1943-05-17

STANDING ORDERS


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron Perth) moved:: That the first and second reports of standing committee on standing orders, presented on May 14, be now concurred in.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I object to this motion. I think the members of the House of Commons ought to understand its import before it is passed. By a

Standing Orders
recent order of the house the committee was instructed to study the request of a certain insurance company which desired to have a refund made to it of some S700, and the committee, on that reference, brought in this report. The committee has not given the house adequate reasons why these funds, which are paid legally under the rules of the house, should be refunded to the company. The rules provide that certain payments shall be made on the incorporation of a company

so many hundred dollars on account of the capitalization-and* if the petition is late in being introduced to parliament a penalty is imposed. The payment was made last year. The company was not before parliament in time. For some reason or other which is not apparent, the bill did not pass the House of Commons. It has been reintroduced, and they suggest now that the whole fee paid last year, legally and in accordance with the rules of the house, be refunded to them. The strange part of it is they suggest in this report that the penalty of $300 should be repaid not to the company but to a private individual.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he had better look into the matter. What are the rules there for, and why should moneys be refunded without adequate reason? Four hundred dollars was paid and the penalty was paid under the rules of the house for failure to be on time. They ask that the whole thing be refunded and that $300 be given to a private individual, which in principle is wrong.
I see no reason why there should be a refund of any portion of this money. If the company was late in getting into parliament last year and now seeks to carry the bill through, it should do so without the public revenues suffering. We are getting pretty free with remissions in this house and I think the whole position should be reviewed. I would ask the Minister of Finance to review the whole matter. The company is the Alliance Insurance company. I do not know anything about the company, but the strange part of the whole request and recommendation is that the $300 paid as a penalty shall be refunded to a private individual, the solicitor in charge of the bill.


William Henry Golding: I am satisfied to let the matter stand.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would point out that the motion is that the first and second reports of the committee be now concurred in. There are two reports, each dealing with a separate subject, and each of them must have a separate motion.
Motion stands.



FOURTH VICTORY LOAN


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to take the earliest opportunity to place on record the government's appreciation of the splendid response of the Canadian people to the appeal for the fourth victory loan. When, on the 15th of this month, the period fixed for the campaign had terminated the objective of $1,100 million had been exceeded by over $100 million. As soon as the official returns of the campaign are available the Minister of Finance will of course indicate them to the house.
What is even more significant than the fact that the total objective was oversubscribed is that reports indicate that the objective of $500,000,000 for the general canvass and payroll subscriptions will also be exceeded. That fact in itself is a magnificent demonstration of the patriotism of the men and women of Canada, and an equally emphatic evidence of national unity of purpose in firm support of Canada's fighting men in the campaigns which must be undertaken before victory can be achieved.
I should like to express the government's thanks to the chairman of the national war finance committee, Mr. G. W. Spinney, and to the thousands of devoted Canadians _ in national, provincial and local organizations without whose untiring efforts the loan could not have succeeded. I am sure all hon. memr-bers would wish to share in this expression of appreciation of the services of the men and women of our country and of those from other lands who have given of their talents, time and energies to this phase of Canada's war effort. Speaking for the government, may I also express appreciation of the -contribution to the success of the campaign made by hon. members of all parties in their own constituencies and elsewhere.
Hon. members, I am sure, will feel that I am justified in extending warm congratulations to the Minister of Finance, whose efforts on behalf of the loan have been indefatigable. He is entitled to the sense of deep satisfaction which he must be experiencing to-day. The confidence he expressed in the Canadian people in setting the high objective of the Fourth victory loan has been more than fulfilled.
In expressing appreciation of the support and determination of the people of Canada, there is one word I should like to add. The completeness of the victory in North Africa is causing some persons who ought to know better, to say that the major issue in the
Fourth Victory Loan

war in Europe has been decided, and that we may look for the end of the war this year. Significant as is the North African victory, I am sure that in Europe the heaviest fighting still lies ahead. Further decisive battles have still to be fought and won. We have not yet reached the moment of supreme ordeal. The *vay in which the Canadian people have responded to the victory Joan shows that they have not allowed any false optimism concerning an early victory to weaken their' will. We know it would be fatal to let one victory destroy our sense of proportion. The victory in Africa has only touched the fringes of axis power; the assault on Europe has not yet begun. There remains as well the task of defeating Japan. This, clearly, is not a time for relaxing, but a time for redoubling our efforts. It is a time for strengthening our hearts and minds for the tremendous exertions which will still be required to bring the cause of freedom to the hour of victory.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to add my words to the congratulatory terms in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) described the response of the Canadian people to the fourth victory loan. I should like also to support the warning the right hon. gentleman gave with respect to our position having regard to the entire theatre of the war, and to caution the people, as he has done, against any over-optimistic trend at this time. I should like as well to say to the government that in this fourth victory loan the people have done their part. The responsibility now rests with the administration to see that the money thus subscribed is expended with the least waste and the least inefficiency that government operation can possibly achieve.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We should like to join in congratulating the Minister of Finance and the country generally on the satisfactory outcome of the loan.
I am sure we are all gratified at the result.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I feel, too, Mr. Speaker, that there is cause for deep satisfaction throughout the country, and particularly in the heart of the Minister of Finance, because of the success of the fourth victory loan. It was a great effort, and it has been crowned with great success.



LEGATIONS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to refer to

a statement made by the hon. leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) on Friday last. I regret that I was unavoidably engaged elsewhere at the time and so did not hear the statement when it was made. The remarks to which I wrish to draw particular attention will be found at page 2680 of Hansard for May 14, 1943.
The Prime Minister has announced that he is going to Washington. I think it would be well for him while there to inquire into all the matters concerning the signing of Canada's agreement; for I want to ask him what part in this agreement and in the general agreement we are discussing under this bill the Department of External Affairs played. What part did it play in relation to this country?
The matter to which my hon,. friend was referring was the Shipshaw development. So far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, it had nothing whatever to do with any of the arrangements with respect to the Shipshaw power development. In reply to a request from the United States government, formal assurance was given by the government of Canada, through the Department of External Affairs, to the United States government that there would be no restriction of any kind on the export from Canada to the United States of "all Canadian aluminum purchased by the Metals Reserve Company under contracts entered into prior to the termination of the present war." This, so far as the Department of External Affairs was concerned, was wholly a matter of formal procedure.
When I read the statement of my hon. friend and saw that it contained numerous reflections upon the Canadian minister to Washington, the Honourable Leighton McCarthy, I directed the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs to have a copy of the statement made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party sent immediately to Mr. McCarthy in order that he might have these representations before him. That was done on Saturday, and yesterday the under-secretary received from Mr. McCarthy a statement which I think answers all the points' raised1 by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which statement I wish to read to the house:
Questions asked by Mr. Coldwell may be summarized as follows:
(I)	"I want to ask him what part in this agreement and in the general agreement we are discussing under this bill the Department of External Affairs played. What part did it play in relation to this country?"
Answer:	So far as the minister in charge
of this legation is concerned, the answer to this question is that he played no part whatever, and he goes further and says that he has

Washington Legation
never discussed with any member of the United States administration or officer thereof, the question of supply of aluminum or the subject matter of the agreements referred to.
Nor has he discussed any questions of taxation with any member of the United States or Canadian administrations or officials thereof.
(2)	Mr. Coldwell says: "I find it very difficult to believe that the minister at Washington had nothing to do with negotiations in regard to these matters involving Canada and the United States."
Answer: No matter how difficult Mr. Coldwell finds it to believe, the fact is that the minister had nothing whatever to do with these negotiations, and played no part in them.
(3)	Mr. Coldwell says: "He (Mr. McCarthy) is still a director and vice-president of the parent company, the Aluminum Company of the United States."
Answer: Mr. McCarthy is not now nor has he ever been a director or vice-president or officer of the Aluminum Company of America.
(4)	Mr. Coldwell: "As a matter of fact Mr. McCarthy has been for thirty years legal consultant to the Aluminum Company of Canada."
Answer: That would be a correct statement beginning with the year 1907, but incorrect as to the last probably 8 or 10 years, when he was superseded by Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, who has been elected a director of Aluminum Company of Canada in Mr. McCarthy's place.
Mr. J. P. Van-Lane referred to by Mr. Coldwell has been a director of the Aluminum Company of Canada for a great many years.
(5)	Mr. Coldwell: "Mr. McCarthy is a director of a number of power companies, which, like the Aluminum Company group, have used every means possible to prevent the development of public power in this country, particularly St. Lawrence power."
Answer: Mr. McCarthy is a director of only one power company, namely, the Saguenay Power Company. It is absolutely untrue to say that he has used any means to prevent the development of public power in Canada, particularly St. Lawrence power.
(6)	Mr. Coldwell:	"Personally I think Mr. McCarthy should be asked to come back to Canada and explain to the government why it is that he has retained these directorates in spite of custom."
Answer:	There is no necessity for Mr. McCarthy to go back to Canada to explain this. The Prime Minister was told by Mr. McCarthy before he accepted the Washington position that he would not dissociate himself from his business connections, and that if it were necessary for him to do so he would have to decline to take the Washington post.
It might be pointed out here that the acceptance by Mr. McCarthy of the Washington post was of a temporary character, pending the convalescence of Mr. Loring Christie, who remained minister, and Mr. McCarthy declined even to say that he would remain for the duration of the war.
Mr. King in making the announcement stated as follows:
"He has agreed to accept the position for such time as he is able to give his services at Washington."
Newspapers at the time this announcement was made all fully reported Mr. McCarthy's various directorates, and the public were fully aware of his business associations.
Mr. Coldwell, apparently, from Hansard, was in the house at the time Mr. King made his announcement of Mr. McCarthy's acceptance of this post, and could hardly have been unaware of what the newspapers were carrying in regard to Mr. McCarthy and his business associations.
(7)	Mr. Coldwell states: "This house should know that the New York State power authorities in its annual report for 1937 named Mr. McCarthy as one of the men blocking the development of the St. Lawrence waterways as a public enterprise."
Answer: Mr. McCarthy never heard of this alleged report until a few weeks ago when referred to by Mr. Stone, correspondent for the New York newspaper P.M., from whom Mr. Coldwell evidently got this quotation. Mr. McCarthy told Mr. Stone that it was absolutely incorrect. However, he passed it on to Mr. Coldwell, and Mr. Coldwell has seen fit to use it.
Mr. McCarthy specifically states that he is not one of those *who opposes the development of the water power resources in the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers, but on the contrary was one of' those who supported it, and is prepared to support it either by public enterprise or private enterprise. He denies explicitly that he ever played any part in obstructing development of these waterways by either public or private enterprise.
I have only to add that I am prepared to support all the representations made by Mr. McCarthy in the statement he has presented here. What is disclosed with respect to his relationships with the government, and his position at Washington, are entirely in accord with my knowledge of the situation.
As Mr. McCarthy says, at the time he took the position in Washington it was only as a result of very strong persuasion, both on my part and on the part of some of my colleagues, that he, as a patriotic duty, undertook for the time being to give up the active associations he had with different businesses in Canada, and to give his entire time at Washington to the service of our country, while serving there in the position of minister. It has been with real difficulty that it has been possible to persuade Mr. McCarthy to continue in that position. In 1941 he asked me if, in the light of conditions then existing, he might not be relieved of the post, and someone else be appointed in his place. In 1942 he went so far as to tender his resignation, but I persuaded him to remain, having knowledge of the exceptional services he was rendering not only to Canada but as well to other parts of the British empire, through his post at Washington as Canadian minister. It would have been deplorable had he not seen his way clear to continue in that position.
Washington Legation

In February of this year Mr. McCarthy delivered an address, before the Canadian Club at Toronto, I believe it was. In that address, which was broadcast, he made it perfectly clear that he was not clinging to the job he now holds, but that the job was clinging to him; and that he wished it to be known that his continuation in the position he held at Washington was due entirely to his sense of public duty, and as a result of the request the government had made that he continue in that position.
I wish it were possible for me to give to the house some of the communications which have passed between Mr. McCarthy and myself in regard to what he has achieved in his work at Washington. Unfortunately time and other circumstances do not permit my doing so. But I do say to the house I have the best of reasons for knowing that Mr. McCarthy is performing a duty as minister for Canada at Washington which, I believe, under existing circumstances, and under conditions of war, could not be as well performed by any other person who could have been selected.
May I say a word with respect to resignations from directorates, and the like, by one who does not seek to make the diplomatic service a career. Mr. McCarthy has never sought to be a diplomat. He has had an exceptionally wide business experience, and has an exceptional acquaintance with men in all parts of this continent; and those same exceptional relationships are of service to the country in the position he now holds. But it would not be possible to secure for diplomatic posts for the period of the war men of Mr. McCarthy's attainments in business and in professional life if appointees were obliged1 to sever completely all their business associations and connections. I do not believe hon. members think that any gentleman who has honourable obligations, when he is holding the high position of minister in another country, is likely to descend to any act which would be open to criticism, or one which would not be expected from a person holding that position.
I knew Mr. McCarthy in the days when he was a member of the house-a good many years ago-as at least some other hon. members who are here now also knew him. I am quite sure that they will agree with all his friends that a man of higher integrity, a man who would be more scrupulous in the observance of all that is essential in public relations, could not be found anywhere. I expect to see Mr. McCarthy to-morrow, and I have no doubt that as a result of what has been said by the leader of -the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation I shall again have to

use what persuasive powers I have to cause him to continue to carry on in the position which he has filled so admirably. However, I believe he will be the first to appreciate that, in the light of -the statement which he himself has made, innuendoes of the character made by the hon. member are really unworthy of him. Knowing the appreciation my hon. friend has of what is involved in these diplomatic relations, I cannot understand why he did not do what Mr. Stone did- in relation to Mr. McCarthy, and go direct to Mr. McCarthy to see if he would be justified in making these representations in public. My hon. friend could have come to me and asked if these things were true, and I would have told him. If men who assume high responsibilities of -this character are to be subjected to all kinds of irresponsible representations it will not be possible for the government to keep in the public service the men who are so greatly needed in this time of war.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know under what order of business this is being done, but since the statement I made on Friday has been criticized and attacked by the Prime Minister I presume I have a right as a matter of privilege to say something in relation to it.
I am glad -to have any correction of any misstatement that I may have made, but what I said was said in perfectly good faith and was based on information which I believed to be correct. The Prime Minister has not dealt with the very important statement which I made in connection with Mr. McCarthy, that is, that right up to January of this year he was a director of the Aluminum Company of Canada. If I were in error in speaking of his association with the Aluminum Company of the United States, I was not in error with regard to the Aluminum Company of Canada. I made this statement because I believed, as I have always believed, that Canada should be represented, abroad by gentlemen who have no association with companies or corporations which may be involved in negotiations between our country and the ones to which -they represent us. I understand that it is obligatory upon cabinet ministers to resign directorships. I understand that when Mr. Burchell was appointed high commissioner -to Australia a few years ago special permission was given to him to retain a directorship when he was acting in that capacity. I bring this to the attention of the house because I believe, in spite of what the Prime Minister has said, as I stated in my remarks on Friday, that while Mr. McCarthy may have been guilty of nothing improper, this is an unhealthy situa-

Coal Emergency
tion and I think it is a matter which the government should take into consideration. They should see to it that when we are negotiating deals of this description with other countries which may involve great corporations our ministers are free from any association which may lead to the kind of suspicion which was in my mind and in the minds of a good many other people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference to the statement my hon. friend has made, this is the answer which Mr. McCarthy himself has made to the hon. member:
Mr. Coldwell:	"As a matter of fact Mr. McCarthy has been for thirty years legal consultant to the Aluminum Company of Canada."
Answer: That would be a correct statement beginning with the year 1907, but incorrect as to the last probably eight or ten years, when he was superseded by Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, who has been elected a director of Aluminum Company of Canada in Mr. McCarthy's place.


Thomas Miller Bell: Since when?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Eight or ten years. He has been legal consultant for eight or ten years and was chosen a director later. May I say a word in reference to my hon. friend's further remarks about gentlemen who happen to be directors. Are we to assume in this parliament that when a gentleman takes on a public position as a war duty he is to be subjected to criticism as one who will be performing unworthy acts simply because he happens to have a business connection with some large concern? I do not think it is fair to human nature to assume anything of that kind. I believe that most men have a strong sense of public duty. If a man were entering a diplomatic career in which he expected to remain for the rest of his life, I agree that he should there and then have to choose between directorships and the like-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about cabinet ministers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says that cabinet ministers all have to give up their directorships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not always do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has not been the practice; it is a matter which is left to the honour of the minister concerned. I have never requested a cabinet minister to give up any position which he was holding. I have always trusted to his sense of integrity and what he considered was the right and proper thing to do in the circumstances.
.	COAL



ISSUE OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to table order in council P.C. 4091, dated to-day, authorizing the issue of a proclamation declaring that a state of national emergency exists in regard to the production of coal in Canada. I think perhaps the order is sufficiently important for me to read to the house. It is as follows:
17th May, 1943.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated May 17, 1943, from the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, representing:
That the Canadian economy and the national war effort based upon it depend upon adequate supplies of coal;
That the need for coal has grown and continues to grow with the development of the war effort;
That supplies of coal are substantially below the level required to meet the increased national needs resulting from the war; and
That, unless supplies of coal are forthwith increased and maintained at an adequate level the war effort and the life and health of the nation will be gravely imperilled.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that a proclamation do issue declaring that a state of national emergency exists in regard to the production of coal in Canada.
A. I). P. Heeney,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
The action that will be taken by the government under this proclamation will be disclosed to the house at a subsequent sitting.


Gordon Graydon: Has the passing of this order in council any relation to the situation which evidently exists in the United States? What legal effect will the declaration of a state of emergency have so far as our coal production and our coal situation are concerned? What results may we expect to flow from the enact-* ment of this order in council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The proclamation is made regardless altogether of the situation which exists in the United States at the present time, but I want to make it perfectly clear that situation is one which the ministers of the crown must necessarily take into account as having certain possible consequences in relation to Canada's fuel supply. Apart from that situation there is the fact, to mention just one thing, that we are about a month late this year as compared with other years in the matter of the transportation of coal supplies. There has been a falling off in the production of coal for a long time past.
Coal Emergency


Gordon Graydon: In our own fields?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In our own fields. The war effort- itself is making extra demands on the coal of the country in the matter of transportation, in the -matter of supplies, and in the matter of what is required for the manufacture of munitions and other commodities. These are some of the reasons. As to the action that will be taken, the house will be informed a little later as to the precise action which will be taken by the government to help to meet the emergent situation we are facing. When I use the word "emergent" I am not using it in relation to what is happening to-day or may happen to-morrow; I am referring to the situation as it will develop in Canada unless we can overtake the falling off of supplies within the course of the next few months. We have to realize that there is an autumn and winter ahead of us and provision must be made as soon as possible. Then the house will have observed that when trouble threatened a few days ago in the United States, shipments of coal to Canada were immediately cut off. That may happen again, and no one can say what shortage there may be in the United States in their own supply if there is a serious stoppage of production in that country. All these facts being considered, the government have thought it advisable to take the action which it has taken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the mere passing of the order in council any legal effect? I think it will have to be followed up by other action. I hope that the public will be kept informed, because this is certainly an important matter. I wholly approve what the government has done. I think it should have been done before this.



DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTION OF EASTERN MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines and Resources whether any special investigation is being made of the capacity of coal mines, especially in eastern Canada, to increase their production and open up new areas. I have in mind particularly the locality of Thorbum, where there are millions of tons of coal which could be mined at a minimum initial expense. If investigations along this line were undertaken to encourage the operation of the mines and increased production, and to get the good-will of miners, a very considerable increase in tonnage could be obtained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question offhand, but it is one that possibly one of my colleagues might reply to a little later. I would say to my hon. friend and to other members of the house that the government will warmly welcome any suggestions which members may have to make with respect to ways and means by which the coal supply of Canada can be rapidly augmented.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: In order to clarify the situation, the order which has been tabled is merely a proclamation declaring an emergency in the fuel situation in Canada. I understand it will be followed by certain regulations designed to cure the situation. In view of the fact that the mining industry is unionized from coast to coast, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the representatives of the miners' unions have been called to consultation, or whether that will be done before any regulations affecting the industry are framed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is yes.



EXTRADITION TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that the Prime Minister has to leave the house. Before he leaves I should like to ask him whether he intends to bring down a bill with respect to the extradition treaty with United States, and whether the government are hearing representations for and, I presume, principally against, the bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I spoke of the bill to which my hon. friend has referred I mentioned that while it appeared in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs it would be sponsored in the house by the Minister of Justice. I think the Minister of Justice will be in a position to give my hon. friend an answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I will repeat the question to the Minister of Justice.	-


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I put to the Minister of Justice the question I asked the Prime Minister just previous to his departure? When will the bill

Questions
relating to the United States extradition treaty be brought down, and is the government hearing delegations for and1 against the bill?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I cannot inform the hon. member just when this bill will be brought down._ It is still under consideration. Representations have been submitted in writing by a great many against certain provisions of the treaty, and those who submitted such representations have been invited to meet a committee of the cabinet to-morrow morning at half past ten.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is the position of postmaster at Perdue,
Saskatchewan, being filled?	.
2.	If so, when was the position advertised?
3.	How many applications were received, and
from whom?	'
4.	Were any of the applicants returned
soldiers? If so, which of them?	_
5.	Who among them had the necessary residential qualifications?	.
6.	Had any of the returned soldier applicants previous post office experience? If so, where, and for how long?
7.	Were any of the returned soldiers recommended by the Canadian Legion? If so, which of them?	.
8.	If the vacancy is not filled, what is reason for the delay?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Filling of the vacancy still under consideration.
2.	Vacancies at offices of this class are not publicly advertised. Notice is, however, sent to the provincial headquarters of the Canadian Legion, who arrange to notify local branches. Date of notice to Legion, 4th September, 1941.
3.	(a) 11.
(b) Ralph B. Smith, John Hobson, George Neale, John Sharpe, Mrs. Dorothy O. Hodgson, J. P. M. Hughes, E. R. Scott, J. H. Cleghorn, F. A. Wilmut, Mrs. Mamie Shepherdson, Mrs. Anna Hunt.
4.	(a) Yes.
(b) Ralph B. Smith, John Hobson, George Neale, John Sharpe, E. R. Scott.
5.	Ralph B. Smith, E. R. Scott.
6.	(a) Yes.
(b) E. R. Scott

Moose Jaw post office- 4 years, 11 months.
7.	(a) Yes.
(b) Ralph B. Smith and E. R. Scott.
8.	The decision was reached to permit the widow of the late postmaster to remain in
charge of the office for a period of about one year. This period has now expired and steps are being taken to fill the vacancy with as little delay as possible.


ANNOUNCEMENTS AS TO RATIONING
Mr. CHURCH:: 1. Are there any government regulations respecting the announcing by government controls and sub-controls, of rationing of all kinds ot food and meats, fruits and vegetables?
2 Who is the minister of the crown responsible to parliament for all such announcements?
3.	To what ministry are the chiefs of the women's section of the wartime prices and trade board responsible, and are their speeches and interviews first submitted to the ministry.
4.	Who are such chiefs, what amount has been paid to each of them as salaries, hotel, railway and other travelling expenses, since their appointment to March 31, 1943?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No. Announcements of policy are made by the Minister of Finance and announcements on administrative matters are made by the wartime prices and trade board subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.
2.	Hon. J. L. Usley, Minister of Finance.
3.	The wartime prices and trade board is responsible in all its operations to the Minister of Finance. Speeches and interviews are not first submitted to the minister; however, such speeches and interviews are subject to review by the appropriate officers of the board for conformity of government policy and administrative practices of the board.
4.	Miss Byrne H. Sanders is director of the consumer branch of the wartime prices and trade board. Since her appointment on January 29, 1942, up to March 31, 1943, hot&l, railway and other out of pocket travelling expenses in the amount of $4,529.57 have been paid to Miss Sanders. She has received no salary or honorarium from the board.


INTERNATIONAL, CURRENCY-STABILIZATION DISCUSSIONS
Mr. JAQUES:: 1.	How many Canadian delegates, representatives, secretaries, clerks and other personnel, are in Washington in connection with the discussions on international currency stabilization?
2.	What are the names of each?
3.	What is the citizenship status of each of
these persons?	,
i. Which are, (a) British subjects by birth; (b) British subjects by naturalization, and of the latter (1) what is the date of entry into Canada, (2) on what dates were naturalization certificates issued to each?
5. How many of the above people are foreigners, of what nationality, and when did each enter Canada?
Questions


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	At present there are no Canadian delegates, representatives or other personnel in Washington in connection with the discussions on international currency stabilization. During April 21 to 26, as a result of an invitation from the secretary of the United States treasury, four Canadian Government officials participated in an informal discussion of the proposal for a United and Associated Nations Stabilization Fund with experts of the United States treasury. These discussions were purely exploratory and non-committal.
2.	Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, special assistant to the deputy minister of finance;
Mr. L. Rasminsky, assistant to the chairman, foreign exchange control board;
Mr. A. F. W. Plumptre, financial attache, Canadian legation, Washington;
Mr. J. J. Deutsch, special wartime assistant, Department of External Affairs.
3.	Each of these persons is a Canadian citizen.
4.	Each of the persons mentioned in 2 is a British subject by birth.
5.	Each of the persons mentioned in 2 was born in Canada.


REGISTERED NON-INTEREST BEARING CERTIFICATES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 41.1'	,'s the total amount expended since
the outbreak of the present war in advertising and/or giving publicity to the possibility of lending money to the government by the purchase of registered non-interest bearing certificates (senes A), and registered non-interest bearing certificates (series B) ?
2.	Has any commission been paid in connection with the above? If so, what is the total amount to date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Poster advertising Dominion of Canada registered non-interest bearing certificates (Series A)-$1,503.15.
2.	No.


PARITY OF CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES DOLLAR
Mr. CHURCH:: 
Mrs. NIELSEN:: Has any order or regulation been passed by the federal government, or any request been received from the provincial government, to tor bid or disallow: (a) the holding of labour meetings in the province of Quebec, and/or (bj a-uy person addressing such a meeting on the subject of "Back the Attack" on behalf of ^0an *** that province, or authorizing K.O.M.I. surveillance of any person so engaged?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to each branch of this question is no.


NATIONAL FLAG
Mr. La CROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: What steps are being taken, or have been taken, by the government, towards adopting as the flag of Canada, the design approved by the Minister of National Defence, to be flown by the commander of the senior formation of the Canadian active service force?


Mr. CRERAR:: None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 
Mr. POWER:: Return tabled.


IMPORTS FROM ENGLAND
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What was the amount of imports from England for the last twelve months ending April 1, 1943?
2.	Were these imports paid for?
3.	If so, in what manner?
4.	If not, what arrangements were made?

Motions for Popers


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, as this question refers in part to trade and commerce, I suggest that it stand as an order for return, subject to the withholding of any information that should not be brought down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
would that be? This is ridiculous.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure what it would be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then don't put it in if it doesn't mean anything.


PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OP WAR PLANTS IN CANADA BY UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What is the total amount expended in Canada, since the outbreak of the present war, by the government of the United Kingdom, ^ in the purchase and/or construction of factories, plants, etc.?
2.	What is the total amount paid by the government of Canada to the government of the United Kingdom, since the outbreak of the present war, in purchasing from the latter government factories, plants, etc., included in the above?
3.	Is the ownership of all plants re-purchased, as above, vested in the government of Canada? If not, what is their status?
4.	What portion of the amount indicated in question 1, above, still stands as an investment of the government of the United Kingdom in Canadian plants, factories, etc.?


FOODS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Omitting in each case all cereal grains, 1. Are the food stocks on hand in Canada, both those ready for shipment and now being cured or processed, adequate for the anticipated demand which will be made with the opening of the second front and the united nations' expected invasion of Europe?
2.	If not, which specific foods and food products are below the quota anticipated, and in what quantities (pounds or tons) ?
3.	Are the food stocks on hand, ready for shipment or being cured or processed, greater or less than such foods on hand, (a) in May, 1942; (b) in May, 1941?
4.	What percentage of food and food products, specifically meats, butter, bacon and pork products, eggs, cheese, lard, and animal fats, have been consumed in Canada from May, 1942, to May, 1943, above or below such foods consumed in Canada from May, 1941, to May, 1942?
TORONTO HOUSING *


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any survey been made by the government of the scarcity of houses in Toronto, (a) for civilian purposes; (b) for returned soldiers; (c) for war workers in industry?
2.	What sum has been spent in that city so far during this war on wartime housing?
3.	Is any action being taken to aid the scarcity of houses of a small type?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DORION:: For a copy of censorship regulations prevent- ' ing the government from giving figures showing Canadian export trade by countries.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I reply to the question now?	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not a question; it is an order of the house for a return.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite in order to table the return
now; therefore I lay it on the table herewith.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite different.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have the reply of the Department of National War Services to the motion which was carried to-day and ^ the answer tabled by the Minister of National War Services. The motion asks:
For a copy of censorship regulations preventing the government from giving figures showing Canadian export trade by countries.
The Deputy Minister of National War Services states in the first place that:
There are no written regulations preventing the government from giving figures showing Canadian export trade by countries.
He states further on that the question had been dealt with from time to time, meaning several times, since the beginning of the war by interdepartmental committees- which have considered the risk involved in the publication of specific classes of figures of the kind described. These committees have during the last twelve months been called by the director of censorship under the order in council constituting that directorate. The conclusions reached by these committees have resulted in the adoption of a practice corresponding as closely as possible to that followed in the United Kingdom and the United States.
May I ask the minister who sat on these committees and what conclusions each of these interdepartmental committees has reached to prevent the publication of Canadian export figures?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The reply which I have given was carefully considered before it was brought down. It took some time because a number of departments had to be consulted. To say which gentlemen attended these numerous committee meetings is something I am not in a position to do at this time, nor do I think it matters very much. The departments are the important feature of such meetings
Motions for Popers

and not particularly the individuals who themselves participated in the meetings. I think the reply as it stands is as complete as I can make it.
.	CANADIAN ARMY-PAY INCREASES


Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all regulations issued since November 1, 1942, relating to the granting of pay increases to Canadian army personnel.



HALKIRK, ALTA., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. MARSHALL:: For a copy of all applications, letters, telegrams, reports, petitions and other documents in possession of the Post Office Department or any other department of government in connection with the appointment of postmaster at Halkirk, Alberta.


Mr. MULOCK:: Subject to the usual
reservations.



STEVENSON AIRFIELD, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents, memoranda, and orders in council, dated since the outbreak of the present war, in the possession of the government, or any department, branch, board, or commission thereof, relating to the enlargement of Stevenson Field, at Winnipeg, in the light of wartime and postwar airport requirements.


Charles Gavan Power: I understand that the
officers of the department have been in communication with my hon. friend, and they are to show him the file and he is to indicate what documents he requires.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Vien: Dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Temporarily.
Motion dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $6,046,300 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1943; to make provision for the purchase or refunding of capital obligations of the company, or of any company comprised of the Canadian National Railway system, 
during the said calendar year and for the issue of substituted securities for such purpose; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $6,046,300 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to offer to Your Honour sincere congratulations, not only personally but on behalf of the party I represent, upon the well-earned and well-merited honour which has come to you at the hands of the university of Manitoba.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was about to rise to offer Your Honour the felicitations and congratulations of the house on the distinction which came to you from the university of Manitoba a few days ago when my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) forestalled me, I do not hold that against him, but I do wish to say on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the house and hon. members generally that we extend to you our congratulations; and this is particularly true of your fellow members from the good old province of Manitoba.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence two questions, the first of which I should perhaps have asked the Prime Minister before he left. I hesitated to detain him at the time, but a development which has occurred since his departure prompts me to put the question to the minister.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence assumed his position as such to-day in tabling a return to an order of the house which was directed to the minister's department. This being, I believe, the first

Man-Power
occasion upon which any of the parliamentary assistants have actually functioned as such in the house, will the Minister of National Defence, in the absence of the Prime Minister, inform us whether the parliamentary assistants have been duly sworn in so far as their duties in the House of Commons are concerned.
My second question is whether the Minister of National Defence, in view of his participation in the debate in respect to the war appropriation bill, intends to go to Washington before the debate is concluded.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: On the first point, I do not know of any provision with regard to the necessity of swearing in parliamentary assistants. I shall consult my colleague the Minister of Justice and ascertain if there is any such necessity, andi if that is required it will be done.
The participation of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Army) took place at the minister's request, in accordance with the order in council.


Gordon Graydon: The position will be a difficult one, assuming it is necessary that they be sworn in, if they take their positions before they have been sworn in.
' Mr. RALSTON: I do not know that there would be any certiorari or habeas corpus, or anything of the sort, involved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They took their positions before they were actually appointed.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the other matter, I may say that at the moment the Minister of National Defence has no intention of going to Washington.



MAN-POWER REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
"globe and mail" [DOT]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have placed in the hands of the Minister of Labour an article written by Mr. Oakley Dalgleish, appearing in the Globe and Mail on Saturday last, entitled: "Manpower crisis has arrived." The writer of the article states:
According to an unimpeachable source at least fifteen of the major items of Canada's war production are to be cancelled or their manufacture sharply curtailed.
He continues:
It will mean mass lay-offs, job transfers, and, because the National Selective Service machinery is not equipped to handle transfers and replacements, it will mean long spells of unemployment for an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 persons.
In view of the situation described by the writer of the article, I believe this would be the appropriate time for the minister to make a statement to the house on the points which have thus been brought to the attention of the public. I should be very glad if he would do so now.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity of reading the article referred to. I think that it is his "man-power crisis" which has arrived. I have read the article-I suppose a minister must keep himself informed of opinions, whether favourable or adverse-and as regards its contention that a "man-power crisis has arrived", I think the wish is father to the thought.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does that mean?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about the man who wrote the article.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but what does the minister mean by that?


Humphrey Mitchell: The first part of the article states:
According to an unimpeachable source at least fifteen of the major items of Canada's war production are to be cancelled or their manufacture sharply curtailed.
That of course comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I take it that my colleague will reply to it. The second part of the article states:
It will mean mass lay-offs, job transfers, and because the national selective service machinery is not equipped to handle transfers and replacements, it will mean long spells of unemployment for an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 persons.
The article contains nothing but the writer's assumptions, and I can assure the house that so far as it is humanly possible, national selective service will take care of the placement of men who are laid off, assuming they will be laid off, through this change in the production of the implements of war. We have built up an organization in the last six months largely to meet situations similar to those referred to in the article, and I suggest that a reflection is cast upon Canadians who form a part of the organization. When the history of this time is written, the parts played by selective service will stand out in bold relief; make no mistake about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The public do not think so.
Man-Power


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says he does not think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that. I said the public dp not think so. All you have to do is to read the. newspapers; they reflect public opinion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have more to do than to read the Globe and Mail.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: To supplement the answer
given by the Minister of Labour I may say that if the writer of the article in question wrote it exactly in accordance with the information he obtained from the "unimpeachable source" I must impeach the knowledge of .the unimpeachable source, because the information given in. the article is wholly at variance with the facts. There is a semblance of truth running through it, but it is quite obvious .that the statements that this plant was closed or that plant was closed are not true. None of the plants mentioned by name in the article was closed. There will be certain curtailments, but I do say that speculation on a matter of this kind is harmful to the war effort. The only effect of such an article is to disturb the men in the plants named, to create uncertainty and unrest, and probably to result in the migration of workers who can be ill afforded. In a general way the effect is also to set back war production.
I do hope that there will be no further speculations of the kind contained in the article. Announcements will be made as soon as the facts of the situation can be determined'. We have laid out a new production programme that will require certain adjustments. Just what the adjustments are., and! their extent, will be determined as rapidly as possible, and announcements will be made in the plants concerned. Certainly the workers in the plants concerned are entitled to the first official notice of changes, and it is our intention to send out the notifications in that way. I trust that there will be no. further speculation either in parliament or on the part of hon. members regarding the matter.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Perhaps on second thought the minister would like to amend his statement in regard to one of the members of the press gallery. I have known Mr. Dalgleish for quite a long time, and I cannot believe for a moment that when t.he minister said the wish was father to the thought, he meant that any honest citizen would wish that men should be unemployed. Did the minister mean that?

Mr. . MITCHELL: I am not asking for sympathy, but this is a difficult portfolio to administer. If my hon. friend had read .the Globe and Mail he would have seen day after day criticism in that newspaper without any foundation whatsoever, and I would not change, one word of what I said about the gentleman ,to whom my hon. friend has referred.



USE OF PRISONERS OF WAR FOR FARM LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Weybum
(Mr. Douglas) asked a question on Thursday last with reference to prisoners of war. I should like to make a statement in reply.
Use of Italian prisoners of war is being made in England on labour projects with satisfactory results, but almost all prisoners of war interned in this country are of German nationality, and the extent to which German prisoners may be successfully employed can only be determined from experience gained in the work projects initially undertaken.
The intention is that in initiating operations, the prisoners employed will be selected from those volunteering for employment and who are considered sufficiently reliable by the internment camp authorities for transfer to such employment and suitable for work on the employment project to be undertaken.
The men selected will be transferred by the military authorities to small labour detachments assigned for work. We expect these detachments will be housed in labour camps adjacent to, or within the area of, the labour project, or the area in which the detachment may operate, and in some instances, they will be housed in the main internment camp if the employment is within easy access of the camp.
The Department of Labour will assume responsibility to provide for the operation of the labour camps and the arrangements for employment. A limited number of military personnel will be attached to each detachment for disciplinarian purposes, but the responsibility for the labour detachments will be assumed by the Department of Labour.
The nature of the labour projects undertaken will necessarily be such as will involve the employment of a minimum personnel to supervise the employment and to provide reasonable assurances for the security and discipline of the prisoners employed.
Wood cutting and mining work and selected types of agricultural work appear to offer the most suitable opportunities for employment. Projects providing suitable employment and

Supply
for which camp facilities are available or can be supplied with little added cost will receive favourable consideration at the outset.
Notwithstanding- the careful selection of prisoners, hon. members will recognize that greater risks of escape must be accepted in placing these prisoners in useful employment than are involved in their detention in internment camp.
Canada is a party to the prisoners of war convention concluded at Geneva in 1929, so that the conditions of employment and rates of pay and provision for welfare of prisoners of war provided in this country will conform to the terms of the convention, and also be in conformity with British practices in this regard.
The appointment of officers to have charge of the administration of this matter will be made at an early day, and every effort will be made to expedite the initiation of labour projects. Hon. members will realize that the initiation of particular projects inevitably will be delayed somewhat, and that it will be necessary to develop plans gradually and follow practices dictated by the experience we gain as we go along.


Mr. DOUGAS (Weyburn):: Has the minister any idea how soon the programme will commence; and what is required under the convention in connection with paying these men?


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking from memory
I believe under the international agreement the pay is twenty cents a day. I should think that within the next two or three weeks we might begin to experiment with this matter. When I say twenty cents a day let it be clearly understood that we are not going to use prisoners of war to undermine the living standards of people in any particular communities.


Clarence Gillis: If I understood the minister
aright he said these prisoners might be used in mining operations.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: What kind of mining?


Humphrey Mitchell: The type of mining
operations will be announced from time to time, but I think my hon. friend can rest assured that it will not be the kind of mining operations he has in the back of his mind.



TRANSFER OF WORKERS FROM NON-ESSENTIAL INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the order passed on May 4 under which men engaged in
certain designated occupations such as taverns, beauty parlours, florists shops, service stations and the like were required to register and to be transferred by the selective service boards, if needed, to essential industries such as agriculture. What success has so far been achieved in connection with registrations and transfers under that order?


Humphrey Mitchell: In the course of the next two
or three days I expect to make what I hope will be a complete statement on the manr power policy of the government, and at that time I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend's question. If he thinks that is not a good answer, I would remind him that the order was passed on May 4 and this is only May 17, so that it is a little too soon to expect much information as to any transfers that may have been made.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers need
the men.

The house resumed from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that the house go into committee of supply.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the leaders of the various parties in the house with regard to the granting of interim supply to-day, and they have agreed that this will be all right so far as they are concerned. The house already has voted supply which will be sufficient up to the end of this month, but it will be necessary for me to ask for further interim supply in the meantime, and I suggest that it would be appropriate to ask for one-sixth, as I did before. I have had prepared the necessary resolutions and bills; of course they cannot pass except with the consent of the house, and I hope that consent will be forthcoming. It is rather early in the month, only the 17th, but there is nothing to be gained by waiting until the end of May. It will be very much more convenient to have this supply passed at this stage than later in the month, because it is necessary to arrange royal assent for two bills which have passed both houses, and if royal assent is to take place later this week it would be much more convenient if interim supply could be granted now.
I am therefore requesting the house to agree to waive the rules and pass these resolutions and bills through all stages. One bill will be an appropriation act to provide S40,307,998.90, being one-sixth of the non-war estimates other than the statutory items; the other will be a

Aluminum Company of Canada
short appropriation act providing $648,333,333.33, being one-sixth of $3,890,000,000 which was the amount of the resolution originally placed on the order paper. I will send these up to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope they will go through promptly. Perhaps we had better take the non-war appropriation first.



ALUMINUM COMPANY OP CANADA

Thomas Miller Bell: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to consent to the bills suggested by the minister being put through, and that the supply should be one-sixth, though I would not want this to be a precedent. However, that is not my purpose in rising. On going into supply I have the right to raise any grievance. I was surprised this afternoon when the Prime Minister made his statement with regard to an alleged misstatement by myself. I sent out and got a copy of the "Survey of Corporate Securities" for 1942, in which I find that Aluminium Limited is the parent company; apparently on Friday, when I made my statement, I included the words "of the United States." Then I find this: "Owns all outstanding stock of Aluminum Company of Canada Limited-"


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Thomas Miller Bell: From the "Survey of Corporate Securities" for 1942, the report on Aluminium Limited-the latest authority I can get.
Owns all outstanding stock of Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, and major interest in over thirty subsidiaries engaged in mining bauxite (aluminum ore); production and sale of aluminum; and production and sale of hydroelectric power.
Has reserves of raw material in British Guiana; smelting and fabricating plants in various parts of the world. All property in enemy territory written down in 1939-41. Capacity of Canadian plants steadily expanded since outbreak of war; capacity more than doubled in 1940, new $60,000,000 programme undertaken in 1941, and plans for further substantial increase put into effect early in 1942. Aluminum Power Company develops some 300,000 h.p. on Saguenay river; work currently under way on $35,000,000 project to bring in initial 500,000 h.p. at the Shipshaw site.
Then are set out the directors of Aluminium Limited, the parent company.


Mr. TURGEON:: Is that a Canadian or a British firm ?


Thomas Miller Bell: A Canadian firm. The directors are as follows:
E. K. Davis, President. Marston Mills, Mass.; E. Blough, E. G. MacDowell, G. O. Morgan, vice-presidents, Montreal; Hon. Leighton Mc-

Carthy, vice-president, Toronto; E. J. Mejia, vice-president, Geneva, Switzerland; T. H. Alger, vice-president, secretary and assistant treasurer; R. E. Powell, Aime Geoffrion, Montreal. Treasurer. J. F. Evans; assistant secretary, J. A. Dullea.
From this Survey of Corporate Securities of 1942 I checked the information which had come to me, and therefore I believe the statement I made on Friday was absolutely correct. Moreover this report gives Aluminium Limited as the parent company, and Aluminum Company of Canada Limited as the fully owned subsidiary of that concern together with Aluminum Power Company, Limited; Aluminum Union Limited; Northern Aluminum Company Limited; Aluminum Goods, Limited; Aluminium Laboratories Limited and Aluminium Securities Limited.
Consequently, I respectfully suggest that when I gave the information on Friday Mr. McCarthy was listed as director and vicepresident of this company in 1942. I go further and say that the statement issued by the Prime Minister-and it was a rather clever statement, which said that Mr. McCarthy had been replaced by Mr. Geoffrion as counsel in 1937 and was no longer a director -is true. I understand Mr. McCarthy resigned as director of Aluminum of Canada corporation in January of this year, and that seems to be confirmed by the report I have of corporate securities for 1942. And so I want to make a correction, because I was shocked to think that I had made the misstatement attributed to me. I find now that while I made a slip in calling it "Aluminum", which is my usual pronunciation of the word, I should have referred to the parent company, "Aluminium Limited". The error of pronunciation into which I fell I regret. Nevertheless I repeat the statement that according to this, the Survey of Corporate Securities for 1942, Mr. McCarthy is listed as a vice-president of the parent company of the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, which is given here as Aluminium Limited.


James Gray Turgeon: Who publishes the Survey of Corporate Securities from which the hon. member reads?


Thomas Miller Bell: The Maclean Publishing Company of Montreal, Toronto, New York and London, England. I think all hon. members will agree that members of the house regard this Survey of Corporate Securities, filed in the parliamentary library, as the standard work which we consult from time to time to get any authoritative information of this description we might require.

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter



CHEESE QUOTA FOR 1943-WHEY BUTTER

Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peter-borough):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair there is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), namely, the cheese quota for 1943. Prior to the Easter adjournment, when the minister had received representations from various cheese producers throughout eastern Ontario and the western part of Quebec, I asked the minister if he would provide an opportunity for the discussion of the cheese quota and the price of cheese before the Easter adjournment. He replied that provision would be made for such discussion on his estimates. It was pointed out to the minister at that time that a discussion when the estimates were presented would be too late, because now is the time cheese factories have to get under way.
The urgency lies in the fact that the quota for the year is 150,000,000 pounds, and up to the present, with the first four months of 1943 gone, cheese production is down by at least 10,000,000 pounds over 1942. In 1942 slightly over 202.000,000 pounds were produced, representing an increase of 34-1 per cent over the 151,000,000 pounds produced in 1941.	_
The cheese producers of eastern Ontario, from whom the greater part of the quota will come, are asking the government to set the price of cheese only at a figure which will cover the increased cost of production in 1943 over that of 1942. The increase in price in 1943 over 1942 is five-eighths of a cent, whereas the increase in the cost of production, which will vary slightly in different districts, is from 3^ cents to slightly over 4i cents a pound. This increased cost of production is due to the increased cost of labour on the farm, increased cost of feeds, of maintenance, of delivery of milk from farms to factory, of labour in the factory, of factory supplies, of fuel, of cheese boxes and of trucking cheese from the factory to grading stations.
I should like to indicate how the increased cost over 1942 is arrived at. First, we will realize that the cost of labour has risen from about $45 a month to at least $60, working out at 2-4 cents per pound of cheese. The additional cost of feeds is placed at one cent a pound, whereas the increased manufacturing costs, including cheese boxes, fuel and other factory supplies stands at -2 cent. The increased cost of hauling milk to factory is [DOT][DOT]15 cent, making a total increase of 3'75 cents per pound of cheese.
The second example, produced from another factory shows an increased labour cost over 1942 of 2-24 cents a pound. The increase in the cost of feeds in this instance is placed at 1-24 cents a pound, and the maintenance cost is -20 cent. The increased cost of manufacturing is -19 cent, and that of trucking and hauling milk to factory is -4 cent, making a total increase of 4-27 cents per pound of cheese.
In 1942 the county of Hastings, in which I reside, produced nearly 12,000,000 pounds of cheese, a production greater than that of. any other county in Ontario. To-day in that county many cheese factories have not yet begun operations, one of the reasons being that more and more farmers are shipping cream, on account of the very satisfactory price, and the subsidy paid for that product. They are thereby able to retain their skimmed milk for calves and pigs. Owing also to the satisfactory price of fluid milk, more farmers are shipping fluid milk to the larger centres. Last year we had a very satisfactory and early spring, with ideal pasture and other conditions. The spring of 1943 is not as satisfactory in that respect. I should like to give a few quotations from various papers throughout the district. These articles give some indication of the decline in cheese production.
The Belleville Ontario Intelligencer of April 24 states that for the first quarter the cheese production in Hastings county is two-thirds less than it was in 1942. Giving the figures for one week only, the article points out that during the week ended April 24, only 899 cheese were produced as compared with 2,637 which were produced in the same week in 1942. The Ottawa Journal of May 10 of this year carried an editorial which was headed "Butter for Canada-or cheese for Britain?" The editorial points out that at a meeting of the cheese respresentatives of eastern Ontario, held in Toronto a few days previously, it was stated that there would be a serious reduction this year in the production of cheese and that it was doubtful whether Canada could fulfil her quota to Britain of 150,000,000 pounds. The editorial goes on to say:
The directors of the Ontario cheese producers' association made out a good case for patrons at the Toronto meeting. They left little doubt that patrons were dissatisfied with this year's set price, five-eighths of a cent above the 1942 price. Figures were produced to show that production costs had increased from three to four cents per pound of cheese.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of May 12-1 assume it is safe to refer to this publication- contains the following headlines:
Ontario Dairymen say 1943 cheese quota can't be filled; late seeding, low prices, are factors.
Cheese Quota-Whey Butter

The article which follows reads in part:
He believes the price of cheese should be twenty-two cents f.o.b. factory instead of twenty cents, and says farmers need the extra amount to cover higher costs of production.
And again:
He says, for example, the federal subsidy of two cents per quart retail on whole milk has whipped up the demand to such an extent that many farmers have switched from cheese to the more lucrative whole milk trade. The demand is so great that farmers are no longer plagued with surplus and hold-back milk.
The Belleville Ontario-Intelligencer of May 4 refers to a speech by Hon. P. M. Dewan, minister of agriculture for Ontario, in which he advocates an increase in the price of cheese to twenty-two cents. The minister was speaking at a farm meeting at Unionville, Ontario and the report has this to say:
An increase of two cents a pound in the price of cheddar cheese would serve to increase output and bring it up to the 1943 quota set for Ontario, Hon. P. M. Dewan, provincial agricultural minister, told a junior farmers' club here last night.
All other quotas would be reached or nearly reached with the exception of cheddar cheese, Mr. Dewan said.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of May 11 contains a dispatch from Kingston, Ontario, reading as follows:
The dairy products board, Ottawa, is insistent that cheese factories continue to operate regardless of the price which is being paid for milk delivered at the factories.
I should like to ask the minister if that is an indication of the compulsion which is to be practised by this production board. The cheese producers of Canada held a meeting at Peterborough on May 1, at which the following resolution was passed:
The executive of the Peterborough -county cheese producers'association is dissatisfied with the announced price for cheese, namely, twenty cents f.o.b. shipping points. This price will not meet the increase in cost of boxes and supplies compared with last year.
[DOT] '^'2? further, there is an increased cost and insufficient supply of farm labour.
It is definitely our opinion that the price will not secure maximum production required to meet the need of export and home markets. And further, this season is late and the figures to date prove that we are now considerably short in production compared with 1942. This is caused partly by the poor price received by cheese producers last winter, compared to 1942.
The monthly dairy report published by the Ontario department of agriculture refers to dairy production in the March issue, from which I quote as follows:
Cheese production shows a sharp reduction from the level a year ago. The February output for Ontario is reported at 1,090,000 pounds as against 2,633,800 pounds in February, 1942, a 
decrease of 41-4 per cent. For January and February the accumulated make is 2,504 500 pounds as compared with 5,712,800 pounds in the same period of last year, or a decline of 43-8 per cent.
I would. Tefer the Minister of Agriculture to an order in. council which was passed; on June 18, 1941, being P.C. 3696. This order in council states that the quota for 1941 was
112,000,000 pounds; that the. production, for the first four months in 1941 was 6,262,000 pounds less than the same period in 1940. It states also that the production of cheese in April showed a decrease of 1,222,000 pounds over the same month of 1940, and it goes on to say that in order to stimulate production the bonus of six-tenths of a cent per pound, which had been provided for by P.C. 143 in January, 1941, and which had not resulted in the increased production as anticipated, and as ninety-three, per cent, of the. cheese produced in Canada and practically all the cheese exported is produced in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, would be increased to one and six-tenths cents per pound.
When the order in council was passed the minister pointed out- that the production of cheese was down by 6,262,000 pounds for the first four months, whereas to-day production is down by at least 10,000,000 pounds. In 1941 the quota for Great Britain was
112,000,000 pounds, whereas the quota this year is 150,000,000 pounds. If the minister felt then that it was necessary to increase the subsidy or the bonus in order to get the amount required for the quota, surely the same condition applies, and' doubly so, during the present year.
There is one further matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, a matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). Because of a shortage of labour many cheese factories are discontinuing the manufacture of whey butter, and the ration board has ruled that a farmer must deliver butter coupons in order to purchase this product. It naturally follows that if these factories discontinue making whey butter there will be less cream sent to the creameries and less milk sent to the cheese factories, because the average farmer will keep his milk and cream at home and manufacture his own butter. I suggest to the minister that he review the whole question of whey butter and see if something cannot be done whereby the farmer may purchase whey butter without having to give up butter coupons.
The need of .the farmer receiving a better price for his produce has been stated time and again in this house. Everyone knows that the farmer is making a supreme effort at the

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
present time, and if he is expected to increase his cheese production this year to fill the quota, he is certainly entitled to a price which will ensure him the same.return as he received last year. Therefore I ask the minister to give serious attention to these considerations and to review the various briefs, letters and telegrams which have been submitted to him by various cheese associations in eastern Ontario. Then I trust he will see fit to make a proper adjustment in the price of cheese so that the-farmer will receive in 1943 at least the same return as he had in 1942.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help rising to say a few words along the same line as that taken by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). A little while ago I attended a meeting of the war committee on agricultural production in my riding and was greatly concerned over their anxiety as to the production of cheese in the coming year in Carleton county and the surrounding community. As we all know, the season is late, and that has reacted seriously on the production of cheese. Some of the factories there are not yet open for production, and many of them are running at very low capacity, not producing anything like the amount of cheese they did last year. There is also the shortage of help, reduction of herds and other factors which, while perhaps not directly affecting cheese more than other products, have reduced the supply of milk to the factories, so that a definite drop in production is taking place.
Not long ago I attended a meeting of the cheese producers' association in my community which considered the price of cheese, and there was great discontent as to the price for the coming year as compared with last year. According to their calculation, the increase amounts to but five-eighths of a cent a pound in that community. I asked several representative factories in my community to give me figures as to the increased costs of production of cheese. These percentages are taken from individual factories and are to a very slight degree estimates and to a very great degree actual figures, which I should like to place before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for his consideration.
First of all, there has been a great increase in wages paid for farm help. Not only is the farm help situation critical so far as the supply of man-power is concerned, but it is demanding a much higher rate of wages. The increase in the wages of farm help is estimated at thirty per cent over the wages of last year. The price of milk cows in my community is probably thirty-five per cent higher than it was last year, and the cost of
feed is 15 per cent higher. Cheese boxes have actually increased in price 14-3 per cent over that of last year. Cheese makers' wages, the labour content in the production of cheese, have increased substantially, by 16-1 per cent, and fuel costs have increased by 14-3 per cent over those of last year. All these increased costs of production amount to between three and four cents per pound of cheese. The increased price to the producer this year represents five-eighths of one cent, which is not nearly enough to compensate him for the increased costs which he has to meet.
Statistics which have already been put on Hansard by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough show the material reduction that has taken place in the production of cheese this year. We are now in the middle of May, and in ordinary years one could tell pretty accurately at this time of the year what the cheese production for the coming year would be. I sincerely believe that if we are to fill our quota of cheese for export in the coming year, something must be done at once. So far as my own community is concerned, I believe that there will be a substantial decrease in the cheese production this year. The production of whole milk and cream is much more profitable for the farmer. With the many difficulties which the cheese producers are experiencing in Carleton, Lanark, Grenville, Peterborough and many counties of eastern Ontario which are substantial cheese producers and contribute materially to the quota for the export market, I think the present situation should receive the urgent attention and further consideration of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. It is true that the provincial government raised the price of cheese last year and again this year, but that does not compensate the producer for the increased costs of production. May I in all kindness, yet with great anxiety, ask the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the whole cheese situation? I believe that he has already received delegations from the producers of cheese in Ontario, and I would not be doing my duty if I did not emphasize the urgency of immediate action in the present situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Agriculture replies, I wish to say a word on butter, and perhaps he can deal with the two subjects at the same time.
Some months ago a ration was placed on butter in Canada on the theory that there were shortages and scarcity in certain places. With that I have no great fault to find. There was a spotty condition and there were shortages. At the same time there were other places where there were surpluses.
Cheese Quota-Whey Butter

To-day, from the information I have received, there is no longer any scarcity of butter in Canada. We are now in the process of accumulating a surplus sufficiently large to carry us over the next short season. In the interim the policy was adopted, under the aegis of the wartime prices and trade board, I believe, of shipping butter into what were called deficiency areas. That I think was probably a fair and good practice at the time, 'but it had some very strange results. The maritime provinces, including New Brunswick, with regard to which I have some slight knowledge of the situation, was declared to be a deficiency area. New Brunswick was, with respect to creameiy butter, deficient, but it was not a deficiency area having regard to the fact that 60 per cent of the entire butter production of the province is dairy processed butter. The rationing process had the effect of preventing in a very large measure the marketing of the dairy processed butter. The policy of rushing supplies into deficiency areas took away from some of the creamery companies in that province a market for their surplus production. For instance, Cape Breton was a deficiency area. The production there I assume is small, and importations have to be made twelve months in the year from other parts of Canada. One of the largest butter factories in New Brunswick had been in the habit of finding a ready market year in and year out in the Sydney area of Cape Breton. But as a result of the action of the authorities, the wartime prices and trade board, I presume, the Sydney area was filled from outside the maritime provinces, with the result that the creamery companies which looked upon it as their natural outlet for their surplus have to-day no market at all for their surplus production and are accumulating surpluses which they are finding it difficult to store. No matter how good was the intention of the board-and I am not going to question their bona fides-the situation which now presents itself shows the danger of interfering with the orderly marketing of consumer goods, such as butter, which are so necessary in this country. I am dealing with the matter in only its local aspects, and with no relation to our production of milk products for overseas or the army. But I am drawing attention to a situation which now exists.
Furthermore, I had a letter from the executive of another creamery company stating that as a result of the action of the board he was unable to market his surplus and unable to find proper storage for it, and he did not know what he was going to do with it.
There has grown up, even in the winter months, a substantial surplus of dairy processed butter, notwithstanding the remedial measures 
which were attempted under the policy of the board. That had a bad effect. I know of a man in Carleton county who had sixty milch cows, some of them in production, and he had to dry them up because he could not sell his production.
These people were told in the winter months, "Send your cream to the creameries." It seemed as though the whole policy of the board was to drive the milk producers into patronizing the creameries. I remember voicing this complaint once before in this house, and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc), I think it was, interjected, "Why don't you sell your milk to the creameries?" That was not possible during a winter like last winter. The provincial government of New Brunswick refused to plough any but the main trunk roads. Furthermore, there was a scarcity of gasoline and truckage so far as the major creamery companies were concerned. Whatever one's opinion may be about the quality of the production as between the creameries and farmer processed butter, let me tell the minister that in New Brunswick sixty per cent is dairy processed and sixty per cent of the people prefer it, on the theory that if you know the man who makes it, it is better butter. I myself believe in the theory that the farmer processed butter is on the whole better butter than the creamery butter. But I realize that the modern trend is to manufacture creamery butter, because in the large markets like Montreal it is the only kind which is marketable. There will have to be a process of education in the country before the people come to that conclusion.
In the meantime what has happened is this. A very large bonus has been given to the producers of creamery butter. A farmer came into my office during the Easter vacation and told me what he was getting, and of course it was most satisfactory to him ; he was shipping his production to a creamery. Another farmer who came to see me was not in that happy position, and he was not getting the same sort of treatment from the federal treasury that the first farmer was. An attempt was made, and I think it was probably the best thing that could be done at the time, to instruct retail and wholesale merchants to buy this farmer processed butter; yet the rationing process has prevented the rapid consumption and distribution among the consumers of this type of butter. As a consequence there is a real grievance in New Brunswick. I do not know how things may be elsewhere. The butter policy of the country to-day is anathema to sixty per cent of the producers, and more than sixty per cent hold the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly'-rightly, I think-that they

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
are being discriminated against by the policy of the government in this matter of bonusing butter. I believe that a substantial surplus has already accumulated. A figure has been stated in the press; I do not know that it is authoritative. The minister, undoubtedly, knows what the surplus in storage to-day is.
I am wondering whether the whole position should not be reviewed, at least in so far as certain areas are concerned. It is not my purpose to impute motives to those who established this policy. No doubt their motives were good, but. the operation of the policy and- the regulations established under it have pressed very hardly on some of our people.
I have found that that is true with respect to other policies of the wartime prices and trade board. Recently it was stated that there was a shortage of potatoes in this country. I have seen, not the order in council, but the regulations which were promulgated by the wartime prices and trade board through their director at Toronto. I tell the house that those regulations were entirely in the interests of the distribution trade and ignored entirely the trade which had to do with the collection and sale of potatoes to the distributors in the big centres. Certainly the producer was altogether ignored.
Let me give the minister an illustration of how this thing works. Every contract was frozen. Every commitment for the sale of potatoes was cancelled. Every shipment, unless the potatoes were in cars, rolling, was frozen. Shippers were instructed that they should no longer consign cars to individual purchasers but that they should be consigned through their banks, not to an individual but for the account of the wartime prices and trade board and subject to directions from them. No doubt that method of control was deemed necessary by those in authority. But the thing went a good deal further. Dealers in large centres like Montreal, who were aware that for a short period before the new crop was in, further supplies would be required, and who were diligent and businesslike, and made purchases, and had cars actually on track at the point of delivery, found themselves confronted with an order taking away these shipments from them and handing them over to their competitors who had not any foresight or forethought. I have it on the authority of the hon. member for Yictoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) that in one case five carloads of New Brunswick potatoes on track at Montreal, purchased by a man who had the foresight to provide for his customers and patrons, were diverted to a competitor who had not bought a single carload. Such a proceeding is anything but desirable.
I think that was a gross discrimination against this dealer who was provident and in favour of his competitor who was improvident. That sort of thing cannot be justified on any ground. I am quite aware that the minister is in no sense responsible, and I am not suggesting .that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), under whose aegis the wartime prices and trade board operates, is responsible. But it goes to show how arbitrary these boards are sometimes. The illustration I have given is really the limit, when you take five carloads of produce laid down in one big centre, one big market, and hand them over to a competitor to sell to his customers in the same market. I do not think I need do more than state that fact, if it is a fact-and I have given the source of my information. That sort of thing is most arbitrary and causes the greatest discontent, and because the hon. member who gave me-the information, has been ill I took it upon, myself to communicate with the authorities direct. I made it clear to them that I was not quarrelling with the underlying principle of control, but what I was complaining about was the operation under the regulations, and I have tried to make the point here to-day.
I think something has to be done about the butter situation. The dairy producers to-day are labouring undier a discrimination of at least eight cents a pound, and they are subject to the rationing of the commodity at Fredericton, where hundreds of pounds a,re n^arketed every Wednesday and Saturday. They must sell on a ration basis, and the farmers bring in their boxes of butter and simply take them away because people have not the ration coupons to give them. There is the greatest dissatisfaction because they cannot dispose of their butter as freely as heretofore-and butter is abundantly available. And, in addition, they have to take a lower price.
I beg the minister and those in authority to review the whole position in the light of the great production that is now upon us in butter. The farmers in our country are now producing butter, not cheese. It is much more favourable to sell milk for butter or to produce butter at home than it is to send the milk to the cheese factories. I will not go into the merits or demerits of the discrepancy between the price for butter and the price for cheese. I leave that to someone more competent than I. There is, however, a discrepancy. A while ago it was the other way, and it was more profitable to produce cheese than butter, but to-day the reverse is the

*716

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
position. Men are getting the equivalent of fifty-three cents for milk for butter, and it is much less than that for cheese.


Mr. GARDINER:: Butter fat?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, with the bonus and everything. My hon. friend is Minister of Agriculture,, and I make a direct appeal to him on behalf of the farmers and the dairy producers in my county who have written letters of protest in the newspapers and who have written to me time and again protesting against the inequality under which they contend they are suffering and will continue to suffer until the position is altered in some way. You cannot tell these people they should not make their own butter. This is a free country and they resent the restrictions which are put upon them, and certainly resent the discrimination in price.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the remarks made by the last speaker (Mr. Hanson), I have only a very few statements to make. The first is that the wartime prices and trade board, as has been explained to this house on a number of occasions, have been attempting to regulate prices and, in so far as these particular commodities are concerned, to regulate food prices as part of the policy under which they have been attempting to avoid inflation in Canada. All of those who have spoken with regard to the matter from time to time, whether to-day or previously, have admitted that it is necessary that a policy with that objective in mind should be enforced in Canada. As has been suggested by the last speaker, the Department of Agriculture should keep, and it has been keeping, as close a check as possible upon the results of the operation of any of the controls that may be imposed on food, and I must say the prices board have been keeping in very close touch with the officials of the department from time to time, while the officials of the department have also been in very close touch with the board. There are times when discussions are necessary in order to arrive at final conclusions as to what ought to be done.
I am not in a position this afternoon to state exactly what the situation is in regard to the supply of potatoes. I had no information before coming into the house that this discussion would take place. But at the earliest possible date I shall have full information and be in a position to deal with the matter. I only wish to state at the moment that shortages in connection with the supply of potatoes-at certain points have developed, and some inconvenience has arisen in consequence. Those shortages have taken place

largely in city centres where it is rather difficult to obtain any emergency supplies which may be available on certain farms throughout the country. It is impossible for one without notice to deal with individual cases such as that which is stated to have developed in Montreal, but the facts with regard to those cases can be found and' placed before the house in due course. I shall see that full inquiry is made into the matter, and any announcements that can be made, as a result of experience gained, can be made at a later time, and as soon as possible.
With regard to the butter situation, I agree with the hon. gentleman when he says that there are increased supplies of butter. The butter stocks on May 1, 1943, amounted to
10.022.000	pounds, and on May 1, 1942, to
5.878.000	pounds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are those figures based on warehouse receipts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Stock in store in warehouses across Canada on May 1. The butter stocks for 1941 were 9,630,000 pounds. When one takes these three years, not only the last two years, and- makes comparisons it will be seen that in 1943 as compared with 1941 there is little difference. The storage as at the first of May, 1941, was 9,630,000 pounds, and in 1943 at the first of May it is 10,022,000 pounds. There is not sufficient difference for us to be concerned about the amount available when one takes into consideration that the consumption of butter is very much greater now than it was two years ago.
Mr. 8ENN: What is considered a normal supply of butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figure for 1941 is not very far from normal.


Mr. SENN:: I was under the impression that it was higher than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it would be lower than that, in any event, which would mean that the amount of 10,022,000 pounds is nothing on which to base a conclusion that we ought to be doing something about an overproduction of butter at this stage.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Has the minister the figures in regard to the increase in the production, of butter in 1941 and 1942, or the increase this year as compared with last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The production of
creamery butter for the first three .months of 1943 was 40.599,000 pounds; for the first three months of last year, 31,777,000 pounds; and for the year before that, 34,126,000 pounds.

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
To give it for the complete years, in 1942 the production was 284,000,000 pounds; in 1941, 285,000,000 pounds; in 1940, 264,000,000 pounds, and in 1939, 267,000,000 pounds, all in round figures. So that the production last year was approximately the same as in the preceding year and 20,000,000 pounds more than the year before, but it is estimated that this year the production wdll be considerably higher than last year. Therefore, when one takes the production figures, the storage figures and

if we had them at the moment, which I have not-the consumption figures, it would be found that there is no considerable difference this year as compared with some preceding years.
I think what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) had in mind principally was the question of dairy butter. I have not the facts in that regard up to date, but I have them for the period under review when we last discussed this matter in the house. Before the Easter recess certain hon. members called attention to the condition which existed because butter had been rationed, and stated that dairy butter was left upon a market in which there was very little demand. At that time the wartime prices and trade board made provision whereby the corporation set up under that board would take delivery of butter. Speaking from memory^ I believe the result was that well under a thousand pounds of butter were located in the city of Saint John during the weeks immediately following that discussion in the house. The last time I checked the figures they indicated that this amount of butter had been obtained in the city of Saint John, and that this accounted for -most of the butter which had been obtained in New Brunswick, while something in the neighbourhood of seven thousand pounds had been obtained across Canada in the same period of time. I have had the officials of the department keeping a check on that situation since then. They are under instructions to report any time serious difficulties might develop in connection with the dairy butter offered for sale across the country. In recent weeks no reports have been made to me, but the question having been raised again I shall examine into the circumstances now existing and report as soon as possible upon the present situation in various parts of Canada in relation to dairy butter.
The discussion taking place at the moment , arose as a result of statements made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) with regard to cheese, and for a moment I should like to deal with that situa-. tion. Stocks of cheese as at May 1, 1943,
amounted to 17,212,000 pounds. On May 1, 1942, our stocks of cheese totalled 29,039,000 pounds, while on May 1, 1941, they were
15,609,000	pounds, or about 1,600,000 pounds less than this year. I recite the figures for these three years in order to point out that the facts-and they are facts-which were placed upon the record a few moments ago by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, and concurred in by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), do not necessarily place one in a position to arrive at a sound conclusion. There are special reasons why the production of cheese was very high in the spring of 1942. One was the fact that the wartime prices and trade board, on the advice of the Department of Agriculture and at the request of cheese producers, fixed a price of twenty-five cents for cheese during the winter months of 1941-42. That was done because during the summer of 1941 we had taken off the Canadian market all the cheese produced in Ontario and Quebec, and sent it to Britain. We did not allow any of the production of that season to remain on the market, but sent it to Britain in order to meet the contract of that year. We asked the Canadian people to go without cheese during that summer, and they did so. Then the following winter we asked the farmers to produce cheese as they had never produced it before. They did so, and we paid them an unusually high price for that cheese in order to get it during the winter of 1941-42, to supply the Canadian market with a product that would not be acceptable to the British market. As every hon. member knows, the best Canadian cheese is produced in the summer months, when the cattle are on the grass, and it is that cheese we desired to have to send to the British market. This winter-produced cheese was intended for and, I think, largely marketed in Canada. That is one reason why it is not altogether useful to compare production during the first four or five months of 1942 with production during the first four months of 1943, because we are working under entirely different conditions. . When we compare the stocks on hand on May 1, 1943, with the stocks on hand on May 1, 1941, and find that in 1943 we have more than we had in 1941, then I think we are making a useful comparison in connection with this question.
There are other reasons why our production would be down this year as compared with last year. As every hon. member knows, and as we realize when we look at the weather, this season is at least four weeks later than last season. Our production of dairy products this year is not up to the mark of last year because
Cheese Quota-Whey Butter

then we had an early season and this year we have a late season. Perhaps if one took an average as between the two he would not be far wide of the mark as to what should be an average condition. Then, too, all through 1942 dairy farmers and their representatives were telling the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture, and through those bodies the government, that the returns for cheese were comparatively high, and as a result we were getting cheese at the expense of butter and at the expense of canned and whole milk.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At what point of time would that be?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that all
through the summer of 1942 representations were made to that effect. During the winter of 1942-43, about the time the Department of Agriculture took over the control of subsidies for production, we were asked to pay a subsidy of twenty-five cents a hundred on milk that was to be processed. We placed that subsidy on, and made it retroactive over the month of March, so that it covered March and April. That subsidy was taken off on May 1. Many of the representations made to the government and to the press were made during April, when there was a subsidy of twenty-five cents a hundred on milk, to keep it in processing plants-and which did keep it in processing plants, at the expense of cheese factories. So that the production of cheese during the last weeks of April would, of necessity, be lower than in seasons when conditions of that kind did not prevail, in connection with subsidies.
Someone asked a moment ago whether certain statements which had been or which, according to newspaper reports, were presumed to have been made, might be considered in the nature of an intention to enforce some kind of compulsion. I would say, no; they do not necessarily mean that at all. But they do mean that if certain practices which have been carried on by certain people in certain limited areas are to continue until next fall, the government may have to reconsider the question of paying subsidies on milk for certain purposes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the practices?


James Garfield Gardiner: Practices of the kind where persons would go into certain areas and induce others to take milk away from cheese factories, because the subsidy for other purposes has increased the price of milk.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be a diversion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it would be diverted from a district which usually made cheese into one having some other activity.
There may be no necessity to inflict compulsion, but it may be necessary to reconsider the subsidies being paid. I repeat that the representations made all through last year, and right down until the announcement made in the house within the last few weeks respecting the policy for this summer, were to the effect that the returns for cheese were higher than the returns for milk for other purposes. Based upon that representation, the subsidies were increased or retained on whole milk, and were increased for summer production of butter. They had previously been increased for winter production of butter. I make this statement only in order to have the facts on the record.


Mark Cecil Senn: Has the dairy products board power at its discretion to order farmers to send their milk either to a cheese factory, to some other processing factory, or to a butter factory?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to say they have the power. I have grave doubts as a matter of fact as to whether they have.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: But they have done it.


James Garfield Gardiner: But I would say that cheese factories, butter factories and processing plants have all cooperated with the dairy board, when they have been asked to do so. And when, in connection with the production of food, representations have been made to the effect that it would be more in the interests of Britain or of Canada, or more in the interests of the dairy industry itself to do certain things, they have cooperated to the greatest possible extent, in order to bring about the desired result. I do not think any compulsion will be necessary in order to get the results desired both by the dairy people and by the board.


Mark Cecil Senn: I asked the question because I have seen reports in the newspapers which would indicate compulsion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I saw that report, too. I can assure the hon. member no compulsion was used in the matter. Any changes which have been made have taken place as a result of discussions among parties concerned. There has been one case where they had to go back and have a second discussion, but I think it will be found in the end that all parties will cooperate, and see that the proper thing is done.
I should like now to say a few words respecting price. I hold in my hand a table showing prices from 1914 to date. I shall not read

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
them all because they cover a whole page of printing, but I would call attention to the fact that from 1914 to 1916 inclusive the price was never up to twenty cents, on an average, throughout a year. These are some of the prices in those years:
Year
Price
Cents
1915
1917
1919
14-2
19-8
23-2
26-7
From 1920 down to the present there has never been a year in which the price of cheese was as high as it was in 1942; not one year, when the yearly average price has been as high. The nearest approach was 1928, when cheese averaged twenty-one cents ; whereas in 1942 it averaged 21-5 cents.
One will see therefore, from checking these records, that there were only four years since 1914, and those were toward the end of and immediately succeeding the last war, when cheese was as high as it was in 1942. And it is higher than that in 1943. One must remember, -too, that while in 1942 the price of cheese was 21-5 cents, there was in addition to that a premium added by this government, and a subsidy of two cents a pound by each of the governments of Ontario and Quebec. The premium was as high as two cents a pound, with the result that the average price ipaid for cheese, plus the subsidies, ini 1942 was around twenty-four cents a pound. For this year the average return will be over twenty-five cents, with payments made on the same basis as last year.
So that if one takes those facts into consideration he will find there were only two years, namely 1919 and 1920, when cheese brought a higher return than it did in 1942, or higher than it will bring in 1943. I think this should be said in order to keep hon. members fully informed as to the price being paid to-day, in relation to prices paid at other times.
There is one further statement which should be made respecting prices. I have reference to the increases which have been made from year to year. The following are prices of cheese from the months of April in each of the years indicated:
Price
Year	Cents
1940
1942
14-7
21-2
The estimated price for April, 1943, is 22-9 cents. These, let me repeat, are prices; they do not include the subsidies being paid by provincial governments or the premium paid by the federal government. So that in 1943 we are obtaining a price more than double the price obtained in 1939, the year immediately preceding the war.
I place these figures on record in order to show what I have already said to the cheese producers, when they have been here, namely, that it is hardly fair to compare 1942 with 1943, and then say we should have an increase in price in 1943 over 1942, to take care of all increases in cost of production, as between those two years.


George Russell Boucher: Is it not a fact that the quota for overseas is larger than it was in 1942?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall deal with that later. Cheese increased in price from five-eighths of a cent to a cent a pound. The average increase is not five-eighths of a cent. There is an additional amount equal to the freight when shipping from points removed from Montreal into that city. This produces an increase from five-eighths of a cent to one cent, and the increase brings the price of cheese under the British contract up close to twenty-one cents at Montreal.
As I was stating, it is hardly fair to take all the increase in the cost of production which has occurred this year and charge it all up to the fact that there has not been a great enough increase in the price as between 1941 and- 1942. That statement is borne out by these figures. The average price of cheese in April, 1941, was 14-9 cents a pound; the average price in April, 1942, was 21-2 cents a pound, an increase of 6-2 cents. If one takes the whole year he will find that the price established with Great Britain in 1941 was 15 cents a pound, whereas the price established in the succeeding year was 20 cents, a difference of 5 cents a pound. That increase last year of 5 cents a pound was placed for the purpose of obtaining a greater production of 1942 than had ever been obtained before. The government deliberately paid more for cheese than it had ever paid before; the government deliberately put cheese out of line with every other dairy product in order to get a higher production in
1942	than we had ever had before since the beginning of the century. The desired results were obtained, and in 1942 we got a cheese production of 202,000,000 pounds. When we are not asking for an increased production in
1943	it would seem fair to take care of the increased cost by making allowance for this fact.

Cheese Quota-Whey Butter
I have stated to the house before, and I am going to state it more plainly now, that in the fall of 1942 we were asked by the British government to consider the necessity of delivering less cheese to Britain in 1942 because she had made arrangements elsewhere which seemed to fill her demands. As a result of that request, we opened the boundary line into the United States and sold several million pounds of cheese in that country in order to take off the market some of what otherwise would have been a surplus. Just following that experience, we arranged for the conference in Decerriber which was held to talk over the production of different farm products. At that time it was represented that we should ask for a decrease in the production of cheese in Canada; not an increase, but a decrease. Knowing that situations change very rapidly in war time, I warned against asking for a decrease in cheese production and suggested that we should maintain it at the same level, in so far as our request was concerned. A little later on we received representations from Britain to the effect that she had been rather disappointed in her supplies last year from outside Canada ' and would appreciate it very much if we would try this year to give her 150,000,000 pounds of cheese-
At the time that request came through, our storages of cheese in Canada were unusually high and it was not necessary to call for production in order to obtain the supplies which were to go to Britain earlier in this season. There were storages in existence which made possible some shipments to Britain in the early part of this season. As soon as that request was received, we suggested to the farmers that we would like them to keep their production up to a point where we could supply 150,000,000 pounds of cheese to Britain this year. I wish to state that it is not necessary to produce
202,000,000 pounds of cheese in order to supply Britain with 150,000,000 pounds of cheese this year. In other words, the fact that there may be some decrease in the production of cheese will not necessarily endanger the cheese contract we have with Great Britain. There are other means by which the situation could be met if it were found that production was going to go down to an extent which would seriously endanger the contract we have with Great Britain.
Having said that, I come back to the point which was raised by the first speaker, the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, who made a comparison between the production of last year and the production of this year. My advices are that we have not yet reached the point where we can be sure that we shall not be able to produce all the cheese

in Canada, even under the situation as it now exists, which it will be necessary to produce in order to fill the contract which we have with Britain for 1943. If the time comes when we find or we believe that nothing more is necessary than what has been done up to date, the announcement will be made, but I think members of the house will agree that until we have more conclusive evidence a change is necessary, the policy which ought to be followed is the one announced.


Mark Cecil Senn: When will that time be?


James Garfield Gardiner: It may be within the next few weeks. As I said a few moments ago, we are about four weeks late. We had experiences at this time last year with regard to the production of cheese which indicated to us that there was no doubt we would get more cheese than we had asked for and less butter than we needed!.


Mark Cecil Senn: The indications now are the
reverse.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time the indications are that we may get more butter than we need. However, there is nothing conclusive about that, as the figures I gave a few moments ago will indicate. We may get more butter than we need, but we must remember that there is always a place to put it. I hesitate at this moment to say that the facts indicate that it is necessary for us to make any change in the policy which was announced. I should like to call the attention of the house and the country to the fact that we were asked, and asked' continuously, to announce a polics' this year which would cover the whole line of dairy products throughout the year. We have officials who are considered to be more or less expert in this matter. They sat down, along with others, and worked out the prices which were to be established for the different products and the subsidies which, were to be paid in relation to the prices in order to bring them to a common level.
I regret to say that immediately we had that worked out we were asked to increase the price of cheese. Last year the price of cheese *was higher than the prices of other products, and we were asked to bring the other prices up to that of cheese. I am informed that we have not yet passed the price of cheese with the prices of most if not all of the other dairy products, but they have been brought up somewhere in the neighbourhood of the price of cheese. It is my opinion that we ought to let the plan operate sufficiently long to be able to determine what

Coal Emergency
the results will be before we go to the treasury to ask them to put up more money in order to place the price of cheese out of line with prices of other commodities. We would then probably have to come along later and say that we must bring the other prices up to the new level of cheese.
So far, we believe that the plan has functioned fairly well. Before sitting down, I must say that the representatives of the dairy people who came to us asked for a cent to a cent and a half or maybe close to two cents more than we are now paying for cheese. We did not consider it wise, after having taken all the facts and circumstances into consideration in our calculations, to meet that request. There are some substitutions which may have to be made for activities which have taken place in other places during recent weeks in order to arrive at the position we expected to reach when we had these discussions, but I am hopeful that the position will be reached. I am hopeful that the dairy industry will continue this year to produce what we require to meet the contracts we have made and to feed our people as well.


George Stanley White: Would the minister mind repeating the figures of the cheese on hand on May 1 this year and last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: These figures were just sent down to me, and I have not had a chance to check them. They are as follows:
Pounds
May 1,	1943	
17,212,000May 1,	1942	
29,039,000May 1,	1941	
15,609,000


George Stanley White: If I understand the minister correctly, one of the reasons advanced as to why there would be no difficulty in meeting the quota was that there was a surplus on hand. In 1941 there were 15 million pounds on hand and the quota for that year was 38 million pounds less than the quota for 1943. Last year there were 29 million pounds on hand, which is considerably more than what we have this year, and the quota is the same.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are speaking of different dates. I stated that when the discussions were taking place following the December conference it was found, about the time we were in the United States in January discussing the matter, that we had considerable stores of cheese on hand in Canada which could be utilized to send greater quantities to Britain this year. Some of these supplies were shipped prior to the 1st of May and they would be out of the stocks of last year, as of that date, so that what I was stating was that we could take some of the cheese of last year and apply it against the British requirements for this year. In addition, we do not need to
produce 202 million pounds this year to supply 150 million pounds to Britain. Our consumption is approximately 40 million pounds, so that we have a leeway of 12 million pounds to work on. In addition, we have the cheese that we have shipped on this year's contract, but produced in 1942.


George Stanley White: But in view of the lateness of the season, is there not likely to be a reduction in the production of cheese?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must remember that we are not in committee. He has already spoken once.



GOAL-PROCLAMATION DECLARING EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY

Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate at this time to take up any time of the house, and I shall be as brief and explicit as possible. Members of this group have agreed that the question now before the house should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In view, however, of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon of the authorization of the issue of a proclamation declaring a national fuel emergency in Canada, I am compelled to make a few remarks.
The Prime Minister stated this afternoon that he would welcome suggestions from members with respect to the fuel situation in Canada, in regard to which an order in council is to be passed shortly. Coming from a constituency where considerable coal mining is carried on, I have on many occasions discussed in the house the fuel situation and the developing crisis and tried to point out exactly where we were heading. Unfortunately, as a parliament we have neglected to do many things which we should have done with respect to the fuel situation, and as a result we are faced with an emergency to-day.
The thing I am concerned about-not merely interested in but concerned about- is the fact that an order in council is to be passed making it compulsory for men to be taken out of other industries and sent back to work in the coal mining industry'. I see no solution in that particular line unless it is very carefully worked out by men who are not only familiar with marketing requirements but actually know something about the production of coal and are prepared to handle the whole matter in the best interests of all concerned.
The newspapers this afternoon state that an order in council is to be passed and that certain things are to be done respecting the
Coal Emergency

coal mining industry. I understand that one of the proposals is the use of women on the surface of the mines. That is something new in Canada, and it will have to be very carefully handled. In the coal mining areas of Canada there are many men and boys available who could do any work around the surface of the mines essential to the handling of coal and the handling of materials that are necessary in the production of coal. I would emphasize that before any attempt is made to employ women around the surface of coal mines, every available man in the area should first be used. It has been intimated to me that the order in council which is to be passed will permit girls sixteen years of age to take work on and around the surface of a coal mine. I object to that. I think there is no necessity for it at this time. I believe that in every section of Canada where fuel is produced suitable male labour can be found to take care of the surface requirements.
Second, there is this to be considered. Men have left the coal mining industry and gone into other industries, the shipbuilding industry, for instance. Shipbuilding is, in my opinion, the first consideration of Canada to-day. If any attempt is made to take the men who have left the coal mining industry for other industries and transfer them back to the coal mining industry without some regard being paid to the wages they are now earning in specialist occupations for which they have been trained in the field of shipbuilding, it will be a mistake. Every man who has left the coal mines for some other industry has left the coal mines to better his condition. I have said before, that going to war is a vacation to some of the miners of Nova Scotia who work underground producing coal. You cannot just pass an order in council and then take away from the shipbuilding industry, we will say, a man who has been earning there from seventy to eighty cents an hour and send him back to work underground in the coal mines at a great reduction in wages, in a back-breaking and 100 per cent more hazardous occupation. Some regard will have to be had to the cooperation of the man himself, if he is to produce the coal. I think it would be a mistake to go into a shipyard where there are perhaps two or three or four hundred men who have left the coal mines and are now working in the shipyard as specialists and force them to go back to the coal mines to work at lower wages. This particular angle will have to be worked out very carefully with the representatives of the miners' unions, and I hope that is being done.
There are many mines in Nova Scotia where production cannot be increased over any long period of time. Many of the mines are old, and the programme for the last ten years has been in the direction of conserving their resources and reallocating the collieries. Some collieries have been closed down since the outbreak of war. That production cannot be replaced. You may crowd a lot of men into a coal mine and get increased production for a short period, but that is bad mining practice which will cripple the industry in the future. If it is increased production we want, we should have gone into that field three years ago to expand the industry. We have already suggested that in the house. It would be not only a war-time project; it is necessary as a post-war project also. That is something to which consideration should be given when we are dealing with the fuel situation as an emergency one.
There are many other angles which I should like to discuss, but I do not want to delay the house. I rose at this time for the purpose of urging those who are to draft the order in council to keep close to the men who are to be affected by it and to give careful consideration to the proposal of transferring men from war industries where they are doing specialists' jobs for which they have been trained, particularly in shipbuilding, and sending them back to the coal mines to work, unless regard is paid to the higher wages they are now receiving. The men could be appealed to on the basis of patriotism and in the interests of Canada's war effort, but certainly they should not just be compelled to go back to something which they left to better their condition, because you cannot live very long doing the job they have been doing in the coal mines of Nova Scotia for the past ten years. These collieries are old and on the wane, and a programme of expansion is necessary in Nova Scotia.
Now that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is in his seat, I should like to bring this matter to his attention. During the past six months I have received many letters from men in the armed forces in Canada who were desirous of returning to the coal mines, as proposed by the department, for a three-month period in order to take employment there. Something was wrong with the machinery, because I have had at least fifty letters during this session from different parts of Canada from men who made application to their commanding officers requesting permission to take advantage of this offer, and in no case was action taken.
(Mr. Gillis.l

Interim Supply Bill


James Layton Ralston: I can tell my hon. friend that over 1,200 went back.


Clarence Gillis: That may be so.


James Layton Ralston: And if I may interrupt, instructions have been issued to the effect that every effort should be made to encourage these men to go to the mines. The only limitation was that of military exigencies, but it was expressly stated that every possible attempt should be made to cope with these conditions in order to make it possible to meet a national emergency.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. That is perhaps correct.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend would let me have two or three cases of the kind he has mentioned.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I did not bother the department with these letters. I kept writing back to these men explaining the regulations and what it was necessary to do, because I realize that you cannot take men in the army and train them and just let them out whenever they feel like going out. Applications for release from the service must, of course, be checked. In order that men may go to the coal mines, some negotiations are necessary. According to our regulations in Nova Scotia, a coal miner must serve three years' apprenticeship and write two examinations. He must be qualified to go to the coal face; you have to check with the management whether or not he has the requisite qualifications, and this takes a little time. For this reason I have not been bothering the department, but merely advising men of the proceedings necessary to be taken before they can get out. I will send the minister the names of some of those who have made these requests.
I am sorry I have had to take this amount of time; but in view of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, and the serious repercussions which may follow this order in council unless it is very carefully handled, I think I am justified in making these remarks.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ILSLEY" moved:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $40,307.998.90, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items (less item 116) to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1944, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1944.
Gordon Graydon: I rise just to ask the usual protection with respect to the passing of these estimates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh. yes.


Gordon Graydon: On the same basis as they were passed, in the original one-sixth vote.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I give that undertaking.


John George Diefenbaker: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. member never read the details at the back of the estimates?


John George Diefenbaker: I am coining to the details, and I intend to bring some to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, they are there; very small items are there.


John George Diefenbaker: In many instances there is no break-down. I will refer to a certain item relating to the Department of Transport where therb is no break-down in the estimates and where there is an overexpenditure which is totally unjustified in war time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Interim Supply Bill

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Before recess I was directing the attention of the committee to the necessity for a very careful scrutiny and examination of all expenditures. Particularly during war time is this necessary, when people are asked and are willing to make sacrifices to the end that victory shall be ours. My reason for addressing these few remarks to the committee is to call its attention and that of the minister to the necessity for an even closer scrutiny of expenditures than we have had heretofore, because I believe that the Canadian people expect us to do an all-out job to prevent waste and overexpenditure as far as possible. In my opinion, the greatest check on waste and extravagance is the giving of publicity to examples of either.
Now that the victory loan campaign has been such a success, and all of us in this house have contributed toward making it that success, and the people having discharged their responsibilities, I submit that we on our part must to a greater extent accept responsibility for a close scrutiny and examination of expenditures. Recently mention was made of the very high salaries paid to certain officials in the war information board, and by reason of the publicity given in this house changes have taken place which have resulted in savings. I am sure that further savings will take place.
Let me refer to one case and ask the Minister of Transport to answer the question as to what is being done with reference to this matter. I refer to the case of Doctor Chartier, of Montreal, a well-known medical man who, in part, looks after the medical administration of the Government Employees' Compensation Act. I asked the question on April 14, in regard to Doctor Chartier, a'nd the answer which was given at that time was that in a period of less than three years, or approximately three years, he had received in medical fees the sum of around $90,000. I did not get the information, nor could I have got the information regarding this case from an examination of either the auditor general's report or the estimates. The estimates for 1913-44, at page 222, indicate that the cost of administration of the act by the minister's department in the year 1943-44 will amount to $24,735, and that in 1942-43 it amounted to $23,322. Certainly neither of these estimates contains the item with reference to this doctor.
Before recess the Minister of Finance suggested that full information could be obtained from these reports. At page 424 of the auditor

general's report the total expenditure in the administration of the Government Employees' Compensation Act was given at only $20,625.91, and a casual examination of this particular report would indicate that that was all that the administration cost. Then on page 425 we find that, the total expenditure, for compensation, medical aid and administration, amounted to $489,297.40. So that on one page one is given to understand that the total administration cost is S20.000 whereas on the next page certain costs of administration are included along with compensation and medical aid and are not particularized.
I suggest that there is not full information in either report, that one has to make an examination and make inquiries, and that it .is only by chance that many matters which should be brought to the attention of the country are in fact brought to its attention. Administration should have been under one head, and if there had been any indication that any doctor, whatever the circumstances may have been, was receiving over $30,000 or $35,000 a year for part-time assistance, there would have been an investigation before this. I submit that fuller information should be given. We are not here for the purpose of criticizing in a partisan way, but we have a responsibility to the people to analyse these statements, and unless the information that is in the possession of the government is given fully in the auditor general's report, we cannot discharge that responsibility.
In my opinion, this expenditure is unjustifiable at any time and particularly in a time of war, when the people are being asked to make ever-increasing sacrifices in the way of. taxation. I wish to ascertain from the minister whether or not, on this one item, the people, of Canada, by a change in the system of. appointment of doctors, with the necessary, facilities, could not save thousands of dollars. The item is small in comparison with larger items we have before us, but every dollar that we in this house can save where there is over-, expenditure is one dollar more available for the war effort.
Let me take another matter, the cost of administration of the wartime prices and trade board. I asked some questions recently, and answers were brought down in a return on Friday, May 14. Among the questions asked was: How many employees of the wartime prices and trade board are there in the following categories: $2,000 and under to $3,000; $3,000 to $4,000; $4,000 to $5,000, and over $5,000. Most of these employees are temporary, taken on for the period of the

Interim Supply Bill
war, and they are receiving exceptionally high salaries compared with those paid for equivalent service to men and women who devote their lives to the public service. The answer I received was that there are 3,723 employees receiving $2,000 and under; 683 receiving from $2,000 to $3,000; 174 receiving from $3,000 to $4,000; 83 receiving from $4,000 to $5,000, and 43 receiving over $5,000. I suggest that these latter salaries are exceptionally high when one considers that men and women in the public service have to occupy unusually high positions in the permanent civil service before receiving salaries at all commensurate with these.
What information have we as to the expenditures of the wartime prices and trade board in reference to salaries, travelling expenses and the like? There has never been a breakdown, and there is no way in which we can get the information. It is true that we can ask questions when the estimates come before the committee in the last few days of the session, but it is impossible to secure the information then. I am going to place some of these expenditures on record; and having regard to their size I think a saving of many thousands of dollars would result if these expenditures were carefully examined in detail. Up to March 31, 1943, expenditures by the board were as follows:
Salaries, honoraria and living
allowances	
$6,714,249	67Travelling expenses	
706,209	56
Printing, stationery and office
equipment	
1,074,462	84Advertising, excluding radio programmes	
512,639	44Radio programmes	
221,851	66All other expenditures	
1.129,220	53Rentals	
529,141	00Office furniture and equipment..	215,941	97Alterations, repairs and maintenance of offices	
108,145	74
not think we are discharging our responsibilities, and the government in turn is not giving us a fair opportuntiy to do so. If this information were given in greater detail and criticism were not restricted to members on this side of the house but given by members in every section of the house who may believe mistakes are being made, and overexpenditures are being authorized and waste is occurring, many thousands of dollars could be saved; if, instead of taking the attitude that is too often taken in this house, of resenting criticism which really is not directed against the government but which is designed to improve conditions, and there were greater cooperation between the government and hon. members on this side, in connection with expenditures and their scrutiny, the result would be a saving of millions of dollars for the people of Canada. Only to-day in the course of some reading I came across a statement made by Mr. Churchill on March 14, 1939, when he was criticized for bringing before the government of the day certain things he thought should be changed. He was a supporter of the government, but he saw that certain things could be improved upon. When he was criticized for bringing up those matters his answer was:
Why should I mislead the nation? What is the use of parliament if it is not the place where true statements can be brought before the people? W'hat is the use of sending members to parliament to say popular things of the moment, and saying things merely to give satisfaction to the government whips and by cheering loudly every ministerial platitude? What is the value of our parliamentary institutions, and how can our parliamentary doctrines survive if constituencies tried to return only tame, docile and subservient members who tried to stamp out every form of independent judgment?
I believe those words are very applicable. The examination of expenditures is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of the right of the people of Canada to have full and complete information on all these subjects; to be assured that we carefully scrutinize expenditure. We have the right to have made available to us an opportunity to present examples of extravagance or waste to the government and, what is equally important, the right to ask the government to act thereon. I am not going to say more at this time, but I think in the two matters I have brought before the committee it is obvious that if we discharged our responsibilities, the result would be the saving of a great deal of money to the people of Canada.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I am glad the hon.
member has brought up this question of administration of the Government Employees'
I have not totalled these amounts, but here we have given in bulk expenditures of four or five million dollars over and above salaries; I doubt whether a single member of this house has any information as to how that is made up, and without that knowledge there can be no close scrutiny.
I do not wish to hold up the committee, so that I am taking only these two examples, but I suggest that we as members should have information of expenditure in greater detail. We cannot get much information from the auditor general's report, where these figures are given in bulk in many instances, nor can we get it from the estimates. Some may ask, what is the use of bringing this before the committee? I say in all sincerity that I do
72537-173.'.
Interim Supply Bill

Compensation. Act and the payment of compensation to government employees who are injured, particularly the matter of treatment in the Montreal area, and finally the case of one doctor who appears to have received large amounts of money within the last three years for services in connection with such cases. The hon. member contends that extravagance and waste have occurred in connection with the treatment and the payment of compensation to injured government employees during war time. First of all, in his criticism with respect to lack of information the hon. member referred to the meagre information which appears at page 47 of the estimates for 1943-44, as compared with that given for 1942-43.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I said the
information was the same each year.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is one item in the estimates which the hon. gentleman did not mention, appearing just below the figures he cited. He has given .the cost of the administration of the Government Employees' Compensation Act as $24,735 for the present fiscal year, as compared with $23,322 for last year, or an increase of $1,413. Just under that item there is another item showing the amount of compensation to government employees. For the year 1942-43 it is $265,000, and the estimated amount for 1943-44 is $450,000, or an increase of $185,000. The first item refers only to the departmental administration of the Government Employees' Compensation Act. That is the cost of the staff in Ottawa. An increase of $1,413 is required on account of the large number of increases in cases for compensation arising out of war work, from war industries, which the department has undertaken to look after.
To give an example of the amount of work administered by the department, it will be seen that the estimated cost is $450,000, but it is estimated that the total disbursements by the department will be about $1,250,000. The remainder is made up of compensation arising from war industries. These amounts are charged to the war votes, and do not appear in the ordinary departmental expenditures. However, they have to be administered, and in order to administer cases totalling this large sum we require only $1,413 additional for staff in the department. I contend under those circumstances there is no ground for criticism, or for any charge of extravagance.
It is true that the details of each individual case are not mentioned in the auditor general's report. That is a matter for which the auditor general, and possibly the Department of
(Mr. Michaud.1
Finance, are responsible. They must decide whether it is sound or advisable to give, all the details of each case, particularly when one realizes that this year it is expected there will be about 20,000 claims for compensation, and that all these claims will be administered by the department. The giving of full details of each and every case would require a great amount of printing and a large amount of paper. It is possible that it might be advisable to give that information, but this is a matter to be decided by the auditor general, and not by the department. All information is available in the department, and if the auditor general requires it for publication in his report, it will be gladly given.
I have said that this year we shall deal with about 20,000 cases, and this will include peace-time government departments, as well as employees injured in some of the war industries. I understand there are about 130,000 such employees. I am informed that yearly there is an average of about ten per cent of employees who make claims. In some industries, such as shipbuilding, and the chemical industries, the number of cases is much larger, and1 more compensation is required. The amounts paid are generally larger than those paid to other branches of war industry, or to the peace-time services.
In all the provinces of Canada, with the exception of Quebec, there are boards or commissions administering compensation to injured employees. The government makes lump-sum payments to these respective boards, which administer the cases and submit detailed accounts to the Department of Transport. Those accounts are audited by the Department of Finance. In all provinces but Quebec we do not pay directly to the injured employees. In Quebec I am told the law is different. In that province the employer deals directly with the injured employee, subject to the control of the workmen's compensation commission. Also in Quebec the injured employee has the right to select his own doctor and hospital. The employer must pay direct to the doctor or the hospital for the medical treatment or care of the injured employee, always subject to the control of the commission operating in that province.
Doctor Chartier is one of the doctors who treats compensation cases in Montreal and the surrounding area. My information is that he treats only about six or eight per cent of the compensation cases in the Montreal area.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury).: He is pretty well paid for it, then.

Interim Supply Bill


Joseph Enoil Michaud: About fifty per cent of the doctors in the Montreal area treat such cases, and file their claims for services.


Gordon Graydon: It is a good job he does not treat any more.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The amounts paid to Doctor Chartier or any other doctor are subject to the check of departmental officials, officials of the comptroller general and also officers of the workmen's compensation commission in Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What have they to do with it?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Any injured workman in the Montreal area, or anywhere, may go to Doctor Chartier, or any other doctor, and we have nothing to say about it, except that we have to check-


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and pay the bills.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: -subject to the controls I have just mentioned. I am informed Doctor Chartier has made a specialty of treating compensation cases. He operates a clinic in Montreal, and also-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is not bad at extraction.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: -about six or eight per cent of fees paid in that area, in respect of injured workers, are paid to him.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the total paid for doctors?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not that here, but the amount will be given.


Gordon Graydon: It must be twelve times $30,000 if that is only eight per cent.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There are three classes of treatments given by the doctor. First, there are treatments to injured workmen or employees who select Doctor Chartier as their doctor. I will give the number of cases for the last three years. In the year 1940-41 Doctor Chartier treated 373 cases of injured government employees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Insured
under this scheme?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. The average cost of professional services was $26.69.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He got over $90,000 in three years.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am starting from 1940-41.


Mr. McCANN:: How many people are there in his clinic? How many doctors are there? That makes a great difference.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that there are seven people in his clinic.


James Joseph McCann: He would put in accounts, not for himself alone but for those who work with him. Although they would go in under the name of Doctor Chartier, they should more properly be under "Doctor Chartier's clinic".


Gordon Graydon: The minister should make that clear, because he is being helped along by another member of the profession. Does the minister say that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I did say that. I stated that the payments made to Doctor Chartier were made to cover all cases treated by him or in his clinic by his assistants or internes or nurses or those who operate the X-ray or physiotherapy instruments. All accounts in the name of the clinic are credited to Doctor Chartier and paid to him.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister certain that he has not been encouraged in his last answer by the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew South?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No bill is filed by Doctor Chartier for anything but the treatments given by himself or by his assistants in his clinic. In 1940-41 he treated 373 cases in the Montreal area, at an average cost of $26.69 per case.
Mr. DONNELLY[DOT]: That is for all treats ments?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. Then he had 203 X-ray examinations. In Quebec they are allowed to charge and charge for X-ray photograph and developments and plates, and his average charge was $8.50 per case. Then the doctor is consulted, either by the departments, either at the request of the Quebec commission or by other doctors. I am told that he is consulted on important cases by neurologists and otner specialists in Montreal. In 1940-41 he had 281 cases in this category, averaging $15.18 per case.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Is that paid by the federal government?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All is paid by the federal government. Under the Quebec act the fee allowed for such consultation is $15. During that year, 1940-41, he had 281 cases, at an average cost of $15.18. In 1941-42 he treated 420 government employees from all departments at an average cost of $24.79 per case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is raising the ante.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; he is lowering it. He had 261 X-ray examinations at an average cost of $7.80. He was consulted in 308 cases at
Interim Supply Bill

an average charge of $15.60. I am told that these extra charges are caused by postage, telephone calls to Ottawa or Quebec and so on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does he get time to attend to his other patients?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: You ask him. In 1942-43 he treated 297 cases of patients who selected him as their own doctor, at an average cost of $20.84 per case. He had 132 X-ray examinations at an average cost of $7.23. He had 199 consultations at an average charge of $14.87. In this case he is below the fee allowed. The figures I have just given apply only to government employees in the several departments, which include post office, marine, the harbours board and other government departments in the Montreal area. They do not include those employed on defence projects.


Mr. MAYBANK:: There are no cases here of ill health; they are all accidents?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And industrial diseases.


Ralph Maybank: All workmen's compensation cases?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Accidents or industrial diseases.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the doctor render an itemized account in each case?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. The workmen's compensation act of Quebec sets a schedule of fees, and he is not paid any more than is allowed under the act. His accounts are subject to check, as I said before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who checks on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada? That is more important.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The officials of the Department of Transport and the officers of the comptroller general.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not check them; they just add them up and give a certificate. That is all they do.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Since 1941-42 and 1942-43 there have been added those cases that occur in government-controlled war industries. I am told that there were 5,000 compensation cases last year in the Montreal area, and in 1941-42 Doctor Chartier treated only 52 cases as the doctor selected by the patients, and in 1942-43 he treated only 96 cases. In 1941-42, 52 cases from defence projects were treated at an average of $48.94 per casp. This is a higher charge than in the ordinary medical case, but I am told that these are mostly industrial disease cases in chemical industries in and around Montreal. Most of these cases, I am told, go to specialists on the stomach, eyes,

kidneys and so forth. That is evident by the few cases of ordinary accidents that went to Doctor Chartier. In 1941-42 there were also 256 X-ray examinations, at an average cost of $7.46 each. Doctor Chartier was also consulted by specialists and by the Quebec commission in 389 cases out of a total of
5,000,	at an average charge of $15.06 per case, which is six cents above the average fee allowed by the compensation act for each case.
In 1942-43, he treated 96 cases of employees on government defence projects. There were also 359 X-ray examinations at an average cost of $6.82. He was also consulted in 829 cases for compensation and assessment of disabilities, including consultation with specialists, and rendered service at an average charge of $14.96 per case.
I must say that although the amounts paid to the doctor seem to be large in the aggregate, they are made up of three classes of cases. First, there were the strictly compensation cases of employees who met w-ith accidents and who went to consult him, and several of whom he treated. Under the law of Quebec an injured employee has the right to select his own doctor, and the doctor has the right to be paid for his services according to the schedule of fees set by the act. Another class of cases was X-ray examinations. He did that work, I suppose, because he is equipped for that class of work. He also served as consultant and expert adviser to the Quebec compensation board and to specialists in Montreal who availed themselves of his services on account of his particular knowledge of workmen's compensation cases.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When an employee in
any government plant in Montreal is injured in any way, what is the first step taken?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: He reports to the head
of the plant, then selects his own doctor and goes to the hospital of his choice.


Gordon Graydon: If he is injured, he cannot be brought to the head of the plant.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If he is so badly injured that he cannot do so, someone else does it for him. He selects his own doctor and goes to the hospital of his choice. I am told that most of the cases go, naturally, to the Montreal General hospital, or to the Royal Victoria hospital or the Western hospital, and ten per cent of the cases go to other hospitals.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Ontario when a man
is injured in a factory he reports first, if it is a large factory, to the first aid branch where there is perhaps a nurse and, if it is a very large factory, a doctor also. If they so decide, they then report to the compensation board.

Interim Supply Bill


James Joseph McCann: That is obligatory. It is
not a question of deciding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But in the province of
Quebec anything goes apparently where the government is the employer.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; that cannot be said. The number of cases in which Doctor Chartier was consulted was comparatively small compared with the total number of cases. We must not overlook the fact that in the Montreal area there is a large number of cases. The average number of compensation cases in war industries in Montreal last year was 5,000, and Doctor Chartier handled fewer than 100 in each year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister any
knowledge of the approximate number of cases in war industries in Toronto?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. In all the provinces except Quebec the cases are treated directly by the boards. We have reports from the compensation boards of each province periodically as to the cases treated. But in the province of Quebec each case has to be looked after by the department. That is why we have these details here. For each district in Ontario information can be secured as to accidents through (the Ontario workmen's compensation board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister
mentioned that Doctor Chartier had seven persons in his clinic. How many of them are medical doctors or surgeons? It makes a great deal of difference whether they are doctors or surgeons or merely technicians handling X-ray machines.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that he has
two doctors.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Including
Doctor Chartier, or in addition?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Two doctors and nurses
in addition to Doctor Chartier himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many
doctors altogether on the staff?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that there are
three doctors including Doctor Chartier.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister the names of the other doctors?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many other persons in the clinic and what are their categories?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There are three doctors
and two nurses, as well as operators of X-ray and physiotherapy machines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a small clinic.


Gordon Graydon: That is hardly a clinic at all with just three doctors.


James Joseph McCann: How many do you want?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I will leave it to the doctors to decide whether or not it is a clinic. It is called a clinic and is so looked upon by the public.


Gordon Graydon: Are the bills paid to the clinic or to one doctor?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They are paid to Doctor Chartier.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He owns the whole show.


George James Tustin: Are any amounts paid by the government to the other doctors?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are the other doctors internes or fully practising doctors?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not know. That is Doctor Chartier's business. Doctor Chartier has been treating compensation cases for the department ever since 1929. The large increase in the number of cases is due, of course, to the war industries in the Montreal area and to the hazardous occupations of departmental employees. As will be seen by the figures I have given, Doctor Chartier is only one of many hundreds of doctors in the Montreal area who treat such cases and submit accounts for treating injured workmen or employees.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister
the names of the six or seven who receive amounts close to what Doctor Chartier gets?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; I have not that information, because it was not asked for, but it is all on file in the department, and the hon. member can get any information he wants about any doctor concerned; or better, if he would go to the departmental branch, I am sure every facility would be offered him to look into the records, except confidential records regarding diseases of employees, which cannot be disclosed. Names of hospitals, names of doctors, payments to doctors or hospitals-everything is open, and if my hon. friend wants to get that information he can get it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the total cost of all these doctors' bills? Does it run to half a million dollars?
Interim Supply Bill


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, I do not think so, because the whole cost of the administration of the act, including the compensation to the workmen, for the present fiscal year, is estimated at $450,000 for the departmental or government employees, and a million and a quarter dollars for the war-time industries.


Ralph Maybank: Am I right in understanding that in none of these cases is the government the employer?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, yes; in some of them.


Ralph Maybank: I do not think I am
making my point quite clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Maybank: I will just wait until the static goes down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To the
rescue!


Ralph Maybank: My reference was not to the employment of the person who was injured; I meant the employment of the doctor. In none of these cases have we employed Doctor Chartier; he has always been employed by the workman himself; is that not right? There were not any exceptions to that, were there?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There are cases where Doctor Chartier has been employed as an expert to determine liability for compensation or to assess the disability of certain of the injured employees who were treated by other doctors; and also where Doctor Chartier was called in as an expert to determine the degree or amount of liability or disability, that is, either called in by the Quebec compensation commission-


Ralph Maybank: That is to say, it was done by the Quebec compensation commission, not by this government?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; it was done in some cases by this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Maybank: We shall settle it after a while.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There were cases where the treating doctor was a specialist, say, a neurologist, who did not want to take the responsibility of assessing the disability in dollars and cents. Most specialists do not like to do that.


James Joseph McCann: Is it not a fact that he acts in the capacity of medical referee?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the instance of the government, in some cases.


James Joseph McCann: Exactly.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: When the treating doctor does not want to assume the responsibility and the Quebec commission is hesitant about the assessment of the disability, the department calls in, in some cases, not exclusively Doctor Chartier, but in many cases I am told it calls in Doctor Chartier as an expert. This is left to the discretion of the commission or the treating doctor, to call in either Doctor Chartier or some other doctor as assessor of the disability.


Ralph Maybank: The fees are pretty low. He seems to be a good man.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The fee is $15. In some cases it is a few cents above fifteen dollars, and in some cases below.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have before me the Quebec workmen's compensation act; it is chapter 160 of the revised statutes of Quebec; and if any hon. members wish to refer to it they may do so. The statute provides for two systems. There is a schedule of employments where the employer is assessed a certain amount; then the compensation, including the medical care, is paid for out of that fund by the commission. There is another schedule of employments where there is no assessment on the employer, but where the workmen's compensation board assesses the indemnity and the employer has to pay it himself. The second schedule applies to the industries contemplated in subsection 2 of section 2, and that includes those who are governed by the federal government's Workmen's Compensation Act. In these cases the report is made to the Quebec compensation board. The board assesses the amount payable, and it is paid by the employer. In all cases the injured employee is entitled to medical care and hospitalization. He has the right to choose his medical attendant; but, under section 48, subsection 6:
The fees or charges for such medical aid shall not be more than would be properly and reasonably charged to the workman if himself paying the bill; and, except where otherwise agreed upon, the amount thereof shall be fixed and determined by the commission. . . .
And that is what takes place. The commission has a tariff of maximum fees which maybe charged; the bills have to be submitted to

Interim Supply Bill
the commission and compared with the information on the file concerning the accident, and if the amount as submitted conforms with the tariff, it is approved.
From the experience I had before I came here I know that in a great many cases the commission, instead of relying exclusively upon its own medical staff to determine the degree of incapacity for which compensation should be allowed, refers it to someone selected by the commission as being a proper expert to pronounce upon that case, and the tariff provides what size of fee there is for that expert opinion. I know also from experience that the commission has a certain number of radiologists to whom the X-rays are submitted for an appreciation of what they show; it has a tariff for the opinion which is given by the radiologist, and it is in accordance with these tariffs that charges are made. If the employer is one of those in schedule 2 he foots that bill, whereas if he is an employer under the general scheme he pays a contribution based upon his payroll.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In any event, whatever the modus operandi is, Doctor Chartier seems to have done pretty well by himself because he got $92,000 in three years. That is all I know about this matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He did not do well by himself. That appears to me, if I may say so, to be a rather incorrect statement, the phrase that "he did well by himself". As I understand by the explanation given, the persons who suffered injuries hadl the right to select their own doctor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say they had not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The fees received by Doctor Chartier came from people of that kind and also from the workmen's compensation board.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister think the doctor was underpaid?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; does he suggest that the doctor was underpaid; that, although he did only six per cent of the total, he drew $92,000 in three years? I do not understand what the interruption is for.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will tell my hon. friend what the interruption is for. I take exception to the statement he made that Doctor Chartier "did well by himself".


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would say he did very well out of the dominion government; $92,000 in three years. Whether
he was responsible for getting the business or whether the business was thrown at him, I do not know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The business came to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest it was a very large sum of money. I have no more to say about Doctor Chartier because I do not know anything about the case beyond what I have heard here, but the public will be astonished to hear that a doctor with a small clinic like that drew $92,000 .of the public money in three years, handling from six to eight per cent of the cases. If on the same ratio the other doctors were paid that much, the amount would be half a million in three years. I do not suggest that they were as great as that.
I call the attention of the committee to the question, of the disbursement of public moneys which we are voting to-day and in relation to the war appropriation bill which wTe shall vote in the next few days, and in this connection I would refer to a return brought down in the house to-day, sessional paper 336, in response to questions asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), put on the order paper on March 19. This has. to do with importation subsidies paid up to March 1 last on fresh fruits and fruit products and juices and dried fruits like prunes and other products and juices. I want the committee and the country to understand concretely what is going on. In the first place there is the statement-I will not say it is a refusal-that there 'is no information of the quantities of commodities mentioned that have been imported1 up to March 1, 1943. I can scarcely understand that answer, because the items and the nature of the items are stated in some detail in the question and the amounts paid are given with exactness. Why we are denied the information as to quantities, I do not know. That is an integral part of the question, and I will leave it to the government to state why that part of the question was not answered. Under the policy of the government there was paid to February 28, 1943,' subsidies to the extent of $32,496.70 on oranges alone, and on orange and grapefruit juice and blends of both, $211,694.29, and there is a footnote to the effect that this item.-that is, orange and grapefruit, juices and blends of both-is ineligible for subsidy consideration since May 11, 1942. Apparently that does not apply to subsidy on the importation of oranges and presumably-I do not know-we are still paying subsidies on oranges. No subsidy has
Interim Supply Bill

been paid on either orange products or grapefruit; but on the humble prune, this country has paid in subsidies alone the sum of $453,387.17; on other dried fruit, raisins, $10,551.32; dates,'$90228; apricots, $42,413.62. These items aggregate $751,455. or over three-quarters of a million in subsidies alone. But that is not the only story and it is not all the story. These commodities were imported by some agency of the government, and in addition to these subsidies there was a trading loss, on the commodities to which I have referred, of $1,051,390.' I wonder if the committee realizes just what is going on. We not only subsidize the importation of luxuries from the United States, but we make a loss in the operation of over $1,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which are the luxuries?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose oranges are luxuries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; they are not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We shall have to agree to disagree about that. Oranges are looked upon as luxuries. Certainly when I was a boy, when we got an orange at Christmas time that was about the only occasion on which we ever got it. I admit times have changed, so that what were considered luxuries when we were children may not be luxuries to-day. But these are luxuries as much as strawberries from Florida. What I desire to point out is that not only did we pay subsidies on these items, but we actually traded in them and lost to the extent of $1,051,000, and we are not told what the quantities were, so that we are not left free to draw any conclusions at all. I wonder how much there will be in the auditor general's report about these items-and this is really the point to which I wish to speak. I must protest against the form of the auditor general's report, I wonder if hon. gentlemen look at the auditor general's report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do, and I find it meagre just now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder how many examine it with any degree of care. When I was a new member of this house we culled the auditor general's report daily, and there was always some interesting information in it. I am frank to say that I have not now the time to do very much in the way of examining the auditor general's report, but more by chance than anything else I ran

across some interesting information and communications from the auditor general himself on pages 635 to 638 inclusive.
I have always had a very high opinion of the present auditor general. I remember when he was Secretary to Mr. Robb. I believe he was a faithful and competent secretary, and subsequently he was made a permanent official in the Department of Finance and rose by successive stages to his present high position. He was made auditor general after having gone through the treasury, and when the audit act of 1931 was put into effect the Prime Minister of the day selected this gentleman from among all the officers in the Department of Finance to be comptroller of the treasury. He had that much confidence in him, and personally I have always had a great deal of confidence in him. Indeed I still have, and that is why I am astonished at the suggestions contained in these communications in the auditor general's report to which I have referred. Perhaps I should preface what I have to say by reading section 49 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, namely, chapter 27 of the acts of 1931. If hon. gentlemen read the preceding sections they will see specific and meticulous directions under part 5 of this statute relating to the auditor general and his office. Section 39 provides for his appointment and his salary. It provides that he shall be appointed by the governor in council under the great seal. He is a very important official. Section 40 provides for his tenure of office during good behaviour and indicates that he is removable by the governor general on address by parliament. There is an age limit of seventy years, and so on. I desire to call attention to succeeding sections of the statute which set out his duties. The only one I am going to read is section 49:
The auditor general shall report annually to the House of Commons the result of his examination and audit of the accounts of Canada-
Mark these words, please:
-in such manner as will exhibit the true state of each account at the termination of the fiscal year last ended.
That is a specific direction to the auditor general, and I ask hon. members who have been following these reports in years gone by if they will just go back in their memory and compare the accounting system that we had until a year or two ago witn the present system. I will say this, that-due, I imagine, to the stress of the volume of work; probably that is a fair thing to say- the auditor general has departed almost entirely from that which by the custom and

Interim Supply Bill
sanction of decades the people of Canada have expected from him. To-day you do not know where the money goes. I venture to say that no one can take this report to-day and find out where the money has gone, as you could in the old days.


James Joseph McCann: Where does your own
money go?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I could give a pretty fair answer to that if I went over my cheque book, though I could not say as much for the petty cash. In these days of high taxation I, like everyone else in this country, have to watch the dollars even if I do not watch the pence. I say that to-day the auditor general's report is not in conformity either with custom or with the instructions of parliament, and the position should be reversed.
I want now to go back to the original reference I gave to the committee, the statement signed by the auditor general and included under the heading of "general observations" and the specific heading of "revenue and expenditure reporting." I am going to ask hon. members to read these paragraphs, which cover three or four pages. There is too much for me to read in this chamber now and put on the record; hon. members could not. digest it as I went along. A rather startling suggestion is made in this memorandum signed by the auditor general, which in my judgment is not only a deviation from the established customs and practice in connection with the reporting to the people of Canada on the expenditures of the government. but which I am inclined to think is a violation of the statute. That may be wrong; I would have to examine the proposals with much greater care in order to substantiate a suggestion or statement of that character. But if this sort of thing is to happen; if a committee consisting of the auditor general, the deputy minister of finance and the comptroller of the treasury meet and put their heads together, no matter how good their intent may be from the point of view of the administration of accounting, what mandate have they from the House of Commons to dig into this thing at all and set at defiance the spirit of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act? It may be necessary to do this thing. I do not think it is necessary, but if so it should be done by parliament under the leadership of the Minister of Finance and the government. These gentlemen may have very high standing; I have great regard for the two whom I know, but I say they are travelling outside their jurisdiction when they make these suggestions which in effect would
overrule the true intent and meaning of a statute relating to this matter which was passed by parliament in 1931 and which has been lived up to by all governments and auditors general since that time.
In brief the auditor general suggests an altogether new set-up. This memoranda apparently was written in March, 1942, and in it he states:
On March 27 last I addressed a letter jointly to the deputy minister of finance and the comptroller of the treasury.
He goes on to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister outlining the manpower policies to be applied forthwith to promote the total war effort, and says that the intent is to avoid labour wastage, and so on. That is the preliminary text, and I assume that the auditor general has in mind that he is going to eliminate the use of some manpower in the preparation of this report. Further down, in the middle of page 636, he says:
My thought is: A document called the public accounts. Part I would present the financial operations and transactions of the year, as submitted to the minister by the deputy minister of finance, who might personally contribute only the survey of the financial operations-along the lines of his present introductory statement to the balance sheet. The comptroller of the treasury would compile the statements of operations in such detail as the governor in council directs. The state of the several accounts would be certified by him-
That is, the comptroller of the treasury, though by statute that is the duty of the auditor general.
and by the auditor general. Part II would be prepared and signed by the auditor general and be his report to the house. It ivould comprise such comments as he considers necessary on matters recorded in Part I and such observations and reports as other statutory directions might require.
If hon. members will read the whole statement I am sure they will be astonished at what is in effect a suggestion to his collaborators, the deputy minister of finance and the comptroller of t.he treasury, that the act of this parliament in regard to public accounts be defied, as well as the directions contained in the whole of part V of the audit act. I must say that I was astounded when I read this part of the auditor general's report. I am not in a position to say whether the suggestion made by the auditor general would be an improvement or otherwise under the present set-up, but I am rather struck with the curious indifference on the part of those responsible for these suggestions toward those most intimately concerned with their results;
Interim Supply Bill

that is, the members of the House of Commons. There is nowhere in this report any suggestion that these proposed changes should be referred to the House of Commons or the members of the house. Well, have we attained that degree of bureaucracy in Canada when our accounting officials simply ignore the House of Commons? That is the way it looks to me. These gentlemen, irrespective of custom, sanction, usage and the law itself, are setting up a new programme which they think will be better. I have no doubt they hold this opinion honestly; I am not questioning the sincerity of their motives at all.


Mr. REID:: It is one of the new dangers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Absolutely; it is a part of the new tyranny. It is a clear indication of the new bureaucracy that is to run this country in the days that are to come.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the hon. member
injures himself-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, do
not worry about that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -I would point out that I explained this change of system to the House of Commons on July 31 last when I said, at the conclusion of my remarks:
I trust that what we are trying to do this year will prove acceptable to the house under all the circumstances and that the more important changes which I have recommended in regard to the report which will appear next year will be warmly welcomed.
If the hon. member had been following Hansard he would have known that. Apparently, however, he never heard it or read it. He must have realized the great sense of responsibility with which I, as Minister of Finance approached and announced this change of system, and the care with which I tried to make it clear that it was in accordance with our understanding of the law. I was going to wait until my hon. friend completed his remarks, but he has become so violent I thought it best not to wait.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister need not worry himself about my injuring myself. I am quite capable of taking care of myself. But I am asking him if the statement he made on July 31 last was not made in the dying days of the session, that most people did not understand what it was all about, and that he never asked for the concurrence of parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was very clear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
after the present system was attacked that this was set up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am going on to attack it more.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is attacking the new one now; he attacked the old one last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to have the House of Commons retain control of the auditor general's report, and how it shall be presented to the house; I do not wish to have that control in a bureaucracy. Is that a principle worth contending for? Is it, or is it not? I ask each hon. member in the committee to question himself this way: does he understand the auditor general's report? We are not all chartered accountants; we are not all keen-eyed lawyers; we are not all great students. But if, when looking over the public accounts, we see something which we think looks improper, we like to see it in the bright light of day, and then we can make our inquiries about it. Go into this auditor general's report; look at any account you like, and tell me, if you can, where the money has gone. It just cannot be done, and hon. members know it. In their hearts they will all agree with me, whether or not they rise in their places and help me in what I am trying to do.
I have indicated that for sixty years at least the house has been accustomed to receive information with regard to revenues and expenditures from its own special officer, the auditor general. That officer, in the words of the statute, is appointed:
. . . for the more complete examination of the accounts of Canada and for the reporting thereon to the House of Commons.
That is the fundamental principle of his duty. And, as if to make it clear beyond any doubt that reporting by the auditor general, and not mere certification of accounts and statements prepared by someone else is required, we enacted section 41 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act commanding him to report annually to the House of Commons the result of his examination, in such manner as will exhibit the true state of each account at the termination of the fiscal year last ended.
Does anybody say that this bluebook I hold in my hand fulfils that qualification, or that direction or command, in law? Notwithstanding the fundamentals of this situation, three civil servants, high civil servants in the confidence of the government, and I think high

Interim Supply Bill
in the confidence of the country-I am bound to say thaC-have taken it upon themselves- and I do not know whether they have done so with the direction of the Minister of Finance- to advise the minister that he should change the whole course of public accounting.
I am calling attention to this situation, and I hope the committee will take heed of what I say. The effect of the situation is that the statutory obligations of the official in charge by this recommendation is informing the house that the statutory requirements are to be ignored, and that a totally new formula of reporting is being put into effect. That is the effect of the recommendation. An over-all statement of financial affairs will be furnished by the deputy minister of finance; a detailed statement of revenues and expenditures will be prepared by the comptroller of the treasury, and the auditor general will confine his reporting to such comments as he considers it necessary to impart to the house.
Is that the conception we have of the Auditor General of Canada? Is that our conception of the functions of the Auditor General of Canada, at a time when our peace-time budget has risen to over $600,000,000, the highest in the history of our country, and at a time when our war-time budget has reached an aggregate figure of around five billions of dollars? I do not think it is. I do not think the country understands the import of these things.
These changes, as I indicated, are drastic, but they may be wholly desirable. I should like to feel they were not based upon mere bureaucracy. They may be wholly desirable. But, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, these changes are being made by the wrong people. They should be made by the people's representatives, but once more parliamentary government is being thrown into the discard, and we are being told by a committee of highly placed civil servants how we should handle the public accounts of the country. I think that is wrong. I suggest to the minister himself that that is wrong.
The House of Commons, and it only, has the right to say in what manner it is to receive the information it desires to receive, and which the statute commands it shall receive.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Upon what section does the hon. member rely?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rely upon the whole of the sections, and particularly upon section 49.
I suggest to the minister with the best of good feeling that it is not part of the duties of the executive, or of the deputies of executive, to arrange such matters. The auditor
general has no right of decision in the matter. And if after sixty years the house has been satisfied to receive financial statements in detail from the auditor general, it is that officer's duty so to satisfy his masters. When after many years the legislature thought it desirable to embody in the statute the specific direction of section 49, it seems clear to me that the auditor general would be grievously at fault if, without specific instructions from the house, he proceeded in any other manner.
That is the position. Of course, if the exigencies of war or any other circumstances should make it necessary to change the formula of reporting, and to waive the relative express statutory provisions, it should be done after due deliberation of the house, and not upon the ipse dixit of the Minister of Finance on July 31 last, or that of a committee of his civil servants. It should be done by the House of Commons.
That is the plea I make to-night, that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons itself, and that it is not an executive function.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member should speak louder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know; perhaps I am speaking too loudly, but I feel rather strongly about the matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does it not all depend upon whether it is in accordance with the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; but I suggest that the interpretation I have given is the true interpretation. It is based on sixty years history and experience and the previous legislation out of which this arose. Section 49 was amended when this statute was put through. It was in the old revised statutes. It was expressly strengthened when the new Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was put through. I suggest to the minister; I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest to the membership of the committee that the intention was tq strengthen the position of the auditor general with respect to reporting the public accounts of the country. Now that is to be thrown into the discard.
I suggest to the minister that this should be done only after due consideration by the house, either in a full-dress debate in which the proposals are formally laid before parliament or after they have been examined into by a committee of this House of Commons. That is one of their prerogatives, to know how they shall receive their accounts. It is not an executive function. The committee should report pro or con to the house, if the
Interim Supply Bill

matter is submitted to a committee. Whether it is done in the house by means of a full-dress debate or by means of a report of a committee, in either case it should be done only by legislation following that action.
The house is supreme in matters of finance. That is a fundamental principle. It follows as day follows night that the House of Commons, if supreme in matters of finance, has the right to say how the finance shall be accounted to it. That is a corollary arising out of the primary principle I have enunciated. I was greatly surprised to hear that the primary mover in this matter is the auditor general for whom, I reiterate, I have the most friendly feelings and the highest personal regard. Last year the report of the auditor general was criticized, and I recall quite well the statement made by the minister as a result of that criticism. On July 31, the one hundred and twenty-second day of the session, when everyone was struggling to get through with the business of the house, the minister made a long statement which takes up two pages of Hansard, after which some debate in committee followed. I think the hon. member for Davenport was the only other hon. member who spoke. I do not recall whether I was in the house at the time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think the hon. member for Temiscouata also spoke.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot see his name on the record. It must have been one of those occasions when he was absent. The minister reviewed the situation, but he did not refer to the legal position and the binding obligation, as I see it, of the statute upon which this report is based. Section 49 and the preceding sections are the whole basis to-day of the auditor general's report. It has always been governed by statute. It is not a matter of custom; it is not a question of the permanent officials of the treasury being able to do thus and so as they please; it is a matter of statutory duty and direction. I suggest that that is being ignored.	.
So far as the report that has come to my attention is concerned, the suggestion is that this emanates from the auditor general. Is it a fair inference that the proposed formula of reporting, instigated so far as the printed record would show by the auditor general himself, is a device designed to avoid further criticism or at least to deflect it elsewhere? The suggestion that it stems from a desire to meet man-power policy outlined by the government is, I suggest, wholly specious.

If you will inquire at the civil service commission, I think you will find that the information is forthcoming that pursuant to representations made by the auditor general, or at least emanating from the auditor general, steps are almost completed for bringing into his office a considerable number of new highly paid employees to take the place of the slightly greater number of less highly paid employees who have been transferred to the office of the comptroller of the treasury,, allegedly to enable that officer to produce the detailed report contemplated by the new formula.
Under this proposal a number of high officers will be transferred to the comptroller of the treasury, and there will be. taken into the auditor general's department a substantial number-I do not know how many- of highly paid men to take their places. There will be no saving of man-power or man-power hours in that regard. I ask the minister if that is true. I know it must stand to reason that as a result of the great increase in the volume of business there must be increased work in the departments of the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury. The telephone list will show that treasury officers are everywhere in Ottawa. They should be.
There must be treasury control. I have never suggested any other principle. Some people think that perhaps there is too much treasury control, but I suggest that there cannot be when you are spending S5.000,-000,000, half of which is being obtained in taxation and the other half by borrowings from the people. This is the proper system, and it should be carried out to the nth degree. I wish there was as much control in letting contracts as there is in checking contracts. So far as I understand the situation, the treasury control officers have done pretty good work. The complaints I have received are that they are not liberal enough in allowances for salary and what-not. When these gentlemen wdth contracts come to see me I ask them what they are complaining about. I tell them if they make a lot of money .they will have to pay it back in taxes and they might as well work for the government. We are all working for the government until this war is over. The whole country is working for the government, and why not?


Ralph Maybank: The government is
working for the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government is working for the country, but I will say that the country's effort is greater than the government's effort and it has been from

Interim Supply Bill
the beginning. The country has always been ahead of this government, and it is ahead today. What happened on Saturday only emphasizes what the country is willing to do in our sphere of human activity. I did' not intend to bring up this matter to-night, but this is the first opportunity I have to do so since I read that suggestion of the auditor general in the general observations under the head of "revenue and expenditure reporting". I should like hon. members to give some thought to these things. This is one occasion upon which members can impress their ideas upon the minister with regard to how public accounts should be made up and how they should be put before the public so that we may know where the money goes. That is all I am asking for, an honest carrying out of the true intent and spirit of the audit act as we have understood it for sixty years and which is now being thrown into the discard. Surely the Minister of Finance does not want the people of this country to believe that by some strict technical construction of the audit act he can do what is suggested here. I beg the minister to review the whole position, because I will tell him that if the government carries this through it does not have sanction in law, in my view; it is not a correct interpretation of the statute; it is not in accordance with practice; it is not in accordance with what the people of this country expect, and I do not believe it is in accordance with the wishes of the ordinary member of parliament.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman, I desire to revert to the subject which was under discussion before the hon. member for York-Sunbury rose. I have no doubt that the subject he has now introduced can be followed up a little later by the Minister of Finance, who is perhaps getting ready to reply more fully to his remarks than he did a few moments ago by an interjection, although to most people listening I think that interjection seemed to be enough. However, there may be more.
My particular reason for deliberately reverting to the subject of workmen's compensation and payments by this government for workmen's compensation arises from the opening remarks made by the member for York-Sunbury. If he had not used two or three sentences, I was not going to say 'anything more about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I am sorry I did if it is going to prolong the discussion.


Ralph Maybank: It is perhaps just as well that we get on record a description of the attitude of that hon. member and three or four other members of his party. That is exactly
what I wish to bring before this committee and put on the record: a picture of some of those hon. members and their activities with relation to this workmen's compensation matter.
There seems to be a personal vendetta between the former Minister of Fisheries and some members in the Conservative group in this house. I did not hear the interruption, but I did hear the word "fair" in it, and I am inclined to think that that word was improperly used by the member who used it because when they are dealing with the exMinister of Fisheries they do not consider anything about fairness. I submit that it is not fair on the part of these members, just because they might not like the former Minister of Fisheries, to try to make a case in this house that the government has been improperly paying out sums of money to any doctor or group of doctors or that it has paid out too much money. It is not fair for them to do anything other than admit that all the moneys that have been so paid out with respect to workmen's compensation were properly paid out, that they were right sums of money to be paid out, and that everything is right and proper and decent about it. There is no other attitude that these members can take and be fair.
When the hon. member for York-Sunbury rose he spoke in terms of disgriintlement that he and his fellow-members have not found, something in this fishing expedition. One of his first remarks was that this doctor, naming him, seems to have done pretty well by himself and he said it in tones of disgruntlement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope I
did not use that type of expression.


Ralph Maybank: Perhaps I have overemphasized it for clarity's sake. I am only making it perfectly clear, however, that everybody knew that the hon. member was disappointed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I was not disappointed. I did not know anything about it until to-night.


Ralph Maybank: Then the hon. member had better try to keep better control of his vocal chords.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will
look after that.


Ralph Maybank: But the hon. member is not doing so, and that is why I am giving the advice I am giving. If the hon. member wishes to correct the impression he is giving concerning himself, he must take more care of his voice. If he was not disgruntled, he
Interim Supply Bill

certainly seemed to be. When he was rebuked by the minister for speaking in the fashion he did about the doctor, he then said'- I shall not try to imitate his tone, but he clearly showed by his manner that he wanted to make something out of the incident-that the doctor had done pretty well for himself. Then he said in menacing tones: The public would be very much interested in this man. But you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody else knows that if the hon. member and his confreres will go out and tell the public the truth about the matter, they would not be disturbed over this at all. But if they go out-


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Then why worry
about it?


Ralph Maybank: I am not worrying. I
am just laying a caveat now against jour future actions.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why not give the facts?


Ralph Maybank: They have the facts in front of them now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then discuss
them.


Ralph Maybank: They are on the record. There is one wTay in which the hon. member for St. Paul's can delay the things being said that I intend to say, but that is all he can do-delay them. He need not think he is going to stop them. That would be foolish.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Give the facts instead of this long dissertation.


Ralph Maybank: The mumbling and
grumbling having stopped, I continue. These hon. members are interested in going out to the country and talking about $90,000 being paid to a doctor. That is the way in which they intend to go out and present the case.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is only six per cent of it.


Ralph Maybank: All I ask them to do is to tell the country, as they now know, that it was $90,000 paid out in three years, and that it was. not $90,000 paid to a single doctor but $90,000 to an organization comprising three doctors and other staff in that clinic. And let them tell the people that it was not this government that employed the man but that he was employed for the treatment of workmen injured at their work who were entitled to be treated by him under the laws of the province of Quebec, and that that is the sort of payment which has been made. Tell the people also the fees that were paid in the individual cases. Tell them that this govern-

ment only obeyed the workmen's compensation law of the province of Quebec, as it should do, in making these payments. So long as the party to my left, which is so interested in trying to making something out of this $90,000, will tell the people the truth, I do not suppose any person needs to worry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why worry yourself?


Ralph Maybank: Because from the manner in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury spoke I was quite sure that when this group got out into the country they would not be telling the whole truth.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had better take that back.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Ralph Maybank: I have said it, and I mean every word of it.


George James Tustin: The hon. member's views have no weight, so that it does not make much difference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are insulting.


Ralph Maybank: What these hon. members were proposing to do was to go out and paint a picture of extravagance because of the $90,000 payment. That is what was in their minds They hoped to make something out of it when they got on the hustings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This hon. gentleman is imputing dishonesty and dishonest motives. I object to it. As a matter of fact, I never heard of Doctor Chartier until to-day; and I was waiting for the hon. member for Lake Centre to get through in order to pass on to something else. I do not intend to be charged with dishonesty and dishonest motives, even by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Ralph Maybank: Now, after this interruption, may I resume? This show of virtue on the part of the hon. members should be considered in the light of the fact that soon they will be out all the time, as their leader is out now, on the hustings making speeches. It was not exactly a case of imputing dishonest motives to them. There seems to be a difference between going out and making speeches of the sort that I have been suggesting, and actual dishonest motives, with respect to truth or non-truth, when they are faced with a question of fact. They all know that, and every person knows it; and if it had not been that they were trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Some mole-hill 1

Interim Supply Bill


Ralph Maybank: -and, indeed, to portray the whole transaction in a way that would not be in accordance with the truth; if it had not been for the evident disappointment which they showed when it was found out that there was not any scandal about the payment at all, I do not suppose I would have felt the urge to rise in my place and make such remarks as I have made. But I repeat that so far as these gentlemen are concerned with their $90,000 campaign, if they will go out and tell the truth about these workmen's compensation board cases running over three years, no person will have any cause for complaint.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury. In the first place he read a return which showed that some subsidies had been paid on imports which he termed luxuries. I deny that they are luxuries, that any of them are luxuries, but that is a matter of opinion; and if he thinks that such articles as oranges, prunes, raisins and apricots are luxuries, he is entitled to his opinion. I do not think they are. I think they are part of the ordinary food of the people of this country.
The government could have taken three courses with respect to the importation of these articles. They could have disregarded the price ceiling and let the prices of them rise to such level as the market might drive prices to. That would in effect be the piercing of the price ceiling and would be undesirable from that point of view.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They rose anyway, did they not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I paid as high as ninety cents a dozen for oranges.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The second course the government could have taken would have been to maintain the price ceiling in respect of these articles, in which event importations would have ceased, because they could not be brought in and sold under the price ceiling owing to their increased cost abroad. The third thing the government could have done was to pay subsidies, as they did, treating the loss as merely a species of subsidy.
The hon. gentleman presented this matter to the committee in the light of something which he had discovered and which the country woidd be tremendously interested in learning. For a year, at least, I have been telling the house exactly what course we were taking with respect to the importation of these foods, and I have mentioned the trading losses of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation which are in fact nothing but a subsidy to
permit imported articles to be imported and to be sold under the price ceiling. I presented the argument for taking that course. It is a course which is pursued in Great Britain. It is a course which now the United States is adopting. And it is a course which I believe was and is in the best interests of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The British are not importing any oranges.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I do not know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they were not doing so in 1941. You could not buy one in England then.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only reason why I refer to that

if my hon. friend will permit me to say so, his argument was not very powerful; indeed it was not an argument at all-is that he adopted a dramatic tone of revealing something which no one ever knew of or realized before; that is what I objected to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid I am a poor actor.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the hon. gentleman tried hard on this particular occasion. I am just pointing out that this is the ordinary run-of-the-mine treatment of imported foods where they cannot be imported and sold under the price ceiling without subsidies. That is all this is. The procedure has never been concealed; it has never been misrepresented; it was explained to the house at the time it was undertaken; [DOT] these very transactions are explained fully in the report of the wartime prices and trade board; they have gone on; they are going on, and they will go on; and I think that either of the alternatives which I have suggested-and. there are only two alternatives-is less desirable than the course which we are taking. The hon. gentleman did not follow' his argument through and state which of these alternatives he would have taken instead of what we are doing, and I do not think he will say which of these alternatives he prefers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One and three-quarters million dollars of the taxpayers' money is a mere bagatelle!


James Lorimer Ilsley: But still my hon. friend is
not saying whether he would prefer to let the prices go up or to have the goods shut out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not the responsibility of making the decision. That is up to the minister; and whatever he does I am entitled to criticize-either wray.
Interim Supply Bill

Mr. ILSLEY. I da not think any hon. member is entitled to criticize a course of action being pursued by the government unless he is prepared to advocate an alternate course of action.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not agree with that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then I do not agree with
the hon. member. He must say it would either be preferable to do nothing or it would be preferable to do something instead of what the government is doing. The hon. gentleman is not prepared to take that responsibility; if he is, he will have abundance of opportunity to take it when my estimates under the wartime prices and tradi board are on. Would he let the prices of these foods go up to the people of Canada, or would he keep them out of the country altogether and not let people have them to eat? If he would not do one of these things, he would have to do what we did.
Let me come to the second part of the hon. gentleman's attack, which became very severe. The hon. gentleman started by saying that a committee of civil servants had taken it upon themselves without any reference to parliament to change illegally the established system of presentation of accounts. I interrupted the hon. gentleman and pointed out that on July 31 last, having given the house full notice before that I was going to make a statement on this subject, I made a carefully worded statement to the House of Commons on the question of reform of the system of accounting. In that speech I referred to the committee which had been formed, consisting of the auditor general, the deputy minister of finance and the comptroller of the treasury, and I said on behalf of the government that the recommendations of this committee commended themselves to the government. I gave the reasons why they did so, and at the end, by implication, I invited an expression of the view of the House of Commons on these recommendations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I for one opposed them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Unfortunately, the record does not bear out the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Davenport followed me:
Mr. J. R. MaeNicol (Davenport):	If it is
in order I should like to say just a word with regard to what the minister has said in reference to a wider description to be given in the public accounts. In years past I made an earnest study of the public accounts and the auditor general's report, and they gave very-full and extensive surveys of the expenditures of each department. I am glad to say that the minister is going to return, to a large extent, to the former system; if I understood him
[ Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
correctly he said that general accounts relating to the department would be shown as low as $5,000.
Mr. Ilsley: I think it is $10,000 in connection with war contracts.
Whether the hon. gentleman understood what I was saying, I do not know, but certainly he did not express disapproval. Let me explain what I was proposing. Under the old system you had two documents presented to the House of Commons, and I may observe that many hon. members have not appeared to understand that, judging by their references to public accounts. The public accounts are made up by the deputy minister of finance, an officer of the finance department. That is a finance department document. These are the public accounts. The auditor general has no part at all in the preparation of the public accounts, and yet I have heard the hon. member for Davenport repeatedly talk about the public accounts as if they were a production of the auditor general. They are not. The auditor general prepares another document entirely. It must be borne in mind that the auditor general is not an official of the Department of Finance. He is an appointee, an official of the parliament of Canada. He is an officer of parliament. He presents to parliament what is called the auditor general's report, and that report must contain certain particulars. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) read the relevant sections. So far as I have ascertained, there are only two of these sections, one, section 46, and the other, section 49. Section 46 provides that the auditor general:
.	.	. shall, besides examining from time to
time the various accounts of the several departments as provided by this act, examine and audit the accounts of Canada for each fiscal year, and for that purpose statements with respect to such accounts shall be prepared in such form as the auditor general may desire, and by such persons as the minister shall direct.
Further:
The statements referred to in this section shall include

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) and (i). Then (3):
Each of such accounts shall be examined under the direction of the auditor general who shall certify to the House of Commons that the account has been examined under his direction and is correct.
And section 49, which relates only to the period up to which the accounts must be brought:
The auditor general shall report annually to the House of Commons the result of his examination and audit of the accounts of Canada in such manner as will exhibit the true state of each account at the termination of the fiscal year last ended.

Interim Supply Bill


Mr. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury):: It is more than that. It is a summation of his duties.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. His duties are all covered before, and nothing is added except that it must exhibit the true state of each account at the end of the fiscal year just ended. He cannot leave it up to some previous period. That is what it means. As to what it was proposed to do, I ask hon. members to read the speech I made on this subject on July 31 last, after a very full consideration of the subject. The comptroller of the treasury prepares the public accounts for the deputy minister of finance to sign, and it was proposed to let him cover the whole field very fully and make a full presentation of the expenditures of the government for the fiscal year in question. Hon. members will find in that speech the degree of itemization which I considered desirable, and the suggestion that the auditor general, instead of doing the same thing over again and thereby effecting a duplication, which is entirely unnecessary, should in the same volume, within one cover, append his certificate to these accounts, referring to the accounts, complying with the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act in respect of those accounts that are presented by the auditor general, and making such comments upon them as he thought fit.
The hon. gentleman has raised a legal question. He says this violates certain sections of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, and if he wishes me to do so I will refer the question to the Department of Justice to ascertain whether there is anything in his legal point. It never occurred to anyone that there was. In the speech to which I have referred, I said:
In the course of our consideration we have studied not only the law and the historical background relating to the reports to parliament on government revenues and expenditures, assets and liabilities, et cetera, in so far as Canada is concerned, but also the practices followed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the other British dominions. Our desire was to draw from all possible sources lessons and suggestions as to the best possible way in which to present to parliament the information necessary to enable it to exercise wisely and efficiently its control over financial matters and assure itself that the executive arm of government is properly carrying out its stewardship. As a result of the study and consideration given to the whole matter, .1 am glad to be able to announce that the government has decided to accept certain recommendations made jointly by the auditor general, the deputy minister of finance, and the comptroller of the treasury. The government believes that these recommendations are sound, and, if they commend themselves to the judgment of the house, they will he implemented with respect to the accounts for the current fiscal year.
I may pause here to point out that the profession of the auditor general is not that of an accountant. He is a barrister and solicitor, and he has a pronounced legal approach to the discharge of his duties. The reference here to the study of the law and of the historical background relating to reports to parliament on government revenues and expenditures, in so far as Canada is concerned, as well as the United States, and so on, is a reference to the consideration which this able lawyer, the auditor general, has given to the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which I presume he had some part in drafting. I presume he had. He was a prominent official in the Department of Finance at the time the new Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was drafted, and therefore this recommendation is no flighty or hasty notion of men who do not know what they are doing. They are men who have legal background, financial background, historical background, men who have appreciation of the constitutional responsibilities of the government and of the auditor general to parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But not of the rights of parliament.
Mr. II.SLEY: I think so. If the hon. gentleman thinks there is anything in his legal point, I will refer it to the Department of Justice and perhaps we can change this system if we find it is not a legal system. Or perhaps we should amend the law to validate or ratify what we are doing; for I venture to say that if, instead of doing as the hon. gentleman did to-night in bringing so much heat and so little light to a consideration of this question; if, instead of saying, as he said to-night, "I do not know whether it is a good thing to do or not, but certainly I do not like the way in which it is done," hon. members would get their minds down to whether or not it is a good thing to do, they would come to the conclusion that what we are doing is a good thing. I wish to point out that I made this speech to the House of Commons on July 31 last and that I have never heard a word of criticism of the course then announced from that time until to-night. The hon. member for York-Sunbury-and I do not criticize him for this-does not hesitate to write ministers or deputy ministers if he has something he wants to take up. He takes up many matters by correspondence, but he has never written anything about this.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The trouble is that I do not get anywhere by writing letters.
Interim Supply Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not know anything about it, but certainly to-night he worked up a tremendous amount of anger over a very reasonable action on the part of the government. The fact that this new system was announced and the reasons for it were given on July 31 last, after notice had been given earlier in the session that the matter would be dealt with so that hon. members interested could watch for what was coming and what we were going to do; the fact that not a single person has uttered or written a single word of criticism of this plan, either in this house or out of the house, is a pretty good indication that it is a good plan.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I must interrupt the minister. The hon. member for Temiscouata, the hon. member for York-Sunbury and myself have protested on several occasions against the present system of tabling these accounts for the consideration of parliament. I for one, ever since I have been here, have delighted in inquiring into the accounts. I cannot do so now; there is little to inquire into.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me talk to the hon. member for Davenport for a few moments, kindly and simply, through the Chair. The hon. member for Davenport has complained about the accounts. What accounts?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The auditor general's report, which contains the accounts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He has complained about the auditor general's report. He has not complained about the new plan, the plan w-hich the hon. member for York-Sunbury has attacked to-night, because no report has been presented under that plan. What the hon. member for Davenport has been complaining about is what he calls the incomplete nature of the reports which have been made by the auditor general through the years. He has complained because he says, and it may be so, that the auditor general does not go down to sufficiently small amounts in reporting on the accounts. The hon. member says, "I used to be able to find accounts of $5,000 or less. I found them very instructive and helpful, and1 I want to get information like that. Now I cannot find anything less than $25,000." That has nothing to do with the system; it has nothing to do with the point raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not this move we are making is a good move. As a matter of fact, this move does meet the hon. gentleman to a greater extent than the system which has been in force in the past. I think the same is true of the

hon. member for Temiscouata. He has attacked or criticized the auditor general's report on the ground that it was incomplete , in its information, that it did not give the house enough information. It is within the rights of hon. gentlemen to do that; but through you, Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. member for Davenport that these criticisms have nothing to do with the point which has been raised to-night.
The point raised here to-night is that parliament has been flouted; that we have set up a bureaucracy which has become a tyranny; that civil servants are running the country right over the head of parliament. What I say is that if what we are doing is in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the auditor general, as the servant of this house, has every right in the world to say what he said in this report: "I am going to do it in a different way in future." That is his right, so long as he complies with the act. If he undertakes to do anything illegal, then he should be dismissed by a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate; that is the way in which this parliament can get rid of this official if he does anything illegal. But if he does what is legal and the government approves it-because the government must take the responsibility of accounting for what they have done with the money of the people of Canada, and they are going to account for it under this system in a very full and complete and detailed way as is explained in this statement-then the whole transaction is unexceptional and not open to attack. Personally, if I were to take the offensive instead of the defensive, I would attack the opposition. If the opposition are so asleep that they did not come across this enormity until nine months after it was announced in the House of Commons, what kind of opposition is it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well,
I have known about it. That is going just a little too far. Nobody has ever accused me of being asleep. I may be stupid many times, but I am not asleep. The minister made a speech on July 31. My recollection is that this was just one day before parliament closed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said on June 4 that I was going to make the speech.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, but that is the way in which this government do things. They hold things back until the last minute, and 3'ou do not

Interim Supply Bill
know what they mean; half the people have gone home. That is the way in which they deceive the public, by withholding information while there is still time for discussion. Personally I do not recall ever having heard the statement or ever having read it. That is my fault; I am not blaming the government for that. The memorandum I have here to-night was prepared weeks ago, awaiting a favourable opportunity on a motion to go into supply in order to raise the question. I think I have done my duty, and I am not going to be insulted by the Minister of Finance by any suggestion that my feet are asleep. They are not, nor is my brain asleep. I will confess that I am very tired to-night, and I am going to conclude now. But I say there is a point here to be considered, and if this discussion does nothing else it will bring to the attention of the public the position as it exists to-day. I do not know yet whether the suggested method is better than the present method. I know this, that we approved the old method and we are accustomed to it. Perhaps we are old-fashioned. I think we were told that the old method involved too much labour, too much expense and too many man-hours; in fact, the whole thing was based on the saving of man-hours of labour. That was one of the bases upon which the auditor general made his recommendation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was gross duplication; there is no doubt about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There may have been. I should like to sit down and have a round-table discussion with the auditor general; I know him, and he might be able to sell his idea to me. But I do object to three civil servants telling us how we are to get our accounts. For heaven's sake let this independent body known as the House of Commons have some say about how this dish shall be served up. We may not have much to do with the cooking of it but certainly we can have something to say about how we shall eat it. That is all I have to say to the minister to-night.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I should like to revert to the question of the $92,000, discussed in the first instance by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I might add that I have been on my feet three or four times to ask the question, but other speakers preceded me.
Notwithstanding the statement of the minister, the help given to him by members of the government, and the able defence presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, there are a few questions I
should like to ask. The total number of patients treated by the doctor in question over the period of three years was approximately a thousand, as indicated by the minister. A thousand patients were treated by the doctor and his institution, at a total cost of $92,000-rather a high cost, for medical services. If I understood him correctly, of the 373 patients in 1941, 212 required X-rays, and somewhere about 200 required special treatment by specialists, or reference to specialists, a,t a fee of $15 each. I was not able to follow the minister clearly, but that was the picture I got. I understood that approximately a thousand patients were treated, regardless of the number of doctors involved, at a cost of $92,000: Is that a correct understanding?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; that is not correct.


Joseph William Noseworthy: How were those patients requiring X-rays and reference to specialists, over and above the thousand, treated?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There were more than a thousand persons treated for the $92,000. Three classes of treatments were given either by Doctor Chartier or through his clinic.


Joseph William Noseworthy: To the same patients?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They are patients who go to Doctor Chartier, and who selected him as their doctor in the first instance. It is possible that many of those have to be treated for fractures, or would require X-rays. They are, however, not all fracture cases. There are some cases which do not require X-ray treatment or X-ray photography. Then there are cases sent to Doctor Chartier's clinic for X-ray photography. There are other cases on which Doctor Chartier is called for expert advice, or for the exercise of his ability, when such cases have been treated by other doctors in the first instance. In those cases he is asked to assess permanent disability. Then, in some cases treatment was made by other doctors, whose offices were not equipped with X-ray equipment, and who were sent to Doctor Chartier's clinic for that treatment.
All cases treated for disease or for accident by Doctor Chartier were not necessarily X-rayed. Neither was he called in in all cases to act as consultant or as the assessor of disability. There may have been some instances in which he carried out the treatment, and where he took X-rays and made charges for them. There are other instances where he only took X-rays, and others where he acted as consultant, and as assessor of compensation, but where he did not take X-rays.
Interim Supply Bill

I am told, however, that there are several thousands of cases treated each year in the Montreal area by doctors other than by Doctor Chartier.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said that 892,000 was between six and eight per cent of the total amount paid to the various doctors in respect of these cases.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understood the minister to say that the $92,000*was between six and eight per cent of the amount paid.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; that is not the statement I made. I said that the number of cases treated by Doctor Chartier, in which he was selected by injured employees as their medical practitioner, amounted to about six or eight per cent of the cases in the Montreal area. I never said that the $92,000 paid to him represented six per cent of the total medical fees paid to doctors in the area.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not objecting to a doctor receiving his proper fee, or to his clinic being paid properly, if these are proper fees. But the minister said the number of cases treated represented between six and eight per cent. Is $92,000 six or eight per cent of the total amount paid out by the government?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In addition to the cases treated by him as medical practitioner, there were X-ray photographs taken in his clinic, for which he charged the scheduled fee. Then, there are charges as specialist, in addition to his fee as attendant physician. There are also charges by him when acting as consultant, or as an expert to determine the amount of disability, and the compensation arising out of disability. And the total of the three classes of services he rendered in the last three years amounted to about $92,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What was the total amount paid in each of those three years?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In 1940-41. for government departments only, SIS,532.45; in 1941-42, government departments only, $19,495.25, plus $13,831.50 for employees on defence projects; in 1942-43, for treatment of employees in government departments, $12,182.70, and for employees on defence projects, S26,142.50.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then there is the charge by the doctor on top of all this?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: None of the figures the minister has given adds up to $33,000, $93,000, or whatever it is.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The total for the first year was $18,532.45; for the second year, 1941-42, $33,326.75, and for 1942-43, $38,325.20.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sure that what the Minister of Finance said to the hon. member for York-Sunbury was not meant to be offensive. He said that the hon. gentleman was asleep, but no doubt he meant that the hon. gentleman was not suffering from insomnia, and therefore his remarks were perfectly justified. On this resolution we can discuss any matter and the discussion has come down to a discussion of the medical arts. In China a doctor is paid by his patient so long as he is in good health. When he becomes ill the payments stop, and therefore the doctor, in order to receive his remuneration, is interested in keeping his patient in good health. This is about the prevention of sickness. On April 7 a press agency carried a news item from London. There are supposed to be two sets of the debates of the House of Lords in the library, but when I inquired for a copy I found that both were out. Probably someone is reading them. Here is the news item:
London, April 7, C.P. The bishop of St. Albans asked the government in the House of Lords to-day whether the manufacture of contraceptives is regarded officially as work of national importance in recruiting labour and received the reply, "No, sir," from the Earl of Munster.
The bishop said his question was prompted by the fact that a woman in his diocese, who registered for national service, was directed to work in a firm which he estimated was manufacturing more than 33,000,000 contraceptive contraptions annually.
When the woman objected to such employment, she was relieved of the job; the bishop said, but a letter from a regional office of the labour ministry said explaining its actions mentioned, "firms engaged wholly or mainly on work of national importance, not actual munitions." From this the bishop said it appeared that the ministry considered the manufacture of contraceptives as being of national importance and "women and young persons called up may be submitted for such work."
Lord Munster explained that "contraptions" are mainly manufactured by surgical supply firms whose labour demands are given special consideration in the interest of supplying the forces "medical and surgical requirements." He said "there was no arrangement of any kind whatever" to supply labour for contraceptives and the firm mentioned by the bishop, he added, "is not solely engaged in the manufacture of contraceptives."
It is a strange thing, but the fact is that the government once spent $165,000 for these things, or a requisition was received and accepted for that amount. I am informed that there are two firms mainly employed in the manufacture of such things and they use a considerable amount of labour and rubber.

Interim Supply Bill
It would be interesting to inquire of the government if they regard the manufacture of contraceptives as being of national importance. On the other hand, it is quite difficult to get water-bottles for those who are ill, nipples for babies' bottles, gloves for doctors and such things. I asked for some information about trade, and the Minister of National War Services said that he could not give it to us. A number of booklets have been published, but here is one that has come to hand:
Condoms
Administrator's order No. A-317, July 30, 1942.
Pursuant to authority conferred by the wartime prices and trade board, I do hereby order, on behalf of such board, and with the concurrence of the chairman of the wartime industries control board, and the administrators of wholesale and retail trade, as follows-
The first section gives the interpretations of manufacture, person, sell, primary importer, wholesaler and retailer, and then section 2 reads:
2. No person shall manufacture and sell any condom unless such condom is made in conformity with the specifications and conditions set forth in this section as follows:
(a)	A gross of 144 of such condoms, unpackaged, shall not have a weight- of more than 71 ounces, and
(b)	No such condom shall, without being stretched, measure more than 71 inches or less than 61 inches in length, and
(c) Each such condom shall be free from holes, blisters, air-bubbles and other defects in material and w-orkmanship, and
(d) Each such condom shall be tested by inflation with at least three-quarters of one cubic foot of air.


The CHAIRMAN:: I cannot see how this
discussion is relevant to the resolution before the committee. Perhaps the hon. member was not present when it was read. I should like the committee to keep the discussion relevant to the resolution before it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. We are talking about estimates of the government. Purchases have been made of these things. I will not insist on that; I have just given the preliminaries. But there is a feeling of sadness when we think that the government is buying such large quantities of these things. It should be on record how much money has been spent on then'. That is simply in accordance with the usual practice of this house. I understand that this is a matter that hardly can be discussed by ladies, but as men we have to discuss them not only in the interests of the taxpayers but in the interests of the young men themselves. I have already stated that since the session started there has been a single
requisition for $165,000 worth of these things, sent by the Department of National Defence to the Department of Pensions and National Health, for the army. Was that the only one? If there were others, what was the amount? All this is of great importance.
In the instructions and orders that are given to the army there are things that are absolutely revolting regarding the use of these articles. Mark you, Mr. Chairman, I am strictly in order because I am the first member who has asked questions about the Wasser-mann test. In my humble view all those who are accepted into the army should be free from disease. I have already asked questions in the house about this matter, but the answers given were most vague. The matter is so serious, however, that a moving picture was shown to the members one night when the house was adjourned. Unfortunately I did not go, but I understand that many members went and saw that picture. Undoubtedly this matter is considered very seriously by the parents of all those who are in the army and by the friends of all those in the army. We must know about it. I understand that it is a delicate matter, but it is one of those delicate matters that should be discussed. I do not see why members of parliament when they meet together cannot discuss things like that because the health of our soldiers is a matter of first importance to the army, and those boys should be well cared for. The society of which the hon. and distinguished member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) is president has been fighting to protect the boys in the army against this plague, and when I speak of the army I include all three branches of the armed forces. Why should a boy who is, I will say, intact, in good health, be exposed to such a contagious disease, simply because the fellows who suffer from it have not been submitted to the Wassermann test and have not been kept away from the army until they have completely recovered? That is the idea. The idea is not at all to submit the young boys who are entering the army to a test that may be unpleasant in certain respects. The idea is to protect them from the contagion of disease.
At a time when rubber is so scarce, when it is impossible to get the primary necessities for those who practise the medical art, w-e see what an enormous quantity of these things is manufactured in England and here in Canada. The number 33,000,000 has been mentioned by the Bishop of St. Albans in the House of Lords. It is something to think of. Here in Canada we are told that these things are distributed lavishly to young men, that when they go on
Interim Supply Bill

a short leave they are given a large quantity of those things. Moreover, I am informed that they are part of the military equipment.
Here is the kind of order passed by these great men. This one is signed by Mr. Williamson, administrator of supplies, and now controller of rubber. The order is countersigned by Mr. Donald Gordon in his capacity as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board and concurred in by R. C. Berkinshaw, chairman of the wartime industries control board. Some of these positions have since been filled by others.
This is a most serious matter. In my humble view the thing to do in the first place is to submit all the boys in the army, those who have been in a long time and those who are just entering, to the Wassermann test, in order that no one who suffers from such a disease may spread it. That is my first point. I shall not impose on the committee the reading of all these documents. It is not up to me to read them to the committee. It should have been given with the other orders. This proves two things. It proves first that ive should have all information about trade that is asked for by members of parliament. If the information cannot be given publicly, it can be given privately to them in the first place. In the second place, if we are to have books of the orders made by various administrators. the record should be complete; but we have information expunged with regard to orders that are now the law of the land. In my humble view every member should be supplied not only with a copy of this, but with a copy of all orders issued by these administrators, controllers, and so on, and in proper form, with a good index, so that reference would be easy.
With regard to the public accounts I have listened to only part of the discussion that has taken place. When I take part in it, it is not as a bitter critic but just as one who believes that there is much less evil done in the brightness of the day than in the darkness of the night, and the rendering of accounts for all that has been bought and paid for is the best check that the Canadian public can have on good government. Of course, many civil servants may take advantage of the fact that all accounts are not published and may take their chance on trying to improve their position unfairly at the expense of those who do the work that they themselves are paid to do. That is unfair, and it is just to prevent that sort of thing that I have continually pressed for complete accounts. I do not want the Minister of Finance to follow the practice of the Minister of Munitions and Supply and

to answer by half-truths. The Minister of Finance has been answering openly since he brought down his budget, and last year too. and I hope he will continue to do so in the future. But whether we say the public accounts or the auditor general's accounts, he knows we mean the same thing. He knows we need the accounts.
In the first place, those accounts are arranged in a very strange way. The estimates are not complete; indeed they are far from complete. Some day I shall go down to the office of the parliamentary papers, and I will find the estimates issued during the last war and make a check and comparison with those pertaining to the present war. Before the war we had full estimates for the Department of National Defence. At that time the Department of Munitions and Supply was not in existence, but we had full estimates for the national defence purchasing board, which turned into the Department of Munitions and Supply. There was then no air department, no Department of National War Services, and no department of naval affairs.
Does the Minister of Finance think it reasonable that in respect of a total expenditure of nearly SI.800,000,000 on the army there are only eleven items on Hansard of March 3? Does he regard that as reasonable? I hope not. There should be more detail, especially as the Minister of National Defence said that we shall proceed, estimate after estimate. How can repetition be avoided when there is so little detail as that? With regard to the other war departments it is the same thing. There is a very small number of items, each representing a very large amount of money. This is the thing I complain of.
In the estimates as we have them there is not the name of a single civil servant- or high official, if you prefer. That is, there are only seven. In the reports of the departments, besides the names of the deputy ministers there is not given the salary of any civil servant who is also named. Then we have the auditor general's report, which does not mention expenditures below a certain amount of money.
The minister said that nobody had made complaints about the prospective change in the keeping of the auditor general's accounts. Well, how could anybody say anything about it? We have seen nothing. These books are not published yet with the new system; we do not have them at hand; how can we express an opinion about something which has not come in? What I said last year I do not intend to repeat every day; but I

Interim Sup-ply Bill
had reason to say it, and proof of my justification for speaking in that way, in a very friendly criticism of that bookkeeping, is the fact that the minister made a certain concession.
With regard to the auditor general I have this to say. I complained at the time of his appointment by Mr. Bennett as comptroller of the treasuiy. I thought that the appointment at the time was a great mistake, because it was taking away part of the responsibility of ministers for payments of items under them in their departments. I had a copy of the order in council by which that was done. It was something absurd; it demonstrated how temperamental the Prime Minister of the time was.
That being said, let me also say that the auditor general has made, to my knowledge, a serious study of his duties. He has been working not only as a lawyer but as an historian; I give him credit for that. But how in the world can he supervise accounts when he is not given by the dollar-a-year-men the vouchers for their expenditures? This is something of which he complains in the foreword of his report. He said, "How can I give a report? There are no vouchers, and they refuse to give me a voucher." This is a serious matter; and in this regard we are not complaining at all about the auditor general. I think all hon. members should stand by him when he mentions things like that. It is not only in defence <jf the auditor general that I speak in this way; it is for the protection of the Minister of Finance and the defence of the government at large, and for the prevention of abuses by those civil servants and others who take advantage of the darkness to pass things over the heads of members of parliament.
In this matter we have nothing personally against the Minister of Finance or any other minister. But we desire a reform of this system, and we want the people of the country to know what is going on here in Ottawa. There is an excuse which is given at times, to this effect, "Oh, now we are spending such large amounts of money." That is not a reason at all for not adhering to the old method of accounting which was good when we were spending ten times less then than we are doing now. Of course the departments grow larger and larger, but the size of the expenditures is no reason or excuse for changing the sane and sound method of accounting which was good in the time of Laurier, Borden and others. If there is a change in accounting due to adding machines and other mechanical improvements, the fundamental system should be the same: it
should be a system of having an account of everything which is done by the government. That is the old system. There is nothing new in that. It has been done in England for centuries. Of course people in England admit that the fashion changes for certain matters, but it cannot change for this; it is the very reason we are here.
We are here for two reasons. We are here in the first place to enact legislation, and the only legislation which is submitted to us is for taxation. But we are here for a second reason, which is not less important. It is to check the expenditures. It would be impossible for members of parliament to receive all the detail which has been omitted) from these accounts; but what we want is to have some information in the regular way, to have it without asking for it by motions or otherwise and waiting months and months to get it.
Sometimes it is said that it is not in the public interest to give this or that piece of information. How is that? Where is the judge? The judges are just appointees of the government, who are there to see that members shall not put their noses in this business. But when we do so, we do it for the welfare of the government as well as for the welfare of the country.
It is not my intention to insist on this point any further to-night, but I may have something more to say in reply if there should be any more contradiction. I want the minister to understand fully what it is we ask. Our point is that we should have complete information, information to the same degree as was given by the union government during the last war. I hope that in this matter this government will at feast act as wisely as the union government did in those times. '


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can say what I have to say in one minute. The minister would like to know what it is I am asking for. The second part of the auditor general's report for 1939 alone contained about twelve hundred pages; the auditor general's report for 1942 has six hundred and thirty-eight pages. I always like to look through the record of the Department of Mines aijd Resources, and I observe that in the current report that department is covered in twenty-six pages, whereas in 1939 there were one hundred and twenty-six pages. I am also especially interested in the figures relating to the Indian affairs branch. I find that in the 1942 report everything relating to Indian affairs is given in eleven lines, whereas in 1939 there are thirty-eight pages. How can I find anything that I am looking for in such meagre reports as we have in 1942?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. Ilsley moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1944, the sum of $40,307,998.90 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 95, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1944.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: May I have an answer from the government with regard to the purchase of contraceptives for the army? Is it true that there was a requisition for contraceptives from the army, submitted to the Department of National Defence, for $165,000? I presume the Minister of Finance cannot answer the question to-night, but I hope that the Minister of Pensions and National Health will be able to reply to-morrow.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry I have not the information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11:10 pan.
Tuesday, May 18, 1943