1943-03-08

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Rebates
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 8, 1943


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the 4th instant I read to the house copies of telegrams which I had dispatched earlier in the day to the Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and to Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America. To these messages I have received the following replies:
From Mr. Churchill, a message dated London, March 6, 1943, as follows:
I am deeply touched by your very generous message and I send to you and to all members of the parliament of Canada my heartfelt thanks. I recall with gratitude the warmth of the reception which you all gave me when I visited Canada in December, 1941. In the darkest days Canada, under your leadership, remained confident and true. Now the days are brighter, and when victory is won, you will be able to look back with just pride upon a record surpassed by none.
I might add that this message was read over the radio last night and has appeared in the press of to-day. I have ascertained that it was given out in London on Saturday night, and that the Associated Press received the message from there. It was not given out from my office. Had I had control of the situation I should have held the message and given it to parliament in the first instance.
From Mr. Roosevelt I received this morning a message dated Washington, March 8, 1943, as follows:
The greetings of old friends have always been especially welcome to me, and so please accept my warmest thanks for your message on my tenth anniversary as president. My good neighbours, the Canadians, are kind indeed to have remembered me on this occasion; and I hope you will convey to them, especially to your colleagues in parliament and the government, my cordial appreciation.
The emphasis in your message on the success of our arms and the growing power of our offensive, strikes a prophetic note. Our people, like yours, and those of all the united nations, 72537-65
are determined that there shall be no faltering in our march towards victory whatever the obstacles. In this year, above all, we shall support to the limit our troops of land, sea and air in the grim fighting which lies ahead. All Americans are proud to know of the great sacrifices which their Canadian comrades have made so that Canadian men and materials could contribute so vitally to the struggle.
With cordial good wishes to you, as always, Franklin D. Roosevelt.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on Friday that I would refer the report of the auditor general to the public accounts committee to-day. I now move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar):
That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words with regard to this motion. First I would draw attention to the fact that the motion will deal only with the report of the auditor general as it affects public accounts up to March 31, 1942. Since this motion will be the terms of reference to the committee, it will, as I understand the situation, limit the investigation of that committee to accounts up to that time.
I have a motion on the order paper which, I note, has been relegated to the graveyard of motions by private members and therefore is not likely to be discussed by the house. I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that his motion be made to extend the terms of reference so that the committee may be allowed to investigate not only accounts up to the end of the fiscal year, 1942, but also accounts up to the present time, and particularly with reference to the work being done by the office of economy control set up by the government.
The house is already familiar with the statement made or alleged to have been made

Public Accounts

the other day to the press by the director of economy control, Colonel Thompson. Those statements are pretty serious. When a paper with the position of the Ottawa Journal proceeds to quote the director's statements, putting them in quotation marks, it seems to me the house and the public accounts committee should take serious cognizance of the fact. The press statement says:
Colonel John Thompson, the government's uncompromising economy director, to-day had just about reached the end of his tether.
He had found it increasingly impossible, he told the Journal, "To cope with all the crazy waste and extravagance which some eight months ago he was assigned to control if not eliminate".
Then in quotation marks:
"Evasion, subterfuge and outright trickery" are being used to nullify the work of the office of government economy control.
Thousands of dollars have been spent on office supplies, furniture and equipment, he charged, without the requisitions ever having been submitted to him for examination and approval or rejection.
Piled on his desk this morning were many of these requisitions which had reached him only after the orders had been placed and filled, and the bills for them accrued.
With these requisitions were the "accounts payable" for supplies which had been purchased without his authorization.
One of those accounts was for $2,500, covering but one printing job.
Colonel Thompson has kept a file of such records of "subterfuge, evasion and trickery", to prove, if necessary, how the office of government economy control has been short-circuited.
Each time the colonel has received these "accounts due" for office supplies, which have been purchased without his approval, he has marked them, in red ink, "payment refused".
Some of the accounts have been accrued with private business houses and with printing shops other than the government's publishing establishment.
"1 don't know who will pay them, or how", declared the colonel, "but certain it is that I will not approve payment."
I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that those statements have been made by an official. I know nothing about his qualifications, but I assume the government must have been satisfied with them when they appointed him to this office. He has made what amounts to a very serious charge with reference to waste and extravagance in the conduct of government business.
It seems to me that this is not a matter merely for the executive or for the government; it is a matter for the entire House of Commons, something which ought to be gone into thoroughly by a standing committee. It is true that there is a war expenditures committee, but that committee recognized that there were certain limitations to their work. I should like to quote from page 92 of

the minutes of proceedings No. 3 of that committee, which contains the following in regard to the acquisition of the air field at Gimli:
It is not the duty of this subcommittee to supplant the responsibility either of the public accounts committee or the civil courts. This subcommittee does not express any opinion as to the need for further inquiry. In the light of the request made by the solicitor for the Winnipeg Tribune the subcommittee believes that such an inquiry, if deemed necessary, could be more satisfactorily made as above indicated.
I quote that for the purpose of pointing out that the war expenditures committee recognized that matters of this sort, dealing with money already spent or with the manner of the spending of such money, is a matter for discussion by the standing committee on public accounts. This is a matter to which the house ought to give serious consideration. It has often been stated that many of our functions have been usurped, but there are two great functions which this house still has. One is the duty of voting supply, and the other is the duty of scrutinizing all accounts paid or payable.
If we allow a situation of this kind to go unchallenged and without investigation, then we private members of the house are derelict in our duty. I want to make this appeal to the government and to the house. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has told us that during the next year the people of Canada are going to be asked to lend to the government the sum of $2,750,000,000. That is a tremendous figure. It will be lent to the government only as a result of considerable sacrifice on the part of the people of Canada. The members of this house will be asked, to urge upon the people of Canada that they make this contribution, and they will gladly do so. But if the people of Canada ever come to feel that this money is not being spent to the best possible advantage; if we ever allow the people to feel that there is waste, extravagance, or, as this report says, subterfuge and outright trickery, then we shall weaken in every fibre our war effort. This house can strengthen the morale of the Canadian people by asking the public accounts committee to examine the public accounts not only up to March 31,
1942,	but all accounts up to the present time, and to have Colonel Thompson appear as a witness to discuss these questions which have been raised in the public press. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and that the committee be empowered to examine accounts up to the end of February,
1943,	and to investigate the work being done by the office of the government economy control."

Public Accounts


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: addressed to me by Colonel John Thompson, director of government office economies control, which I should like to read:
Apropos of an item I saw in the press, either last night or the night before, I wish to say that at no time has there been any interference by the government, or yourself, or any member of parliament, with this office in the performance of the duties allotted to it by order in council.
The word "no" in the memorandum is underlined, and the letter is signed by John Thompson, whose full title is Colonel John Thompson, director of government office economies control.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that all that there is in the memorandum, may I ask?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, and may I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I have brought to the house all that I have from Colonel Thompson as yet.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask the minister a question, is that the only memorandum that has come to him from Colonel Thompson?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Yes, that is the only
memorandum that I can find touching upon the question under discussion in this house.


Gordon Graydon: Had the minister seen
the item in the Ottawa Journal and brought it to the attention of Colonel Thompson prior to his sending that memorandum?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	On Friday last I made
it very clear that as soon as I saw that article I instituted inquiries, and of course I wrote to the director.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister seen the list of specific charges in Saturday's Toronto Telegram and to-day's Ottawa Journal?
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I say that with the best of will or the worst I cannot take it for granted that these charges have been made by Colonel Thompson. I know him as an honourable gentleman, and I would remind the house of what I said in that connection last Friday, that particularly in the case of such a very old servant of the country as Colonel Thompson is-for years he was head of the pension, commission

I would expect that had he any complaints to make he would make them to his minister direct. In their absence I am not in a position to add one word to what I have already said. I have already given to the house all the information that I have.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
one other question? Has Colonel Thompson denied to the minister the charges that were made in the Ottawa Journal?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I can only repeat-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would point out that there is a motion and an amendment before the chair. We are not in committee and questioning cannot be permitted.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Personally I think the only manner in which this matter can be cleared up is to have the committee sit and have Colonel Thompson appear before it to substantiate or deny that he ever gave such an interview. The statements that appeared in the press quoted Colonel Thompson, and my experience with the newspaper reporters, particularly those in the gallery of this house, is that when they quote someone they endeavour to quote accurately. I have not known them to do otherwise deliberately. I suggest that the men in our gallery at Ottawa are reliable when they give statements within quotation marks. Moreover, I cannot quite understand the situation, because Colonel Thompson said in his quoted statement that he had made repeated representations to the minister, and the minister has just said, as I understand it, that he has no representations of this sort on file from Colonel Thompson.
I think that the amendment should carry and that the matter should be dealt with under the procedure laid down by parliament. The committee has the power to call witnesses and question them under oath and to go to the bottom of the whole matter in a proper manner. I believe we would be derelict in our duty if we did not follow that procedure, because the charges which are said to have been made are of a serious nature, and ought to be gone into very carefully indeed by a committee of this house. The proper committee is the public accounts committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say first of all that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me last week if I would see that the auditor general's report was referred to the public accounts committee and I said that I would. I have gone him one better by moving that the public accounts be referred as well. I made a mistake in replying to my hon. friend when I said that I thought the auditor general's report had in previous years been referred automatically to the public accounts committee. I agree with the leader of the opposition that it would be desirable that the auditor general's report and the public
JMr. LaFleche.l

Public Accounts
accounts should be referred to the public accounts committee as soon as tabled and the public accounts committee set up. I think that should be done every year. It has not always been done; it has sometimes been done; when it has not been done, it is because the opposition no less than the government were content to have matters as they were.
In regard to the amendment which has just been proposed, may I say first of all that I think it is out of order. I think it is out of order for the reason that it is a substantive motion in itself and therefore cannot be moved as an amendment. His Honour the Speaker has already given a decision to that effect in this session.
But I do not wish to allow the matter to rest there. I am in complete accord with the leader of the opposition and with all hon. members of the house in their desire to see that every possible restraint is placed upon possible unnecessary expenditures and, certainly as far as it is humanly possible so to do, to prevent wasteful expenditure of any kind. The more we can apply safeguards in that direction, the better it is going to be for all concerned. At the same time I do think it is necessary that in these matters we should adopt a procedure which at least carries with it a sense of the responsibility of a great assembly such as this House of Commons with respect to matters that are to be made a subject of public inquiry. Newspaper articles have been read. They contain certain allegations and representations. Some of these allegations have already been discussed on the floor of this house as if they were charges. They have been spoken of as charges and the word goes out from the press gallery that the government has been charged with this and that, that there has been a charge that such and such has taken place, that there has been a charge also ' of such and such waste. When the matter is truly stated, it is seen to be only a report in a newspaper. Whether it is within quotation marks or not does not matter. If this House of Commons is going to begin to assume as evidence of bona fides everything that appears in the public press in the nature of representations or allegations against some officer of or matters connected with the government, and take that source as the one from which investigations are to be made, it must be apparent that we shall be making a farce of our whole procedure.
I have just as much respect for the gentlemen in the press gallery as my hon. friend has; but he has no guarantee that the particular report which he says is in quotations was from any journalist in the gallery. It may have been from some reporter who is
not in the gallery. I cannot say. At any rate, I hope my remarks will not be taken as reflecting at all on any journalist, one way or the other. What I say is this. The press has its responsibility, and the House of Commons and its members have their responsibility; and if there is to be an investigation of any matter I submit that at least before an inquiry starts before a committee of this parliament, some member of the House of Commons should himself take responsibility for asking that the matter in question be investigated. I think we should have something more to go upon before a public inquiry starts than simply an item in a newspaper.
It is free to any member of this house to ask that the public accounts committee be convened at any time it is desirable to have it so convened, and when the public accounts committee meets it is open to the members of that committee, which contains representatives from all sides of the house, to make what requests they wish with respect to the parties who are to appear. So far as I am concerned, and I am certain my colleagues would join me in this, if when the public accounts committee is called together hon. members wish Colonel Thompson to appear before it, we will not have the slightest objection to having Colonel Thompson so appear. If it is going to serve a helpful purpose to have the statements that have thus far appeared in the press made the subject of inquiry and Colonel Thompson called as a witness, the government will be only too ready to meet the wishes of the committee if that particular request is made. But I wish to make this perfectly clear, that in so doing it should not be assumed that we are establishing a precedent, so that any time anyone wishes to begin an investigation before the public accounts committee, a representation in tire press may be taken as sufficient ground for the instituting of a public inquiry.
There is one other point. It is in reference * to the public accounts. I understand that the auditor general goes through the public accounts and audits the public accounts before they are made public by tabling in the house. I cannot say how soon the accounts of the current year can be made available to parliament and tabled; that is a matter upon which I would have to get further information. I mention this because I believe the motion I have made goes as far as any similar motion has gone in any previous year, -as far as at this particular moment I feel it is possible to go.
Public Accounts


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I draw the attention of the house to one or two things. First, the memorandum read by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) does not deal with the question under discussion at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman speaking to the point of order?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. A point of order, I understand, has not yet been raised.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was speaking on the amendment. I did not know that a matter of procedure had been raised.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman moved an amendment and spoke to it. He cannot speak twice unless he is speaking to a point of order. If any hon. gentleman wishes to speak to the point of order I should like to hear him now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling on the point of order, may I suggest that the amendment is properly an amendment to a motion, that all it does is to suggest that certain words be added to the motion extending the terms of reference. If the procedure is such that hon. members are precluded from amending a motion of this description, drawn in general terms so that general terms can be extended to include something specific; it seems to me that the house is being denied a right which it ought properly to have. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) endeavoured to place his suggestion before the house by giving the required notice under the standing order providing for forty-eight hours' notice, not knowing .that this motion was to be introduced by the government, and he finds that the motion which he filed, in the usual way is being relegated to such a position on the order paper that in all probability it cannot be reached this session. If the ruling of the Chair should be that one cannot move an amendment extending the reference to cover a matter which cannot successfully be made the subject of a substantive motion because of the position in which it is placed, under private members' resolutions, on the order paper, I submit that that ruling would deny to this house a right which hon. members should be able to exercise.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Speaking further to the point of order taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), it seems to me that the attitude of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is particularly appropriate when one couples with it the statement I understood the Prime Minister to have made, that to refer a matter of this kind to the public accounts committee, some hon. member should take the responsibility of laying a charge. If that is so; if a member of the House of Commons must lay a charge and accept the responsibility of doing so before a matter can be referred to the public accounts committee, a substantive motion of this kind, enlarging the scope of the terms of reference to the public accounts committee, would apparently be out of order. But on the other hand how could a matter be referred to the public accounts committee unless an individual charge were made? The motion itself seems to imply the reverse of the statement that an individual member must make a charge before the matter is referred to the public accounts committee. One cannot but be forced to that conclusion.


Thomas Vien: The motion is:
That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
To that an amendment is moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and that the committee be empowered to examine accounts up to the end of February, 1943, and to investigate the work being done by the office of the government economy control."
I have listened carefully and given due consideration to the statements made by the hon. member for Weyburn and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) with regard to an amendment to a motion such as we have before us. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of the extension of the motion and the adding thereto of a period during which these accounts could be examined. The hon. member did not refer to the latter part of the amendment, which states:
". . . and to investigate the work being done by the office of the government economy control."
I am of course concerned with the procedure of the house. In my judgment it would be a dangerous precedent that any motion such as that which is now before the house should be added to and a reference made to an investigation to be made. iSuch

Public Accounts
a motion for an investigation must necessarily be a substantive motion and, being a substantive motion, cannot be moved as an amendment to an original motion.
I would also point out to the house that under the reference which is made to the public accounts committee and all standing committees, persons and records may be brought before that committee; there is nothing to prevent members of the standing committee, when these matters are under discussion, from asking for the attendance of any witness, because they have that power now under the standing order; and the committee then will be the judge as to whether or not the investigation shall be completed, and if necessary they in turn can come back to the house for further instructions.
In the meantime we are faced with a motion, and, as I am of opinion, a substantive motion moved as an amendment, which is not in accordance with the rules of the house. Therefore I must rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. HARRY LEADER:: (Portage la
Prairie): Perhaps it will be in order for me to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion. I believe I am a member of the public accounts committee, and therefore will have the opportunity to discharge my duties in that capacity. I was struck by what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, that the members of this house owe a duty to parliament, and I presume that includes those who elected us to parliament. I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), instead of being declared out of order, should have been accepted by the Prime Minister. I have not even read the newspaper article referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn. But I have gathered that suspicion will be aroused in the minds of the taxpayers, and we should do everything within our power to see that their minds are not poisoned. If the information is false, we should see that everything is brought out into broad daylight.
I was going to give an example of what happened years ago. The auditor general's report was being discussed in the house. I had gone through that report pretty thoroughly, and I noted that the auditor general brought to our attention the fact that there had been overpayment in a department of government. I am not saying it was altogether when the Liberals were in office; it was going on when either party was in office. But the watchdog of the treasury drew the attention of the members representing the people of Canada to the fact that overpayment had been made and had never been repaid. I ran
across this also, which goes to show that something can be done even in parliament. A certain civil servant was moved from Ottawa to new duties in Calgary. He was a surveyor, receiving, if I remember correctly, a salary of over 14,000 a year. When he was moved to Calgary he was given a living allowance, I believe about six dollars a day. After about a year he was brought back to Ottawa, and I think for two or three years after he returned to Ottawa he was still getting his salary plus living allowance.
When I noted that the auditor general drew the attention of members of parliament to the fact that these overpayments were being made, as a representative of the people I thought it my duty to bring the matter before parliament, which I did. It was in the department of the Minister of the Interior of that time. When I mentioned it he said he was not aware that that situation existed, and being very sympathetic I asked the minister if he had not the information at the time to bring it down later. He promised to do so, and later did; he said that the situation as depicted by the member for Portage la Prairie was true. I met him on the street some time later and I am not giving away any confidences-^-he said, "Harry, I did not know anything about that."
There is an example. Such conditions as these things existed then and perhaps they exist now. We have charges to-day, or a quotation from a civil servant, as reported in the press, and the Prime Minister should be the first to say, we must explore this to the limit. I want to make my position clear. If a vote is taken on this amendment I shall have to vote against the government. My conscience dictates nothing else.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) in the course of his remarks stated that the Prime Minister should accept the amendment. I should like to point out to the house that only during the last two weeks an amendment was accepted by the house which, as. I indicated, if it had been placed before the Chair I should have ruled it out of order. Following that, within a week, another similar amendment was made and I had then to rule it out of order. I would say to the house that if the Prime Minister had moved the adoption of this amendment as part of the motion I should have felt it my duty to point out to him that it was entirely contrary to the rules of the house, and I should have to declare it out of order.
Public Accounts


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: No more important duty rests upon this house than careful scrutiny of all expenditures. Where there is any suggestion of overexpenditure, as is alleged to have been stated by Colonel Thompson, the place to determine that is in this house or in the committee, and not in newspaper articles. We now find ourselves in this position. One newspaper says that Colonel Thompson made a certain statement; other newspapers say he did not make it. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) in a statement on Friday which was very difficult to follow, seemed to take no stand whatsoever on the question. The position now is that although allegations have been made in a responsible newspaper, the members of this parliament are not to have the opportunity to examine the accounts. It is all very well to say, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, that the public accounts committee will be convened and that Colonel Thompson may be called before it if the committee so decides. You will have a committee of fifty members- and as in all committees the government will have an overwhelming majority. Why the government should seem to be desirous of not having Colonel Thompson brought before this committee I do not know. I suggest that the attitude will not be changed when the public accounts committee is convened.
We have the war expenditures committee which meets behind closed doors. When the committee was set up the Prime Minister said that the committee would meet in the open except when otherwise decided. Yet from the very beginning as soon as we got into the committee there was no question about it at all. The decision announced in the house by the Prime Minister was not carried out.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Will my friend permit an interruption? I know he does not want to misrepresent-


John George Diefenbaker: I will permit an interruption when I am through with my argument. As soon as the subcommittees were set up the motion was made and in every case it was decided, except in the case of one subcommittee, that they should meet behind closed doors. What is the result? Everyone knows that a certain degree of secrecy must be observed, the paramount desire being the safety of the state. But the safety of the state does not demand that instances of overexpenditure should not be brought to the attention of parliament when heard in the war expenditures committee. Yet the lips of

every member of the wTar expenditures committee are sealed as to the information they secure in that committee; they may not bring it before parliament.


Hughes Cleaver: Before leaving that would my hon. friend allow me? I know he does not wish to leave an incorrect impression.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the question?


Hughes Cleaver: Is it not a fact that it was left with the individual subcommittees to determine how each of their sessions should be held, whether in camera or in public. Also is it not a fact that as to the subcommittee on which my hon. friend sat for one entire session of the house no motion was ever made that it should sit in public? I am chairman of that subcommittee and I make that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: All I know is that the Prime Minister gave the promise that the committees would meet in the open except when in the interests of the safety of the state the committee might otherwise decide; and in every case when a vote took place the vote was always that they should meet in secret.
Mr. MAYBANIv: Would the hon. member permit one more question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I would ask the hon. member whether he himself ever proposed a motion that they meet publicly, and had it voted down. It does not seem to agree with what was said across the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I raised the matter in this house-


Ralph Maybank: In committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and raised it in the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Just a minute; I raised it in the committee, and other members of the opposition raised it in the committee, and in every case they were voted down. Now-


Hughes Cleaver: I do not like to have to interrupt again, but I was chairman of the committee on which the hon. member sat, and he did not nor did any other hon. member move such a motion.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member should not interrupt.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind answering questions, but I do object to speeches being made. The fact that such conditions do

Public Accounts
prevail in the war expenditures committee, where many matters were brought up, such as war-time housing, elementary flying training schools, air observer schools, information which would not have been of assistance to the enemy, has aroused the suspicion-


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a point of order. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is entirely out of order in discussing the war expenditures committee, and in dealing with war-time housing or any of these other matters on the motion now before the Chair.


Thomas Vien: I do not agree that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) is out of order. He is speaking with regard to public accounts, and in illustration he mentioned these other points. He is in order.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to add this, that the very fact that the subcommittees of the war expenditures committees have met in secret has aroused a feeling that we in this parliament are not discharging our responsibilities, and that we are not properly scrutinizing public expenditures. And when an allegation of improvident expenditures is made in the press, by a man holding one of the most responsible positions in the service of his country-


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, he is alleged to have made certain statements-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is different.


John George Diefenbaker: -and now the opportunity comes to have him brought before a committee, he should be given the opportunity to give his evidence. I ask the Prime Minister if he will give parliament and the country the assurance that if any hon. member on the public accounts committee will call Colonel Thompson, his evidence will be accepted in the committee.


Hughes Cleaver: Speaking, sir, to the present motion, and following Your Honour's recent ruling in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and answering the suggestion he has been good enough to make, that government supporters on the public accounts committee will gang up on him and prevent evidence from coming out, I should like to make one or two remarks. The hon. member for Lake Centre made the statement, in regard to the work of the war expenditures committee, that all the sittings of the committee had been in camera, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie 72537-68
King) had declared to the house these would be open, except where for military reasons or otherwise they should not be open. I should like to make a few comments in regard to the hon. member's statement, just to keep the record clear.
The committee was given the fullest possible powers by the house with regard to its sittings. It had the power to hold sittings in open or in camera. The main committee, in turn, passed on that same power to the subcommittee, and it was left to the discretion of each individual subcommittee as to what, if any, of their meetings should be held in camera, and as to what, if any, should be held in public.
The hon. member for Lake Centre was a member of subcommittee No. 1, for one session of the house. I was chairman of that subcommittee, and I say as chairman that the hon. member did not at any time move that a sitting of that committee should be in public, nor was any such motion ever voted on, or voted down, as he inferentially suggested a moment ago.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to allow that last statement to be accepted as covering the activities of all the committees. I would correct it to this extent, that when we met in general committee, comprising all those making up subcommittees 1, 2 and 3, I had the honour on each occasion to move that all meetings be held in open session. On every occasion we were voted down by those who support the present administration. Then, in turn, as subcommittees convened, the same question arose and in the case of subcommittee No. 2, on which it was my privilege to serve, they did open up the session and we had open discussions. This arose from a little generosity on the part of some of the members supporting the government, and from the fortunate absence of another. The vote carried by a majority of one, which kept the sessions open. On a later occasion, to the embarrassment of the chairman, the sessions were again opened, and the chairman immediately adjourned subcommittee No. 2 on that particular day to consider the position. His ideas were voted down. But he was kind enough to reconvene the committee in open session afterwards. It is patent therefore on the very surface of it that government majorities on committees almost always-at least as far back as I can remember-vote the way the treasury benches want them to vote in handling any matter which is the subject of inquiry before any committee. That condition obtains in the work of the war expenditures committee.

Public Accounts


George Russell Boucher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has risen in the house to make it perfectly clear, so far as sittings of the war expenditures subcommittees are concerned, that each is left to its own discretion as to how it shall operate. In the past year I had the honour of being on subcommittee No. 1. True enough, the main committee did delegate to the subcommittee the power to decide whether it should or should not sit in secret. True it is also that in subcommittee No. 1, on which the hon. member for Halton was chairman, a motion was made at the very first sitting dealing with war-time expenditures in which it was asked that the sittings be in secret. And true it is that the motion was defeated.


Hughes Cleaver: It was withdrawn.


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member for Halton may speak again after I have finished. Subcommittee No. 1 sat in secret throughout the whole of the session, dealing with many things which in my humble opinion did not warrant the slightest secrecy. Therefore I say to the hon. member that when dealing with the question of secrecy, in order that what occurred may be perfectly clear, and perfectly understood by hon. members, let us face the fact that it has been impossible for members who. wanted public sittings in either the main committee or the subcommittees to be successful in their applications.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now under consideration is that the public accounts for the year ended March 31 last be referred to the public accounts committee. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was perhaps a little less than fair in the remarks he addressed to the house a short time ago. I do not think it is proper to have an impression go out to the country that the government desires to withhold the consideration of public accounts before the public accounts committee, I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that there is probably no more important duty for parliament than the consideration of public accounts. The whole origin of parliamentary government arises out of the question of the expenditure of public moneys and the manner in which those moneys should be raised. No duty resting upon parliament is more important than that of scrutinizing and investigating closely how moneys placed at the disposal of the government are spent.
Let me make it clear that there is not and never has been any reluctance on the part

of the government to have the public accounts fully investigated and scrutinized by the public accounts committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The public accounts committee has not sat since the war started.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But if this motion passes, the accounts will come before the public accounts committee. In past years there seems to have been an impression that the government failed in its duty because public accounts were not scrutinized by the public accounts committee. Well, the public accounts are the record of the manner in which various government departments have spent moneys voted by parliament to the government for the purpose of carrying on the business of the country. As to the propriety of the expenditure of a single dollar in past years, it was open to any member of parliament, and it was particularly the responsibility and duty of the opposition, to have such an inquiry made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what we have been trying to do to-day, and the minister sees how successful we are.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, no. If my hon. friend will be patient I shall come to that in a moment. So much for that. Perhaps I should not discuss the motion of the hon. member for Weyburn since you, sir, have ruled it out of order, but I would point out that it had to do with public accounts that have not yet been considered by the auditor general and consequently are not in a position to be referred to the public accounts committee. The other point which he made, and which was made a great deal of by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-the hon. member has considerable skill in presenting a case of that kind and leaving impressions that are probably not wholly warranted-was in respect of the duties discharged by Mr. Thompson as director of government office economies control. The Prime Minister stated in his remarks that it was open to any member of the public accounts committee to ask that Mr. Thompson or anyone else come before the committee. The Prime Minister also stated that if the public accounts committee wants to investigate these allegations, if they may be termed such, of Mr. Thompson which have appeared in the newspapers, it can be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister how it can be done when the terms of reference are limited to discussing public accounts up to March 31, 1942?

Public Accounts


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As Mr. Speaker pointed out, if the committee wants to investigate that and their powers are not broad enough, they can come back to this house and get the necessary powers. When the committee is set up, as it will be under this motion, and it meets to consider the public accounts if it wishes its powers expanded in order to consider these newspaper allegations, so-called, of Mr. Thompson, it can come back to the house if necessary and have the matter considered then.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Just a moment. These allegations or so-called allegations of Mr. Thompson have been the subject of a good deal of discussion here this afternoon. You can scarcely pick up a newspaper to-day, particularly newspapers opposed to the government, without finding somewhere some criticism of the expenditures of the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But that is not by a government official.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) has pointed out, what proof has the hon. member for Weyburn that Colonel Thompson ever made those statements?


Mr. COLD WELL:: That is what we want to find out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If we are going to investigate everything of that kind, every rumour that appears in the pewspapers, this house will be busy doing nothing else. I rose mainly to make clear to the house that the government has no objection nor does it take exception to an investigation of the public accounts by the public accounts committee. I feared that the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre-I do not think he wished to convey that impression-might be taken in the country as an indication that the government had something to conceal in the public accounts and was reluctant to have them considered by this committee set up specially for the purpose.


Mr. J. GORDON ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have tried two or three times to get the floor. I just want to say a word in regard to the remarks that have been made by certain members of the war expenditures committee. I do not intend to discuss anything that took place in the meetings of the war expenditures committee that were held in camera; I am going to discuss only what happened in the open committee. Each subcommittee was given the right to determine 72537-66J
whether it would sit in camera. Personally I was against holding open sessions of the main committee, and I would vote against that procedure in a committee such as the war expenditures committee. I want to be practical in this house. I am not going to spend my time in a committee for the purpose of helping certain members of the committee to get publicity in the newspapers, to have their speeches go out to the public. That is what would be done. If I am ever put on a committee of that kind again I certainly will not stay on it unless it sits in camera, because I am not going to waste my time in that way.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has said that the members of the committee on the government side voted as the treasury benches wanted them to vote. I want to say that every member on the government side of the house has just as much responsibility and feels his responsibility just as much as any member of the opposition in regard to any matter brought before a committee of this House of Commons. No member of the government, the whip, no minister, no member of the cabinet intimated to any member of the committee on the government side what he should do in regard to matters that were to come before the committee. It is not very judicious, it is not very nice for the hon. member for Danforth to make a statement of that kind when he knows as well as I that no one ever said anything to the members on the government side about what they were to do in that committee, any more than anyone would say anything to him about it.


Joseph Henry Harris: He knows they were voted down.


John Gordon Ross: You know you were voted down? Each man took his own responsibility in the voting; it was not at the instigation of any member of the government or of the treasury benches in this house.
I do not know a thing about the matter that is before the house at the moment, except from what the minister referred to a moment ago. The hon. member for Weyburn makes quite a little noise in this chamber every once in a while, and sometimes he makes quite a little noise in the country. He generally asks or tries to ask for something which he knows cannot be done.


Major James William Coldwell: Not in this case.


John Gordon Ross: Not in this case? He is asking that the public accounts to the end of February of this year be brought down, That is an utter impossibility, as my hon. friend knows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nonsense.
Public Accounts


John Gordon Ross: Something that
happened six days ago. Surely he does not mean that seriously?


Major James William Coldwell: He certainly does.


John Gordon Ross: It would be
utterly foolish to pass a motion in this house that we should bring down the public accounts of this country up to February 28, just a week ago.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: This
committee is being set up and specific duties are being assigned to it. Certain matters are being referred to the committee and I think they should be cleared up. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) made reference to some of the decisions arrived at in one of the subcommittees of the war expenditures committee. I was a member of that committee and I want to say that he extended to me every courtesy, but I must take exception to what he has said in this house.
I took the stand in the committee that information with regard to the expenditure of public moneys should be disclosed to the public and that I, as a member, was not entitled to information not available to the public unless it was information which, if disclosed, might give comfort to the enemy or be detrimental to our war interests. That is the stand I took. Several important subjects were referred to subcommittee No. 1 of the war expenditures committee. Among these matters was war-time housing, involving at that time, I believe, an expenditure of $67,000,000. There was also the aeroplane industry, which involved the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars and in connection with which there had to be considerable secrecy. There was also wartime shipping, which involved many millions of dollars.
The first subject which was set up for investigation was war-time housing. I could not conceive that there was anything having to do with war-time housing that could give comfort to the enemy or that would be contrary to our military efforts. I made a motion, I think at the first session, that all evidence and information given before the committee having to do with war-time housing should be made available to the public. That was supported by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), but it was voted down at the instance of the chairman, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), and the other members of the committee.
My colleagues and I then had to decide whether we should continue to act when our wishes were not complied with or whether

we should retire from the committee. An important responsibility had been assigned-to us and we felt that it was our duty to discharge that even under those limitations. We therefore decided to stay. I went on record then, and I go on record now, as not believing that the expenditures having to do with war-time housing should have been withheld from the public. I did not believe there was any necessity to sit in camera, but I complied with the request of the majority of the committee that the evidence be taken in camera, in secret. A copy of the evidence was not made available to me, although it is true it was in the hands of the chairman of the committee and I could go to his office and look it over. But I was handicapped and curtailed to that extent. Therefore I have to take objection to the statement made by the hon. member for Halton that we were not voted down but that we were allowed to make our investigations and give the information to the public. In making the motion that the evidence be made available to the public, I also made this condition, that even in the investigations with regard to war-time housing, matters should not be disclosed to the public which would give comfort to the enemy, and I was quite willing that such evidence should be taken in camera.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have gone off at a tangent in the debate on this motion. As I understand the motion made by the Prime Minister, it is to refer the auditor general's report for the fiscal year ended March, 1942, to the public accounts committee.


Mr. ILSLEY:: And the public accounts.


Angus MacInnis: And the public accounts, yes. Some of us on this side of the house would like to have the term of reference extended, and if my opinion is of any value to the government I suggest that they are really standing in their own light if at this time they oppose that extension. As has already been pointed out, the people are being asked to make substantial sacrifices, and they are prepared to make them because they believe that they are being asked to make them for a cause that is worth while. But the people are suspicious that there is a great deal of waste and extravagance, and if at this time they find that the government is opposed to investigating charges that have been made, not by a member of this house, not by the newspapers, but by a responsible official, then I am afraid that the repercussions will not be good.
There is no use in saying that charges have not been made. Charges certainly have been

Public Accounts
made, and when the minister in charge of the department concerned comes into the house and says he does not know whether his subordinate has made charges or not, he is simply playing with the house. Either his subordinate made charges or he did not, and when the minister comes into the house he should be prepared to tell the house that his subordinate made these charges or that he did not. It is not good enough to say, "I do not know whether or not Mr. Thompson made these charges." Mr. Thompson is a subordinate in the minister's department, and the minister can ask Mr. Thompson to come before him and can say to him "Mr. Thompson, did you make these charges or did you not?" Then the minister would be prepared to tell us that Mr. Thompson did or did not make them. That is all it amounts to. It is not a question of rumour at all. It is a question of fact.
In order to bring the matter before the committee and in order that the house may have an opportunity to extend the reference to the committee, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
and that the committee be empowered to examine audited accounts up to the end of February, 1943.
I do not believe that there is any substance in the statement that the public accounts committee can examine only those accounts that have passed through the auditor general's hands. I believe the public accounts committee can demand and examine any account and find out whether that account is in order or not. There is no limit to what the members of this house can do in the way of investigating the public accounts. For that reason I have moved my amendment and I hope that the government will realize the necessity of accepting it.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
say a few words because for the last year I have been chairman of the war expenditures committee. That committee was set up two years ago on the suggestion of the then leader of the opposition. I recall that he quoted in the house the reference made in the British house to their committee on national expenditures. That reference was adopted in this house with but a few changes in the wording. We tried from the outset to follow the procedure followed by the British committee on national expenditures. In the first year our war expenditures committee sat as a general committee for two months investigating the functions, set-up and procedure of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Later we subdivided into three subcommittees. The main committee decided not to sit in public but left it to the subcommittees to decide how they would sit. I happened at the time to be chairman of subcommittee No. 3. We sat in camera. Other subcommittees, the one on which the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) was a member, sat in public, and if hon. members will look up the report of that committee they will find that it is a public document containing not only the committee's recommendations but also the evidence taken before that subcommittee. Everything that was said there was made public. Other subcommittees sat in camera where the evidence adduced was of such a nature that it could not be made public. We could not make a public inquiry, for instance, into the building of tanks,, giving all the specifications, detailed costs, and even the contracts with the companies manufacturing the tanks. The members agreed at that time that we could not make that information public.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Are we discussing a motion and an amendment, or are we discussing the work of the war expenditures committee? I do not wish to shut off the Minister of Public Works. I agree that you cannot discuss in public such matters as the building of tanks and munitions on which details must be kept secret. But the point of order I am raising is that we are getting away from the motion and the amendment. I submit, sir, that the present discussion is entirely out of order, and I ask for your ruling.


Thomas Vien: When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was interrupted with regard to the relevancy of the remarks he was making, he was dealing at that moment with secret sessions of committees and was speaking to the motion for setting up the public accounts committee. As I understood his speech he was arguing that the committee should not sit in secret. I did not anticipate then that we were going to have a debate on what the war expenditures committee did last year, and I trust that members will confine themselves as far as possible to the motion and the amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of discussing the war expenditures committee. There is a resolution on the order paper which will come up in due time and give hon. members an opportunity to discuss all the proceedings of that committee. I was drawn into this discussion by the remarks of the member for .Lake Centre, who said that as the government members were in a majority on that committee the opposition were overridden; and he stated that
Public Accounts

the committee sat in camera although members of the opposition had wished it to sit in public. I still favour sittings in camera for the examination of war expenditures where information of value to the enemy might be disclosed. There seemed to be an implication in the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre that because the government had a majority on. one of the committees we did not realize our responsibility and would try to hide something which should be made known to the public. I wish to protest against that implication. All the members of the war expenditures committee were ready to report everything that would help in the war effort.
As for the present motion to refer the public accounts to a committee, hon. members who desire that to be done, once the motion is made by the government, start a debate as to what shall be referred to the committee. I thought that the public accounts committee was ready to hear any charges of maladministration, extravagance, trickery, subterfuge-call it what you will if anybody would lay a charge or call the attention of the members of the committee to the facts. I believe the committee is entitled to call any witnesses to establish facts which are alleged by responsible parties. But up until now, having read the papers and seen the representations contained in them, I am at a loss to know who is laying charges, against [DOT]what departments charges are laid, or what [DOT]specific charges there are against individuals or [DOT]officials or departments. It is very difficult to inquire in a committee as to the truth of a general representation such as that everybody is dishonest or that nobody is doing his duty. When an inquiry by the committee is asked for, it seems to me one should have something specific on which the members will be called upon to decide. Up until now we have had general talk in the papers that there may be extravagance, unjustifiable expenditures. But where, and when, and by whom?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what the committee would have to find out.


Alphonse Fournier: That is what would interest the committee. But nobody seems to wish to stand up at this moment and say, "Extend that present motion and refer to the committee these charges." I believe that if charges were preferred the government would immediately refer them to the committee.
I am convinced that the committee should sit every session and inquire into all these expenditures, so that officials might perhaps be more careful in the way they are handling procedure and administration. It cannot do any harm, at all events, because when somebody knows his actions are going to be inquired

into he is probably inclined to be more cautious than if he knows that a committee will not sit for five, ten, or fifteen years. As to the war expenditures connmittee, I hope that when later on we have a discussion with regard to it, the facts will be presented, so that the public' will know exactly why we proceeded in the way we did.


Thomas Vien: There is an amendment before the house. Does any hon. member wish to speak to the relevancy of the amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the amendment is out of order because, in the first place, it asks to refer to the public accounts committee, accounts which have not yet been tabled. The public accounts for the present fiscal year have not yet been placed on the table. Until they have been tabled they cannot be referred to the public accounts committee. My motion is to refer to the committee such accounts as have been tabled.
Speaking on the point, may I say that this parliament has enacted statutes for the purpose of dealing with matters of revenue and expenditure. There is the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which covers these matters. We can amend the act if we wish to do so, and after it is amended if a different procedure is set forth, if may be followed. But so long as the statute remains as it is, this parliament would be wise, I think, to follow the procedure which has been adopted in previous parliaments. Section 49 of the act reads as follows: The auditor general shall report annually to the House of Commons the result of his examination and audit of the accounts of Canada in such manner as will exhibit the true state of each account at the termination of the fiscal year last ended.
Until the auditor general has performed that function, I submit, his report or the public accounts to which they relate cannot be tabled, and until they are tabled in whole or in part they cannot be referred to the committee on public accounts. That does not mean, and it does not imply, that an important matter of a public nature which hon. members may wish to have inquired into, something concerning which they have grounds to believe there has been an irregularity, may not be made the subject of a motion in this house, a motion to have such matters referred to the public accounts committee, and that such motion cannot be debated and discussed like any other motion. The section of the act certainly relates to public accounts generally. It is obviously necessary that some statute should govern these matters.
This afternoon reference has been made from both sides of the house to what in the

Public Accounts
opinion of certain hon. members I, as Prime Minister, should have done. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) says that the Prime Minister should have accepted the proposed amendment, and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) says that the Prime Minister should tell the house now that he will see that the public accounts committee does so and so. Well, a grievance I have had against some prime ministers has been that they have assumed altogether too much the role of dictators, that they have tried to take away from the House of Commons the rights which private members have, and to take everything into their own hands.
I have tried to see that the rights of private members were protected, and I propose to follow that course. The rules of this house have been framed, not for the purpose of enabling a government to refuse to do things which are in the public interest, but to help to protect private members in their rights; and experience in this house has taught me that as soon as one begins to interfere with the rules of the house as they have been established out of the wisdom of many minds and the experience of many years, one is likely to be taking a course which, instead of increasing the rights and privileges of hon. members, will be depriving them of some of those privileges and rights. That is sound and true and cannot be too carefully remembered.
If I had done what the hon. member for Portage la Prairie said he thought I should do, and agreed to the reference of some subject because it was one of suspicion, although I knew that the rules of the house had been framed so that among other things the time of the house would not be taken up in hunting out and running down suspicion wherever it arises but should be devoted to matters which are of importance and of real concern, I might have sought to follow his suggestion but the only effect would have been, as Your Honour has said, that I would have been ruled out of order by yourself. It is part of my duty as well as the duty of Mr. Speaker to see that the rules which this house has adopted and the statutes which govern its procedure shall be observed, and I am only discharging my duty to the House of Commons as its leader when I take steps to point out that a motion is out of order when the rules of the house clearly indicate that such is the case.
Now, as to instructing the public accounts committee on what they should do: I think the gentlemen on that committee are quite capable of arriving at their own decision as to what they should do, and I do not propose to interfere with them at all. If they reach a decision that a certain individual should
appear before the committee or a certain matter should be investigated, and so report to the house, I shall be prepared to back the report. If they come here with any request I shall certainly take cognizance of it, and act in accordance with what I think is the right procedure. But I claim it is altogether wrong for a-


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister speaking to the amendment or is he speaking to the point of order? If he is making a second speech it is not at all in order on the point of order as to which you, Mr. Speaker, asked if there were any remarks to bo made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am perfectly agreeable to saying nothing further, but I would point out to the hon. member that he, of all hon. members, takes up plenty of the time of this house in discussing amendments. I have no desire to delay the house, but I do object to hon. members on the other side being permitted to create the impression through the country that the government is seeking to prevent investigation and inquiry, while I myself am not to be permitted to make perfectly clear that we are allowing the fullest inquiry that can possibly be allowed.
I have already said that the public accounts committee has the full right, if the house approves, to inquire into anything which its members may ask to have investigated. On that committee are hon. members representing all parties in this house. It is true that it contains a majority of government supporters, but the people of this country are going to take account of whether the majority does or does not do what is right.
I was about to say when I was interrupted that I do not think it is right or proper for any hon. member to say that the members of any committee, be it public accounts or war expenditures or any other, are fashioning their conduct in accordance with what direction may come to them from the treasury benches. I have been on the treasury benches for a good many years, and in all the years I have been a member of any government I have never once asked any member of a public accounts committee not to have a particular matter investigated which ought to have been investigated. May I say further, so that my position will be perfectly clear, that if any hon. member of any party knows of anything which is wrong, any expenditures which should not be permitted, any waste or extravagance, if he wishes to bring that matter before the public accounts committee I for one will back him to the full in endeavouring to see that an investigation is
Public Accounts

made. I am anxious, the government is anxious, as indeed we all are, to see that every possible brake is put upon extravagance and waste and that wrongdoing is prevented and punished. But that does not mean that we should lend ourselves and the time of this house to attempting to run down all the suspicions, newspaper allegations and the like which may be raised.
We had that matter up only a day or two ago, in connection with an article in a magazine called Boating. It contained a number of allegations, and several hon. members talked about "charges"; the press was full of "charges" being made against the government. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement to the house giving the true position, and we have not heard a word of the matter since. Yet the allegations of the publication in question were all set forth as charges that ought to be investigated by some committee of the house. I submit that the way to maintain the morale of this country at this time of wax is not to create all kinds of groundless suspicion based on newspaper statements, but rather for everyone to join in seeing that before charges are made which are calculated to create suspicion in the public mind there are grounds for them.
Just this word in regard to the public expenditures committee. There are two sides to every question. The idea that the procedure of obtaining information in camera is followed because the government is merely seeking to avoid inquiry in an entirely false conception of the purpose that holding meetings in camera is intended to serve. Our committee on public expenditure is following precisely the method followed at Westminster. I think our people are no better and no worse than are those at Westminster, but at Westminster they have had a degree of experience in regard to some of these matters that we in this parliament have not had, and I think in this particular we are safe in following the example of the old country. The reason inquiries are held in camera in the war expenditures committee is that that method furnishes a better guarantee that all information will be readily given and given without fear of it being misconstrued and misused. Take an inquiry in the open; a question is asked of a witness on the stand, no one present knows what the question is going to be until it is asked, whether it is a question which if answered will give comfort to the enemy or if not answered will give equal comfort to the enemy because suspicion is aroused. If 
the question is asked in the open the witness has to hesitate and ask himself, will I be justified in giving this answer, or will I be blamed after it has been given for having told something I should never have told? That is the purpose of having the inquiry in camera. It is in order that it may be possible to elicit from officials and every source as full information as possible.
The thought that when a member of the committee gets hold of information with respect to some wrongdoing he is precluded from having that subject subsequently investigated is a wrong inference altogether. There is no ground for that. The inquiry in camera affords to hon. members of this house an opportunity of getting hold of wrongdoing in a way that they would never have otherwise, just because they are able to probe into such things to an extent they could not do in public. If a member investigating in committee finds something that is wrong I have said over and over again that it is his duty to come and report the wrongdoing to the minister of the department concerned, to the Prime Minister if needs be, thereby to give the government opportunity to see whether a prosecution should be started immediately or some other step taken. But if a member does not care to take any of these steps, if he has in his possession information which is evidence of wrongdoing, let him bring the matter up in the public accounts committee. Surely it is not too much to ask that he should be in a position from information he himself possesses to take the responsibility himself of saying, this ought to be investigated.
Surely parliament at a time like the present must, in its actions, be governed by responsible considerations, if matters are to be investigated by parliament. An investigation by parliament is not a small thing, it is a big thing. If there is to be an investigation by parliament on any matter, let the inquiry be based on some reliable and responsible action on the part of some member of this house, not on some newspaper article the representations of which may or may not have any foundation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not sure whether we are discussing the point of order or the amendment. I wish to speak briefly to the point of order.


Thomas Vien: The relevancy of the amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: To the relevancy of the amendment. The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that any member of the

Public Accounts
public accounts committee may bring to the attention of that committee something which he considers should be brought before it. I point out that the motion moved by the Prime Minister referring the public accounts and the report of the auditor general to the public accounts committee deals with the public accounts to the end of March, 1942. My understanding is that in all probability the gentleman who made the statement which has created a suspicion- because, Mr. Speaker, we are not creating a suspicion in this house; the suspicion has already been created, and what we are anxious to do is to prove whether or not that suspicion is ill-founded-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think it is the duty of this house to start an investigation in relation simply to matters of suspicion?


Thomas Miller Bell: No; I say the suspicion has been created. This man is an official hired by this government, a man called controller of government economy, or director of government economy, one of the important officials appointed, we thought, to safeguard public expenditures in wartime. What did we attempt to do? We attempted to amend the motion, and as I understood you, Mr. Speaker, you ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that we could not pass an amendment which was a substantive motion to investigate work being done by the office of government economy control, that that would be something new and substantive and that therefore you could not accept that amendment. Accordingly what have we done? We have cut off the objectionable part, and .the amendment now reads:
and that the committee be empowered to examine audited accounts up to the end of February, 1943.
We know perfectly well that the accounts are audited not only at the end of the year but from time to time throughout the year. It seems to me, I believe I am stating a fact, that it is the right of this house at any time to examine any account, whether it be audited or not and whether it be laid on the table of this house or not; for, after all, the only control we have of any government is our right to grant supply to his majesty. If we fail to keep that tightly under the control of this parliament then we fail in our duty to the country and to the traditions of parliament.
One thing more. My colleague the hon. member for Weyburn tried to bring this
matter to the attention of the house in what he thought to be the regular and proper manner. Before the matter was raised on Friday afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), my colleague had already filed a motion with the proper officer of this house. That motion of course is placed at the end of private members' motions. How can we bring something to the attention of this parliament? If a motion is filed, giving the forty-eight hours' notice, it is placed at the foot of all private members' notices already filed for discussion, which will never be reached. Where does the right of the private-member come in?
In this connection again let me say that I would not take the responsibility of saying that Colonel Thompson's statements are correct and placing them in the form of a charge; of course I would not. I have had no opportunity to investigate whether these statements are correct or not. But when a man who is the head of a particular branch of government, particularly dealing with expenditures to be authorized by this house, is reported to have made the statements that are attributed to him, then I submit that we are derelict in our duty if we do not bring this matter to the attention of the-house and use every means in our power to-call Colonel Thompson before the proper committee and either accept responsibility for the statement or deny its truth. I submit that under the rules of the house the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is in order and ought to be accepted by the Chair and voted upon if necessary by the house.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I make an attempt to assist this hon. house in better understanding this particular matter.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I do not want to prevent the minister from making a statement, but he must do it at the proper time. We are discussing a point of order; I understand the minister is proceeding to make a statement.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I take it one is always in order in attempting to help people who do not seem to understand.


Thomas Vien: We are dealing now with the point of order raised by the Prime Minister in regard to the relevancy of the amendment.
Public Accounts


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: The statement made by Colonel Thompson is extremely serious. He asserted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I have already called the attention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) to the fact that we are dealing now with the amendment to the motion, and I have asked hon. members who wish to speak to confine themselves to that, not to enter into a discussion of the merits of the matter.


Liguori Lacombe: I understand that we are keeping closely now to the point of order. I draw the attention of the Chair to standing order 63:
(1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of five members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the house.
(a) On privileges and elections, . . .
(e) On public accounts, to consist of 50 members, 15 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
I should like now to be permitted to cite some decisions respecting standing order 63. I turn first to paragraph 593 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. It is as follows:
There shall be a standing committee, to be designated "the committee on public accounts", for the examination of the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by parliament to meet the public expenditure, to consist of eleven members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every session, and of whom five shall be a quorum.
This is a decision given in the parliament at Westminster. Then, in paragraph 599 I find the following decision:
It is then moved that the said standing committees be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Then again, this decision in paragraph 604:
A committee which is appointed beforehand, for the consideration of all subjects of a particular class, arising in the course of the session, is denominated a "standing committee".
And this decision in paragraph 605:
Generally speaking, the proceedings of a select (special) committee are assimilated, like those of standing committee, to those of a committee of the whole house.
And this last decision, in paragraph 618:
The committee can obtain directly from the officers of a department such papers as the

house itself may order, but in case the papers can be brought down only by address, it is necessary to make a motion on the subject in the house through the chairman.
This decision is reported in Bourinot, at pages 470 and 471. I submit respectfully that the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is in order.


Thomas Vien: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I do not know whether I would be speaking to the point of order or to the amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: Make up your mind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have been trying to make up my mind as to just how I should direct my few remarks, because if I speak to the point of order in the manner followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I should have a good deal of latitude. However, I would prefer to save my remarks until Mr. Speaker's ruling has been given, at which time I would be in order in making my observations.


Thomas Vien: We now have an amendment before us, and I am asking hon. members if they now wish to speak as to the relevancy of the amendment. If hon. members confine themselves to that, I shall be in a position afterwards to give my ruling as to the relevancy of the amendment.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall wait until after Mr. Speaker has given his ruling.


Thomas Vien: Since it appears that no other hon. members wish to speak I would say that I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). He has quoted standing order 63 respecting the constitution and quorum of a committee. He makes further reference to paragraph 593 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, but I would point out that that paragraph deals only with the rules applicable to the British House of Commons. I think there can be no doubt in the minds of hon. members as to the position of a standing committee, namely, that all matters submitted to it are of course bound by the reference from the house to the committee.
The rules are perfectly clear and well understood, where they state that any matter which could be called a substantive matter cannot

Public Accounts
be moved as an amendment, but must be distinctly the subject of a motion. The amendment now before us is substantive. I think without doubt it is a substantive motion, and therefore is not in accordance with the rules of the house.
The Prime Minister has quoted the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, sections 49 and 50, which state:
49.	The auditor general shall report annually to the House of Commons the result of his examiuation and audit of the accounts of Canada in such manner as will exhibit the true state of each account at the tei'mination of the fiscal year last ended.
50.	(1) The reports of the auditor general shall be laid before the House of Commons by the minister on or before the 31st day of October, if parliament is then sitting or if not sitting, then within one week after parliament is next assembled; provided that if the minister does not, within the time prescribed by this section, present to the House of Commons any report made by the auditor general, the auditor general shall forthwith present such report.
The position we are in to-day is that under the act as it stands at present the auditor general's report is not in the possession of the house, and cannot be submitted to the house by the terms of the act; and, moreover, as I stated when dealing with the former amendment, the committee of itself has power to obtain all that is being asked for on the floor of the house to-day. Witnesses can be summoned before the committee, and can there be interrogated. Any member may move in the committee that the scope of the reference be further enlarged and a report applying for further powers may be made to the house.
For the reasons I have already given, although this is only part of the original amendment, it is irregular because both parts were out of order. And while I stressed in my former ruling the investigation as something which should not be done, and which would create, if allowed, a dangerous precedent, yet I have no doubt in my mind that this amendment is also out of order. The present amendment was incorporated in the first part of the original amendment, and therefore I rule it out of order.
The question is now on the main motion.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to say a few words-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with regret I have to appeal against your ruling. I cannot now go into my reasons, but I must appeal against it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this motion before it carries. While the amendment proposed may not have been in order, I think it was a very fair request to make of the government. If the government desired, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has intimated, that these matters should be brought before the committee I do not think there would have been any objection had the amendment carried. The Prime Minister went to great length to assert that his desire was to have all these matters brought before the public accounts committee. I am glad he did that because a charge of the nature of the one which has been made is sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough investigation into it.
I have in mind asking the Prime Minister to hold a secret session of this house in order that we may discuss some of the matters investigated by the war expenditures committee. It was not my intention to cause any scandal, and therefore I ask the government to hold a secret session in order that hon. members may become conversant with some of the matters dealt with by the war expenditures committee. I felt sure and I feel yet that if the members of this house knew the way in which large sums of money have been spent they would want an investigation by the public accounts committee.
The Prime Minister may say that if I have a charge to make, I can make it before the public accounts committee, but I should like to draw to his attention the fact that I cannot do that because the information I have was obtained during sittings of the war expenditures committee which were in camera. I cannot go to the public accounts committee and say to them, Here is my reason why I think you should investigate this case because it was all held in secret sittings. I shall draw only one or two instances to the attention of the Prime Minister. These were recorded in the report tabled in this house by the war expenditures committee, subcommittee No. 1. The first was in connection with a contract in which reference was made to sales commission. I think the words of the report were that something like fifty per cent of the capitalization of the company was given to a salesman as sales commission. That reveals only part of the story because the capitalization of the company runs into thousands and thousands of dollars. Take half of that and you still have a quarter of a million dollars. That is a great deal of money. I think these matters should be brought before the public accounts committee, and if this money has been

wrongly got it should be returned to the government. But how can I go to the public accounts committee and state my reasons why I think the committee should deal with these matters? It is most important that they should be dealt with.
I am not conversant with the charges made in the house by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), but I say that if there is any room for suspicion the public accounts committee is the place where it should be aired. I have in mind a reference to insurance that was made in subcommittee No. 1. There, again, may I suggest to the Prime Minister, is a good case to bring before the public accounts committee. It runs into thousands and thousands of dollars. But again I cannot even express the reasons why I think this should be done because the meetings of the committee were held in camera.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the great need of holding these meetings in secret. Inpart I agree with him because some things that were discussed by the war expenditures committee could not very well be made public. I have reference only to those things which indicated our production or related directly to the designs of our aircraft, ships and guns. As far as the financial transactions are concerned I cannot see why they should not be made public. Therefore I would say that there are times when- meetings should be held in camera and definitely there are other times when the meetings should be public. Usually a more thorough investigation will be obtained if the meeting' is held in public.
There has been some discussion as to the vote that was taken in the subcommittee for secret meetings. With all due deference to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), as I recall it there was a vote taken as to whether that subcommittee should hold secret or public meetings. I do not recall that the motion was withdrawn, and I cannot see how he could argue that, because the committee could not have sat in secret if there had not been a vote to that effect. I have not looked up my notes, but my memory is that a vote was taken on that question.
The Prime Minister should get over this technicality of ruling these motions out of order. If the Prime Minister really desires an investigation into these matters, I am sure he will make it feasible for that to be done. There is a suspicion in the public mind that large expenditures of public money have been made unnecessarily.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has stated that I have ruled these motions out of order. I am not the Speaker. It is the

Public Accounts
Speaker who is the custodian, of the rules of the house, and whose duty it is to see that they are observed. I do not wish the impression to go abroad that I am usurping the Speaker's authority.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should not like that
inference to be drawn, but the Prime Minister will agree that he does a great deal of guiding the Speaker in his judgments because when the Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I regard that remark as a reflection on Your Honour, and it should be withdrawn at once. One of the first rules of the house is that no member has the right to reflect on His Honour the Speaker in the discharge of his duties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. member
will withdraw.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the Prime Minister
thinks I have imputed motives I certainly withdraw that remark. But I will say this, that there was a great deal more latitude given to the Prime Minister in his remarks when speaking on the point of order than was given to the other members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw


Thomas Vien: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to imply that partiality has been shown in the course of this debate, but that is the only inference that can be drawn from his remark. I must ask him to withdraw that statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: If I have offended the Chair, I shall have to withdraw that too, but I think the record will bear out what I say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must withdraw without reservation.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, not Mr. Chairman. The house is not in committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems to me that the government is exceedingly anxious lest this matter be brought before the public accounts committee, and it leads me to believe that there is something behind the accusations. If the public is thinking along the same lines that I am, knowing what I do about some government expenditures, the government would be well advised to have the public accounts committee investigate this charge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member is saying either too much or too little. He had better inform the house and the country what the charge is that he is prepared to make.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think I can answer immediately if the Prime Minister will give me permission to reveal some things that came to light in the war expenditures committee. That is why I asked for a secret session to discuss these things. I am not permitted to say what I have in my mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister does not give permission or withhold permission. This house has decided what is right and what is wrong in the matter of procedure, and it is by the rules of the house the hon. member is obliged to abide.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Prime Minister has withheld from this house the privilege of having a secret session in regard to these matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has not. He had a conference with the leader of the hon. member's party and with the leader of the opposition, and the leader of the other group. We discussed the question of a secret session and we decided that a secret session would be held, but at a time that is likely to suit the convenience of all parties in this house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am extremely pleased that the Prime Minister is to have a secret session, but I would suggest to him in all fairness that it be held in sufficient time to allow these matters to come before the public accounts committee. That is as far as I shall go at the present time.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: This has been a-rather hectic, windy afternoon. Perhaps that is because the day is Monday. I feel that there is some danger of the real point being overlooked in this debate. To my mind that point is this: Are the public accounts committee to be limited in their investigations to what took place before the 1st of April, 1942, or are they not? There has been much talk around the subject but that point has not been made clear.
The reference to the committee to-day is that they deal with the auditor general's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, and with the public accounts up to that date. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that the settlement of this point, a decision as to what the public accounts committee are to consider, should be a matter of government policy? That question cannot be evaded by saying: Oh, it is up to some private member to bring
Public Accounts

in a motion. Or by leaving the matter to the public accounts committee itself. This is too serious a matter, and it is important enough for us to have a statement of government policy. Talk of leaving it to the committee! Well, there has been much said this afternoon about the war expenditures committee, and well we know what happened with that committee. In 1941, when the war expenditures committee was set up for the first time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) told us in the house when the motion was under discussion that the sittings of the com-mitte would be open except where something might come up that would be of help to the enemy. Iu other words, we understood that secrecy would be the exception rather than the rule. But what happened when the committee sat? I have here the proceedings of that committee and I refer to the eleventh report, dated May 5, 1941. At that time this question of secrecy was considered. There was a debate in the committee and this motion was passed: That the sittings of subcommittees be in camera except as the subcommittee may otherwise from time to time determine.
Some hon. members speaking to-day have said, "Oh, it was all left to the subcommittees."


John Gordon Ross: So it was.


Howard Charles Green: But I suggest that, from the very wording of this resolution, the dice were loaded in favour of secrecy. In other words, secrecy was to be the rule rather than the exception. That was pointed out by members of the opposition on the committee on that very day, May 5, 1941, but we were voted down by a vote of twelve to three.
Then last year, when the committee for 1942 was set up, the same resolution was passed. In other words, for all practical purposes, most of the meetings of the subcommittees were to be held in camera. Therefore we have no grounds for believing that if this matter is left to the public accounts committee they will make a decision which will result in all the questions being discussed and all the facts being brought out.
The report of the war expenditures committee of 1942, which was filed in this house on January 27, 1943, contains, at page 96, a paragraph which I suggest to the Prime Minister should be brought to the attention of the public accounts committee at its first sitting. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has referred to it. I will read this paragraph to the house:
In its investigations the subcommittee-
That is subcommittee No. 1.
[Mr Green.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a minute. I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I feel very strongly that we ought to seek to get on with the business of the house. I submit that this discussion is entirely out of order. On the order paper there is a resolution which relates in specific terms to the setting-up ofa select committee ... to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services. ...
-the so-called war expenditures committee. I have not the rules in front of me, but my recollection is that there is a rule of the house that where there is on the order paper a motion which relates to a specific subject, the house cannot anticipate the discussion of that particular matter but must take for its consideration the time that is assigned to it on the order paper. I feel that almost the entire afternoon has been taken up in discussing a matter which ought to be discussed if so desired, on the motion with respect to the setting-up of the committee on war expenditures and not at this time. Unless Your Honour rules to the contrary, it is, I feel, a part of my duty to seek to have the house get on with the business which was fixed for to-day, namely, the debate on the budget, and not to have this discussion now, when without question it will be had all over again when we come to the motion to deal with war expenditures.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on that point, the Prime Minister himself has made this afternoon two somewhat lengthy speeches- perhaps three or four; I have lost count- and this war expenditures committee has been dealt with by at least five or six other hon. members. I propose only to read the remainder of this recommendation, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that in the interests of good government in Canada the discussion be not stopped at this time, because this particular paragraph is of the greatest importance, and I should be allowed' to finish reading it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the control of the business of the house.


Howard Charles Green: The right hon. gentleman raised the point of order.

Public Accounts


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is part of my duty to bring to the attention of Mr. Speaker an occasion where I believe rules are being violated. I have done that, and in the interests of all hon. members of the house I have asked Mr. Speaker for a ruling. I am not trying to stop any hon. member. When the resolution respecting war expenditures is before the house the hon. member may read all he wishes of what he has in hand at the present time. But I am trying to give the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) the opportunity to make the speech which it was announced last Friday evening he would make this afternoon, in presenting the views of the opposition with respect to the budget. I must say I think it has been a great discourtesy to the hon. member that this afternoon should have been taken up, in part by hon. members of his own party, in a manner which will prevent him from bringing before the house until this evening the matters with which he will wish to deal in the most important speech he will make this session.


Howard Charles Green: This motion before the house is of great importance, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that this is no time for him to try to shut the mouths of hon. members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to the statement that I am trying to shut the mouths of hon. members, and I will ask my hon. friend to withdraw those words. He has no right to say that I am trying to shut the mouths of hon. members, and I ask him to withdraw. I am in part responsible for seeing that the business of the house is carried on in accordance with the rules, and with due regard to its importance, and I am trying so to do, with as little interference as possible with any hon. member, but we have taken the whole afternoon in discussing a matter for which on the order paper due provision is made and which should be taken up at the appropriate time, later.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: A point of order has been raised, and of course I must decide. There has been considerable latitude in this debate, due in the first instance to the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was dealing in his argument with the secret session and supporting it by instances of past procedure of the house and the committee, and therefore I allowed him to speak. But I must say that since then there has been more latitude taken than is warranted by the motion before the house. My
attention has now been drawn to standing order No. 41, and citation 293, which states in part:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not: . . .
(d) anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration.
A notice of motion was given by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with regard to the amendment which I have already discussed and ruled out of order, and exception might be taken to it. But in view of the fact that it is at the end of the notices of motion and that there is doubt whether it would come before this present session of parliament, I did not take it into consideration. But now that this matter has been brought to my attention, as to the procedure before the house, and having regard only to the procedure, I must ask the hon. member to continue only with regard to the motion itself and without regard to matters which took place and were discussed in connection with another committee.


Howard Charles Green: I submit to Your Honour that that is exactly what I am doing. You have mentioned this report from which I am quoting and which was tabled on the last day of the last session. It has nothing whatever to do with the notice on the order paper for the setting-up of a war expenditures committee for this session, and therefore I submit that in mentioning it I am not discussing anything which is on the order paper for consideration by this house at a later date; I am stating what I think should be considered by the public accounts committee; and I submit that in doing so I am entitled to refer to this statement contained in the report of the war expenditures committee of last session and to ask that the allegations contained in this paragraph be placed before the public accounts committee and be considered by them very, very carefully.
The paragraph goes on to say-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I say that my hon. friend is out of order. Not only that; he is an old member of this house and one who has had some experience in its proceedings, and he knows he has no right to defy Mr. Speaker in the manner in which he is doing.


Howard Charles Green: I rise to a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I wish to ask this further question-
Public Accounts


Howard Charles Green: I rise to a point of order.
The Prime Minister has accused me of defying Mr. Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: So you did.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has raised that point, and I suggest he must withdraw his statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. I rose for another purpose.


Howard Charles Green: Just a minute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw the statement he made with regard to myself.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, I would ask that the Prime Minister be ordered to withdraw his statement.


Mr. GARDINER:: Withdraw your statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the hon. member spoke I raised a point of order with respect to his saying that I was trying to shut the mouths of members of parliament. I asked that that statement should be withdrawn. I do not think my hon. friend has withdrawn it.


Howard Charles Green: I will withdraw it. The effect may have been that, but I withdraw that statement.


Thomas Vien: I have already given a ruling. The hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian and a competent lawyer. He states on his responsibility as a member that what he is preparing to read is relevant to the reference to the committee, which is the subject-matter of the motion. If the hon. member is satisfied that this is perfectly relevant to it-and of course I cannot say until I have heard it whether it is relevant or not-I ask the hon. member to complete his statement with regard to what he says is relevant to it.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps we can get everything in order, if the Prime Minister will now withdraw his statement that I was defying Your Honour. I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to embarrass my hon. friend in any way.


Howard Charles Green: You are not embarrassing me, but I want it withdrawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to withdraw it. But I am doing so because my hon. friend says from now on he is going to try to have peace and order.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]


Howard Charles Green: Now, Mr. Speaker, this paragraph-


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a point of order.


Howard Charles Green: They do not like this paragraph.


Hughes Cleaver: I state that the hon. member is reading from a war expenditures committee report which will be properly under discussion when the motion now on the order paper is before the house.


Thomas Vien: It is not for me to make a tit-for-tat ruling. I must hear wrhat the hon. member reads and must judge then whether he is in order or not. But I am placing the responsibility for its relevancy on the hon. member himself, who is an experienced parliamentarian and an accomplished lawyer.


Hughes Cleaver: Will Your Honour ask him if he is reading from a war expenditures committee report?


Howard Charles Green: If I may be allowed to go on I am suggesting that this paragraph should be considered by the public accounts committee, that they should be given authority and power wide enough to be able to consider it. It reads:
In its investigations the subcommittee found in one instance that an aircraft producing firm agreed to pay a salesman for release of an existing sales contract an amount equal to fifty per cent of its firm capital and which agreement the subcommittee believes to be an improvident agreement and should not have been entered into had the facts been brought to the attention of the department promptly.
I submit that that should be considered by the public accounts committee. And may I say again, if this is to be left to a private member to raise there will be no results obtained. Members of the ministry say a private member has the right to have these questions aired, but in actual practice they are not aired unless it is the policy of the government that they should be. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister to let us know to-day what the government's policy is with regard to the matters to be considered by the public accounts committee. I ask him to give us the assurance that the ministry will recommend to the public accounts committee not only that they call Colonel Thompson but also that they consider these reports by last year's war expenditures committee, and further will recommend to the public accounts committee that there should be the widest possible investigation of all public expenditures right up to date, not only expenditures that were made prior to April i, 1942, but expenditures right up to the present time. In conclusion may I point out to the

Public Accounts
Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance particularly that you are expecting too much if you expect the Canadian people to raise five and a half billion dollars either by taxation or loans if you are unwilling to go to the root, quickly, of all these cases where there may have been a waste of money. These matters must be investigated and investigated quickly and far more thoroughly than would have been the case in peace time. Otherwise you cannot expect the people of this nation to stand behind you in raising five and a half billion dollars during the coming fiscal year.
Mr. LaFLECHE: With my respects to the Prime Minister and to the hon. member for Danforth may I take just a moment-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to stop the minister, but may I ask what the minister is speaking on? He has already spoken once, and since both amendments have been ruled out of order he must be speaking to the motion.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I was speaking on the amendment which later was declared out of order.


Thomas Vien: As I recall, the minister spoke on the amendment. The amendment has been disposed of. We are now dealing with the main motion, and he is speaking now on the main motion.


Angus MacInnis: He has already spoken on the main motion.


Thomas Vien: I am not sure of that.
Mr. LaFLECHE: If I recall, I was speaking on the amendment. Now may I speak to the main motion? I rise for just a moment-


Major James William Coldwell: I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If the amendment is ruled out of order, can one speak to that amendment or must he speak to the motion?


Thomas Vien: The minister spoke on the amendment, as I recall, and prior to that he did speak on the point of order. He is now speaking to the main motion.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am afraid that the temperature of the country is pretty high after what has been said. May I ask what is the reason for the rise in temperature? It started, as I understand, on the strength of a press report. Many persons, it seems to me, have taken for granted that everything that appeared in the first article was words given out by the director of economies. If it is found that he did not do so, then what is the position? To come to that point now, may I read from another newspaper.


Thomas Vien: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but he is now dealing with what was the subject of the amendment, which has been disposed of. The only question before us now is the motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I have tried to say something on this for most of the afternoon. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have raised the point of order he has in regard to the amendment. If I followed him correctly and this resolution carries, it means that under this present system we shall not be able to correct a mistake, if we see one, until that mistake is completely audited and the report tabled in this house, of course after the money is spent. In other words, the door is locked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not correct.


James Arthur Ross: The Prime Minister
has pointed out the procedure that must be followed. I venture to say that the chairman of any committee feels exactly as the Prime Minister has expressed himself on that point. I remember, when the war expenditures committee was being set up, that the Prime Minister made remarks very similar to those made this afternoon, that he wanted everything investigated. Then I remember the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) on March 11 or 12, 1941. I think I would read charges in that speech. He certainly built up a strong case, saying that if this matter was continued, namely the establishment of a certain plant at Winnipeg, it would mean an annual waste of $200,000 a year. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said with some heat that if that were correct it should be investigated in the war expenditures committee. If I had more time I had intended to quote the speech of the minister and the hon. member at that time. However, the hon. member suggested that if that was right it was a case of locking the door after the horse was gone. This matter was raised in the war expenditures committee, and the then chairman, Mr. J. T. Thorson, ruled that the terms of reference would not allow its consideration. I submit that this is the proper place and time to set up the proper terms of reference, because, irrespective of what the Prime Minister thinks, the chairman will base his ruling upon the terms of reference under which the committee works, which will mean, if this resolution carries, that we cannot investigate anything that has taken place since March 31, 1942, in
Questions

the matter of public expenditure. There is a great deal taking place across this country to-day in which the public is very much interested, and we are not doing our duty if we do not set up proper terms of reference under which these matters may be investigated at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at 8 o'clock.

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

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many prosecutions have been instituted by the wartime prices and trade board district headquarters at Brockville?
2.	What are the names of the parties representing the crown at these prosecutions?
3.	How much money has been paid to each of the said parties?
4.	How are said parties chosen?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Prosecutions of seventy persons for alleged contraventions of regulations of the wartime prices and trade board were conducted in the area served by that board's regional office at Brockville, to the end of January, 1943.
2 and 3. Names of counsel who acted as agents of the Minister of Justice and payments to each with respect to these prosecutions.
A. B. Collins K.C., $50.50; Rodolphe Danis, K.C., $31.61; R. A. Downing, $226.25; W. O. Dwyer, S77; L. V. Fitzpatrick, K.C., $40; Arthur Flynn, account not yet rendered; J. S. Latchford, $30; J. R. Maclaren, K.C., $200; Henri Proulx, $100; T. J. Rigney, K.C., account not yet rendered; S. G. Robertson, $246.95; G. F. Smith, $63.90.
4.	Chosen by the Department of Justice.


FORT NORMAN, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, OIL AREA
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Is the dominion government doing any exploration, drilling, construction work, etc., in the Fort Norman area in the Northwest Territories with respect to the oil development there?
2.	To what private company or companies have oil leases in this area been granted?
3.	What is the total number of wells drilled in this area?

4.	What was the 1942 production from these wells?
5.	To what private company or companies has permission been granted for the construction of pipe lines from this area?
6.	Is the construction of a highway from this area to Alaska proposed?


Mr. WRIGHT:: I ask that this question be dropped.
Question dropped.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	At what exact time did the ferry steamship Charlottetown strike a shoal and become damaged?
2.	At what exact time did she sink?
3.	Was Captain John Lefurgy Read the master in charge?
4.	Did Mr. Justice Archibald in his findings dated February 25, 1942, find that Captain Read, the master, (a) did not choose a proper and safe course; (b) that his navigation was faulty and improper; (c) that he did not take the necessary and proper and adequate measures after the striking to ensure the safety of the vessel and to obtain assistance?
5.	What salary and other allowances were paid to Captain Read, the master?
6.	At what date did the payment of salary and allowances terminate? Was he dismissed from the service?
7.	Is Captain Read paid a retiring allowance or superannuation and, if so, what amount per year and from what date did payment commence?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Approximately 10.54 a.m., June 17, 1941.
2.	7.07 p.m., June 18, 1941.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes.
5.	It has never been the policy of the Canadian National Railways to publicly disclose the salaries of officers of the company.
6.	Salary terminated February 25, 1942. No.
7.	Captain Read was a contributor to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways employees provident fund, and under the rules of the fund he was entitled to a retiring allowance of $135.54 per month which commenced September 1, 1942.


Mr. MACMILLAN:: What steps are being taken, (a) to improve the facilities of the Borden-Tormentine car ferry service, which has been curtailed by the sinking of the ss. Charlottetown, (b) to arrange for the replacement of the ss. Charlottetown?


Mr. MICHAUD:: (a)	Immediately following the loss of the ss. Charlottetown extensive enquiries were made over the whole of North America to ascertain

Questions
the possibilities of securing a relief vessel either to replace the Charlottetown or to supplement the service affordable by the ss. Prince Edward Island, but no vessel suitable for the special class of service called for could be found.
The steaming qualities of the ss. Prince Edward Island have been considerably improved by partial conversion to oil burning equipment and she will be fully so converted as the oil situation improves. Additional passenger accommodation by way of a new lounge room over the auto deck and other improvements were also made, the total cost of these improvements amounting to approximately
5100,000.
The traffic handled during 1942 as compared with 1940 was as follows:
(1941 was handled partly by one ship and partly by the other).
	1942	1940
	Prince Edward Island	Charlottetown
Number of crossings.. 3,886 Tons of revenue		2,772
freight 			479,600	356,071
Number of passengers.121,272		117,077
Number of	vehicles	
(including	railway	
equipment)		 9,465	25,759
Number of	loaded	
freight cars		 22,449	19,449
Number of	empty	
freight cars		 12,020	11,315
Number of passenger		
train cars .		 3,055	2,117
(b)	Possibilities of replacement of the ss. Charlottetown have been fully explored. Competent naval architects have been engaged and plans are in course of development to enable construction of a new vessel to be proceeded with. It is proposed that tenders will be called for as soon as the plans are ready with a view to putting the work in hand with the minimum delay when shipyard facilities become available. In preparing the new plans full advantage is being taken of the experience gained through the operation of the ss. Charlottetown and of the increase in technical knowledge and practical experience that has developed in the whole field of vessels performing the class of service required since that vessel was built. Both the existing and the anticipatible services required are being taken into consideration towards the provision of a vessel that will have the utmost in power, structural design, manoeuverability and modem equipment in all respects essential or desirable for this special service.


HOUSING COORDINATION COMMITTEE
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What recommendations have been made by the housing coordination committee (set up by P.C. 10797) regarding the need for the construction of additional housing accommodation in particular communities?
2.	In what communities have surveys of the adequacy of housing been made by this committee?
3.	What are the findings of these surveys where they have been made?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	No recommendations have been made by the housing coordination committee regarding the need for construction of additional housing accommodation in particular communities. The committee is not an originating committee but considers and coordinates recommendations made to it by departments or other agencies of the government charged with the particular responsibility of providing housing accommodation or appraising the need of such in particular communities.
2.	The committee has made no surveys in any communities with respect to the adequacy of housing. This is the responsibility of Wartime Housing Limited with respect to housing for munitions workers and of the real property administrator, and both this company and the administrator have made many surveys in the course of their duties.
3.	Answered by 2.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-RATION COUPONS
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What financial arrangements have been made by the wartime prices and trade board with the chartered banks for the handling of ration coupons under order effective March 1, 1943?
2.	When will the government issue coupons covering rationed commodities which will be a claim for goods without the limiting financial factors?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The ration administration of the wartime prices and trade board has arranged with the chartered banks that they shall be reimbursed for the handling of ration coupons on a cost basis. The formula for deriving this cost figure will be worked out between the banks' accountants and the comptroller of the wartime prices and trade board.
2.	This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not the practice of the government to disclose policy in giving answers to questions.
Questions


BREWERS AND DISTILLERS-HOUSE OF SEAGRAM
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of National Revenue been drawn to the large advertisements by the House of Seagram appearing in Canadian daily papers?
2.	Are such advertisements allowable as costs connected with the industry when computing corporation, income and excess profits taxes?
3.	Will it be possible for brewers and distillers to publish this type of advertisement in the light of the Prime Minister's broadcast on December 16, 1942?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, but to-day's advertising costs are not permitted to exceed a reasonable relationship to the advertising costs incurred in the standard period.
3.	Yes, as they do not advertise spirituous liquors.


SELECTIVE SERVICE-HEALTH AND MORALE OF WAR WORKERS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Is there a recreation programme under national selective service designed to sustain and improve the health and morale of war workers?
2.	If so, who is in charge of, and responsible for, the programme?
3.	What budget has been allocated for the programme?
4.	Of w'hat does the programme consist?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1 and 2. Mrs. Rex Eaton, assistant director of women and welfare division, has under study the question of war-time recreation. A number of conferences have been held with provincial authorities and others interested. The underlying principle of the development of recreation by the national selective service is to foster, encourage and develop the essential attitude of mind on the part of war workers and their families to partake in healthful, wholesome activities.
3.	Authority has been granted for all national selective service activity out of the war appropriation vote.
4.	In areas where war industries are established efforts are made to encourage existing groups, clubs and organizations to organize their programmes to meet the present war-time recreational needs of their community; to place their facilities at the disposal of war workers at hours convenient to the workers and to give leadership in the recreational activities. Cooperation of management of war industries in the improvement of existing facilities and leadership is being encouraged. Where no such facilities and leadership are available a survey is being

made of essential requirements and upon the basis of such a survey the necessary plans will be given effect.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-ST. CATHARINES WOMEN'S HOSTEL
Mr. NICHOLSON:: What was the cost of preparing plans and specifications by Wartime Housing Limited for the women's hostel in St. Catharines?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 


SI,449.47. WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED  HAMILTON PERMANENT HOUSES
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What was the cost of preparing plans and specifications in connection with the permanent houses proposed by Wartime Housing Limited for Hamilton?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 


$326.61. STORAGE OF BUTTER IN WAREHOUSES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Is there a quantity of butter stored in warehouses in Canada?
2.	If so, how many pounds?
3.	Will such butter be made available to the public?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Total stocks of creamery butter in warehouses in Canada, March 1, were estimated to be equal to about one pound per person or about half the quantity held at that date last year.
2.	Total stocks held in storage warehouses and creameries in Canada March 1 are now being compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics and will be announced) March 10. Stocks in the nine principal cities of Canada, March 1, 1943 already announced by dominion bureau of statistics totalled 4.552227 pounds compared with 13,079,2S8 pounds March 1, 1942.
3.	All butter held in warehouses in Canada is available to the public. No stocks are being withheld from sale and there is no incentive to do so for the price cannot advance and no carrying charges can be earned. Measures taken by the wartime prices and trade board would effectively prevent withholding butter, should any attempt be made to do so.


BORROWINGS FROM BANK OF CANADA AND CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. SLAGHT:: 
CALGARY ROLLING MILLS
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Has there been a second blast furnace added to the Calgary Rolling Mills plant at Calgary, Alberta?
2.	If not, when will this be done?
3.	When this blast furnace has been added will the rolling mills section of the plant be working to full capacity?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	There are no blast furnaces at the Calgary rolling mills plant. A second open hearth furnace has been installed, doubling the former steel-making capacity.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	It is expected that the plant will operate at full capacity, but this will depend upon the sizes of materials required to be rolled.


FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many applications for loans were made to the farm loan board during the year 1942 from each province?
2.	How many loans were granted and what was the total value, in each province, during the year 1942?
3.	What was the total amount collected by the board in each province during the year 1942?
4.	What was the total expenditure in connection with administration of the farm loan board in 1942?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The following return is furnished by the Canadian farm loan board to cover its operations for the period April 1, 1942, to January 31, 1943:
1.	Applications for
Province	loans received
British Columbia			 59
Alberta 			 89
Saskatchewan 			 112
Manitoba 			 138
Ontario 			 247
Quebec 					 201
New Brunswick 			 27
Nova Scotia 			 51
Prince Edward Island 			 61
	985
Questions

2.	Loans granted
Province	Number Amount	
British Columbia 		... 25	$ 54,300
Alberta 			89,250
Saskatchewan 	... 77	155250Manitoba 	... 94	168,700Ontario 	262,250Quebec 	302,150New Brunswick 	... 16	17,550Nova Scotia 	... 14	25,300Prince Edward Island ..	.. 33	54,150553	$1,128,9003. Province	CollectionsBritish Columbia 	$ 260,218Alberta 	809,422Saskatchewan 	713,435Manitoba 	571,775Ontario 	652,332Quebec 	1,251,610New Brunswick 	104,550Nova Scotia 	138,144Prince Edward Island ...	112,494$4,613,980
4. $258,706.


FARM LOANS
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What amounts have been allotted to each of the provinces by the Canadian farm loan board to loan to farmers?
2.	What is the number of loans authorized in each of the provinces by the Canadian farm loan board since its inception to January 1, 1943?
3.	What amounts in each province have been loaned to farmers by the board since it commenced operations to January 1, 1943?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No allocation of funds by provinces. Moneys loaned on the basis of applications received.
2. and 3.		
	Number	
Province	of loans	Amount
	authorized	loaned
British Columbia	1,121	S 2.590.437Alberta 	4,963	9,004,840Saskatchewan 	3,800	7,990.865Manitoba 	2,711	5.798,914Ontario 	2,902	5,968,235Quebec 	6,609	13,542.713New Brunswick 	852	1,187,920Nova Scotia 	1,023	1,573,385Prince Edward Island ..	760	1200,06324,471	$48,857,372


REGINA RUBBER CONTROL
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What building is occupied by the rubber or tire controller in the city of Regina?
2.	What is the type of the building?
3.	What is the rental per square foot?
4.	Were any changes necessary in the office space, and if so, what is the cost of said changes to the government?
'	5. Does the rental include heat and light?
6.	What was the building previously used for?
7.	What is the term of lease and is there a termination clause in same?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Office space in Silverman building.
2.	Two storey and basement, solid brick,, stuccoed, with patent roof.
3.	72-84 cents per square foot.
4.	Nil.
5.	Rental includes heating but not lightings
6.	New building not previously occupied.
7.	Lease expires six months after cessation of hostilities by his majesty, with option to the crown to renew thereafter for two further periods of one year each.


MILITARY COURTS-MARTIAL
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many military courts-martial have been held in Canada since the declaration of war in September, 1939?
2.	How many in each military district?
3.	In how many have the proceedings been public; what are the districts and what is the-nearest city or town thereto?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	3,398 up to 28th February, 1943.
2.	Military district No. 1, 147; military district No. 2, 633; military district No. 3, 563; military district No. 4, 122; military district No. 5, 349; military district No. 6, 350; military district No. 7, 167; military district. No. 10, 253; military district No. 11, 93; military district No. 12, 99; military district No. 13, 103; Pacific command, 129; Petawawa, 94; Camp Borden, 96; in various formations apart from districts, 200.
3.	With the exception of three (3) courts-martial, all proceedings were in open court and therefore public. The proceedings of the three (3) courts-martial mentioned pertained to the escape of certain prisoners of war from internment camps and for reasons of security they were not held in open court. They took place in military districts Nos. 2 and 3.
Remainder of question answered as far as-possible by No. 2.

Motions jor Papers


MILITARY TRIBUNAL-MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 5
Mr. GAUTHIER:: What is the amount in Canadian dollars of expenses incurred by the Department of National Defence for the military tribunal held at Quebec (military district No. 5) during the months of November and December, 1942, and January, 1943?


Mr. RALSTON:: All accounts relating to these courts-martial have not yet been received by the department.


PUBLIC COURTS-MARTIAL, MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 5
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many public courts-martial have been held in military district No. 5 from November 2, 1942, to February 1, 1943?
2.	How many private courts-martial for the same period in the same district?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Forty-nine courts-martial.
2.	None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government purchased the property formerly held by the Winter Club, situated in the city of Winnipeg?
2.	If so, on what date was the purchase made, and what price was paid?
3.	What was the assessed value of the above land, and the improvements thereon, at the time it was purchased?
4.	How many shares had been issued by the above-mentioned Winnipeg Winter Club?
5.	What was the market value of the above shares at the time of the above purchase?


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


NEWSPRINT
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What wms the total Canadian production of newsprint during the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942?
2.	During the same years, what was the total production of newsprint in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec?
3.	What has been the approximate reduction of newsprint, in tons, in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec, in accordance with federal regulations?
4.	What mills in Ontario and Quebec were affected by such reduction in the production of newsprint?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.


MONTREAL WINTER CLUB PROPERTY
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1. Has the government purchased the property in Montreal formerly occupied by the Winter Club, situate in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, on what date was the purchase made, at what price, and for what purpose?
3.	What was the assessed value of this property, (a) for land, and (b) for improvements, at the time it was purchased?
4.	What was the issued capital stock of the Winter Club?
5.	Had the said shares any market value at the time of the purchase?


J. K. L. ROSS PROPERTY, MONTREAL
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Has the government purchased the property in Montreal formerly owned and occupied by J. K. L. Ross, Esquire?
2.	If so, on what date was the purchase made, at what price and for what purpose?
3.	What was the assessed value of this property, (a) for land, and, (b) for improvements?
4.	Was the property occupied for any purpose before the purchase, and if unoccupied, how long had the property been unoccupied?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	The names of all the registered architects employed by Wartime Housing Limited.
2.	The total amount paid in salary and expenses to these architects.
3.	The names and addresses of the architects in Canada who have been engaged by Wartime Housing Limited, and the amounts paid to each for their services and expenses.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-CHAIRMAN

Mr. BENCE:: For a copy of all orders in council relating to the powers and authority of Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board.



UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES ON DOMINION GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy' of all letters, telegrams and memoranda, and other documents from November 1, 1941, to the present, exchanged between the Department of Labour, or any official of said department, and the Department of Labour of the province of Manitoba, the Manitoba regional war labour board, the national war labour board, the Department of Justice, and any other departments or officials, relating to alleged underpayment of wages on dominion government contracts, as discovered and submitted by the Department of Labour of the province of Manitoba, with respect to the following firms: Claydon Co., Ltd.; Rayner Construction Co., Ltd.; Tomlinson Construction Co., Ltd.; and Duff Construction Co., Ltd. Also for a copy of all correspondence and documents, dated from November 1, 1942, to the present, relating to any other cases of underpayment of wages on dominion government contracts which may have been reported to the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, with
reference to this motion I wish to state that on February 25 last, Mr. T. W. Laidlaw, K.C.,
Motions for Papers

of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was appointed an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner to investigate charges that certain companies holding government contracts, including one of the companies specifically referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), had not met in full the requirements of the labour conditions governing contracts awarded by the dominion. Until such time as the commissioner's report is received, it would not be in the public interest to divulge the correspondence and documents asked for.
I discussed this matter with my hon. friend before the house met this afternoon, and' I think he agreed with the position I took.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite true that the minister telephoned me before three o'clock this afternoon, and stated that for the reasons he has now given to the house he would prefer that this motion stand. It is not correct to say that I agreed to that, but I had to accede to what he proposed. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the reasons he has given for failing to bring down the documents for which this motion asks are valid because I have in my hand a copy of a return which was tabled recently in the Manitoba legislature-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This motion is not debatable. Stand.


Thomas Miller Bell: Surely when the minister makes a request that a motion stand, the mover has the right to explain why he does not wish the motion to stand, and I understand that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is doing.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member may proceed, but I would ask him to make his explanation as brief as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a return recently tabled in the Manitoba legislature the statement was made, and is now public property, that on January 14 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) wrote to the department, of labour of the province of Manitoba giving certain information which I have here, which would indicate that at that time the matter was in the nature of a closed book.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I rise to a point of order. The minister, as I understand it, did not ask that the motion stand. He gave reasons why it could not be agreed to. The hon. member who has just taken his seat had the right, I think, to explain that he did not acquiesce in the reasons given by the minister, but that

does not permit him to make a speech and to explore the matter further. That is my point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, the minister has the right to make his statement that it is not in the public interest to divulge some of the documents and correspondence asked for in the motion. That is the ruling I give.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that if the motion is not in the public interest it should not stand but should be dropped.


Humphrey Mitchell: As I stated, I discussed the matter with the hon. member before three o'clock. I have no objection to allowing the motion to stand, but there is a commissioner in Winnipeg inquiring into the matter and it seems to me that the most practical thing to do is to await his report. I would make this further observation. Hon. mejnbers will understand that the province of Manitoba has some right to be consulted as to whether any of this correspondence should be brought down.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that a correct statement, that the province has to be consulted with respect to bringing down correspondence between the province and the dominion? The province is not a sovereign state like a foreign nation. The suggestion is entirely new.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister has stated that he is agreeable to letting the motion stand.
Motion stands.



WEYBURN, SASK., MILITARY BARRACKS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For a copy of all reports and recommendations to the Department of National Defence regarding the use of the International Harvester building at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, as a military barracks.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon.
friend will press this motion. It covers a class of documents which are not the subject of returns. As my hon. friend knows, the reports of departmental officials are not brought down. I could not consent to the motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not
going to press it, but I would say that the information in the report that was sent to me from the minister's office does not tally with

Grain Policy
other reports that have come to me. I thought it would save time, when the war appropriation is under discussion, if we could have the information asked for in the motion.


James Layton Ralston: It would save time if
the hon. member would have a word with me. These documents are not made the subject of a return.
Motion dropped.



GRAIN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the substantial increases which have taken place in the prices of wheat and oats on the Chicago market since the quota restrictions were removed, prices having reached the highest in fifteen years, will the minister reconsider his marketing policy for 1943 and take into consideration increasing the price to the Canadian producer, and increasing also the quota to be delivered in order to put the Canadian producer on a fairer basis with the United States producer?
I would ask another question while I am on my feet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Put it on the order paper.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is not a question for the order paper. This question is based on a report from Winnipeg, dated March 7, Sunday, to the effect that the Winnipeg market made quite an advance on Saturday last, a three-cent rise since Thursday. The report states that
15,000,000 bushels were sold in three days on the Winnipeg market, chiefly to United States houses. Will the minister state under what conditions this wheat is being sold to Americans and whether it will interfere with the export of our wheat board wheat? Also, will the minister in the next day or two-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: -make a statement with respect to sales of Canadian wheat of the 1942 crop, and generally with respect to his marketing policy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member should give notice.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member has covered a very wide range in the various questions he has asked. The answer to the first 72537-67
question or two is that the subject of the inquiry is a matter of government policy and will be dealt with and announced in due course. I may add that the matters referred to by the hon. member have received and are receiving the earnest and careful attention of all those especially interested in the handling of our wheat and coarse grain crops.
There has been an unexpected and very much appreciated rise in the price of wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange. Over the past few days the price advanced several cents, this being caused by purchases of our wheat in the United States. As a matter of fact the wheat board have been called in for consultation with the wheat subcommittee of the cabinet, and the whole matter is receiving very careful attention.
Transportation difficulties, both present and prospective, are of very great concern to us as affecting the government's wheat policy for this year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister make a
statement to the house in a day or two?



FLAX PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Henry Bence: In view of the reported statement on March 3 of L. H. Lehberg, technical adviser to the federal oils and fats administration, that United States crushers were in the market for Canadian flax; in view of a press dispatch from Ottawa in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 1 that a campaign to increase flax acreage by one million acres would be launched; in view of the fact that a question of mine was answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on March 4


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I ask the hon. member to put his question as briefly as possible.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have practically finished.
I am trying to demonstrate the importance of the question.


James Layton Ralston: There is no "whereas" to a question.


Alfred Henry Bence: -in view of the fact that a question of mine was answered by the Minister of Finance on March 4 that the flax crushing capacity of all the plants on the north American continent exceeded the anticipated total of the crop grown on the continent in

.Wheat Board .

1942 only by approximately two and a half millions of bushels, and in view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture on January 29 that there is no assurance that flax seed from an additional acreage in Canada can be disposed of in 1943-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member must realize that it is absolutely impossible for the minister to answer that question. The hon. member should put it on the order paper to enable it to be properly answered.


Alfred Henry Bence: I am asking the minister to make a statement because of the facts. The urgency of the situation would not permit of my putting the question on the order paper.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman quoted an answer I made relating to the flax crushing capacity of North America. At the time I gave the answer I qualified it by saying that I could take no responsibility nor could this government take any responsibility for the United States figures.


Alfred Henry Bence: Quite right. I wish to finish the question, if I may. Will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement as soon as possible to clear up the whole situation and advise the farmers what is expected of them in this respect? [DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: I made a statement on December 9, and I made another statement about ;he middle of January. In the latter statement I said to the farmers of Canada that aefore seeding time a final announcement would be made with regard to the flax situation. I think that is the explanation which is required.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Ellis Wright: On February 24 I addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the reference of the annual report of the wheat board to the committee on agriculture. He stated that he was referring it to them. How soon will that report be released so that we shall have a chance to discuss the marketing policy of the wheat board for this season.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will take any formal

steps necessary to have the annual report of the wheat board referred to the agriculture committee immediately.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people, all of whom are interested in the gigantic struggle which is being waged at the present time, are thinking about what is taking place here, and all of them undoubtedly studied and gave a good deal of thought to the budget brought down by our Minister of Finance, when they read for the first time his statement that the economic and financial requirements of war become greater and more exacting as the scope and thoroughness of our plans grow. On reading this statement a second time they may have thought to themselves, is the scope of the plans growing as fast and with all the intensity that it should grow? Is the thoroughness of the plans as complete as the capacity of the Canadian people to make them thorough?


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not given up using soap.


Joseph Henry Harris: I witnessed thirty or so Red Cross workers at work and I have heard them say, "Shut off that soap advertisement; we have dishpan hands and we do not want to be reminded of them". Some music was put on and the knitting needles went that much faster.
I come now to the matter of the control of income. The most important feature of the attempt to freeze incomes is that section which affects a million and a half employees who depend on their weekly pay envelopes for their sustenance. Not nearly enough publicity has been given to the Canadian public, particularly the wage-earner, about the energy and the effort that have been put into the price control system in order that costs of living shall be kept down. When you brought the price of eggs down to forty cents a dozen you should have made some noise about it. I think we have been a little [DOT] neglectful about this kind of advertising. We should let the working man know that he is getting a square deal. You should have said more about it when you brought down the price of eggs, oranges, tea and what-not. I feel tempted to tell an advertising story, but perhaps I will let it go because this is rather a serious matter.
Too much emphasis is being given by the press and others to those things which worry the working man. According to the headlines he is told that there is no fuel, no coal. He is told that housing accommodation is short; that he will get no shelter. If the opposite factors were stressed we would have a more contented working population and more production. Great publicity is given by our friends to beer, butter and beef shortages, but very little with regard to matters that are costing the people a good deal less than they cost them previously. We do not seem to have laid out our legislation from one year's budget to another with sufficient consideration for the conditions under which our working men have to make a living. We have failed miserably in our tax structure, and I shall give illustrations of that in a moment or two when I discuss income taxation. Our present system does not encourage absenteeism, but it makes room for absenteeism and certainly it does not penalize absenteeism. I shall have more to say on that in a moment.
I now come to the control of supplies. An organization has been set up to control supplies. That organization requires more coordinated direction. The controllers seem to be a law unto themselves. Each is functioning as best he can in his own field without sufficient regard to the requirements of the controller in another field. It must be remembered that the finished goods of one industry are very often the raw materials of the next industry; and with a ceiling on the finished product of the second industry, and a ceiling on the raw material which that industry must buy, there is brought about a static condition in the conduct of business. That static condition is not good for business. In many lines there is not much room any more for salesmanship. It is becoming a lost art because the spread in many instances is not sufficient to take care of the cost of management, distribution, and particularly transportation. With ceiling prices set, what incentive is there to put merit into your goods and to develop salesmanship? I mention this merely with the idea that we must get back to the old conditions. We must not regiment our entire production. I mention it also for this reason, that this control leads to a concentration in the hands of a few of the control of necessary commodities. There is no room for the small operator when ceilings are set on the cost of both the raw material and the finished product. So much for the general picture.
If we look at the geographical picture, what do we find? There is a concentration of industry in the central provinces and little opportunity for the development of industry in the western provinces. In those provinces labour is available at certain times of the year, while in the central provinces there is practically a shortage of labour all the year round. The monthly review of business statistics for the month of January shows that the expansion of industry and the physical volume of business and employment have increased from the 1926 base to 186 in Quebec, 178 in Ontario, and only 127 in the prairie provinces. Under our present controlled system that condition will become more aggravated as we go along. I think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said a few weeks ago that there were 5,000 unemployed in Winnipeg. If we could so arrange our economy as to have more industry in the west and in the maritime provinces, these surges of unemployment could be taken care of.
Another matter which I would bring to the attention of the house and the country-I
1062	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
have mentioned it before in this chamber-is the possibility of transferring or transplanting to western Canada industries which are at present in Great Britain. There are a number of industries in Great Britain which have had their factories bombed, but the machinery could be salvaged and the technicians in those industries who are not required for Britain's defence and who are eating up the food in Great Britain which is required for other purposes could be transplanted with their families to western Canada. Many of those industries were exporting to Canada prior to the war, and they would be quite satisfied to establish a branch of their industry in Canada to take care of their Canadian business which has decreased by reason of the war. I put this suggestion on the record of Hansard again because I feel that our commercial intelligence branch and the industrial departments of the railways should take this matter in hand. Some might ask: Why do not the Canadian people establish those industries here themselves? If they did they would be faced, in the days to come, with serious competition from the United Kingdom which previously had a share of the Canadian market. But if we could encourage our British friends to come here with their plants we would have the advantage of their long experience in different lines. No one knows the woollen goods trade or the linen trade and other needle trades, for example, better than do the British people. The same is true of many other lines of industry. I could mention half a dozen others if time permitted. There are the nut-oil pressing trades, for instance; the pressing of oil seeds for the manufacture of shortening and things of that kind. No one knows this trade better than do the people of Great Britain. If we could persuade them to establish branch plants here we would have something which would remain with us after the war, and that would be better than trying to do it ourselves in the absence of their expert technicians and tradesmen who have been engaged in these trades for eight or ten generations. We could cooperate with them and in that way add to our Canadian economy other lines of industry which will be very necessary when the war is over.
Of all the difficulties that Canada has had ever since confederation, transportation has been one of the greatest. It has engaged our attention more perhaps than any other phase of our national life. We have great distances, an abundance of raw materials, with a small unit cost per ton. All these factors have made our transportation problem one that requires

our everyday study and attention. The actual facts of transportation costs in Canada are startling. I raise this question because it is of vital importance to Canada. I am so fearful of a collapse or even a partial collapse or slackening off in our transportation system that I ask the house to bear with me while I enlarge a little on this subject, which to my mind did not receive sufficient attention in the budget and must engage the attention of all members of the house.
The monthly review of business statistics for December shows that the average income for the last twenty years in Canada was as follows: primary production, 25-8 per cent; secondary production, 20-7 per cent; trade, 12 per cent; sendees, 11-5 per cent; finance, 8-5 per cent; government, 11-4 per cent; transportation, 10 T per cent. In passing, I would remind the Canadian people that the last three items are out of all proportion in a well-balanced economy. There is no reason why the national income of those living off the government in this economy should be 11-4 per cent. That figure should be reduced substantially and as quickly as possible; it is out of proportion. In like manner consider finance; the national income from this source, 8-5 per cent, is quite high.
I do not complain of transportation being 10-1 per cent; I mention it merely to draw attention to its importance. Transportation divides itself naturally into two divisions: domestic transportation, and transportation to support our war effort overseas.
As regards domestic transportation, not nearly sufficient control and direction is being given to this problem. I regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) is not at the moment in the house. I would say to him that we must have direction and drastic control, and they must be such as will keep high the morale of our fighting forces. Priority must be given to the young men and women of tender years who are wearing the king's uniform, so that they can get home to their people and their friends whenever they have leave. This will tend to keep high the spirits of those young people and of the parents and cousins and uncles and aunts whom they visit on their leaves.
On the other hand, civilian traffic made possible by higher incomes must be definitely curtailed. I am of opinion that it should be rationed. The strain on our transportation system demands that priority be given to labour, materials and supplies for the railroads.
What applies in passenger movements also emphasizes the importance of freight movements. The right of way must be given to

The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
essential services and food supplies, munitions and everything directly connected with an allout war effort. The movement of nonessentials must be curtailed. We must improve and expand railway facilities which are essential to our war effort. We are in this particular spot just now:	carloadings, which
averaged last year 280,000 cars, have increased 33i per cent, largely on account of war freight. War freight is heavy freight. War freight moves long distances, and our ton-mile next year will increase 100 per cent compared with pre-war figures. I ask the Minister of Transport, who is charged with the responsibility of the railways, if enough attention is being given to the rehabilitation of our transportation system. He will speak in this chamber either on- the Canadian National railway estimates or during this debate, and I say to him now that he has the responsibility of being able to assure the Canadian people that our rolling stock and transportation system generally are being maintained and improved. We must remember that the whole Canadian transportation system has had a very hard winter. When the frost comes out of the ground, floods will follow in the spring and many weak spots will develop in an already overburdened system. Attention must be given to priorities all along the line for the preservation of this most vital part of our Canadian economy.
As to railway finance, it should not be a burden on the Canadian people in the coming year. The overflowing revenues which have resulted from the doubling of ton-mile traffic over that of pre-war days have temporarily done away with railway deficits. Nevertheless I would guard very carefully the revenue which is in excess of operating costs. I throw out the warning that it should not be used to rehabilitate the financial interests of those of our investors who made improvident investments in railway enterprises in pre-war days. There are not very many of them, but I would ask for some vigilance on the part of the government with regard to this particular feature of our economy. For example, exhibit 5 of the report of the Canadian National Railways investments in affiliated companies shows that the national railway holds stocks and bonds to the extent of $35,000,000 in companies or organizations whose stocks have a par value of $78,000,000. It is true that the greater part of that sum represents necessary joint enterprises; there is, for instance, the Toronto terminal, which is not being run primarily for profit. But we ought to be very careful that this expanding revenue of ours is not used to recoup the financial position of any of the owners of the non-par value shares associated with the Canadian National Railways, who 72537-68
own the other $42,000,000. While these prewar concerns did not go through bankruptcy, it would have been well if, to use an expression of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), they had gone through the wringer at the time. But while in financial difficulties they have been maintained and built up until to-day they are worth $78,000,000. However, as I have said, this is no reason why we should recoup the unfortunates who made the improvident investments in days gone by.
In saying this I am thinking not only of the Canadian National Railways but of the other railroad and of various other large organizations in Canada, particularly those which have monopolies in different lines of industry and production. I give them the solemn warning that, if it is necessary to put a ceiling and price control on commodities, incomes and supplies, with which I have already dealt, it is also necessary to do the same with pre-war investments.
Transportation is so vital that I should like to think of it now in regard to getting our supplies to the scene of action. There are various estimates as to the tonnage of commodities necessary per year to keep one fighting man in the field. I have seen an estimate as low as four tons of goods and commodities per year per soldier, while the highest I have noticed is sixteen tons per year. One can readily see, therefore, that each one hundred thousand of our fighting men will require at least one million tons of commodities per year. When one takes into consideration the question of distance, we are faced with an astronomical figure if we reduce the equation to ton miles of transportation required to give a full-out war effort. This branch of our transportation system must be given first attention, while everything non-essential must be reduced to a minimum. There are different methods of transportation; and the one which will not be much of a problem when the war is over is, to my mind, air transportation. In the meantime, however, it must be brought to the attention of the Canadian people that within the next few months or perhaps even weeks great strides must be made, from the point of view of the war, in regard to air travel. With our aircraft production reaching a figure of $268,000,000 last year, representing 400 planes a month, we must organize ourselves to meet this strain on the national economy; but at the same time I say that new means of transportation will have to be developed to take care of the submarine menace. With all the research at present being conducted in this connection, as hon. members know, I believe this house would be well advised to give the

1064	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
Minister of Finance a free rein in loosening our purse-strings in order to support air research to the very limit. Perhaps I should say that here I am speaking as the member for Dan-forth, and it is the privilege of any of my colleagues to disagree with me, but I believe we should support to the limit the research work that is so necessary in this field. That is so for the simple reason that our greatest hope of meeting the submarine menace rests with those boys who fly up and down our coast, searching for submarines.
This brings me to the question of merchant shipping. I believe the submarine is the greatest menace to be faced in this -war by Canada and the United States. The production of millions of tons of shipping is not enough; more and more attention must be given to saving our shipping from loss by submarine action, for it is not only the loss of the vessels themselves that is important; it is also the loss of the strategic war materials they carry. I wonder if perhaps I have said too much, but I do not think those remarks require censoring, for I think they are common knowledge. I am quite in agreement with the censoring of any information considered important by the censorship branch; it is necessary that zippers be placed on the lips of all employees and servants of the state. But we must keep our people informed as fully as possible if we are to hold their confidence and if they are to face up to the huge expenditures, the energy and the effort that are necessary, and we must make them realize the gravity of the situation.
Let me pause here for a moment to say that in my opinion we should more frequently make available the facilities of this house to the various ministers of the crown, to permit them to make statements which will keep Canadians informed of the progress of events, instead of having to get their information through the press. I believe more official statements pointing out the dangers and difficulties, the need for greater production here and there, and that sort of thing, would keep our people informed and enable us to retain their confidence. On February 25 of this year we had an example of this sort of thing when the British war secretary, Sir James Grigg, made a statement in regard to the movement of supplies. Why should we not have a statement like that from one of the ministers of this government? We have not heard at all this session from some of the ministers, and that does not inspire confidence. You do not tell us what you are doing, and we do not like it. The old adage, "Get them young, treat them rough and tell them nothing," is not good enough. We want to know, and Canada wants to know.

The British house was told that in 1942 a million tons of supplies, five hundred thousand men, fifty thousand tanks, guns, armoured vehicles and all the rest of it, had been sent around the Cape of Good Hope to various destinations. That must have inspired confidence; it must have built up the morale of the British people. They were also told about the landings in north Africa; that Britain moved 185,000 men, 20,000 vehicles and 220,000 tons of stores in three weeks, requiring 440 special troop trains, 680 freight trains totalling 15,000 cars, and so on. I offer this suggestion in order that we might impress upon the Canadian people the magnitude of the problem we are facing in this war, and also that it might be impressed upon the members of this house and those charged with the responsibility of looking after our transportation system. I mention it in the hope also that the way may be paved for the application of some restrictions by the transport controllers to eliminate non-essential travel and the shipment of non-essential freight.
I come now' to the matter of government accounts and finances. I am of opinion that with all our v'ar expenditures Canada can maintain a sound financial position, but it will be necessary for our people to observe a few cardinal principles which I enunciated in the early part of my remarks and which I shall enunciate again in few moments. For the moment let me say that I believe those charged with the responsibility of raising funds for various purposes should give a clear right of w'ay to our victory loans. I believe we are a little late with our first loan for this year, and in a moment I shall give my reasons for that statement. We should encourage the purchase of more and more war savings certificates, and their regular purchase w'eek by week and month by month. It was disappointing to hon. members to learn that subscriptions to war savings certificates, which we had hoped would run well over S100,000,000 a year, have fallen to something like 877,000,000 this year. Red Cross drives should be spaced in such a way as not to interfere with victory loan drives. Campaigns that grip the imagination and the heart of our people, such as the funds for British war victims, Russian war victims, the Queen Mary fund and so on, should be encouraged because they keep our war interest to the forefront and maintain morale among our people.
Of course we must continue our present economy and support the churches, educational institutions and hospitals. Large sums of money are collected under our present

The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
taxation system for unemployment insurance, forced savings, the refundable portion of our taxation and many other items which now go into the consolidated revenue fund, the only place into which, of course, it can go; but I say the government accounts should show this money received for these purposes earmarked as a liability. I am glad to see the minister is giving some sort of certificate now for the savings which are being deducted, although I am not just in accord with the way in which he is doing it. It is true the employee has a record of his unemployment insurance in his unemployment insurance book, but a corresponding receipt or certificate is not given to him for the portion of his wartime earnings which is kept from him until after the war. Employees who have these deductions made and the receipt held back until the end of the year are not satisfied; they demand that some sort of weekly or monthly certificate should be issued when the deduction is made. They might save them up in the same manner as one accumulates war savings certificates. No doubt in reply the government will say it is just like superannuation. But forced savings are not the same as superannuation. Superannuation is an old-established art for the purpose of having people save money for themselves; it is a contract between the government on the one hand, or perhaps an organization, and the employee on the other, and is thoroughly understood by both parties. I hope the minister will give some consideration to revising the receipt or certificate given for these deductions.
I come now to our expenditures, which occupied so much of our time this afternoon. They fall into two categories; ordinary expenditures and war expenditures. I hope that what I say in this regard will be considered constructive.
We must service our national debt, carrying charges for loan flotations. We find ourselves forced to compensate the provinces for invading their tax field. But we can and must reduce our ordinary expenditure. Another field for reducing our ordinary expenditure is found in paternal legislation for relief and works projects, wheat acreage reduction, and the operations of the wheat board and other government enterprises such as harbours and railways. Many of these organizations will have profits instead of deficits and will be able to recoup the treasury to a certain extent; they should certainly call for far less than in previous years. Their calls demand the scrutiny of every member of this house if he is to discharge his responsibility in re-72537-68i
gard to examining expenditures. That is our duty; every dollar saved is a dollar earned, and should be used to increase our war effort.
The other field of expenditure, namely, war expenditure, has not had the care and attention from members of the house that the vast sums spent demand. Every criticism unfortunately seems to take on a political angle, and this attitude defeats any good intention hon. members might have in making their criticisms. Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister said this legislation was an opportunity for the private member to be of service to his country. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said on various occasions that he welcomes the committee and that the committee would be of some assistance to him, that the committee could review the expenditures. But we all know that it has been a failure as far as accomplishing the task which its name implies. The lack of representation of minority groups, the secrecy forced on the activities of the committee-I do not intend to enlarge on this subject now because I realize I am out of order, that it is on the order paper to be discussed in a day or two-these things all tended to restrict the possibility of our doing an efficient job. These expenditures are the concern of every member of the house. Ten per cent of the membership of the house is not enough to assume the responsibility of checking seventy per cent of Canada's expenditure. The entire House of Commons for years devoted itself to examining estimates amounting to $500 million. In days gone by I have seen the whole membership sit for months, discussing estimates. Yet now it is suggested that ten per cent of the membership can examine and report back on expenditures more than eight times as great. It is out of all balance. It is another evidence of the fact which is so patent that no effort is being made to use the man-power of this house in an orderly way. I say to hon. members supporting the government, the futility of your service to the nation in this time of stress is to be deplored. In party warfare the vulgar expression is used that those supporting the administration are rubber stamps. I would hesitate to say of this house in these serious times that the members are just rubber stamps, but I should like to leave that thought with them; let them examine their own conscience and see if they can bring themselves to believe that they are doing everything humanly possible to help in this war effort. I suggest to them that the whole matter of war expenditure should be overhauled; I leave it there until the committee is introduced.
1066	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Harm (Danforth)
I come now to the subject of borrowings. The success which attended our victory loan is something in which Canada can take pride. I was of opinion then, and I am now, that we did not ask for enough money. If our national income a couple of years ago was $4,500 million and we raised $1,000 million, then if it is now $5,500 million, we could raise more than $1,000 million. If this year it is to be $7,000 million we are out of balance if we try to raise only $1,000 million. In my opinion we must set our sights higher and go after this money. I will give my reasons in a moment why this must be done. I say to the Minister of Finance: set your sights high; get your campaign under way as early as possible. We have not had the same degree of success with war savings certificates and stamps. Part of the reason undoubtedly lies in the new forms of taxation introduced in last year's budget. People who previously started buying war savings certificates found themselves letting their money go into other taxation avenues. And part of the reason-one I should like to see dispelled as quickly as possible-is the allegation of waste in war expenditures. Whether it be gossip, rumour, or something else, there is no doubt that there is something disturbing the confidence of the Canadian people in the operations of the affairs of the country. Our people must be reassured that every dollar taxed and every dollar borrowed are put to the best possible use.
I was a little disturbed when on February 9 the Minister of Finance gave a statement to the house, as he said to allay the damage being done to our victory loan by wholly inaccurate statements regarding victory bond sales. As I listened to the statement it occurred to me that the inaccuracies in the public mind which the minister was thinking about had to do with the money which was provided for the victory loan by the banks of Canada. Individuals subscribed $401-1 millions, leaving all other kinds of subscribers $590-4 millions. The minister's statement reads:
There was only three million purchased by the banks, 2-5 million out of Quebec savings banks and a half million by the chartered banks.
That is the minister's statement and, literally, it is correct. The minister emphasizes the insignificant volume of purchases by the chartered banks. But this compilation made on February 9 does not give a clear picture to the Canadian people of what actually has occurred. The minister knows, and the house knows, that even though the chartered banks as such purchased bonds to a value of only half a million dollars, in the last billion dollar loan, they certainly used the people's

deposits to finance a very large portion of that victoiy loan. That is elementary; we know that.
Take, for example, the $298,000,000 subscribed by firms and corporations. A very large portion of this subscription was financed by business firms and corporations borrowing the people's money from the banks. In like manner many patriotic citizens borrowed from the banks, in many instances-and I know of a number-as a patriotic gesture paying the full rate for overdraft interest, in order that they might bear their full responsibility as citizens of this country.
It is not enough to say that you have discouraged participation by chartered banks in the purchase of victory bonds. You must tell the people at the same time that you have encouraged the banks to have their clients buy victory bonds, whether those clients have credit balances or debit balances. In other words, my criticism is that there is a tendency to make statements which do not carry the whole picture. More confidence would be inspired if the statement covered the amount of money borrowed by our people from the banks to make the 'loan possible. And more confidence would be engendered in the minds of our people if they were given the plain facts that during the current fiscal year we shall have borrowed direct from the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks the amount of $983,000,000. Of course we did not borrow the $983,000,000 to subscribe to victory loans; they are two entirely different matters. However it is still money required to take care of our war expenditures. And when we say that only half a million dollars came from the chartered banks we must give the other side of the picture. At the same time let us be-I cannot think of a better word than frank-let us be frank enough to say that we found it necessary to borrow $983,000,000 from the banks in order to discharge our obligations. I believe the minister and the house will agree that this is a dangerous situation. It is dangerous to borrow this money, but it had to be done. To my mind nothing will start the spiral of inflation faster than will the government borrowing money from the banks, and leaving the people holding considerable savings for their own account. That is why I said a moment or two ago that we must be closer up on the heels of our spending, as far as our victory loans are concerned, or we shall be culpable and guilty of starting a dangerous spiral of inflation, and thereby destroying all the work done in an effort to control in the last three or four years. To my mind the minister spoke

The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
a truism when he said, "If the government borrows from individuals, the government spends the money. The individual does not." We are face to face with the fact that this $983,000,000 cannot be spent by each of us. That is to say the government cannot spend it on the one hand, and the people spend the same amount on the other. If the people spend it, it will not be in the banks for the government to borrow next year, or even now. I therefore throw out the warning that the government must get possession of this spending power if next year we are to be able to meet our war obligations. Of course they say the obligations will be met with the next victory loan. I must repeat, however, that the amount of loan is not sufficient, because the savings of individuals are held by the individuals in the banks of Canada. They are there; we ought to find the means of prying this money out, so that the government rather than the individual will have it to spend. It is possible that the individual may not spend it as providentially as we might wish him to spend it. If, in order to avoid the chaos of inflation which will be forced upon us, we do not acquire immediately a victory loan of magnitude in order temporarily to freeze up this liquid money, we shall find it has been spent by the people themselves. I entreat all those who have the interests of Canada at heart to place every available dollar in the service of the nation at this critical time. If the present condition continues, business enterprise will be unable to borrow, interest rates will go up, and the whole financial structure will be out of hand.
Mark you, twelve months ago it was reported to the house that there were no borrowings by government from the banks. That was a fairly healthy condition. We now find that in one year the borrowings from the banks have risen to $983,000,000. What will it be in two years? Where will private enterprise be able to borrow funds with which to carry on, if the government has borrowed all the money from the banks. To borrow $1,000 million in the next victory loan is not enough. To say that fifty per cent of your expenditure is pay as you go is not enough. It is always the extra five dollars earned by a bread-winner that makes it possible for him to balance his budget and make an investment. That particular bread-winner is earning that extra $5 to-day, every week he is working. It is always the last few dollars of the hundred dollars in a transaction which provide the credit balance. Anyone who is in business or in production knows that we have not seen a profitable year like 1942 for a long while. Wage-earners were not
seeing the $5 left over at the end of the week to the same extent as they did in 1942. Therefore I say that it should not be at all difficult to secure a good deal more money for the next victory loan.
I reinforce that suggestion by saying that we are now experiencing a velocity of turnover of all commodities which provides larger credit balances. The acceleration which turnover of money and commodities has experienced leaves the Canadian people to-day with more income and more spending power than they have ever before been accustomed to. One of the main factors in the turnover of commodities has been the necessary restriction which has been brought about in the number of lines a merchant may carry on his shelves. The more articles of food, clothing, shelter and personal services are standardized, the faster will be the turnover of inventory. The faster inventories are turned over, the greater will be the credit balances available for taxation. In passing, I warn the administration that we have come to the end point in many commodities, but this condition has been going on since the war started and we have not taxed into that position sufficient to check extravagant spending.
We must do it. Improvident spending and carnival living which have been so rampant this winter will break out again with renewed intensity with the advent of spring and the Easter bonnet unless something is done. Surely we do not have to wait for a bloodletting tragedy overseas to sober us. The government has a responsibility; the government has no alternative but to take this situation in hand immediately. It is a delicate matter to deal with; it is fraught with many dangers, but the delicacy of the situation and the dangers involved are not to be compared with the danger of inflation. That is most difficult to keep in rein. If it ever breaks loose, the damage done to this country by the runaway horse of inflation will bring us into financial chaos.
In regard to this question I bring to the attention of the house a factor in connection with the raising of funds to which perhaps not much consideration has been given. There are, according to a return tabled in this house a few days ago, 734,760 farms in Canada. During the time of the spring victory loan: there will be incidental expenses to these farmers in getting their seeding under way, buying machinery and equipment or putting it into service. They will have to make cash outlays for a certain amount of seed, grasses, fertilizers, fence repairs and other items which will run far in excess of $100 per farm. The
1068	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
fishermen on our inland waters, as well as those on our seacoasts, will have to rehabilitate their equipment. If we add to the farmers and the fishermen those who are engaged in other vocations and who must increase or establish their activities in the spring of each year, we find we have a million people spending anywhere from S100 to $300 each. This means that $200,000,000 or more will be used up by primary industry and will not be available for the victory loan. In order to meet this situation I make a suggestion which I hope will be considered constructive. Our primary producers should be given an opportunity to subscribe in the spring and to pledge payment with the harvest.
Last year we gave the United Kingdom a billion dollar credit, made up of food and supplies. Along with the repatriation of securities, this is now a part of Canadian war expenditures.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Louder, please.


Joseph Henry Harris: I invite my hon. friend to come and take a seat here close to me. He will then be able to hear what I am saying.
This is now part of our Canadian war expenditures and should be a matter of study and review-in this regard I am expressing my own opinion-by the banking and commerce committee of this House of Commons. I suggest this because some agents of Hitler have been confusing the public mind by telling them that the United Kingdom sold a good portion of these gifts to other members of the united nations who are fighting our battles in the south Pacific and in North Africa. The budget this year provides ways and means for a billion dollars to the united nations. The-Hyde Park agreement assists us in making this possible, but in order to allay criticism in the minds of our people against such gifts, the whole matter should be reviewed by the banking and commerce committee and reported to the house.
I also make the observation that every possible expansion of our trade with the western hemisphere should be explored. Ten years ago we received the benefits of the empire trade agreements. They did a great deal to reestablish Canada as a great trading nation. The war requirements of the United Kingdom are helping us to-day to maintain our export position as far as the natural products and war supplies produced by this country are concerned. Our exports are ever increasing to the United Kingdom. The billion dollar credit to the United Kingdom has made this possible.
I have no objection to the billion dollar appropriation to the united nations. In fact,

the Hyde Park agreement on the one hand, and the courageous offensive of the Russian people and the long suffering tenacity of China on the other, make it imperative that we support the cause of the united nations. At the same time our allies in the united nations will not deny us the privilege as well-grown cubs to support the mother lion of Britain in her days of travail. Much more will this be so when we bring to the attention of the united nations the fact that thousands of our finest sons and daughters, in common with those of other units of the empire, stand shoulder to shoulder with Britons in defence of freedom.
I come now to the matter of the trade of Canada. There seems to have been a falling off in the discussion of ways and means of increasing our trade, which we all realize is and recognize as the blood-stream of the economic life of this country. I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is in his seat. I say to him that we have not had very much success in expanding our trade as far as the western hemisphere is concerned. I hope he has some plan with regard to trade to lay on the table of this house or discuss when he comes to speak on this budget. The usual budget speech in days gone by contained a lot about trade, but he will find very little about it in this budget speech.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Joseph Henry Harris: In accordance with the aims of the Atlantic charter Canada should join in setting up effective national measures with a view to making world resources available for the satisfaction of human needs. That was a long sentence, Mr. Speaker, and I wranted to get it on the record before permitting this interruption.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Does the hon. member not think it fair to suggest that the reason why we have not increased our trade with South America is transportation difficulties? They are primarily responsible for the absence of a showing for the time being.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is patent on the surface. Anybody who reads the press would know that. At the same time there is no reason why we should not have some word from the minister as to what he has in his mind for the future. We have a great opportunity to cooperate with the united nations and organize our trade in such a way that we shall assure our people of gainful occupation and a high standard of living, and at the same time assure a fair price to the consumers. To reach these objectives it will

The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
be necessary to establish a foreign trade advisory service to assist exporters. We must train men for foreign selling-and this in part answers the question of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will tell us about this when he makes his speech in this debate. We must, as I said, train men for foreign selling and place them abroad, first, among the united nations, and, second, in strategic places where they can facilitate the sale of Canadian goods and act as a medium for the purchase of imports to aid our export sales.
At present not nearly enough attention is being given to the home consumption of our natural products. We should not wait for war shortages to force us from the consumption of luxury foods imported from abroad while our own equally nourishing products lie in storage. Let me take a homely example, so often referred to, the Canadian apple- and here I purpose using a confidential figure with regard to imports of fresh fruits and vegetables and other commodities which are really luxury foods. While the figures are confidential, I do not see anything in them that will give comfort to the enemy, and very little in them that will give comfort to the administration, and I will take the full responsibility for using them.
Last year we imported $24,476,326 worth of fresh fruits. There is no reason at all why we should not replace a very large portion of this from our own natural production. I mention this to try to encourage and inspire our Canadian people to produce more during the current year. I mention it not so much as a criticism as to bring it to the attention of the Canadian people and of the house. We imported dried fruits to the value of $5,199,003; fruit juices were imported to the value of $1,852,067. Our fresh fruit imports in 1934 amounted to $10,576,033. Even in 1938 they reached the sum of only $16,000,000, as compared with $24,000,000 to-day. This trend is an indication of our high living and improvident tastes and should be taken definitely in hand, not only to save foreign exchange, but also to make more of these supplies available to the United Kingdom. These luxury foods should be made available to the people of the United Kingdom and not be brought into Canada. Why should the people of the United Kingdom have to starve for lemons and oranges? Why should traffic on the embankment in London be held up by the sight of a girl eating a banana? The people had not seen one there for such a long time. Our
troops overseas should have first call on luxury foods. Fruit juices of the orange and grapefruit could be very readily replaced by apple juice and tomato juice. This coming year we should produce more and more tomatoes and apples for this purpose and also to replace our heavy imports of vegetables. The Prime Minister has taken some lead in the restriction of beer and alcoholic beverages. As a suggestion, I would say that it might be a simple matter to encourage in some of us who have old-fashioned traits, the consumption of cider to replace this extravagant drinking of beer and alcoholic beverages.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Hard or soft cider?


Joseph Henry Harris: It depends upon the taste of my hon. friend. I say that cider and grape juice could replace this extravagance. Our fruit juice imports have doubled in four years. Our imports of fresh vegetables last year were $9,190,192; in 1934 they were $3,545,725. Why should we now be importing almost three times as much and waste our exchange on imported luxury foods when the money is so badly needed for war purposes? Our total import of fresh vegetables in 1939, the first year of the war, was only $5,338,140, against $9,000,000 now, which means that we have almost doubled our imports of fresh vegetables since the war began. Not only that, but we are subsidizing out of the treasury the consumer purchase of some of these commodities which are wasting our foreign exchange, while our own fruit and vegetables are running up improvident storage charges and so on.
If we are to have gainful occupation for our people w'hen this war is over, and if we are to have revenue from customs and excise by which we can run the affairs of this country, we should be careful not to let our financial structure in the control of imports entirely collapse. In the matter of manufactured goods, Canadian industry is agreeing to millions of dollars of imports without tariffs while the war is on. The same spirit will prevail during the period of reconstruction. Whereas it is good business for Canada as far as war supplies are concerned, at the same time it should not be allowed to apply to non-essential supplies that have no relation to the war effort.
World trade and world economy changed very considerably and very quickly with the advent of the war. Some two years ago I made a compilation of the world's supply of raw materials. I took the Geneva figures for all the countries of Europe, Africa and Asia, deducted imports and exports one to the other, took into the equation the grand total of production and the grand total of consump-
1070	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Hands (Danforth)
tion, and I make this observation now because I did not have an opportunity of doing so a yekr ago. I am of opinion that a nazi-controlled Europe and a Japanese-controlled Pacific almost make the axis powers selfsufficient. That is a startling statement. Our dream of economic starvation of the axis powers is a dream of yesterday. It does not obtain to the same extent to-day. But with respect to many raw materials it is still possible. The outstanding example of this condition of self-sufficiency is the control that Japan has taken of the Pacific-tin, rubber, oil and vegetable oil.
The house will recall that in 1936, 1937 and 1938 I placed on the record the position this country would be in if we did not produce more and more oils and fats. I pointed out at that time that for every pound of creamery butter produced in Canada we were importing almost as much palm, peanut and other vegetable oils. The figures given were the production by Canada of 250 million pounds of creamery butter, and at the same time we imported a like amount of vegetable oils. I pointed out that if anything ever happened to our vegetable oil supply from the Pacific we would be so short of fats in this country that even butter would have to be rationed. We have seen the rationing of butter. We are now face to face with a problem which I enunciated five, six and seven years ago. Quite true, the problem was approached from another point of view, but one of the outstanding merits of that approach is the fact that it was not economic for this country to be bringing in these materials when it was possible to produce our own fat requirements in this northern clime. Therefore I would trespass on the time of the house long enough to bring this picture up to date, as I see it, as far as butter is concerned. My purpose in doing so is to be constructive, to urge our people to produce more and more of this natural commodity which is so necessary to the life of Canada.
To meet the situation it is necessary to produce more and more butter fat. If we are to support the effort overseas we shall have to restrict further the high per capita consumption of fat at home so that we may have an exportable surplus of butter in the days to come to feed our troops overseas.
For years butter production in Canada has been growing. When I discussed this matter some five years ago we were producing two hundred and fifty million pounds a year. To-day the production is two hundred and eighty-four million pounds of creamery butter and eighty-five million pounds of farm butter. But that growth has not exceeded to any

appreciable extent the increased consumer demand on account of the natural increase in our population and an increase in the demands and requirements of our people. I went to school with some men who are now members of this house. The pupils of that school had beef dripping on their first course for their frozen lunch; on the second course they had corn syrup; on neither course did they have any butter; and substantial men were raised in that day and generation from that fare. About the only time butter found its way to the table was when company came in on a Sunday afternoon prior to going to church. We may have to go back to those conditions.
It is true that at times much is said about surplus, or exportable surplus, but when we come to deal with that surplus we find it usually does not amount to as much as five per cent of the total production. It is practically negligible; we are able to make barely enough butter to supply our own people; and as our tastes become more extravagant with increased incomes we shall not have a surplus here to supply the boys overseas in case they need some of the butter which is being produced here. We must demand of our people greater production. I intend to suggest one or two ways by which this may be done, and done early enough, so that the farmers of Canada can- do their planning now. Small and all as this surplus may be, nevertheless it is a depressing factor and one which has been with us long enough to be dealt with on some fair basis, so that its depressive influence may disappear. If we consider that butter production represents more than forty-two per cent of the total utilization of milk in Canada, it is a problem which justifies the most careful and constructive attention which can be given to it. True, in war time the importance of this great agricultural production has been impressed upon the government of the day. Subsidies are being paid, not for the purpose of dealing with surpluses, but to stimulate production. I am in accord with that. But what has been done has not been sufficient and has not taken into account the increased consumer demand which has been apparent at least since the first year of the war. It is true that the bait of subsidies has been thrown out to the cream producer, but these subsidies have been a hit-or-miss proposition and have been paid without due regard to the price relationship to other items of utilization, such as cheese, evaporated milk, and milk for fluid consumption. Furthermore, for the past year at least, the farmer was not told of

The Budget-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
subsidies until his programme of operation for the year had been decided upon. I suggest to the government of the day that the butter subsidy is less than it should be, and that the government's policy in respect of the subsidy and the requirements should be announced now, early in the year, right now, rather than late in the season, when milk producers find it difficult or impossible to accommodate themselves to what is required of them.
The production of butter cannot be divorced from the need for oils and fats already being pressed upon us by one department of government, and there is nothing more national in character than agriculture, since we are fortunate in having agricultural activities in every province. With feed aplenty and an undiminished cow population, there should be no butter shortage in Canada. The minister may challenge that statement. Some of us imagine, from the gossip we hear, that cows are being killed in great numbers because there is no help on the farms to look after them, no milking machines to milk them, no spare parts for the milking machines, and so on. But I have enough trust and confidence in the Canadian producer to believe that he will find ways and means of getting milk and turning it into butter if we find ways and means of giving him that parity of price, that fair reward for the knowledge and effort which he puts in on the farm to produce butter. We should have some surplus, too, which we can send either directly or through our friends across the line to countries starving for oils and fats.
I come now to another section of the same discussion, and in this connection I wish to pay tribute to one or two of the departments for something they are trying to do. The waste of inedible oils and fats in Canada has been appalling for many years. I am putting some facts on the record for the purpose of encouraging those who are trying to lessen this waste, and in the interests of the national economy. If one will take the time to read Hansard of 1936, 1937 and 1938, and particularly the evidence given at the hearing of the tariff board on December 9, 10 and 11, 1936, he will find that our waste of fats and greases amounted to fifty million pounds a year. The salvage department of national war services, and the oils and fats administrator for Canada, Mrs. Phyllis G. Turner, with Mr. Laferle of the national war sendees organization, have been indefatigable in their efforts to rectify this situation. I would say from observation that they have saved Canada's economy about twenty million pounds a year of what previously went to waste. The women of Canada and the municipalities are doing a fine job, from both a voluntary and an economic point of view, in saving fats. There is room for great improvement in fat and grease salvage, and I urge all concerned to do everything possible. One hundred pounds of this commodity will produce from ten to thirteen pounds of glycerine. Thirty million pounds extra saved per year will produce three million pounds of glycerine. Three million pounds of glycerine manufactured into explosives could blow the city of Ottawa to smithereens and shake the entire Ottawa valley. I mention that to try and impress even Kingsmere; I see the Prime Minister is getting worried. I make this statement in order to encourage those patriotic women who are voluntarily working to save this material; to encourage the street cleaning departments of our cities and towns and all those who are trying to assist the Department of National War Services in this very necessary work.
We have still another opportunity to increase our production of edible fats. Let the government increase the weight allowed for hogs before they are slaughtered, and make sure that the producer receives the maximum price even if the hogs are heavy, because there is no easier method of manufacturing fat than by means of the hog. The government has gone some distance in this direction by allowing top prices for hogs put on the market at weights greater than obtained before the war. It is freely admitted by those who know anything about the trade that the last twenty pounds are the cheapest and quickest to put on the hog, and this would help out by increasing the consumption of our mixed grains. So that we would be serving two ends: on the one hand we would be feeding our grain, of which we have a large surplus, and on the other we would be producing heavier hogs, thereby increasing the available amount of a byproduct of which we are short to the extent of 200,000,000 pounds a year. We depend upon the British market, of course, to consume all our export surplus of hog products, though nowadays I imagine our production is more for export than for home consumption. It is my opinion that the United Kingdom has no appreciable surplus of fats and would not be averse to accepting heavier Wiltshire sides. If we pointed out to the United Kingdom how easy it was for us to add an extra ten pounds before slaughtering a hog for the British market, they might concede a point and allow us to export bacon as a means of shipping an extra supply of mixed grain in the form of heavier fat bacon.

cerning the Ruml plan and the Ilsley plan, and I suggest, sir, that you might call it eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Harris (Danforth) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 9, 1943