that men have not been taken in below B-l except for certain special services. They have been put to a stiff training, some have been weeded out and these have gone back to industry.	*


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can a B-l man fight with a bayonet in hand-to-hand battle?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly, and a B-2 man too. They have gone back to industry, and the result of that weed-out here has been that only six thousand out of all the tens of thousands who went overseas have been discharged overseas in this war. It may be that some men were taken into the army who should not have been admitted, but there has been this pressure of which I speak, and the charge is always made that the army is too "choosy" in connection with its men. We have met that situation as best we can. As I say, we have given them very stiff training. It must be remembered that this war will have lasted four years in September. Many of these men have been in the army a long time and have done a tremendous amount of heavy training, marching and all that sort of thing, which has had its effect on some of them.
72537-102J
With regard' to discharges generally, I am having a return made comparing them with discharges in other countries. With regard to the curve of discharges, I believe it will be found that the curve started coming down in September, 1942, and that the trend is gradually declining. But I do not want the committee or the country to get the idea that waste is being practised in the army in connection with these men. Every possible care is being taken to conserve our manpower to utilize what we have, and to see to it at the same time that men do not go overseas unless they are qualified in every way to carry out the duties and responsibilities which they will meet there. I want it to be understood by the committee. I think it will be found that the percentage of discharges does not vary much from the percentage of discharges in other countries.
Some reference was made, and I shall deal with it further when that war appropriation is made up, to the matter of waste in camps. I am not in a position to deal with general charges or suggestions of the kind. I am in a position to deal with any charge with regard to waste in any camp in Canada at any time. I have had this up before-cases in which individuals have written me about waste taking place in camps. In one case a public-spirited lady and her associates were extremely anxious to see that waste was eliminated. They had heard most alarming rumours with regard to the waste which was going on in one of our biggest camps in Canada. I wrote to her that I would arrange that they could go to the camp, if she would just let me know what day would be convenient. She wrote back and said no, she would not let me know, because everything would be all ready for them if she did, but she asked if I would give instructions to the commandant to receive them at any time they might come to the camp, which might not be for three months. Those instructions were given; she and her associates went to the camp, where they were shown from cellar to attic, figuratively speaking. They were taken to the dumps, the incinerators, the kitchens and the messes; and I think the best testimonial I have ever received as to the administration of that branch of the department came from that lady after this visit by herself and her associates. I am not saying conditions are always so good, but I mention this case in order to indicate that we endeavoured to run down these charges of waste in connection with the camps. That goes for salvage, as it goes for swill, garbage and everything of that kind. If the hon. member for Souris has any case he cares to mention with regard to waste in
War Appropriation

campa I invite him to do so, and I can assure him that I personally will see to it that the matter is gone into, that the facts are made known and that action is taken.


James Arthur Ross: My charge about waste was in connection with the enlistment of this great .number of men who in turn are discharged. I think there is something wrong with the medical department. I do not know where it is, or what it is, but I think the minister himself will agree that this percentage is altogether too high, though I cannot point my finger at the culprit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the statement of the hon. member for Souris correct?


James Layton Ralston: I am having a study made in comparison with other formations, to see if it is. Of course we cannot get relative information because the situation in the United States is not the same as it is here. The United States came into the war only on December 7, 1941. We came into the war in September, 1939, so that our men have been training much longer than those of the United States. I think I can say, however, that the record of the Canadian army with regard to discharges is fairly good, with the possible exception of the first year. I dealt with that matter before a committee of this house two years ago, when I pointed out that I believed the discharges at that time were too numerous and indicated the steps which were taken by the medical authorities to tighten up the medical examinations. I have every reason to have confidence in the medical administration at the present time, and that is not said in any complacent spirit. A good many changes have been made in that particular branch, and, as I say, I have every reason to believe that medical examinations will be conducted and are being conducted on a plan which will ensure that waste in that respect is eliminated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In regard to the changes made in the medical branch, were they made because of inefficient medical men?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon. friend should ask me that in committee. Changes were made which were regarded as in the interests of the service, and I think the changes have been fully justified.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I personally have seen young men, people I knew well, taken into' the army who were medically unfit. They went down and were taken in as A-l. I have often wondered how any man who knew anything at all about medicine would take some of those boys and classify them as A-l.
I Mr. Ralston.]


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will bring any cases of that kind to my attention I shall be glad to look into them and find out who were the medical officers concerned. I have insisted that where men are discharged within a comparatively short time, they have at headquarters the names of the medical officers who actually signed the board, and that action be taken.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am not going to delay the committee, but one matter just came to my attention and since the question of discharged men has been mentioned I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister concerned, either the Minister of Pensions and National Health or the Minister of National Defence. I have a circular which was. sent out by the Salvation Army in Victoria asking for contributions to various war matters, and there is one paragraph I should like to bring to the attention of this committee. It reads:
Also there is an increasing demand upon us for clothing to outfit discharged soldiers and' to return them to civilian life.
If that statement is true it is a disgrace, and the thing should be looked into and stopped right away.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like an answer from the Minister of Munitions and Supply to the suggestion that the members of this house be provided with a list of contracts awarded, so that we may be in a position to check up on these contracts, which we have not been able to do for the last year and a half.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Early in the war it was the practice of this department to publish such a list. We attempted to do it monthly, but the compilation required1 a great deal of work and, as my hon. friend will recall, we fell two or three months behind. There was objection from the services to publishing this information; we were told that for reasons of security it was not wise to do so. The British government also objected. They said it was not done in- England and should not be done here, and of course some of the contracts included in the lists were for British account. There were so many objections that we finally abandoned the practice. As a matter of fact the cost of compilation was growing from day to day, and at the time we stopped it the cost was something like $65,000 a year. I have no objection to resuming that practice if hon. members think it would be money well spent; for I believe the reasons of security are different to-day from w7hat they were at that time. It is just a question whether it is -worth the effort. As my hon. friend will appreciate, it

War Appropriation
requires quite a large staff, and it is difficult to keep the information up to date. The printing gets very much behind, particularly when parliament is sitting. My hon. friend will recall that the list became very voluminous. Perhaps one of the committees of the house could go through the list. We could make it available to a committee, which could select contracts which might be of interest to hon. members. If it is necessary to publish every contract down to $3.20 we can do so. I should be glad to have one of the committees study the question and advise the department what should be done. I assure the hon. member there is no desire to withhold information from this house.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of contracts for $3.20. If members of this house had available to them, in the office of the minister or elsewhere, a list of contracts for $10,000 or over, we then would be in a position to check up and scrutinize the accounts, which we are not able to do to-day. A large amount of money has been expended in my constituency in connection with the air force. I have no idea and no information as to what were the expenditures, when they were made or who got the money. I have heard criticism, not in my own constituency but in another nearby, in regard to airport purchases. Large sums of money in the estimates or in a resolution such as that before the committee to-day arc voted, but there is no real check thereof by parliament. The suggestion has been made that we might ask questions. That is impossible, having in mind the delay in answering questions dealing with the mobilization of man-power and the like, in connection with which we have to wait three or four weeks for the information. I do suggest that the minister should make available to the members of this house, not by publication if that is going to cost a great deal of money but certainly at least in his own office, a list of the contracts awarded from month to month, so that members of this house may in part at least discharge their responsibility of examining expenditures. I do ask the minister to give consideration to that suggestion; for as matters stand to-day it is impossible for us to discharge our responsibilities. We have no information as to what expenditures are being made, and without that information how can we carry out our duty to scrutinize critically the money that is spent? We are not discharging our responsibility unless the information is made available to us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I remind the hon. member that there is a war expenditures committee sitting at the present time. I think
it sits continuously. It has .three subcommittees. It is entitled to ask for any information it wishes, and that information is furnished with the greatest possible expedition. I think it is only fair to ask that the committee consider whether the expenditure involved is justified. They could hear the officials of the department and obtain certain information about it. I can assure the hon. member that if the committee on war expenditures recommends that the preparation of those lists be continued, we shall be glad to do so. The committee may decide that the lists available in the department are sufficient.


John George Diefenbaker: Has not the minister a list, kept up to date and indexed, of the expenditures being made under contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly, but I suggest that where a committee is dealing with the par-, ticular subject, has been sitting continuously, and has never asked for it-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: It has never sat this session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the committee ask any information, I can assure hon. members it will be furnished.


John George Diefenbaker: We cannot delegate our responsibilities to any committee. The responsibility rests on us individually as members of the house. We know our own constituencies; we find certain expenditures being made there. By bringing the matter to the light of day people in that district point out where apparently there has been overexpenditure, and we can then bring it to the notice of the government. As it is to-day, these contracts are hidden away, apparently unavailable, not indexed, with no record that is available to hon. members. I am not asking that a book be published, but I am saying that hon. members have a right of access to the records to ascertain what contracts are being awarded and to whom.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend ever asked for access to it?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And been refused?


John George Diefenbaker: No. I asked for information in one instance and it was given to me. If members of this house have to find out to whom contracts have been awarded and then go to the minister and ask for information, that is not giving us an opportunity to do our duty. The information should show to whom contracts are-
War Appropriation

awarded, the amount, and the unit price. Then, and then only, we will be in a position to discharge the responsibility which the people of Canada have the right to ask the members of this house to perform.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made reference to clothing allowances. That matter was already brought to my attention by the representatives of the Canadian legion and also by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) and the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone). I immediately gave instructions to the interservice committee which deals with pay and allowances to look into the matter, and I have referred them to that report which had apparently emanated from the salvation army.
I may say that the allowance is $35 and is supposed to cover the uniform. After six months I think men are allowed to retain their uniform as well as having this clothing allowance. In addition to that, or after a certain period they are entitled, I think, to underclothing, boots and socks and1 some other articles of apparel.
So far this is the only complaint I have heard and it is being looked into immediately.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After the six months are *positions provided; does the government try to find positions for them?


James Layton Ralston: That is under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


George Russell Boucher: I would not want to see ns get into a discussion of the war expenditures committee, but in the light of what the minister said, as a member of the committee last year I think I should say, first, that the war expenditures committee has not sat since November 13 last except for six or seven days early in the year to compile its report; second, that the committee, consisting of twenty-four members, sitting as it has-particularly subcommittee No. 1-in camera, and having been delegated a few of the matters, if it were charged with the responsibility of going into the war contracts as the Minister of Munitions and Supply intimates, it would take as many subcommittees as there are members to go into it thoroughly. It would be a full-time job. It would require considerably more expert or technical assistance than they have, and the job would have to be done in camera, without permission to bring their report and the particulars from which it was made, or its recommendations to the house. The suggestion that the fact that there is a war expenditures committee that might go into the matter is a reason why the contracts should not be

published and brought before this house, when the situation is analysed is seen to be ridiculous.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The war expenditures committee can bring a report to this house any day they wish, on any subject they like. I suggest it is rather difficult to incur a big departmental expenditure at the request of an individual member. If it is a general request, with an understanding of what is involved, that is a different matter.


George Russell Boucher: If the committee, having sat in camera, did1 bring a report to the house, what a ridiculous position it would be in. It could not give particulars in such a way as to satisfy hon. members that the committee had done its work well and that the recommendations it saw fit to make were well founded.
Another point is that last year a great deal of work was done by subcommittee No. 1, a great many contracts being inspected. We held1 many meetings, discussed many subjects of some importance, and actually we were not even allowed a transcript of the evidence taken from day to day.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: You had men
to look at it.


George Russell Boucher: But we have to trust to
our memory as to the evidence given. Dealing with a number of contracts under such a system would1 be preposterous.


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to correct a statement made by the hon. member. He knows members of the committee have the right to go to the clerk of the committee and have access to the evidence. And the clerk never refused to show that evidence. You can spend your time and get all the details needed as to the proceedings.
This is the second time we have had discussion of the war expenditures committee. There is a resolution on the order paper, we have not reached that order yet. It is understood that we shall have a full discussion of this matter when that order is reached. It comes up every once in a while out of order and we have no opportunity to reply to these -I will not say charges, but allegations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Might not the resolution be
carried, and the discussion on war expenditure take place under the proper resolution?


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps that is right, but I rose by reason of what the Minister of Munitions and Supply said, and following what the Minister of Public Works said I

Railways and Shipping
think further explanations should be given. But I do not want to delay the committee with that at this time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Ilsley moved the second reading of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that with respect to the one-sixth which is being granted by consent and with the concurrence of hon. members, we shall expect that the same protection and the same reservations will be made as in connection with the previous legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am prepared to give that undertaking.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, we have not been given a copy of the bill, and I say it is important that we conform to the usual procedure in these matters.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The quickest way to deal with the matter would be to read the sections, the first of which states:
1.	This act may be cited as the War Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1943.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-S648,333,333.33 granted for 1943-44.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Section 2 reads as follows:
2.	From and out of the consolidated revenue fund, there may be paid a sum not exceeding six hundred and forty-eight million three hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents ($648,333,333.33) subject to allotment by treasury board, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1944, for the purpose and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set out in the resolution presently on the orders of the day to provide that sums not exceeding three billion eight hundred and ninety million dollars ($3,890,000,000) be granted to His Majesty, and being one-sixth of the said amount of three billion eight hundred and ninety million dollars ($3,890,000,000).


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the same as last year's bill; it is in the conventional form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the house adjourned at 6.09 p.m.
Monday, March 29, 1943