1943-05-19

Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 6, be concurred in.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us the second report of the committee on public accounts, as presented to the house on April 6. The original reference to that committee was made on March 8, and is found at page 1023 of Hansard in the following words:
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.
The first report of the committee was filed on March 25, in these words:
Your committee recommends that its orders of reference be enlarged to permit the calling of Colonel John Thompson before the committee to give evidence relating to the performance of his duties as director of government office economies control during the fiscal year 19421943.
That report was concurred in on March 31. I would point out to hon. members that concurrence in the report enabled the public accounts committee to question Colonel John Thompson concerning the performance of his duties as director of government office economies control during the fiscal year which ended on March 31 last, whereas the original
reference covered public accounts only for the fiscal year which ended on March 31, 1942.
The division of government office economies control was set up by order in council on August 18, 1942. Among its powers was the power to control publications issued by the various departments of government. The director was charged with the duty of controlling and directing, inter alia, the publication and distribution of all publications issued by the departments of the government of Canada, as set out in the said order.
A few weeks later, on September 9, 1942, a board known as the wartime information board was established. On October 27, 1942, the power of the director of government office economies control to check publications was cancelled in so far as the wartime information board was concerned. That meant that the wartime information board was taken out from under the control of the division of government office economies control. The committee on public accounts was unable, for that reason, to get any information from Colonel Thompson concerning the activities of the wartime information board. The public accounts committee has been unable to complete its investigation into economies that could be practised in the departments of government. I suggest to the members of the house that it should be able to investigate the expenditures by the wartime information board. This committee should be able to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity, or in relation thereto, by various governmental departments and boards, not only prior to March 31, 1942, but subsequent thereto. All the activities of the wartime information board took place during the last fiscal year, in other words after March 31. 1942.
There was a recommendation made to the public accounts committee by the steering committee thereof that the house be asked for power to investigate all expenditures incurred for publicity, or in relation thereto, by various governmental departments and/or boards, subsequent to March 31. 1942. That recommendation was voted down by the committee as a whole with a vote of twenty-one to fourteen. It was voted down by way of an amendment which provided that the consideration of the recommendation of the steering committee should be deferred. In effect, that amendment-approved by the general committee killed the recommendation of the steering committee.
I would point out that returns have been filed during the present session showing quite heavy expenditures by the wartime information board. One return in particular, being sessional paper 176, dated March 2. 1943.
Public Accounts

contains illuminating information with regard to the expenses of the board. Question No. 16 in that return is as follows:
What has been the total expenditure of the wartime information board since its establishment for
(a)	Salaries, honoraria and living allowances
(b)	Travelling expenses
(c)	Printing
(d)	Advertising
(e)	Radio programmes
(f)	Rent of office or other space
(g)	All other expenditures?
The answer is as follows:
(a) Salaries, honoraria and living
allowances	
$119,209	26(b)	Travelling expenses	
21,194	76(c)	Printing	
33,905	54(d)	Advertising	(e)	Radio programmes	
11,765	28(f)	Rent of office or other	space. 1,314	32(g)	All other expenditures	391,775	88
The total expenditure was just slightly under $580,000. This occurred in a period of less than six months, because the authority to set up the board was given on September 9, 1942, and the return is dated March 2, 1943. The return also lists the employees of the board and the salaries paid. One can only say that these salaries were not niggardly. One salary which was notable was that paid to a certain Leo Casey, who received $12,000 in United States funds. Press reports of a few days ago state that Mr. Casey has now resigned his position under the board. On April, 3, about a month after the return to which I have referred was tabled. Mr. John Grierson, who in the meantime had been appointed manager of the wartime information board, issued a nine page explanation of the activities and objectives of that board. I quote from a press dispatch of April 3, in which Mr. Grierson is reported as stating in reference to the board:
Its aim was to develop an over-all contact with the public, without which Ottawa "cannot expect to keep adequately in touch with the people and their activities over 4,000 miles of territory".
I think that could be summed up in the one word "propaganda". Then he went on to say:
Each department of government had its own information service issuing material to the public.
Apparently that is in addition to the wartime information board.
Wartime information board is not immediately concerned with these services but has the duty of seeing to it thai, in consultation with the departmental officers concerned, wastage of effort is kept within limits, campaigns are related and contradictions avoided.
We have this very expensive set-up for publicity. One would think that the government could rely upon the press of the country

to handle most of the publicity. They do practically all of it anyway in a thoroughly efficient and unbiased way.
I suggest that this question is of great concern, not only to the members of this house but to the Canadian people as a whole. If the house gives it authority the public accounts committee can do a useful and vital work. It should be permitted to deal with these qustions which are of concern at the moment, such as expenditures for publicity.
At the present time the public accounts committee can deal only with what happened more than a year ago, which in time of war means that it can deal only with old and dead material. I suggest that the businesslike thing to do is to give this committee power to investigate these expenditures for publicity. At the time the first reference was made to the committee the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) led us to believe that he would not restrict the investigations, that he would be only too glad to help the committee investigate the things that were of importance. That attitude should be taken to-day by members of the house; therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
That the report of this committee be not now concurred in but that the same be referred back to the committee, with instructions to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity, or in relation thereto, by various governmental departments and/or boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
In so moving I would point out that my motion is worded exactly as the recommendation made to the public accounts committee by its steering committee.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I will support this
motion on principle because in my view all the publications of the government should be given the widest possible publicity to fill the gap caused by the lack of interest of the English press in dominion politics. In my humble view, sir, all publications of the government should be sent free to the mayor and secretary-treasurer of every municipality in the country. The people would then have an opportunity of securing official information at the city hall or community hall in each city, town or township. But that is upon one condition, and that is that the public accounts committee pay less attention to rugs, which must necessarily be under the table or desk of some officials in Ottawa and pay more attention to matters of much greater importance.

Public Accounts
I find, sir, that until now the work of the official opposition in this house has been done mostly by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and a couple of others. So far as the rest of the Conservative members are concerned their opposition has been mostly skin-deep and rose water.
We have often been told that no one should play politics during the war. That rug business is strictly politics. It would be very easy for every member of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition-I speak of the official opposition-to take up matters of much greater importance, especially now, than the travelling and living expenses of the dollar-a-year men. There are so many matters of greater importance than the rugs which we have not had an opportunity to walk on, and which must be kept in good condition because very few members of parliament are visiting the offices of those whose rugs are so thick that one would think alfalfa was growing on the floor.
The expenditures for the current year will amount to approximately five billion dollars. The purchase of rugs costing a thousand dollars each certainly would have been a scandal in ordinary years, in peace time, but now that we * are at war we must first think of the welfare of the armed forces as well as the welfare of our civilian population. There are wrongs to redress now. We cannot wait until to-morrow to redress them. The thing to do is not to think of the errors of the past, if there were any, but to think of betterment in the future so that no such scandals will arise.
I have been blamed and castigated because I have complained of certain officials of the government. Here is one, the son of a former Tory prime minister of Canada, who has been appointed as censor of what is done by members of the government. In his criticism of the Department of Public Works I stand one hundred per cent with the minister of that department. On the other hand, I will say to those of the cabinet who were responsible for the recommendation and appointment of Colonel Thompson that the trouble they got was coming to them. They deserved it and it should be a lesson to them not to appoint a Tory to such a responsible position in the future. This is the language that the government deserves from one of the few remaining true Liberals in the house.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) endeavour to give the impression to the house that the work of the wartime information board is now superfluous and might be dispensed with.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend did not say that, it was .clearly the implication of his remarks.


Howard Charles Green: I said it was too expensive.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He argued that the vehicle of getting information to the public that already existed through the press was quite sufficient to meet the needs of the present. We are all conscious of the excellent publicity work that is done by the press. But I recall that hon. gentlemen opposite in the early months of the war, and particularly in the first two years of the war, frequently criticized the government because of the lack of attention they said it was paying to the dissemination of information to the public with respect to Canada's effort in the war. It was in response not only to that demand in the house, coming largely from hon, gentlemen opposite, but also to criticism in the public press that the government were lax in their duty in not seeing that Canada's effort in the war was properly publicized in this country as well as in others, that that wartime information board was set up in its present form. There is very general recognition I think, if not in the house, at any rate in the country, that the job which has been done in that respect by the board has been an excellent job.
My hon. friend says that parliament should investigate through the public accounts committee the expenditures incurred by the wartime information board. There may an argument in favour of investigation, but I submit to my hon. friend and to the house that if that is to be done the public accounts committee is not the body through which it should be done. We have on the order paper a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister to set up the war expenditures committee, a committee which has been set up for the last two shears. As the expenditures of the wartime information board arise solely out of the war I submit that the war expenditures committee, when set up, would be the proper one through which such an inquiry as my hon. friend suggests should be conducted. If his argument is sound that the matter should go to the public accounts committee it would be
Public Accounts

equally sound to argue that all the expenditures of the Department of Munitions and Supply or the defence departments should be surveyed by the public accounts committee. That, I think, will appeal to hon. members as an extraordinary procedure should we endeavour to adopt it.


Mr. GRAYDON:: There is nothing very extraordinary about it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, there- is. It has not been done in Great Britain, where they set up a war expenditures committee to investigate expenditures concerned with the war. The public accounts committee is a committee of long standing in the house-


Gordon Graydon: It has been standing too long.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -set up for the purpose of investigating ordinary peace-time expenditures, the expenditures of government in normal times. It was not devised or intended to deal with extraordinary expenditures such as inevitably arise out of war. For that reason the government cannot accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for Vancouver South. If later on he wishes to raise the point that the expenditures of the wartime information board should be submitted to the committee about to be set up on war expenditures, that, I think, is a question which might well receive the consideration of the house.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I believe my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has developed a concrete argument in connection with the amendment which he has proposed, I have followed the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who I assume is to-day leading the house, and who has stated that the place to investigate the wartime information board would be before the war expenditures committee. I think most hon. members will realize that there has been a consistent attempt to carry on all these investigations in secret; moreover, if that board sat every day in the year it could not properly follow the various war expenditure contracts. Notwithstanding that fact they have not had, I am informed, any sitting for over six months, since early last November. A question was put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day as to when it might be set up; and, as I read his remarks, he considered there were many much more important matters before us now than the setting up of the war expenditure committee at this time.
On the subject of this report, there is an article, from which I should like to quote, which appeared on April 7 last in the Globe and
Mr. Crerar.]
Mail, a newspaper which, I know, is not favoured by some members of the government but nevertheless has a wide circulation. I do not intend to read the entire editorial, but I wish to clear up one point which appears in the article, in relation to the calling of Colonel Thompson. I shall not read the first two paragraphs, but continuing, the article states:
Even while the colonel waited to be heard, economy was tossed in the can. The committee considered the recommendation of its own steering committee, calling for inquiry into the publicity expenditures of various government departments. According to Mr. G. (Gerry) G. McGeer, one of five Liberals in favour, the recommendation had passed the steering committee without question. Such unanimity was erroneous.
On the word from Mr. W. H. Golding (Huron-Perth) the government majority in the P.A.C. reformed its line behind a flanking assault- an amendment which would hoist any inquiry into W.I.B. and its satellites until "substantial progress" is made with study of the auditor general's report for the year ending March 31, 1942.
All the oratory and logic of Mr. McGeer, his Liberal supporters and the combined opposition members was powerless to appeal to mind or conscience. It mattered not that the proposed inquiry was on all fours with the Thompson case; that it concerned a matter before parliament and subject of "severe criticism" throughout the nation; that it was necessary, on the eve of a billion-dollar war loan drive, to assure the public there was a committee ready and willing to face charges of extravagance.
Forgotten were a Prime Minister's assurances that the P.A.C. was free to search where it chose; that his government, first before all people, was determined to root out waste. Some one had cried: "Havoc." The Fulfords, the Winklers, the Wards, the Dechenes, the Purdys, the Rosses and the Tripps, the McNivens, the Cotes, the Rheaumes and the Mulocks-all the little storm troopers took^ a bite on their tongues and shouted: "Heil."
That was all. No more was needed. The lid was safely on. If someone should meddle again the storm troopers will be there. It might even be possible by them to shunt the whole business of governmental economy into the safety and secrecy of the war expenditures committee.
That is the suggestion we have from the leader of the government to-day.
For the present the P.A.C. can go back to picking the bones of the auditor general's corpse where waste and extravagance seldom, if ever, show. Who would say ill of the dead?
I just wish, as one of "the Rosses" who were members of that committee, to dissociate myself from the action of "the Rosses" as described in this article. I mentioned that I was one of those members; I should not want it to be supposed across this country that I am regarded in the light of a rubber stamp on such a committee.

Public Accounts
I believe there is a good deal of discussion concerning this wartime information board which was set up last fall and' which, as my colleague has pointed out, has so far cost this country just under $580,000 for publicity expenses in connection with its activities. If the argument of the leader of the government to-day is sound, that this is all to the good, why is there this concerted effort to prevent investigation of its accounts?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take exception to that. There is no concerted effort to avoid investigation. My hon. friend has no right to make that statement. What I said was that the public accounts committee is not the body to investigate these accounts.


James Arthur Ross: I am not referring entirely to the hon. member himself; but, as a new member coming to this parliament it has been amazing to me to see, I repeat, concerted efforts by certain hon. members to prevent investigation. I saw a couple of hon. members in action, concerting all their efforts before the war expenditures committee to which the hon. member has referred. One of them is a member of the public accounts committee, and one is not, although he could not contain himself, and only yesterday he burst out in committee, without even asking permission to appear before the committee or to say a word. I say that that is a deliberate effort on the part of these members, and it has been repeated, and when you get these reports they will speak for themselves and to some extent establish this fact. I certainly believe that this amendment should be carried in the interests of the taxpayers; and if there is no extravagant waste or misspending of public money it will be all to the good so far as the government are concerned.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I was a member of this public accounts committee for a great many years. I attended the first meeting as one of its members. I was present this year at their first meeting when the report of the chairman was adopted and concurrence moved on April 6. I can tell you this, that as long as I sat on this committee I never saw them fulfil the functions of the committee as set out in the manual.
The Acting Prime Minister is going very far afield to justify to the farmers of this country the closed stand he has taken to-day. Remember that there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the public accounts. The figures are now up in the sky,-$660,000,000 in 1943 for civilian estimates as compared with
836.000,000 when the last Conservative government went out in 1936. We are now spending
as much in four or five days as was formerly spent' in the whole year. We have had an example of the workings of a public accounts committee in the province of Ontario, which in investigating the expenditure of the farmers' government were shown that the premier's office had bought a $100 coal scuttle,-which caused more discussion among the farmers of the province than all the rest of the budget put together.	[DOT]
If the amendment does not carry for an open inquiry of all departments and boards, the committee might as well wind up its business. We might as well put a padlock on the door of the House of Commons and admit that we have no control whatever over one cent of public expenditures. They are doing things differently in England. There they have a committee of the house go into every item with auditors who can 'summon witnesses and take active steps to protect the taxpayers. If the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is rejected by the house, and if public affairs are to continue as they are, then I submit that the government is only destroying the principles of liberalism itself and any semblance of public control over accounts. After all, liberalism came into being through the efforts of certain men" to safeguard the rights of the public. In the mother country for over one hundred years a civil war was fought to gain for the House of Commons, in a vigorous fight, control over public expenditures. I regret to say that we have lost that control in this war and the result has been the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons in popular opinion. You can go into any constituency and you will find that there are complaints from the businessmen of Canada. No one knows what is going on.
I asked the Minister of Finance what some of these war boards were costing, how many officials there were, and comparisons before the war, and so on. I wanted to get some idea of the cost from day to day, from week to week. Apparently he did not know; he could not inform me. At any rate, it took me nearly six months to get the information that I was seeking and I did not get it until September of last year, long after the session had closed. The very appointment of these publicity boards has shown that the government has lost confidence in the press and in its ability to disseminate information, which has been the function of the press from time immemorial. May I quote from certain remarks of mine as reported at page 2630 of Hansard:
Why not give the public the real picture. It is the function of a democratic government to support a democratic press, so that the taxpayers may obtain, through the medium of that
Public Accounts

press, information in regard to the expenditure of public moneys 6uch as is contemplated -here. After all, the taxpayer is the man who is going to foot the bill; the cost will not be paid by a committee of the cabinet or by this committee. It is the taxpayers of Capada who will have to pay it. They will get it in their income tax and in other ways. I submit therefore that it is the duty of the government to make it possible for the people to get all the information they can. I do not blame the press for not publicizing the matter when the government has Bhown such a lack of confidence in the press of Canada by appointing an information bureau to discharge the functions that should properly be discharged by our newspapers. It should be the function of the press to obtain the necessary information from the government in regard to Bill 76 and to give a real picture of what is going on. not only in our domestic affairs but in regard to foreign questions as well, and to stimulate interest in public affairs.
For that reason I opposed the information and the publicity bureaus. What do these people do? They simply duplicate the work of the radio and the press. Every department has its publicity and liaison press officers and now we find such numerous officers in almost every military district. They constitute a small standing army in themselves. They receive $150 for uniforms, though they are only glorified civilians and just wear an armlet; civilians could do the work just as well. Indeed, they have even gone to the United States and tried to convert the people there to their ideas and convert America from isolation. There is an official Casey at the bat in New York, or Mr. Casey of the publicity board; he is there apparently to tell the people of the United States something about Canada's publicity department. In conclusion, I may say that the auditor general-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Well, it needs someone to say something. We cannot all be like hon. gentlemen opposite, yes men and nodders, banging desks and shouting. I raised this very question in 1941 and again in 1942 and 1943 and I suggest that there is not a member of parliament who can go home to his constituency and convince the people that we have control over one cent of war expenditures.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Let these yes men and nodders bang their desks; oh! oh! I can tell them that in Germany and Italy the evolution of tyranny began in the banging of desks and yes men and nodders consenting to the usurpation of their powers and functions by dictators, and it soon ended in the

suppression of the press and of parliamentary government in its entirety, with the result that the dictators were exalted and parliament and the press abolished. Two of the gentlemen who are spending the money that parliament is voting like water, a mint of money, are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Munitions and Supply and we have the dead hand of the treasury. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie used to say that he slept on the strong box; but in Liberalism to-day we find no minister who cares anything about the way in which public moneys are expended. As I said before, we are certainly spending a mint of money. We are spending money like water. The auditor general has no control, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance said yesterday. The auditor general wrote me a letter-I had it here yesterday -intimating that he had no control over one dollar of the appropriation bill. It has been transferred to the finance department, and in this connection what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has said is absolutely correct. There is what they call a comptroller who is an official of the finance department and when they find that the clauses of the appropriation bill are ini order they stamp it and certify it as correct.
The public accounts committee might as well disband for the session. I was in the committee the other day and the hon. member for Vancouver South, who is a good lawyer, was trying to get information, but objections were raised in all parts of the committee. In fact, everyone was smoking cigars and the general tenor of the whole proceedings did not suggest that there was very much study or reflection on the part of the members of the committee on these vast sums of money which the taxpayers are being called upon to contribute.
Donald Gordon can raise the price of coal or meat or anything else and parliament is treated with contempt. Look what happened last Monday in that line. An official like Donald Gordon, over the head of parliament, automatically imposed 75 cents a ton for delivery, when there was available a sum of $80,000,000 out of ceilings from which he could have taken the amount he wanted to aid the small coal delivery man. This would have given the small retailer a chance to have his coal delivered. I do not know what hon. members think, but I know what the people of Ontario think. There is to be an election in Ontario, and I warn you it will not be long before there is a federal election. We know what the experience in Ontario was as a result

Public Accounts
of the regime of the Drury government. It seems to me that the government is simply refusing to give the House of Commons the facts about the way all this money is being spent.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I support the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I was a member of the steering committee who recommended a similar motion to the public accounts committee. If I remember rightly the member for Vancouver South moved that motion, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) seconded it, and there seemed almost to be unanimity on the part of the steering committee that there ought to be an investigation into the whole question of governmental publicity. When the motion came before the public accounts committee, however, it was defeated.
I am supporting this motion, and I suggest that the objections made by the leader of the government are not valid. He said in the first place that this is an objection to the usefulness of the war information board. There is nothing in this motion that indicates dissatisfaction with the work of the war information board. Rather, this is a motion that calls for investigation of expenditures incurred for publicity. It says nothing whatever as to whether we view the work of the war information board as being useful or useless. The other objection of the leader of the government is that the proper committee to investigate governmental publicity is the war expenditures committee because this governmental publicity has to do with the war. I submit to the house that at the present time the public accounts committee is engaged in investigating certain matters with reference to the Noorduyn Aircraft company, which is engaged in the manufacturing of aircraft. That is solely a war item; and if that is a correct and proper function of the public accounts committee, then how much more would this governmental publicity come within the jurisdiction of that committee.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask if that was not a specific item in the public accounts which was referred to the committee?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is true, but it has to do solely with the war; it is not a peace-time item at all. On the other hand here is an item that has to do with publicity not only concerned with the war but also with peace-time activities. This is another matter which the minister says should
be referred to the war expenditures committee. This house has been in session now for well over three and1 a half months, but as yet that committee has not been set up. When the war expenditures committee is set up it will have thousands of contracts-to investigate, and in the very nature of things it will be unable to cover even a small fraction of those contracts, let alone undertake an investigation into this question of governmental publicity. The minister therefore must know that he is suggesting a physical impossibility when he says the war expenditures committee could give any consideration at all to this matter, if it is to consider the many other matters that will be referred to it.	[DOT]
I want to ask the house to support this motion for two reasons. The first is that such an investigation will have a salutary effect upon the many new branches of the government now growing up. There is a feeling in this country that with the tremendous number of boards and controllers being established in Ottawa there is a tendency on the part of many of these boards and individuals to feel that they can spend money like drunken sailors, and I think the effect would be good if this motion were passed. I believe that the work done by the public accounts committee already has been responsible for a tightening up in various' government departments, and it would help in almost every department of government if those charged with the spending of money and the incurring of obligations knew that a public accounts committee was sitting and that it was going to take up this very important question.
The second reason I give the house is that we are building up in this country a tremendous bureaucracy, with large numbers of men being brought to Ottawa and new boards being set up. There is not only the danger of a bureaucracy; there is danger that this bureaucracy will now take unto itself a propaganda or publicity branch for the purpose of prolonging its own life. That might become very dangerous; therefore, it seems to me that a committee of this house ought to go into the whole question of the extent to which the expenditure of this money is justified, and also the extent to which this money is being spent for proper publicity, or merely for the advertisement and glorification of some of these persons who form part of the bureaucracy.
Public Accounts


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) I think it is necessary to refer to some discussions which took place in the house earlier in the , session in regard to this matter; but before doing that I should like to refer briefly to the closing remarks of the hon. member. He referred to the danger of this country being governed under a bureaucracy. Just before we adjourned for the Easter recess something was said in this house as to the attitude of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in relation to government ownership, and at that time we were told that we were attributing something to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which was not in accordance with the views or policies or principles of that group. One of the candidates recently selected to contest a constituency in the province of Ontario advised those of us who had been critical to read what since has been called the bible of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, "Social Planning in Canada", written by seven professors who are presumed to understand what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes in. I am very much surprised to hear a member of that group attack anyone else as an advocate of a bureaucratic form of government or as endangering Canada in the matter of having publicity boards that might control the thinking of the people. As I remember the set-up of the ' government to be formed in accordance with the views written by these seven professors in 1935, before the war began-views which probably some of them would not express to-day-they suggested that we should have a board set up in Canada which should do all the planning, even for the House of Commons and the government of the country; that those plans should be submitted to the house through the government, and that there would be no danger of the plans not being carried because under their system, instead of depending upon a capitalistic press and a capitalistic radio, they would have a press and a radio and pamphlets covering this country which would advocate their own doctrines, and make sure that they had representatives on the floor of this house who would pass those proposals.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Would the minister read that from the book?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I read it in the book, and if the hon. member reads the book he will find it there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I read the book, but I did not find that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will find many other things in the book also, and some day when the opportunity arises I may analyse that book for him in such a way that he will understand it.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the question before the house at the moment, though I thank my hon. friend for having raised the matter at this time. The question under discussion is that which was raised a few moments ago by the acting leader of the house, when it was suggested that this was a proper matter to refer to the war expenditures committee rather than to the public accounts committee. Some remarks have been made in regard to the calling of the public accounts committee and to the fact that this committee has not always met. I once had the privilege of belonging to a government that had been in power in a province for something over twenty years, and I recall that at that time we were accused by the opposition party of never having the public accounts committee meet. Well, I had the privilege also of being the leader of the opposition in that legislature for five years after that, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee met during each of those five years.
Let me tell you the reason for that. The public accounts committee is set up in any legislative body for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of those who sit in the opposition. Once that committee is set up it is the duty of the opposition to see that it meets and examines into the expenditures which appear in the public accounts from year to year. If they have not done so, they cannot accuse the government of the day of being responsible for the fact that the committee has not met and that the public accounts have not been gone into. As a matter of fact it is not only their privilege but it is their duty to call that committee together every year, and to search the public accounts of the preceding year. If they do that every year there will be no set of public accounts which will not have been fully examined into by the public accounts committee.
Now, to come to the point:	In 1940 the
then leader of the opposition, the present hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) raised this question in the house on December 3, 1940. Let me read what he said:
So far such committees have not been set up.
He was speaking of war expenditures committees-
I indicated that I knew there were difficulties, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he can and will, to tell the house what the attitude of the government is with respect to that. If the difficulties are such as cannot be surmounted

Public Accounts
then I have another concrete suggestion which I desire to lay before the house anil the country.
It is, in brief, that the government cause to be set up a select committee on current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, for civil defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and instruct such committee to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of government policies may be effected therein.
If I remember correctly the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Caldwell) on that occasion supported that suggestion, and I think most hon. members in the opposition groups were in agreement with it. Let me read the next paragraph from the speech of the then leader of the opposition :
Now, it is all very well to say that we can get all this information on national expenditure through the public accounts committee. Theoretically that is correct. But the information which "will be obtained through the public accounts idea will not be on current expenditure. It will relate only to the expenditures that have taken place in the previous year and as covered by the auditor general's report. Practically all the national expenditure for the war effort has taken place since March 31 last -or rather the great bulk of the contracts relating to national expenditure for war effort have been let since March 31, and inquiry before the public accounts committee will not be possible. That committee may examine only such things as are submitted to it. I am impelled to make this request for various reasons, but more particularly because what I suggest has been done in England and, I am advised, with good results.
I do not think it would be possible to find a more conclusive statement in support of1 what was said only a few minutes ago by the acting leader of the government than the statement made by the then leader of the opposition when the committee was first set up, after it had been advocated from the other side of the house. When public accounts are submitted from time to time it is proper that everything which is submitted in those public accounts should be examined into. I repeat that it is the duty of the opposition to see that they are examined into. But when special matters, even in peace-time, are required to be investigated it is quite a common thing to appoint a special committee to make examination into them. On this occasion the then leader of the opposition himself advocated the view that the proper manner in which to deal with expenditures taking place in the current year, and therefore not submitted through the public accounts, was to set up a war expenditures committee for such purpose. That is exactly the kind of matter we are talking about now. We are talking about expenditures going on from day to day
by the wartime information board, expenditures many of which do not appear in the auditor general's report submitted to this committee.
On the argument of the then leader of the opposition, when the committee was set up, I submit it is only fair and right that this house should consider referring such matters as have been discussed to the special war-time committee, and not to the public accounts committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a point of order, and I refer to three points. The amendment is moved to a motion of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). That motion had to do with the report of the standing committee on public accounts, suggesting that the proceedings and transcript of evidence be adopted by the house, and also that permission be given to sit when the house is sitting.
The amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is, in my judgment, in the nature of a reference back to the committee with certain instructions. In this case I suggest that the amendment is in anticipation of a resolution now appearing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the order paper, with respect to the setting up of a committee on war expenditures.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that at page 136 of Votes and Proceedings for the present session two amendments were moved. The first was moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and the second by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), to establish the principle that the public accounts committee should examine accounts down to February, 1943. That principle was then decided by the house.
This amendment is in the nature of an instruction to a standing committee of the house, and, according to Bourinot, pages 512 and 513, an hon. member cannot move to amend by way of an instruction a motion which actually is concerned with the printing of evidence, and cannot give a specific instruction on a question of policy to a committee under such a motion.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have not been greatly convinced by much of what I have heard. May I point out however in regard to the point of order just raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) that in so far as an amendment to a motion for concurrence in the
Public Accounts

report of a committee is concerned he must admit the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was perfectly in order in moving an instruction. As a matter of fact the rules and forms of the house dealing with concurrence in the report of a committee destroy the argument the minister has made. The forms themselves indicate that-
Mr.	moves in amendment thereto,
seconded by Mr.	, "that the said report
be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the select standing committee on-
In this instance public accounts-
-with the instruction that they have power to amend the same. . . .
And so on. Without going into any long legal argument such as we have heard this afternoon-and some of which from the other side of the house I must say has not been very enlightening-may I state my views in the matter. I wish specially to refer to the acting leader of the government. In this instance he tried to make the point that no matter where war expenditures were involved -and I think perhaps on reflection he will wish to withdraw some of his words, after hearing his colleagues-where there are matters involving war expenditures they should go to the committee on war expenditures for attention.


Mr. GOLDING:: Current expenditures.


Gordon Graydon: If the hop. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) wishes to help the minister, I have no objection; I think he needs some help. May I say to the minister however that in my submission the right to refer a matter to the war expenditures committee cannot be elongated in argument to the point where we are not allowed, by virtue of our powers as a parliament, to send a matter for investigation to the public accounts committee. That is within the power of the House of Commons itself, and within the power of parliament. It may be all very well from time to time to wrap some matter up in red tape; but for the Minister of Pensions and National Health to say the matter was decided at a former sitting of the house is, of course, wrong. After that, by vote of this house-perhaps not by vote, but with the consent of the house- we sent to the public accounts committee the whole matter of economy control and matters relating to Colonel John D. Thompson. I think that destroys the argument raised by my hon. friend1.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On motion from the committee., was it not?


Gordon Graydon: I do not care whether it was on motion or what it was; it was

passed by the house. Where it originated is not concerning me at the moment. Let me point out to my hon. friend when he talks about a motion from the committee that the steering committee-this was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South -actually brought in a report upon which the amendment now proposed was based.


James Arthur Ross: Unanimous.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to get into any argument between two hon. members. Suppose it was not unanimous; it was passed by the majority. True, it was not passed by the committee as a whole, but the fact remains that the steering committee made that recommendation.
When the acting leader of the government says that war expenditures should be referred to the war expenditures committee, I would point out to him that in referring the auditor general's report to the public accounts committee we referred not only peace-time and civil expenditures but war-time expenditures as well. Someone will rise and say "current expenditures", but are we in this war-time period to base our decisions simply upon a play of words? If we are to bring before the public accounts committee matters which occurred last year, is there any reason why a sensible group of people such as the House of Commons, provided there is a definite and good reason, should not order that these accounts be brought up to date? When the minister says that this matter should be brought before the war expenditures committee, surely he is not contending that we in this house have- no power to send anything in the nature of extraordinary expenditures to the public accounts committee for attention.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not make any such argument, nor did I attempt to do so. There is no question that the house can do anything it pleases in the matter of conducting its own business. The point I made was that the public accounts committee was not the proper committe to deal with this, that it was essentially a war expenditure and should be sent to the war expenditures committee. It would be just as reasonable to have all current expenditures of the Department of National Defence or the Department of Munitions and Supply sent to the public accounts committee as it would be to send this matter to that committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is a point of order before the Chair, and I wish hon. members would confine their remarks to it.

Public Accounts


Gordon Graydon: I am trying to confine myself to the point of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: You are not succeeding very well.


Gordon Graydon: It is difficult to do that, especially when the minister intervenes with something else. I am glad to hear the minister suggest that the house has power to send this matter to the public accounts committee. If it has, as I have argued it has, then let us send this extraordinary matter to the public accounts committee to be dealt with.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not a question of power; it is a question of propriety.


Gordon Graydon: The minister mentions sending expenditures of the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of National Defence to this committee. If there is anything extraordinary in either department I see no reason why it should not go to the public accounts committee, if this house deems it proper that it should. I am going to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health to withdraw his point of order, and I am going to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to withdraw from the position he has taken as leader of the government. The public are not going to understand the position taken by this government in connection with a point as important as a reference of this question to the public accounts committee. I am offering the ministers this friendly advice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It cannot be done.


Gordon Graydon: I point out to the government that the public do not want matters concerning munitions and supply, or this particular matter, investigated behind closed doors. Having regard to their responsibilities and position in the country, I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health to withdraw his point of order and I ask the acting leader of the government to withdraw his argument. These are days when we should be unwinding red tape instead of tying up our affairs with it.


James Lester Douglas: On the point of order, I would draw Your Honour's attention to standing order 66 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 661, which reads:
When the motion is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instructions to amend the same in any respect. It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the house resolves that such reconsideration. is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
And citation 672 reads:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions
giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
I submit these for the consideration of Your Honour. It seems to me that this motion is perfectly in order.


Thomas Vien: It was moved by Mr. Fraser (Northumberland, Ontario), seconded by Mr. Golding, that the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 6, be concurred in. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), as follows:
That the report of this committee be not now concurred in but that the same be referred back to the committee, with instructions to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity, or in relation thereto, by various governmental departments and/or boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
The question having been brought before the Chair, the Chair must rule no matter what members of the government may decide to do. My attention has been directed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health to page 136 of Votes and Proceedings, which I quote as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie King moved,-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.
And a debate arising thereon;
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn), seconded by Mr. Noseworthy, moved in amendment thereto: 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."
And the debate continuing;
Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it proposed the holding of an investigation which is a proposition of considerable import and should not be moved as an amendment to a routine order but rather by way of a substantive motion after notice under standing order 45.
And the debate continuing on the main motion;
Mr. Maclnnis, seconded by Mr. Gillis, moved in amendment to the main motion: 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."
Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it involved a substantive motion and that the accounts proposed to be referred not being in the possession of the house cannot be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Reference has been made to the forms in Beauchesne by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). Form No. 95 deals with

Public Accounts

concurrence in a committee report, and the hon. leader of the opposition will notice that when an amendment is moved to the motion for concurrence the form given is "That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the select standing (or
special) committee on	with instruction
that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that	"
The amendment before the house is not an amendment to the motion. It is an addition to the motion asking for instructions to investigate expenditures. The hon. leader of the opposition stated that the house had the right to do as it pleased with regard to any of its business. Without doubt that is true. But the house should only be asked to decide on matters in conformity with the rules and procedure of the house. Here we have, not an amendment, but a motion asking for instructions to be given to a committee. The question naturally arises, what is the instruction? In Beauchesne's third edition, page 151, citation 407 reads:
An instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs

That is the motion:
*-the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the house.
That is the point which I think the hon. leader of the opposition makes, that the house can either extend or restrict the order of reference. The citation continues:
If the subject-matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then such instruction is useless and irregular. Committees, in ease of doubt, may ask instructions from the house as to the course they should take with reference to the matters under their consideration. An instruction to the committee of supply cannot be moved.
The position I am taking, therefore, is that this proposed amendment is in the form of a substantive motion of which notice should be given in the regular way, and the rules of the house provide opportunity for the house to decide what it shall do either in the way of amending, extending or restricting.
I am confirmed somewhaf in that opinion by a decision which was given by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) on May 4, 1934, Beauchesne, third edition, page 642 on a motion to appoint a select committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. The amendment to that motion was ruled out of order

by the Speaker on the ground that it was a substantive motion. The decision is rather long. Mr. Guthrie had moved:
That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian government merchant marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided, however, that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply.
An amendment to the motion was moved as follows:
That the first paragraph of the motion before the house be amended to read as follows:
The standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committee of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session, a select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, or whose borrowings have been guaranteed by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian government merchant marine for the present session, together with the accounts and estimates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and their subsidiary companies, for consideration and report to the house.
Mr. Guthrie then raised the point that the amendment was out of order. He said1:
The object of the amendment is to permit the house to go on with that inquiry into the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, but in addition it endeavours to bring in an entirely different enterprise that has nothing to do with the Canadian National Railways; and that if the motion in amendment is proper, it is a substantive motion and should be brought before the house as such, with notice given in the ordinary way.
I therefore on these grounds rule the amendment out of order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for Your Honour's judgment. However, I believe that like the rest of us Your Honour is subject to human error. In this case I think the decision is wrong, and with great respect I would appeal from your ruling to the house.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows:
Mr. Fraser (Northumberland) having moved that the second report of the public accounts committee be concurred in, Mr. Green moved in amendment that the report be not now concurred in but be referred back to investigate publicity expenditures. I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it sought to enlarge the scope of the order

Public Accounts
of reference, which is in the nature of a substantive motion and can only be moved by way of instructions after the usual notice; *from which an appeal is taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted, I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the
main motion.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: The
amendment having been ruled out of order by Your Honour and your ruling sustained by the house, I propose now to move an amendment which may have the approval of Your Honour, and as I see it, it conforms strictly with the rules which have been quoted against the other amendment.
To begin, with, I would quote from the second edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 661 at page 194, regarding the motion for concurrence in the report:
When the motion is proposed the report may be referred back to the eommitte for further consideration or with instruction to amend the same in any respect. It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the house resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
Again, Doctor Beauchesne quotes from Bourinot, at page 196, paragraph 672:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
Before moving the amendment I propose to submit, may I say that I do not agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that it is the duty of the opposition to have the public accounts committee set up.
2S14
Public Accounts


James Garfield Gardiner: Not set up, but called when it is set up.


George Black: It is the duty of the government to set up the public accounts committee, and it is not for the protection of the opposition; it is for the protection of the general public, for the purpose of investigating the expenditure of public money. Moreover, it should be a very useful committee even in war time. Now the committee has been set up and on this occasion the opposition attempts to refer to it the investigation of certain public accounts and public expenditures, and the government, for some reason, by its action to-day has undertaken to prevent that. I would not insinuate or suggest that the government has anything to conceal in that expenditure, but if there is nothing to conceal, why cover it up? It is true there is a war expenditures committee, but that does not prevent the public accounts committee from . examining and investigating any public accounts, including expenditures that might be investigated by the war expenditures committee or any other committee, or any expenditures of public moneys that might be made. With that in view, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe):
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the public accounts committee with instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that said committee have power to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity or in relation thereto by wartime information board and by various governmental departments and boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I rise to say a few words in support of this amendment. When the public accounts committee was set up on March 8, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave a clear understanding that if, after the committee began its work, any member, no matter on which side of the house he might sit, who wished anything investigated, brought the matter to the attention of the committee and did not get satisfaction, he might bring it up in the house and he would have the Prime Minister's support. I am going to quote what the Prime Minister said. I am sorry that he is not here to give a lead to his followers, but I hope that after I have read what he said his followers will honour his promise to the extent of voting for the amendment. I read from Hansard at page 1037:
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 make a decision that a certain individual or a certain matter is to be investigated, and so report to the house, I shall be prepared to back the report.
The committee in making this report is not asking that something be investigated; but the Prime Minister, an unusual thing for him, put himself further on record:
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 wrorg, 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 made.
Here are members, not one but many, who want certain things brought before the committee. They were told by the Prime Minister that if they brought any matter before the house they would have his backing. Now I ask the members on the government side to back the other members of the committee and to refer wartime information board to the public accounts committee for investigation.


Mr. P. E. COTE (Verdun):: I shall say
only a few words as a matter of privilege. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in his remarks during the debate, has, in my opinion, cast a reflection on the majority of the committee in declaring that the recommendation of the steering committee was turned down by the majority of the committee as a whole upon instructions received from certain members of the government.


Howard Charles Green: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. member is misquoting me. I did not say that.


Paul-Émile Côté: I submit that the hon. member definitely stated that the government did not want any investigation beyond the references which were given to the committee and that the government or certain members of the government did not want the committee to go into the expenses of the wartime information board. It is those statements of the hon. member which, I suggest, constitute a reflection upon the majority group of the committee, and I desire to indicate the reasons why the recommendation of the steering committee was voted down. I participated in that debate, and I was of the opinion that this recommendation was out of order because the steering committee was given power to determine the order of precedence concerning the matters which had been referred to the committee, and it did not have any power to

Public Accounts
make recommendations in regard to additional references. This was the first point on which I opposed the recommendation.
In the second place it was my argument that this recommendation was premature until the public accounts committee had completed its investigation into the two matters referred to it; that is to say, the investigation into the office of director of economies control, and the auditor general's report. The committee has no business to look for further references until a final report has been made to this house on the two references already before it. In addition I agree entirely with the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) that this amendment, if adopted, would mean that the public accounts committee would duplicate the work of the war expenditures committee.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South,):: I am sure hon. members are very grateful to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the enlightenment he has given us on the book "Social Planning for Canada". I suspect, however, that his enlightenment is in line with his definition of the main function of the public accounts committee. I tried to take that definition down in longhand, and this is what I wrote: that the purpose of the public accounts committee is to safeguard the position of those who sit in opposition. That is something new to me; I had [DOT]not thought of that as being the purpose of the public accounts committee on which I serve. I may say, however, that during the short time I have been on that committee my observations would indicate that the minister is not the only member of this house, sitting on that side, who' holds this conception of the function of the public accounts committee.
I submit that the publicity given throughout this country to the returns brought down, which were referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), is sufficient warrant for an investigation into the expenditures there outlined. A great deal of suspicion has been created in the public mind by the publicity that has been given those returns. The changes which have been made in the personnel of the wartime information board since that information has been made public gives the people further reason for being a bit suspicious; and the opposition this afternoon of three cabinet ministers, together with many other government supporters, both members and non-members of the public accounts committee, will not do anything to allay that suspicion in the public mind. I think everyone is agreed that this
matter should be investigated. The question is whether the investigation should be made by the public accounts committee or the war expenditures committee. There is no question but that next year this matter will come before the public accounts committee when it examines the auditor general's report. Would it not be much more sensible to have the matter investigated now, while it is a live issue in the public mind, instead of waiting for twelve months?
As I understand it the war expenditures committee was created for the purpose of investigating certain matters which, because they pertained to our war effort, were better gone into in camera. I quite understand that there are expenditures made by certain departments the details of which should not be revealed to the public, but I fail to see that we would be giving any information to the enemy or injuring our war effort in any way by insisting that this particular matter be brought up in the public accounts committee. I submit that this is no time for ministers, government supporters, or any other members of this house to give the public the impression that we have something to hide regarding expenditures. Therefore I support the amendment, which asks that this matter be brought before the public accounts committee.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
entirely share the views expressed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). The people of our country are entitled to know how the government spend their money and their incomes. No other organization is in a better position than the public accounts committee to make a thorough investigation on this matter of national importance. My first duty, as a representative of the people, is to keep an eye on public expenditures. This is why, a few moments ago, I supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) by registering my vote against your ruling. I will also gladly support the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. At a time when the government is spending huge sums of money for the prosecution of the war, it is more important than ever that we should scrutinize with the greatest care the government's expenditures for military and other purposes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It appears to me the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) is seeking in a somewhat oblique manner, shall I say, to obtain the judgment of this house again on the point that was settled a short time ago
Public Accounts

when the house upheld Your Honour's ruling. The objections that were urged to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) apply with equal force to the amendment proposed by the hon. member.for Yukon. I want to make it clear to the house that the position of the government on the matter is that the public accounts committee is not the right committee to which to send an investigation of the expenditures of the wartime information board.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: For two reasons: In the first place, under the rules of procedure of the house which have been followed all down through the years the public accounts committee is set up to consider public accounts referred to the house by the auditor general. That is a procedure which has been established over a great many years. The expenses incurred by the wartime information board are not in the public accounts at present before the public accounts committee. That is the first reason.
The second reason is the one I advanced when I was discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver South. The public accounts committee is one of long standing. It is set up to examine into ordinary peacetime expenditures, or the normal expenditures of government. The war expenditures committee was established to meet the very condition my hon. friends opposite are asking should be met.


Howard Charles Green: At the moment there is no war expenditures committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But, as the hon. member knows, there is a motion on the order paper for the setting up of that committee.


Howard Charles Green: It has been there for three months.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement not long ago as to what would be done with that resolution.


Gordon Graydon: There are two big differences in the committees.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was recognized that there would be current expenditures which might usefully and profitably be inquired into by the house, long before those expenditures would appear, as a matter of routine, through public accounts. Consequently, the war expenditures committee has been set up for some years past.
Precisely the same situation was found to exist in Great Britain. Their procedure is

much the same as ours, and I believe in the matter of inquiry into public accounts it is on all fours with our procedure. It was recognized by the British government after the outbreak of the war that in connection with these immense expenditures which must be incurred in the prosecution of the war it would be useful, not only to the government but to the public generally, to have investigations made respecting w'ar expenditures by a special committee, and thereby overcome the. handicap arising through delays which would arise if such expenditures were left to reach the public accounts committee in the ordinary way.
The procedure followed at that time by the British government commended itself particularly to my hon. friends opposite. And, as my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out a little time ago, the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) from the seat he then occupied in the house, that now occupied by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), urged the government to have these expenditures investigated through a war expenditures committee.
He argued, and I think with a good deal of force, that the public accounts committee was not the body which should examine into these expenditures. It is surprising to-day to see my hon. friends opposite completely reversing the position they took then. I am sure, if the hon. member for York-Sunbury were in his place at the moment, he would be very doubtful about supporting the suggestion contained in this amendment.


Gordon Graydon: You are sure about that?


James Arthur Ross: There is no doubt
about his support.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Souris (Mr. Ross) butts in very frequently. I do not disturb him when he is speaking, and I should be grateful if he would not disturb me.
Those are the reasons why the government cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. There will be a time when the expenditures incurred by the wartime information board can be considered. But that time certainly is not now, as suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister undertake that if the investigation of matters connected with the operation of the wartime information board is referred to the wrar expenditures committee, such investigation will be in open and not in secret meetings?

Public Accounts


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; I can say at once to my hon. friend that I will give no such undertaking.


Gordon Graydon: That is the trouble; that is what we thought.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is scarcely reasonable when he makes that remark. I do not know the nature of the expenditures of the wartime information board.


Mr. ROWE:: Nobody else does, either.


Gordon Graydon: That is what we are trying to find out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And you will find out, in the proper way. But there may be expenditures in connection with the operation of the wartime information board, as there would be in connection with the operation of the defence board, which it would not be in the public interest to divulge at the present time. That must always be kept in mind. Consequently I cannot give the commitment for which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has asked.
May I now say a word about the rather ingenious and somewhat strained argument offered by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). He quoted observations of the Prime Minister from page 1037 of Hansard, and argued, rather ingeniously I thought, that the observations of the Prime Minister supported those who are now supporting this amendment. The hon. member for Vancouver East is wholly wrong, as indeed he usually is when he deals with these matters. When the Prime Minister was speaking on the occasion referred to by the hon. member he was referring to matters in the public accounts. If the hon. member will read the Prime Minister's speech, he will find that out.


Angus MacInnis: I have read it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I then be permitted to instruct the hon. member-


Angus MacInnis: It would be impossible for the minister to instruct anybody.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Possibly; but I will make an effort with the hon. gentleman. Speaking to the amendment then under consideration, the Prime Minister said:
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.
What* is being asked in this amendment is precisely the same thing, namely, that we
refer to the public accounts committee expenditures which have not yet been tabled in the house, in the report of the auditor general.


Angus MacInnis: Is that not what the committee on public accounts has been considering, since it began its sittings?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Prime Minister's subsequent remarks were predicated upon that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is taking in a good deal of territory when he says that. They certainly were. Let the hon. member read the Prime Minister's speech. If I understand it correctly, it is all predicated upon the statement I have just read. It was pointed out that there would be no limitation placed upon parliament in the matter of examining into matters reported in the public accounts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister suggested at that time that, first of all, a public accounts committee should be set up, and if the public accounts committee later on found it necessary, that it be allowed to investigate matters arising subsequently to the auditor general's report? As a matter of fact, the public accounts committee has studied matters affecting current acoounts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I recall it, this discussion arose over the question of investigating the work of the director of government office economies control. The work of the director of economies control was not that of dealing with expenditures in connection with the war effort. Colonel Thompson was dealing with expenditures of a normal, peace-time nature. For instance, he circularized the departments in connection with the quality of the paper they were using, the number of publications they were issuing and that sort of thing. Incidentally, he investigated the number of rugs that were being used in the public service generally.


Gordon Graydon: The director of economies control had jurisdiction over certain war-time boards.' Are those war-time boards supposed to be peace-time affairs?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The exercise of his power did not cover such a matter as is contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. It would be perfectly absurd to have the director of economies control go to the Department of Munitions and Supply and say, "You can produce only so many guns," or to the Department of National Defence and say, "You must cut down your training centres," or to the
Public Accounts

wartime information board and say, "You must not send out such publicity." There must be a clear distinction between what are normal expenditures and what are war-time expenditures. For the reasons I have stated, the government cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon.
Mr. JEAN-FRANOOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I voted to support your ruling on the other amendment, but this time I intend to support the amendment, rain or shine. I do this for several reasons and I shall indicate some of them. I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) upon the first motion, but I cannot overlook the dignity of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) when he was the Speaker of the house. I know that you, sir, are following in his footsteps. I have the greatest admiration for Your Honour and for your distinguished predecessor. Complaints are made that there is not enough bon entente in this country, but this is due to one simple thing. It is due to the type of propaganda that has been put forth by this government, especially since the beginning of the war, to create a halo around the head of each minister, to make them all appear as sacrosanct to the people of Canada.
I shall vote for this motion because I want to know how many pictures the film board has taken of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of each member of the cabinet.
I am told that the pictures taken by the film board of the Prime Minister, or pictures in which he appears, are as numerous as the posterity of Abraham, as the stars in the sky or the sands in the sea. I am told that there are countless volumes of unprinted artistic pictures which have been taken of the different ministers, not only in this country but across the boundary to the south in the United States and across the boundary to the east in Newfoundland. They are probably taking some to-day in Washington. This explains the sudden rise to fame of the newcomer, Mr. Grierson, who was the head of the film board and is now also the head of the wartime information board.
Indirectly this propaganda has been affecting French Canadians who do not share the views of the government. So long as the members of the government are represented as being infallible, those who do not agree with the government on any policy are always considered as being wrong. That is the impression one gathers from looking at the pictures issued to the press by the film board and from reading the literature given out by the wartime information board. I notice from the

press that Leo Casey, who held an important position in the United States with the wartime information board, has resigned.
If this motion carries, I hope that this committee will summon several witnesses and will give to the wartime information board a direction that it never had before. I am told that when Mr. Vining, who has since resigned, was appointed head of this board he wanted the large brass doors of the new supreme court building opened for the first time in order to let him in. I have heard considerable about the experiments of this man. What about Mr. Philippe Brais, the great adviser of the government from the province of Quebec? He receives more attention from the Prime Minister than do any of his colleagues from the province of Quebec. He holds many large publicity contracts in Montreal. He endeavours to represent the feelings of the province of Quebec to the Prime Minister. He tries to convince another party in that province, and then four of them come to the Prime Minister and try to explain the feelings of all the people of the province, from those at the top down to Jean-Frangois Pouliot, the most humble member of this house. *
This man Brais comes to Ottawa once or twice a week. He represents the big financial interest'- which I have been fighting since I first entered politics. He does not represent the feelings of the people of the province of Quebec any more than I represent the feelings of the people of Indo-China or Siam. He is treated as an inspirator of politics. What was the amount of money wasted on fitting up Vining's office in the new supreme court building? What was the cost to the country of the offices of the board in the new supreme court building?
Who started the fight for a new supreme court building? I wanted a new library where the treasures of the supreme court library could be kept, and at the same time I advocated1 the building of a fireproof library for this house. To my great surprise a oontract was given to build1 the most magnificent building in town. What do we find in it? There is a first-class fireproof library, but there are no books in it belonging to the supreme court library. The supreme court judges are still in the old barn of which they complained so much before.
What do we find in that most expensive building,, the corner-stone of which was laid by Her Majesty the Queen in a speech that moved -me to tears when she pointed out the similitude that exists between the Scotch and French languages? We find in that magnificent building the wartime information

Public Accounts
board and the salvage or recuperation, branch. It is the most magnificent and most expensive building we have in the city of Ottawa; yet in it we find to-day the wartime information board and) the salvage branch-both alike. The wartime information board is the board that distributes those little pamphlets that come out in stencilled form, telling us things that appeared in the press a month before, and1 telling it in one way for the . French-speaking Canaidians of Quebec and1 telling it differently for the Englishspeaking Canadians of the other provinces. We are not being given the same brain food that our compatriots of another language are receiving. The board has one way of dealing with Quebec and another way of dealing with the other provinces. That is a great mistake. That is not the first time I have said this. I have repeated it time and again. There is not a member on that board who can express the feelings of the English-speaking population of this country, nor is there a member on it who can express the feelings of the French-speaking population of this country. I said a long time ago, and I have repeated it often since, that in this country English-speaking Canadians feel exactly as do French-speaking Canadians and there would be no difficulty between them if there were no barrier. What is the barrier? The barrier is the wartime information board. That is the barrier I want to demolish. That is the barrier which is used to burn incense under the noses of the ministers. That is the barrier which discredits such a large portion of the population. That is the barrier which makes saints of scoundrels, meaning some of the people not sitting on the treasury benches who take advantage of the war to fill their pockets. That is the kind of information we get.
How is it that the Department of Munitions and Supply has a different information service from the one that is supposed to serve the whole country, the wartime information board? How is it that the Department of Munitions and Supply has a special information bureau of its own? Does the Minister of Munitions and Supply not rely on the wartime information board to issue statements on behalf of his department to the public? Evidently he does not trust them.
The wartime information board is under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself. But how can the Prime Minister find the time to look into it when he has already told us that his colleagues are so busy that they cannot meet the members in the corridors and elsewhere? That was the reason given for the
appointment of parliamentary assistants, that the ministers were too busy. If the Prime Minister's colleagues are so busy, must not the Prime Minister himself, who holds the reins in his hands, be still busier? And if he is so busy as that, how can he waste his time in reading the silly propaganda that is put out by that board? I am sure that the Prime Minister has never read what comes out of the wartime information board.
I have complained about certain officials of the board. They have gone now and I shall not say anything more about them. But strangely enough, one that I complained of made an excellent repor* on the drafting of farmers and the amnesty granted to them. It was the only good thing that he did during the many years that he was in the employ of the government. I asked for a copy of that report and I could not get it. It was a secret paper. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) told me that he had not received it, and another minister told me that it was confidential.
The thing to do is to alter the censorship rules which are so crazy that no one can explain them to the house; no one can even quote them to the house. If the press were not tied by the silly and stupid regulations of the censorship, we would not need the wartime information board at all; the justices of the supreme court could get into their quarters, and the invaluable volumes that are now exposed to fire in the old supreme court building could be moved into this magnificent, new fireproof building, the finest that we have in Ottawa, w'hich is now being used just as a kind of ash-can or waste-paper basket. Think of it, Mr. Speaker, here is the most magnificent building we have in this city, the corner-stone of which was laid by her majesty on an unforgettable occasion, a building suited to the purpose for which it was built; now being used to serve as a garbage can for the wartime information board and the salvage or recuperation division! It just shows the absurdity of certain matters. We do not need the wartime information board. The purpose of it was just to stir up religious feeling and to make people believe that they would not save their souls if they did not agree with everything that the government is doing. That was the purpose of the wartime information board. It is another foolish expense that should be cut out. Let us cut it out. Let us have no wartime information board until the war is over and no more foolish censorship. We need censorship only for one purpose, to prevent the enemy from getting news that would be help-

Public Accounts

ful to him. We do not need this censorship as another means of -burning incense under the nose of the government.
For all these reasons I give my wholehearted support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I would have had a good deal more sympathy with the amendment had it not been that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) let the cat out of the bag when in his remarks he mentioned the possibility of an election and referred to the incident of the coal-scuttle in an election dating back some twenty or trventy-five years ago. I have a vivid memory of the incident of the coalscuttle, and I agree with the hon. member for Broadview that the rumour about the coalscuttle might have had a considerable effect on the election of that day. A coal grate had been installed in the premier's office, but it got into the headlines as a coal-scuttle reported to have cost $100, and that was broadcast throughout the country. It made wonderful propaganda for the opposition and, I have no doubt, helped to elect them.
I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the opposition in this house are absolutely honest in their inmost hearts in their anxiety to find out if money has been squandered by the wartime information board, or whether they are looking round for a coal-scuttle to use in the event of an election. That is how it appeals to me, when we spend all this afternoon arguing as to whether or not these expenditures of the wartime information board should be investigated by the public accounts committee or the war expenditures committee.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Let us refer it to this committee and find out.


Ralph Melville Warren: If I am right in my suspicions, I would1 be ready enough to agree that in peace time an attitude of that kind might be fair enough, but I do not believe that it is good business on the part of the members of the House of Commons to spend time in hunting for coal-scuttles during this critical stage of our war.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member is sure there are no coal-scuttles?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, whether there are or not, if that is what is at the back of the expenditure of time this afternoon, if that is what is really in the minds of the opposition in making this move, I say we are. not helping Canada's war effort. We have to keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women are in the armed forces and that we also have back of us a great civilian army which we cannot do without. We could not

begin to carry on this war without the support of that civilian army., They serve without remuneration; they devote nights and days of strenuous labour to carrying on the war effort, and they are happy to do so. We are grateful for their magnificent work in connection with the last war loan. Are we to fish around for coal-scuttles, and in that way undermine the confidence of this great civilian army in the government of the day, weaken their efforts, and have them say, "If you are going to throw money away on coal-scuttles, we shall quit"? If our civilian army fails us, we shall be in a very bad way.


Mr. BENCE:: Half a million dollars is not a coal-scuttle.


Ralph Melville Warren: Who wanted this wartime information board, if it was not the opposition? They urged that a war information board of some sort be set up, and the government set one up.


Alfred Henry Bence: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Melville Warren: Not just now. It is commonly agreed that the wartime information board has done good work; and who is to measure the value of that work?


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Who asked for it?


Ralph Melville Warren: Certainly relations between the United States and Canada were not too good at the time. Some of the propaganda carried on in the United States press made it appear that Canada was doing absolutely nothing in the war effort. That has been corrected, and- it has not all been corrected with Canadian money. For example, * an article written by I. Norman Smith, who has gone very closely into the work of the wartime information board in the United States, was recently published in the Ottawa Journal, and it makes very useful reading on this subject. Here is how he closes:
One radio hook-up in the U.S. for one-half hour costs up to $20,000. Our W.I.B. men have wangled many such hook-ups by top-notch American broadcasters who have paid their own way to Canada and broadcast from Canada to the U.S. about Canada. And we have paid not a cent for the broadcasts.
That is an example of the work which is being accomplished. The wartime information board cannot advertise that sort of thing, but they are doing it constantly. This writer claims that our biggest mistake so far as the wartime information board is concerned is that there are not more offices in the United States.

Public Accounts
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) had something to say in denunciation of the film board. I happen to have a little experience in this connection. As hon. members probably know, if one can establish, in a more or less backward district where there are not theatres, a circuit of ten points, the film board will arrange to show its pictures once a month. I was around with the films for two weeks in my own riding, and at first I was doubtful of the value of it, because work of this kind cannot be done without a very large expenditure. But these pictures were shown; people turned out to the schoolhouse or the parish hall or wherever they were exhibited, and; received constant education as to the need of rationing, the need of lending money, the need of producing food, and other objectives. That in itself is something.
I recall one little incident which convinced me that the film board is accomplishing useful work. At a little village, while the drive for the war loan was going on, a canvasser went to a certain farmer in the district and .managed to sell him a bond of $100. The canvasser was not satisfied, but the farmer said that was all he could afford.. That evening the farmer and his wife visited the pictures and listened to a local speaker. Before the farmer left the hall he hunted up the manager of the local bank and asked him to have the canvasser sent to his home the next day. When the canvasser visited him the next day the farmer subscribed for $7,000 worth of bonds. That is one little incident which indicates to me that so far as Canada's war effort is concerned the film board has some value.
I wish to emphasize that we should forget for the time being, until we get over the critical part of this war, any efforts to build up or manufacture or discover "coal-scuttles" for use in an election.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I do not believe that the point of view from which to approach this subject is one of an appeal to our patriotic feelings, or to how it will affect the views of the men at the front. I picture to myself men at the front getting their home papers and one saying to the other, " I see the opposition brought up a proposal in the house to investigate something about government expenditures, and I see that the government spent the whole afternoon opposing it by means of points of order and finally, apparently, voted it down;" and the other man is liable to say, " H'm, it looks as though they had something to conceal." If on the other hand the first man had been able to say, 72537-179i
" I see the opposition brought something up in the house about peeking into government expenditures, and the government said, well, they thought it would be more appropriate to go to another committee, yet 'you have asked for it; go to it; we at least have nothing to conceal'"; what would be the attitude of the second man in that case? He would say, " I think the government took the right attitude. It is evident they have a clean record for they were not afraid to have the thing ventilated to the fullest extent."
I agree with the amendment drawn up by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). I think it is more clearly drawn up and more definitely in order than the other one was. I notice that the minister leading the house started by opposing it with a point of order, but he ended by simply saying that the government could not allow it to go through, or did not approve it, which is a quite legitimate attitude to take, and far more logical, I submit, than the proposal to rule it out on a point of order.
I would ask, why should it not go to this committee? Is this committee less competent than other committees? Are they not all composed of reliable men? The government would have a large majority on the committee in any event. It is suggested, however, that the matter should go to another committee which is not born yet. It is true, there is a notice on the order paper about it. It has been there for three months. But the order paper has four pages of resolutions that have been standing there for two years, and we know that they will not be reached. How do we know that this committee will be constituted? Talk about anticipating, but the resolution may never be brought forward. It may be there for the very purpose of stalling off a suggestion of this kind.
I agree largely with the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) when he appealed to the government as a friend1- and I use the same language; I am speaking in a friendly spirit-and warned them of the effect that their refusal might have. He advised that they had better drop their opposition to the amendment and let it go through. I do not suppose there is anything wrong, in regard to which the government is culpable; not at all. But I do suggest that it would be desirable not to allow the man in the street to get the idea that the government are animated, as will be suggested, rightly or wrongly, by a desire to suppress something; that they have something of which they are afraid or ashamed.
Public Accounts

Scripture, and it is always a good place to go to for advice, says that we should avoid the appearance of evil, and there was never a truer word uttered. Avoid the appearance of evil. Do not do things, however pure and innocent the motive may be, which can be misunderstood and therefore give rise to suspicion in the minds of people. I remember years ago a public-spirited man in a small town in the United States conceived the idea that it would be a good thing to have a horseless town, for reasons of health, and to do away with the horses. He started an agitation to solicit support from the town. He was animated by a public spirit, and his motive was a good one. One man offered him a contribution of $500, and that was the local garage man. This patriotic citizen, however, said to him: "No; I don't want your money." The man said, "Why not? I am perfectly sincere and honest, and I believe as much as you do in a horseless town. Let me help the work along." The other replied, "Yes, I believe you do want to help the work, but it would not look well for you to support me or to have any part in this matter. It would look 'better if the support came from people whose attitude looked more disinterested."
I come back to the question: why this opposition? The government have clean hands in this matter; I am convinced of that. Then why create suspicion and the appearance of evil? Let them say to the opposition: "You are chasing shadows; you are imagining things; you are bent on a fishing expedition; but you have asked for a committee to have this investigation and seeing that our hands are clean and that we have nothing to conceal, you may go to it and we will give you the power you need."
Why not allow the matter to go to this committee, which undoubtedly has power to deal with it? Is not parliament paramount? Cannot parliament send this particular subject to the public accounts committee? If I had time I could point to cases, far more remote than this, that were referred to the public accounts committee, because it is the custom in this house to refer to that particular committee such subjects as, not having been referred to a special committee, are most nearly . allied to the questions with which that committee deals. You cannot have a standing committee on every subject; and when a question comes up, such as the question of fish-traps that came up some years ago. and there is no committee to deal with the subject, it is submitted to the committee that investigates subjects most nearly allied to the one in question-the fisheries committee, in the instance I have in mind.
I Mr. Neill.]
Now here is a subject that calls for investigation, the expenditure of public money in a certain wray by public servants. I cannot see why we have wasted all afternoon in trying to prevent the committee from investigating a matter which there is no reason for withholding from that committee. The government are willing to have the matter investigated, but not to-day; some other day, and some other committee. Well, the committee to which they propose to refer it may be still-born. I shall certainly support the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I suggest that this debate has illustrated a point which we in the opposition have been endeavouring to make for a very considerable time. It is that we the members of parliament are denied the opportunity of looking into expenditures, and we are denied it time and again. When we ask for that opportunity all types and kinds of arguments are raised! to prevent the investigation from taking place. Nowhere, in any of the remarks made this afternoon, has there been any suggestion of wrongdoing. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) pointed out that the expenditures in connection with the wartime information board were unusually large. This was a matter into which the members of the public accounts committee could get their teeth, in order to ascertain whether or not there has been overexpenditure.
I say to the government again, and I have been insisting from the beginning of this parliament upon it, that every dollar that is expended by the government should be expended in an efficient and effective way; and I ask the government, as did the last hon. member, to give the people of the country an opportunity-it is a right which they can demand-to examine expenditures. During war time, and it has always been so, there is what Gladstone called a spirit of expenditure, and in connection with expenditures made by the wartime information board these words would, I think, amount to an understatement.
The government, through the acting leader, says that this matter should1 be submitted to the war expenditures committee, a committee which has not yet been set up, a committee which it is not expected will be set up until after the debate on the war

Public Accounts
appropriation bill has taken place. It will not elicit much information with regard to the wartime information board. The war expenditures committee has not sat for a day in six months. Expenditures of five or six billion dollars have been made, and to date the war expenditures committee has not investigated an amount in excess of ten million dollars. The answer is that we can take this matter up and have it investigated by the war expenditures committee, which has been sitting, so far as investigation is concerned, behind' closed doors.
The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) said that this is a small matter. I suggest that we should place on the record the amounts that have been expended by this board during its period of office. A return was brought down on March 2 in answer to a question: what has been the total expenditure of wartime information board since its establishment for:	(a) salaries,
honoraria and living allowances; (b) travelling expenses; (c) printing; (d) advertising; (e) radio programmes; (f) rent of office or other space; and (g) all other expenses? Here is a department of government engaged in an orgy of spending, and unless parliament 'controls and' investigates these expenditures power will be placed in the hands of boards to expend money without being subject to scrutiny and! examination. If there is one way of preventing overexpenditure it is by publicity, but by conduct such as that displayed to-day by a majority of the members of this house a sense of security will be given these boards and they will feel that regardless of how they overexpend, there is no danger of their expenditures being examined by the representatives of the people. The answer given to the question was as follows:
Salaries	
$119,209	26Travelling expenses	
21,194	76Printing of pamphlets	
33,905	54Radio programmes	
11,765	28All other expenditures (including office stationery and printing)	
391,775	88
That gives a total of approximately
8579,000.	Then let me point out that when I brought this matter to the attention of the house some weeks ago I referred to one or two of the high salaries paid. I would not say that this happened as a consequence of the publicity given, but since then one of the persons mentioned at that time, who was receiving a very large salary, amounting together with expenses to some $17,000, has seen fit to resign.


Mr. McNIVEN:: And took a much better job.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman can speak with authority, but I am referring to the facts. Take the salaries; if the people of Canada could only examine this return they would get some idea of how generously-perhaps that is the word I should use-the war information board has spent money. Here are some of the salaries, and I am, going to start at the back of the list, taking them indiscriminately. Miss B. Thomas was paid $4,329 for covering women's activities. I have already referred to Mr. Casey, and I am not going to refer to any of those to whom reference was made previously. Then there was Mr. Sedgwick, who received a living allowance of $8,103, and $542.01 by way of travelling expenses for being in charge of the New York office.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What did he do for that?


John George Diefenbaker: He was in charge of the New York office. Then H. R. Sutherland, a photographic editor in charge of the distribution of photographs, received a salary of $5,550, a living allowance of $2,836.05, and travelling expenses of $440.55. Mr. J. H. Campbell, in charge of the Washington office, received a living allowance of $8,103, and travelling expenses of $427.50. I think I referred previously to Mr. Oastler, Mr. Campbell's assistant, who received about $10,200. So it goes; I am picking out only the larger ones.'


Mr. CLEAVER:: Tell us what you are paying Ross Brown, the publicity man for the Tory party. It is $10,000 a year, is it not?


John George Diefenbaker: Whenever there is an interruption by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) I know I am right. Then Mr. West, who works with the national film board in a liaison capacity, received a salary of S3,650, and travelling expenses of $432.13. All through the return there are salaries of three and four thousand dollars. Here is another liaison officer, Mr. E. G. Smith. His salary was $4,020, plus some travelling expenses. Here is another gentleman, Mr. Reading, whose duties were in the House of Commons, covering special assignments as directed by the chairman. He received a salary of $6,000 a year. Then a camera man was paid $3,300 in salary and $1,190 in expenses.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 20, 1943