1944-02-22

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Some two weeks ago I was asked to make a statement on the gasoline and oil situation. As our rationing year ends on March 31, I will do so at this time rather than wait until the work of my department is subject to review under the war appropriation bill.
I have stated before, and now state again that rationing of gasoline in Canada is based wholly upon stocks of gasoline in hand and our estimate of the forward position. Our stocks in hand at this time are less than fifty per cent of normal. The forward position must depend on the tempo of the war, and there is every indication that the situation will not improve until the European war is ended. Whereas rationing was imposed as a result of sinkings by enemy submarines, rationing is still necessary due to the vastly increased requirements for aviation gasoline and motor gasoline in the combat areas. A further factor in the situation arises from the fact that supplies of crude oil in the United States are diminishing with the result that we must go farther and farther afield to obtain crude oil for our refineries. The crude oil now being obtained yields larger proportions of asphalt and heavy fuel oil with correspondingly smaller proportions of gasoline and domestic fuel oil. While we have obtained the assistance of United States owned tankers to meet our transportation requirements, and while we have built and are now operating a number of Canadian tankers, we have been unable to improve the position of the motorist.
Use of heavier crudes does permit relaxation in the use of heavy or bunker fuel oils and asphalt. Restrictions on the use of asphalt have been removed entirely. As regards the use of heavy or bunker fuel oil, in all provinces except British Columbia all users who converted from heavy fuel oils to substitute fuels may now return to using heavy fuel oil, the only restriction being that the consumer must obtain a permit from the office of the oil controller, this for the purpose of record. British Columbia cannot be permitted relaxation for the reason that demands for heavy fuel oil from the west coast for the fleets of the united nations require the full production of west coast refineries.

The plan to be followed in rationing gasoline for the year commencing April 1, 1944, will be practically the same as that now being followed. Each motor car registered for use in each province may, upon application, receive a category "AA" gasoline licence and ration coupon book containing forty units, which at the present value of a unit, namely three gallons, amounts to 120 gallons of gasoline. This "AA" gasoline licence and ration coupon book may be obtained from the issuer of motor licences at the time a provincial motor licence is obtained.
The special categories remain basically the same as established for this year. Each individual who, by reason of the essentiality of his vocation, believes that he is entitled to a special gasoline allowance must make a new application, upon forms provided for that purpose, to the regional office of the oil controller for his district. The rationing officials of the oil control office will then determine his special allotment, if any.
During the past year many of our motorists have looked upon their "AA" allotment as one for pleasure driving. It was not our intention last year, and certainly it is not our intention this year to provide gasoline for pleasure driving. The category "AA" is an allotment for emergency requirements. While we do not intend to define pleasure driving, I wish to make it clear that the man who uses his category "AA" for week-ends and other non-essential driving can expect no more should an eihergency arise after his allotment is exhausted. By the same token, the motorist who receives a special category in addition to his "AA" book must consider the aggregate gallonage provided by the two categories as essential, and all that he can obtain throughout the year.
It is hoped that the few inequalities that occurred ithis year can be eliminated next year. With the information on record for nearly every car and information obtained through checks on highways and at summer resorts, this should be possible.
I cannot stress too strongly the need for conserving gasoline. Gasoline is an essential munition of war. It has been said "To that country which has the last barrel of petroleum will go the victory".



WAR EXPENDITURES


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the amendment, I wish to say first of all that I was happy to

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman
be associated with the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in moving that the hearings of our subcommittee be held in open and not in camera. That of course was subject to the usual provision, that should any of the evidence touch upon matters which might give comfort to the enemy, then the committee should hold its sittings in camera. It may be of interest to this house to know that that motion was overwhelmingly defeated, that only three members supported it, namely the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and myself, and that all government supporters were against it. However, the hearings were held in camera, and on the day when the committee published its report there appeared in the press at the same time a statement issued by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That statement said, among other things:
The committee, in its attempt to whitewash the aluminum deal, succeeded only in making itself ridiculous.
Sir, I believe that that almost rises to a point of privilege on behalf of the members of that committee, apart from the hon_ member who uttered the statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: It certainly does.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I believe therefore that, in supporting the amendment, there is good reason to be advanced why the evidence should be tabled in order that the public of Canada should be able to say how the committee was conducted and how the individual members carried on. In the first place, perhaps as a sop or compromise, the committee voted unanimously to issue interim objective summaries of the evidence of various witnesses. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the vice-chairman of the committee and myself were appointed on that publicity subcommittee, and the evidence of the first witness, Mr. F. H. Brown, the financial adviser to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), was gone over and an objective summary was issued to the press. The next day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that he could no longer serve on that publicity subcommittee because he had had several telephone calls which had proved embarrassing.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Oh, no. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I said no such thing at any time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have not checked the evidence, but my memory is indelible on the point and I shall have to accept if necessary the denial of the hon. member. However, the
actions may indeed indicate whether or not what I said had the gist of truth or whether it was a fabrication of my faulty memory. The result was that the hon. member withdrew from that subcommittee, and yet he had no objection to the committee continuing to issue these reports from time to time.


Major James William Coldwell: I did object, as the evidence will show.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I shall come to that point presently. The hon. member, if my memory serves me correctly, had no objection and in the best of good nature was quite agreeable to the committee continuing to function at that time. But what is to be the position of any party in this house, much less any prospective government, if we find that the leader of a party advocates and subscribes to a policy of publicity one day, or any policy, no matter what it may be, and yet for certain reasons finds that it is no longer comfortable to serve on that committee and wishes to withdraw from it and to reverse his policy? We wonder, if the Prime Minister is a little embarrassed because the official leader of the party to which I belong has some hand in the direction of the policy of my party. What his embarrassment must be if he knows that there are powers behind the official leader of the party to my left, which must be a very peculiar position-


Major James William Coldwell: Explain that. That is a dirty innuendo.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: He has not the courage to back it up by saying something.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: One thing I do not lack, I hope, is courage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You have demonstrated it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have said exactly what to my memory went on in that committee. The hon. member refused and I asked other members of the committee to be with me or against me when I say that the member for Rosetown-Biggar refused to serve on that subcommittee one day longer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, no. The hon. member has made a reference to some leader other than the leader of this group dominating the policy of this group. That is an innuendo which ought to be either substantiated or withdrawn.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Further witnesses-

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask for a ruling on that point of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no point of order. The hon. member has made a statement which can be denied afterwards, but there is no point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rose on a question of privilege. There is an imputation of motives which ought not to be permitted in this house.


Thomas Vien: Any imputation of motives of course is not allowed in the house, but I did not understand that there was such an imputation in the hon. gentleman's statement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Further witnesses were called of whose evidence these objective summaries were issued. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar became, shall I say, increasingly hot under the collar because the evidence in all cases was not apparently satisfactory from his point of view.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Statements or evidence?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: He then suggested, in fact he was very emphatic about it, that the proceedings of the committee-even though he and I had been associated together in demanding that these hearings should be in the open-should be either in camera or in open, and that this was a half measure that should not be permitted. In fact, he reminded one very much of his colleague in British Columbia, Mr. Harold Winch, who has no regard whatsoever for half way measures.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It is true that I objected to having the meetings held in camera, and the issuing of public statements by the committee from those meetings, either in camera or in public. I wanted them in public, and I object to the innuendoes being cast by the hon. member's reflection upon me personally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not easy for me to cast reflections, if they may be so called. I consider them a plain statement of fact in regard to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Nevertheless when he characterizes me, as he did the other members of the committee, in the press across this country, as having attempted to whitewash the aluminum deal, and having succeeded only in making itself-namely, the committee-ridiculous, then I think I am within my rights, in speaking to this amendment, to speak on a matter of privilege.
The next point had to do with the scope of the inquiry. The Prime Minister read to the
house yesterday the terms of reference which had to do with war expenditures; and it was in connection with war expenditures that many of us volunteered to serve on the committee, at great cost to our time and to our pleasure, taking us away from our families, and so on. We did it because we thought we might in some small degree render a service to the war effort of this country and of the united nations. We did not wish therefore to be led far afield into matters which were not in the least relevant.
We know that at an early stage the matter of cartels, in particular the Alliance Corporation, was brought forth. It had nothing whatsoever, I submit, to do with war expenditures. The cartel, it is true, still exists to-day, but it has been inoperative for some years, and therefore it could not have had anything to do with war expenditures. Yet, what do we find? I read to the chairman the terms of reference, because I wished to keep the committee on a fairly straight track, so that we could get our work done, and not be as they were in the United States when these things came up. There the trial lasted two years. Evidence was taken much greater in extent than the material which fills the Encyclopaedia Britan-nica, and the judgment finally rendered by the court of appeal was such as to clear the Aluminum Company of America and also the Canadian company on all counts-


Major James William Coldwell: In a lower court.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: -including the charge of being a monopoly, or infringing the anti-trust laws of the United States. So that the house may see just what fear was in the minds of some of us, if we were allowed to digress to something entirely outside the orbit of the terms of our reference. Yet when I made the suggestion that we should remain on the track the hon. member said-I have not looked up his words, but the gist of them was, "Well, if that is the case there is no further use in the committee sitting."


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We members of the house have some regard for the rules under which our proceedings are constituted. Yet we find that unless some hon. members, particularly, can have their own way, they are not willing to abide by the rules.


Major James William Coldwell: There is another statement; I would ask the hon. member to give me the reference. Give me the page of the evidence where I made any such statement as that.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman


Mr. GRAYDON:: We cannot produce the
evidence.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The reason I am asking that the evidence of the committee be tabled is that all members may see for themselves whether or not the statements I make upon my responsibility as a member of the house are justified.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give the page number.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or whether your imagination is running wild.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think my imagination is running wild.


Mr. DUPUIS:: It is not running red, anyway.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The next point indicating whether or not the whole committee or merely one member of it was ridiculous, is in regard to cost figures. When the statement was put in evidence by Price Waterhouse & Company as to the cost of producing a pound of aluminum, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if my vision was any clear indication of what was going on, was taken aback by the figures which he thought, I believe, would be much more nearly in line with those he suggested, and which he stated without any qualification whatsoever-in fact he stated it with great emphasis in this house-were very much lower, or somewhere about six cents. When he found they were very much higher he was really in a state of consternation. What did he do? Although he may have been oblivious to his own actions, he alternately raised his hand up and down on the desk and said, "But they can't be right. They are not in accordance with the information I have.'' Naturally the rest of the committee felt-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Last night the objection was raised to my referring to the evidence. The hon. member is drawing upon his imagination. Not only is he speaking of evidence, but he is describing what he alleges to be certain actions on my part, after a period of four or five months. I submit that that kind of thing is neither evidence nor debatable, and transgresses the rules of order of the house.


Mr. ROWE:: It has been going on here for twenty years.


Thomas Vien: I would point out to the hon. member that he is coming very close to the position I took last night with regard to the amendment before the house. No hon. member has the right to criticize the conduct of other members of the committee. In this instance reference is being made to the evidence, and it is not before the house. I
wish hon. members who speak to-day would realize that the amendment is under discussion, and that they should address themselves to it only. Any reference to the evidence given . before the committee would be irrelevant.
. Mr. JACKMAN: May I rise to a question of privilege? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said that members of the committee succeeded in making it ridiculous. Surely an hon. member in the house has a right to bring forth evidence to show whether or not that is correct.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has made certain statements with regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The hon. member now denies that he was a party to the whitewashing of the committee in connection with the matter under discussion in the report.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am not concerned with the whitewashing aspect of it. That stands on its own feet. But I am concerned with whether or not the committee acted ridiculously, and I should like to have Your Honour's ruling on that point.


Thomas Vien: The statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar outside the house, which the hon. member has now quoted and which he repudiates is, I think, sufficient justification for the hon. member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I left off by saying that according to my humble judgment of the proceedings the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was rather in a state of consternation that the published costs should be as high as they were shown to be in the certified statement of Price Waterhouse & Company.
Then, as I said, the rest of the committee felt that there was perhaps something in the nature of amusement in the wray in which he took this statement, because there was a certain amount of mild laughter. The hon. member then said to the chairman that if there was any joke he wished to be let in on it. One of the members said, "What you say is the joke,"-whereupon the hon. member said, "If the committee thinks I am not asking intelligent questions" he had no further place there. And although the committee had been sitting only a short time that afternoon he picked up his books and hied himself away to his office-and the rest of the committee were left sitting there, like the chorus with the prima donna gone.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite a compliment.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I wonder what would happen to the ship of state if every time it ran into a squall the skipper sought the seclusion of the cabin grand? However, next morning the prima donna was not nearly so highfalutin' and he came down and the work of the committee was proceeded with.


Mr. BURTON:: I should like to raise a
point of order. Are we to have the evidence tabled, or are we to have individual members giving a minority report?


Thomas Vien: That is not a point of
order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The matter of the cost
of producing a pound of aluminum was raised on numerous occasions during the proceedings of the committee. With many other members of the committee, I was concerned as to the real cost of producing a pound of aluminum. I think it was last June that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar stated that the cost was quite low, that he had information from firsthand sources. I shall read his words so that I shall not be accused of drawing upon my imagination. He said:
These are the facts as I have accumulated them. I have got them first hand from firsthand sources. I have no doubt that there are certain people who know the people I visited when I was in Washington


Thomas Vien: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? Is he reading from something which was given in evidence?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am reading from Hansard, or rather from a pamphlet printed under the imprimatur of the House of Commons. It is entitled "Aluminum" and contains speeches on the Shipshaw power development and the Arvida expansion of the Aluminum Company of Canada by M. J. Coldwell, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Stanley H. Knowles, hon. member for AVinnipeg North Centre, and J. W. Noseworthy, hon. member for York South, delivered in the House of Commons on June 14, 15 and 17, 1943. I take it that this is an official publication, and it is in handy form for my purposes as well as for those of other people
Mr. COLDAArELL:	And paid for by ourselves.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar says "paid for by ourselves." I purchased this in the lobby of the AVindsor hotel in Montreal some time during the summer for the sum of five cents, which price is marked on it. I suspect the document did not cost more than two cents at the government

printing bureau, in which case the profit would be 150 per cent.


Thomas Vien: I have already directed
the hon. member's attention to the fact that we have a motion and an amendment before the house. The amendment is with regard to the production of evidence, to the effect that until the evidence is .produced the report should not be dealt with. Last evening I confined the speeches of hon. members to the terms of the amendment. If I allow the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) to continue I shall have to allow every hon. member who follow's him to deal with matters which may be pertinent only to the motion. I presume that the hon. gentleman is laying a foundation for his contention that the evidence should be produced, but I ask him not to trespass too much in laying that foundation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It would grieve me to
offend against the rules of the house, and particularly, sir, against your ruling, but I was only endeavouring to answer your question. I mentioned an official or. semi-official document; Your Honour asked me if I was reading from the evidence of the committee, and I had to explain what I was reading from.
As I say, the matter of the cost of producing a pound of aluminum came up at various times. The members of the committee wanted to get the whole picture. We had heard in the house the original charges, and that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had firsthand information from first-hand sources. I began to get considerably worried about information being in the hands of one hon. member which was not available to all members of the committee; therefore I again asked the chairman if he would not insist on witnesses being called in order that we might have evidence which one member had and which was not available to the other members. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar then asked whom he could call. I am not quoting him exactly, but it is in my mind quite clearly. He suggested that he could not call the government, because his allegations were against the government. He said he could not call the officials of the Aluminum Company, because they were a party to it. He said he could not subpoena the officials of the United States government who might know something about aluminum matters. I suggested that if he wanted any witnesses he could get any number of the executives of the Reynolds Aluminum Company in the IJnited States, who were known to be bitter enemies of the Aluminum Company of America and I suppose of the Canadian company. However, no witness was. forthcoming.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman
Finally, after we had sat for several months -this will be in the record-and the other subcommittees were ready to depart for home -we ourselves had made transportation arrangements in advance, as we had to-the hon. member suggested to the chairman that he would be able to get a witness from the United States, a Mr. Irving Lipkowitz, who was formerly economic adviser to Mr. Thurman Arnold, who is now I believe a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and who was at that time attorney general. Mr. Arnold had conducted the suit against the Aluminum Company of America, to which the Canadian company was a party. Mr. Lipkowitz is now labour relations adviser-this is rather important-to the office of war production in Washington.
I certainly am no supporter of the Liberal government of this country, although like all my colleagues I participate heartily in cooperating with them in furthering the war effort. I looked with suspicion, not to say chagrin, at the calling of an employee of a friendly power to come to our country to testify against our government. Of course he came in his unofficial capacity. This gentleman gave certain evidence which will be found on the typewritten pages numbered F-l, F-2 and F-3 of the evidence of November 9, 1943. I should read from that if I did not feel I might be transgressing the rules. So I turn to the original source, which is Business Week, a publication I suppose of some hundreds of thousands of circulation every week. We find there the type of evidence which this young man gave. He was saying what a great future there was for aluminum, the amount that would be used in motor cars, and so forth. I shall not take up the time of the house by reading it. I also have the original document in front of me, and on a subsequent page I find information which the witness did not give. It was to this effect. Steel, for example, has shown a tendency to counterattack in markets previously blitzed by the light metals. Steel streamliners were being sold before the war in direct competition with the shining new aluminum models, which first rolled out in 1933.
I would go on with this but I see you are doubting, Mr. Speaker, whether it is relevant to the question before the house. But the point I bring out is this, sir, that the evidence which we have, not only from this particular witness but from all the witnesses who appeared before the committee, was of such a nature that it was no more confidential, I think, than is the evidence that appeared in Business Week. However, this young man
was a little bit loquacious, and, apropos of nothing at all, certainly of no leading question on our part, he put new ideas in our minds, when he quoted, for instance, from editorials in dailies in northern New York state that there was a feeling down there that the United States government had made possible the development of this great Ship-shaw power enterprise in the Saguenay district when there were still undeveloped power resources in northern New York, and this was made a matter of political consequence. But even more important was the fact that on no less than three or four pages of evidence, F-l, B-7 and C-l, 2, 3 and 4-


Thomas Vien: The evidence is not before the house and I have already ruled several times on that point. I have given considerable latitude to the hon. gentleman but I think he is exceeding reasonable latitude in the grounds upon which he bases his case. I must ask him to confine himself to the amendment.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Sir, I will cut short immediately what I have to say about the conduct of the committee, although I do think it is very important that the people of Canada should "know just what their members do when they sit in committee, and they are entitled to have this evidence. This young man went on to say that while he was labour relations officer to the office of war production in the United States, the C.I.O. aluminum workers of the Pacific northwest were very much concerned at the extent of the Arvida development, where the costs, and in particular the labour costs, were lower than they were in the Pacific northwest. I said to him-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If we are to have the evidence tabled, and I should like to have it tabled, it will then be in order to refer to it, but this business of an hon. member of the house rising in his place and supposedly reciting directly from his memory of the evidence is not, I submit, within the rules. Last evening when I was called to order I was not even doing that. I obeyed your ruling immediately, although there were several other points I wished to make.


Thomas Vien: I think this is the fourth time I have had to rise in this connection. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks solely to the amendment that is before the house. I cannot permit him to quote the evidence or even to refer to what witnesses may or may not have said.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I was only endeavouring to show the importance of getting the evidence tabled.


Thomas Vien: I have refused permission to other hon. members to make quotations from' the evidence or deal with matters coming before the committee, on the ground that there is only one issue before the house at this moment, and that is the production or nonproduction of the evidence.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Mr. Speaker, I shall not
only cheerfully accept your ruling, as I always do, but rest happy in the expectation that the evidence will be tabled, so that the evids ence in regard to C.I.O. workers in the United States as against our own people in the Arvida district will be known to the people of Canada.
Coming once again to the amendment, I take issue with the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister yesterday when he said not only that the hearings should be in camera but that the evidence in this particular case should not be tabled. At page 709 of Hansard he said:
I submit that there must be the best of reasons for having sittings held in camera or the parliament at Westminster would not have followed that procedure in the last war and insisted upon it in this.
I believe that in Canada we are too prone to follow' blindly the practice not only of Westminster "but of the people of Great Britain. Certainly I take second place to no one in my admiration for the people of Great Britain. But I do think that faced with the same circumstances as those we have to consider here they would not do as they do now in the circumstances which prevail over there, and I think we must always bear that in mind. I have sufficient confidence in the ability not only of this government, if you like, but of the membership of this house, to make our own rules for our own conditions without borrowing too largely from across the water or across the line. There are differences (between the situation here and the situation in Great Britain. There they have a national government; we have not a national government here. Furthermore, the division of the parties in the house is much more nearly equal there than it is here. Arising out of that fact is the constitution of this committee. Here we have six members belonging to the official opposition and the two groups to my left out of a total committee of twenty-four. That makes it impossible to carry on the work, because it is not possible to be present at the committee at all times.
My time is running short. I should like to have quoted the Prime Minister's own remarks regarding the suggested British commonwealth
[Mr. Speaker.!
council when he said that he went over there alone and had to face all the cabinet ministers of Great Britain, with their secretariats, and so forth. It is a difficult position for members to be in when they are greatly out of balance, one way or the other, in membership on a committee. While I feel that the Prime Minister has adhered strictly and even generously to the parliamentary- proportions in appointing members to the committees, nevertheless he might well feel, as I hope he will feel, that the interests of the country- and the interests of the war will be better served if the opposition groups are given greater representation on committees.
There is, moreover, in Great Britain the closeness of the enemy. We here are removed by many thousands of miles from the enemy, and protected not only by our own navy but by the Royal Navy, the R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F. But if we are to borrow our ideas from other places and not think them out for ourselves, as we are quite capable of doing, we might borrow from the Truman committee in the United States, which carries on like work in the open. Nothing is done there behind closed doors. The public may know for themselves exactly what goes on in that committee. The Prime Minister said further, yesterday- Hansard, page 710:
I come back again to what I was saying. In addition to the reasons for the in camera proceedings which I have presented, there is the further one of what ,may be given, wholly unexpectedly, in the nature of aid or comfort to the enemy.
We have had the evidence taken in this aluminum subcommittee; we know what is in it. The Minister of Munitions and Supply yesterday said he was quite agreeable to tabling it; and I sometimes feel that if there were more business men and fewer politicians in this house we would get things done more effectively. I challenge the government and any member of the committee to put his finger on one iota of the evidence the disclosure of which is contrary to the public interest or would give any aid or comfort to the enemy.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCI-I (Acadia): I intend to be brief in my remarks, but I wish to say a few words, because it seems to me that hon. members are in a very difficult position. It is almost impossible to vote intelligently on this question. Personally I was not a member of the committee; I have not seen all the evidence; and after listening to a number of hon. members who were on the committee I find

War Expenditures-Mr. Quelch ..
that there is wide disagreement among them as to exactly what the evidence was and what took place. The report states that none of the allegations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was substantiated, and yet I must admit that yesterday, on the basis of the evidence which he referred to, he made a pretty strong case. Apparently the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was astounded at some figures quoted by the hon. member, because this is what the minister stated in the	house-Hansard,
page 704:
My hon. friend is telling me of evidence given before the committee which seems to be incredible. That evidence may have been given; I have no way of knowing whether it was or was not. I can hardly credit it, but nevertheless I do think that if hon. members are to rise in their places in this house and quote evidence given to the committee, we should have an opportunity of checking that evidence.
Then the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) said:
You think it should be tabled, in other words?
The minister replied:
Yes, I think so; and I would suggest to the chairman of the committee that he move to have the evidence in this particular case tabled in the house.
Later on he changed his point of view, and I think gave as his reason that it would be a breach of faith towards some of the witnesses who were brought before the committee if that were done. Personally I doubt very much if anything could be gained by tabling the evidence. I understand it is voluminous, and if all hon. members wanted to see it, it would probably be three or four years before the last member had a chance to look at it. Therefore I doubt if very much could be gained by such a procedure. For that reason I should like to move the following subamendment, seconded. by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston):
That all the words after "founded" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"be referred to the public accounts committee for examination and that consideration of the reports by the house be postponed until the public accounts committee reports back."
If that were done it would be possible for the committee to call before it the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and he has stated that he can give the pages upon which his statements are founded. The other speakers could also come before the committee and challenge his statements; and I think in that , way and in that way only will it be possible to separate the false from the true in this matter. By the time the committee completed its investigation it should be in a sound position to report back to the house what the actual situation is.
I know that several hon. members have time and again stated that no substantial profits are being made in this war, and that even if profits are being made they are taxed away. Personally I think most of us to-day realize that substantial profits are still being made. I do not think there is any doubt about that. If anybody has any doubt about it, just let him read the reports of the victory loans. Take the third and fourth victory loans, and what do we find? That one-third of one per cent of the subscribers purchased sixty per cent of the total loans-an average of S60,000 per subscriber. Now, where does the money for these subscriptions come from? Some, true, from insurance companies. But there is no doubt that a very large amount of these purchases represents profits which are being made in this war. and I think we are all agreed that it is not a desirable state of affairs when large profits are made in the war whilst on the other hand our troops are sacrificing their lives. If we had adopted a pay-as-you-go policy it would not be quite as obnoxious, but unfortunately we have not done so, and as a result of these profits we were greatly expanding our debt. The national debt has expanded from 3i billions to around 11 billions, and in reality that is nothing more or less than a misappropriation of funds of future generations.
I say again that I think it desirable that this evidence be placed before the public accounts committee. They may meet in camera. Let them call before them the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member who spoke the other night on the matter of shipbuilding. We shall be in a position to vote intelligently on this report after the public accounts committee has reported back to the house.


Thomas Vien: The subamendment asks "that all the words after 'founded' in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor," so that the amendment would be amended to read:
be not now concurred in but that the house instructs that'the evidence upon which the said reports are founded be referred to the public accounts committee for examination and that consideration of the reports by the house be postponed until the public accounts committee reports back.
The subamendment proposes that the evidence be referred to the public accounts committee for examination. But the evidence is not in the possession of the house, and the house cannot refer something to a committee which it has not got. The original amend-

War Expenditures-Mr. Golding
ment was that the evidence be tabled and that consideration of the reports be postponed until the house had had an opportunity to study it. The house cannot deal with the evidence until it has disposed of the amendment, which asks that the house shall have the evidence tabled. For that reason the subamendment would be inconsistent with the facts as we have them, that the house has not the right to refer to the public accounts committee evidence which is not in the possession of the house. I therefore rule the subamendment out of order.


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: I want to say just a few words on the amendment, as a member of No. 1 subcommittee, which made a study of the shipbuilding and aeroplane industries in Canada. I wish to assure the members of this house that we did have witnesses before that committee who gave us evidence only after we had assured them that that evidence would be confidential. I am quite sure they would have not given it had they known or believed that it would be spread across the country.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Were they assured in writing or verbally in the evidence? Would that be shown in the evidence?


William Henry Golding: I may tell my hon. friend they were given that assurance by the chairman of the committee before they gave the evidence.


Gordon Graydon: Would that appear in the evidence?


William Henry Golding: I think some of it would. I am hot quoting the evidence. In any event, I know there was evidence given by witnesses before that committee that would not have been given, as I said before, if they knew it would be spread across the country. One particular aspect of the matter is the disposition of the ships. It is very important that that be kept absolutely secret. I want to say further that in examining those contracts we were examining contracts for the British government, the United States government and the Canadian government. These contracts were filed. I sincerely hope that the members of this house will have enough confidence in the members of the committee to accept the report as we gave it, and will try to keep away from the evidence which I know should not be given to the public.
Further than' that, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) made this statement when speaking last night as reported at page 712 of Hansard:
[Mr. Speaker.!
It was my desire that every aspect of the aluminum transaction should be examined; I was anxious that this should be the case, and to permit that to be done I took the responsibility of applying, through the high commissioner of the United Kingdom, for the consent of the British government to permit the details of that contract and of the negotiations leading up to it to be placed before the committee. The United Kingdom government was extremely reluctant to give that permission, but, after an exchange of several cables, permission was given with the definite understanding, so stated in the cable, that the hearings of the committee would be in camera and the evidence would not be made public. The consent of the government of Australia was given in exactly the same terms.
I ask any member of this house, if he wants to be fair to the Minister of Munitions and Supply who gave that assurance, if he thinks he is fair in asking that the evidence be now tabled. I feel as sure as I do that I am standing here that if the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in the house were on this side of the house he would do exactly what we are doing with these war contracts that have to do with three countries.


Gordon Graydon: I think I could make a little improvement here and there.


William Henry Golding: I am satisfied you might do that, but I am satisfied also that you would do exactly as we have done in holding these meetings in camera.


Gordon Graydon: I think I would follow the Minister of Munitions and Supply and ask that the evidence be tabled.


William Henry Golding: The quotation I just read was taken from the remarks of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. My hon. friend can laugh at it if he likes. If he has no more regard than that for the word of the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the word of the chairman of the war expenditures committee, I can tell him that I have. I have regard also for the feelings of the British and Australian governments. These are serious matters. I hope that the members of this house are not going to ask us to betray the confidence of witnesses who gave their evidence. I am serious about it.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the amendment to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) would be in order, but it has been ruled out of order; therefore we cannot consider it. To me it is amazing that this house cannot direct evidence taken in camera to be turned over to the public accounts committee. Our desire in asking that the evidence be turned over to the public accounts committee is based on the

War Expenditures-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to keep it secret. The mere fact that the evidence is now placed in such a position that it cannot be tabled, and cannot be placed before the public accounts committee, puts the members in an exceedingly embarrassing position. We have heard statements made by members on both sides of the house with regard to that evidence. For example, we had a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). These statements were made directly from the evidence. He so stated in his speech. We then had contradictory statements made by the parliamentary assistant. The statements were so astounding that the members are in an impossible position.
I will not support the motion for concurrence in the report. I cannot possibly do it. How can I? I have not the slightest knowledge of what the evidence is. We have had one hon. member saying one thing and a member of the government saying another. Listen to what the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said. I am not going to read what the hon. member for Acadia said a moment ago in regard to the remarks of the Minister of Munitions and Supply on page' 704, but on page 711 the minister, referring to the statements made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, used these words:
His statements were so contrary to the facts as I understand them and to the facts as I have stated them in this house that I felt I would like very much to see the evidence taken before the committee. Of course I have not seen it and have no idea what that evidence was.
When the minister makes a statement such as this and says that the statements made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar are not in accordance with the facts, and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says he is stating evidence given before the committee, how in the world can you, Mr. Speaker, expect members of this house to vote intelligently? I recall that a year ago I spoke on the setting up of the war expenditures committee. I said at that time that I thought the representation on that committee was wrong. I pointed out that such parties as the Social Credit party and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party had only one representative each on that committee. I remarked that when the committee met it was divided into subcommittees one, two and three, and if we as a Social Credit party had one member on that committee and that member was on subcommittee one, he could not possibly be on subcommittee two, which dealt with . the question of aluminum. The member who was on the war expenditures committee, representing his group, is not in possession of the information. He could not possibly be. I am not going to be put in the position of voting for or against something of which I have no knowledge. I think it is an unfair position in which to be put by the government. The Minister of Munitions and Supply recognizes that fact, despite the fact th&t he changed his statement a little after the Prime Minister spoke.
I think there should be fairness in this thing, and that is why I advocated that the evidence be turned over to the public accounts committee. It was my hope that all parties would be satisfied; that we as members could get authentic information and vote intelligently on it after the public accounts committee had reported back to the house. Apparently that is not to be; therefore we shall vote for the amendment, and if the amendment carries, then I think we shall have to move that the evidence be turned over to the public accounts committee for examination. I do not see what other position we can take. I certainly am not going to put myself in the position of voting for something that I do not know any-;hing about.
Mr. MoNEVIN: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Mr. McNEYIN:: My hon. friend referred to the desire to have the matter dealt with on a fair basis. Does he think it would be fair to a witness, who was properly before the committee and informed that he was giving his information in camera, later to divulge that information to the public?


Charles Edward Johnston: That was exactly why we wanted this turned over to the public accounts committee. Talk about evidence being given before that committee! Let us not confuse the matter. That was not evidence in the ordinary accepted sense of that term. It was not evidence as given in a court of law. These men could get up and give opinions, and on many occasions something would be stated one day as a fact and another day it would be changed. I know that this was not the kind of evidence that is given before a court of justice. I know, and members who were on the committee know, that statements were made as so-called evidence and were taken back to the offices and revised before they were put on the official record. I repeat, it was not evidence as taken in a court of law. I was informed when I was on the committee that there was a distinct difference between meetings in camera and meetings in secret. It is certainly true that

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
when you have a report tabled in the house it is based on evidence. They were violating the oath of secrecy if that is what it was. We have heard here on all sides that parts of the evidence were given from the committee's report and the rest of us did not know whether it was right or wrong.
I must say again that we shall have to vote for the amendment and against the motion, and then we will move to have the matter turned over to the public accounts committee.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Personally I intend to support the amendment. In my opinion no more important debate has taken place in the house, in this or in any previous session of this parliament, than the one in which we are engaged at the present time. My reason for that statement is 'that the trend during the last few years in this parliament is towards a gradual diminution of the rights of the membership of the house. While not entering into any controversy at the moment as to what the evidence may have been, or whether it supports or does not support the contention of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I suggest that we as members have the right *to know the evidence upon which statements made by any member of this house, as a responsible member, have been found not to have been in accordance with the facts.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not intend to support any committee that will come before the house and submit findings so general and sweeping as were made in reference to committee No. 3. The words used were these:
For the reasons set out in the foregoing report your subcommittee finds that none of the allegations is substantiated by the facts.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday said that this was the practice in Westminster, that the committee there mat in camera. That is true. But there is a difference between the committee at Westminster and what this committee is endeavouring to do. The committee at Westminster does not move concurrence, nor does any member of that committee do so.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The moving of concurrence was to oblige hon. gentlemen opposite, so that they might have this opportunity of discussion. The government would not have moved concurrence but for that reason.


John George Diefenbaker: They were very anxious to move concurrence so far as No. 3 report was concerned. The only question that was raised by the opposition was this, that in moving concurrence in No. 3 report 
there should at the same time be brought in the other reports so as to enable hon. members to discuss them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even that was at the request-


John George Diefenbaker: I never interrupted the hon. member except to ask a couple of very simple questions. I wish he would be quiet until I get through with my argument and then he can make any speech he pleases.
Here we as members of the house are asked to find that a member made statements that were false, and we are so asked by a committee which does not bring before us the evidence that was taken before it. Instead it brings before us, and I ask hon. members to read the evidence of that committee, only such portions of the evidence as have been extracted and which point conclusively to the conclusions arrived at by the committee. Subject to the circumscription that is necessary by reason of public safety, we have the right to the evidence unexpurgated by any committee. For if we do not demand it in this case-and I am entering into no controversy as to the rights or wrongs of the matter-there is not a member of this house, making a statement in the house, who might not, if the government saw fit to submit the matter to a favourable committee, be found not to have stated tire truth, or to have made false allegations. The independence of members of this House of Commons is at stake. We have lost many of our rights in recent years. There has been a diminution of those rights all along the line, and I know that when I take this stand the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as was the case yesterday, may suggest the possibility of an election unless we are servile and support what the government places before the country and the house, whether it meets with or without our approval. But, Mr. Speaker, we as members of this house, regardless of political considerations, must uphold the rights of other members no matter whether agreeing with those other members politically or not.
It is in that spirit that I approach the discussion of this matter to-day. I was one who believed in the constitution of this committee. I was one who supported this committee at its inception, and I was one to whom the former chairman, now a distinguished judge of the exchequer court, paid a tribute for the contribution I endeavoured to make.
I believed, Mr. Speaker, that economies could be effected, that economies could be maintained by continual watchfulness of expenditures. I believe, as was mentioned yesterday, that the committee should forget

War Expenditures-Mr. Diefenbaker
political considerations, should look, criticize and recommend. Now we find ourselves in this position. The chairman of the committee moves concurrence in the report. He says the report is based upon certain evidence. The committee quotes certain evidence-or at least a summary of it-and it asks me as a member of the house to find, with that committee, that statements made by a member of the house are not in accordance with the facts.
Much is made of the fact that the meetings of the committee were in camera. That is no excuse for the non-production of the evidences Three years ago in the house the then chairman pointed out the difference between "in camera" and "in secret"-and there is a very great difference, one which has been pointed out on more than one occasion. "In camera" simply means not in open court; in a private room. "In secret" means-and this was not a secret committee; it was a committee in camera-"private, unrevealed, not to be known or exposed to view."
A moment ago the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) mentioned that there were certain witnesses who would not have given evidence if they had not been assured that their evidence would not be used. Committees of parliament, Mr. Speaker, have the power to subpoena witnesses and to enforce the giving of testimony. Just because in these particular cases certain witnesses were called without being subpoenaed is no justification for the stand taken by the hon. member that they would not have given evidence had they not received that protection.
Mr. GOLDING; Just speak for yourself; that is your opinion. It is not mine.


John George Diefenbaker: I am supported by the rules in that connection. The committees set up in Great Britain in this as in the last war report, but their reports are merely laid on the table of the house; they are not debated. No member of the House of Commons in Great Britain can be convicted of a falsehood or fault found with him, without a trial, but that will result from this motion being passed, although the evidence is not before us, and without our being able to see for ourselves whether or not there was evidence upon which the conclusions in question could be made.
As a matter of fact it is impossible for us in this house to come to any conclusion without the evidence. Unless we have it we are dependent upon the conclusions arrived at by a committee of parliament. I am supported in that view by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), now the chairman of 100-47
the committee, who when he spoke in this house in July of 1943, as reported at page 4990 of Hansard, used these words:
It is obvious that the committee cannot intelligently debate a committee report founded on evidence taken in camera-evidence which is not before the house.
This is a statement made in the debate on a report by the hon. member who now, as chairman of the committee, asks the house to do what he said he could not have done less than eight months ago.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Purely as a matter of courtesy to the opposition to permit discussion of the report.


John George Diefenbaker: I am merely calling as a witness in support of my contention the hon. member who is now chairman of the committee, and who has moved concurrence in the report.
In addition to that, I asked him yesterday to say whether there was any reason why he might have changed his opinion, or whether there had been any change in recent months In regard to reports to be made by the committee. At page 696 of Hansard we find his reply in these words:
Mr. Cleaver: Well, my hon. friend can read the order of reference as well as I can, but on several occasions I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicate that if the war expenditures committee found any wrongdoing we were at liberty, and it was our duty, to report the matter either to the House of Commons or to the public accounts committee. Last year we were given the further right to make confidential reports to the Prime Minister if any wrongdoing should be discovered which in the public interest should not be disclosed.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Has there been any change in the powers of the committee since it was first set up?
Mr. Cleaver: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this time will not be charged against me, but I believe I can find the reference for my hon. friend. The only change of which I am aware was the change requested in the report tabled on July 19, 1943, paragraph 5 of -which reads as follows:
"In cases where consideration of national security precludes the publishing of certain recommendations and of the arguments upon which they are based, to address a memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the war cabinet, providing that the committee shall, -whenever it has exercised such powers, report the fact as soon as possible to the house."
So that there has not been any change. Today conditions are the same as they were in July, 1943, when the hon. member gave us the benefit of his views on the subject.
I pass now to a more serious objection, namely, that the committee has no power to report wrongdoing to the house or to the people of Canada. That is a very serious matter. To-day we have a high level of

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker
taxation, by which tremendous amounts are being raised, and we have a responsibility to assure the people that full value is being received for expenditures made in the conduct of our war effort. The people have a right to demand that wasteful and extravagant expenditures shall be investigated, and what is more important, reported upon. To-day, in the fifth year of the -war, the committee has had four years of operation. There is no power in the war expenditures committee as yet to report wrongdoing or to report examples of extravagance, either to the people or to the house. What we did in the house in 1940 was to appoint a watchdog to guard the treasury and then muzzle him for the period of the war. That is exactly the position of the war expenditures committee. It is set up, leading the people to believe that extravagance and wrongdoing can be reported; then it is muzzled, and it is denied the right to report such wrongdoing as it may find.
This statement might appear to be contrary to the facts, but again I call as my witness the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halton, who, following me in the debate on June 10, 1941, as reported at page 3753 of Hansard, said this:
The next point covered by the hon. member for Lake Centre was that the committee had no power to report as to wrongdoing. Possibly that is right, but whether we had the right to do it or not I wish to inform the house that their subcommittee No. 1 headed into every complaint of wrongdoing of which we as a committee had notice.
It might have headed in, but the people of Canada demand more than heading in; they demand the revelation of wrongdoing if it is present, and the punishment of those who are guilty.


Hughes Cleaver: Does my hon. friend suggest that any subcommittee of the war expenditures committee found any wrongdoing anywhere without reporting it promptly?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Hughes Cleaver: Because if he does, he is entirely in error.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend, being a lawyer, first asks a question and then answers it.


Hughes Cleaver: Exactly what you were doing.


John George Diefenbaker: But I was corroborated by the rules and regulations of this house. I remember well that in 1941 I ascertained a situation in regard to certain civilian flying schools and disclosed the fact that full value was not being received by the people of Canada from the operation of these schools.


Hughes Cleaver: These remarks refer to our committee work in 1941. So long as I am in order in replying, I am quite content that my hon. friend should refer to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot hear my hon. friend; I do not know what he is saying. I do know that as a result of the facts I had obtained I personally brought before the House of Commons certain evidence on which I had secured corroboration. In the middle of May, 1942, during the debate on the air estimates, I brought out the fact that these civilian schools were making profits on their investment, as I remember now, of from 41 to 100 per cent. At that time the minister for air castigaied me for having brought out that evidence; he could not believe it was possible; but the next day he got up in the house and said that things were going to change. The minister for air promised a change; he acted and the thing ended. But this action was not attained because of the activities of my hon. friend over there, who all through the piece endeavoured to convince the people of this country that all was well in connection with civilian schools and their operation.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must consent to the asking of a question.


Hughes Cleaver: I was rather generous yesterday in connection with interruptions.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member may ask a question, but I do not want his argument along with it. What is the question?


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friend has stated that the subcomipittee did not act. I know he does not want to make a misstatement, and I should like to refer him to the committee's report.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the question?


Hughes Cleaver: I want to refer the hon. member to the report of the committee which dealt with the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Hughes Cleaver: Perhaps he will permit a question.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member does not wish to be interrupted, he should not be.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member permit me?

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: I am perfectly
courteous at all times in debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put your question on
the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I am willing at all
times to answer questions, but I am not prepared to permit my hon. friend to produce self-serving statements instead of asking questions.


Hughes Cleaver: In future we will make it mutual.


John George Diefenbaker: I pointed out the seriousness of the situation. If we accept concurrence in this report we shall be blindly and without knowledge making findings in this supreme court of parliament not based on any evidence. What we are beiqg asked to do is to make a finding in regard to a member of this parliament. We shall be supporting the findings of a committee which are based upon evidence about which we know nothing and which we are denied the opportunity of seeing. We are being asked as the high court of parliament to agree to the findings of a committee, to come to the conclusion that those findings, which are based on secret evidence are correct, evidence about which we have no inkling and in respect to which there is no agreement among the participants on the committee.
This is a serious matter. I am not thinking for the moment of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, with whom I do not often see eye to eye; what I am thinking of is how our rights have been diminished and how we are gradually being placed in the position where if we dare to speak out, if we show our independence and fail to display the necessary servility, we are faced with the threat that we are not cooperating in this war effort. We have rights as members of this house. I appeal to the members on all sides not to give approval to this motion of concurrence, which is just another step along the road to a denial to the members of this house of the right of independent speech.
I remember last summer when the hon. member for York-Sunbury, then the leader of the opposition, made certain statements in regard to a situation in the grain trade. They were brought before a committee, and, according to the report of the committee, which was founded entirely on political faith, he was found not to have been correct in his statements. I.make an appeal to the Prime Minister which I have made before. Do not ask us to concur in a report that condemns a member of this house of having deceived the house and the country. I appeal to the Prime Minister to have the motion withdrawn, and 100-47i
not to ask the members of this house to line up blindly to support a motion which in effect says to the people of the countiy that an hon. member of this house has stated what is untrue. If an hon. member states what is untrue he deserves condemnation from every member of this house. But to condemn him without giving him the opportunity of having placed before this house the evidence upon which he is to be condemned is unfair, unjustifiable, un-British-yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a farcical position in which to place the parliament of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before
my hon. friend concludes, may I say that he has asked' the government to withdraw this motion. The purpose of the government in bringing forward the motion was to meet the request of hon. gentlemen opposite. If the house will give its unanimous consent the government will withdraw the motion immediately.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, some clarification may be necessary in view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just said. It is all right for hon. members to indulge in hilarity, but this is nbt a subject for . hilarious discussion. Moreover, what the Prime Minister has just said is apt to leave a wrong impression. I want to give a right impression to the Prime Minister and to the house, and it is this. Earlier in the debates of the house this session, the question of the time that would be taken in constituting the committees of the house was a subject of discussion between the Prime Minister and myself, and I am not so sure that other hon. members did not participate in the discussion. In any event, the Prime. Minister and myself took part in a discussion, and at that time I mentioned why the setting up of the committees last year took so long. There were several committees which it took considerable time to set up. The social security committee took a day and a half, and the reconstruction committee took something like two or three days. At all events it was considerably longer than I or the Prime Minister himself had expected. One of the reasons I advanced at that time why it was taking so long to set up the committees was that there were so many matters dragging over from the previous session to be discussed. Then the whole question came up of the reports of committees of the previous session. The report of the war expenditures committee was one report which was tabled at the end of last session, on the 28th day of January, I pointed out to the Prime Minister at that time that when the war expenditures committee or any of these
740	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Mackenzie King
committees were being set up, one might normally look for an extension of the usual time of discussion because the reports of the previous session would* naturally foe discussed on the motion to appoint the committees.
The first intimation I had of a motion for concurrence in the report of the war expenditures committee was when its chairman, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), approached me with respect to the whole question of concurrence in its reports. If my memory is correct-it is only a recollection, and I do not want in any way to colour it-I am inclined to think that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was anxious that concurrence should be moved in at least the third report, which had to do with aluminum. That was the impression I got. I made it very clear that I would take up the matter of concurrence with members of our own party, and I think the hon. member for Halton will bear me out when I say I told him that so far as our party here was concerned we were not pressing for concurrence in these reports. I think that is a proper and correct account of what took place.
When the Prime Minister moved that the reports be considered at this session of the house, only the third report was mentioned by him, but as one report was to foe concurred in, I suggested that there was no reason why all the reports should not be concurred in at the same time. That is the position* so far as we are concerned, and we ought to have that put on the record. So far as the facts go, I do not think there is any real distinction between our positions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see that what my hon. friend has just said matters very much one way or the other in regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) just before taking his seat. He then said, and it was to that suggestion I addressed myself, that he hoped the government would not ask the house to vote concurrence in these reports. I then rose and said that the only reason the govemmenl had permitted the resolution asking concurrence in the reports was that it was necessary to bring forward such a motion in order that the house might debate matters referred to in the committee's reports. Hon. gentlemen opposite had said that they wished to debate these reports. It was to oblige them that this resolution was introduced from the government side. It was impossible to debate these matters generally unless there was a motion to concur in the reports. I want to make it very clear that the reason the motion was brought forward to concur in the reports at the time it was, was to enable hon. gentle-
[M: Graydon.]
men to discuss freely the whole question of matters affecting the war expenditures committee, to discuss what was in the report of last year and any other matters they might wish to discuss. My hon. friend himself was one who suggested that instead of having two discussions we have the whole discussion in the first instance, namely, on the reports, and that this discussion once concluded the war expenditures committee would be appointed at once.
I desired to have the committees, in accordance with the wish of the house, set up just as early in the session as possible. To permit of this was the reason for permitting the present discussion. It was necessary to precede the motion to set up the committee on war expenditures by this resolution to concur in the reports if we were to have that preliminary discussion in that way.
I repeat, if hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to be asked to approve these reports, I am perfectly prepared and the government is prepared immediately to have the resolution withdrawn and end the discussion here and now. But my hon. friends cannot have it both ways. They cannot both ask that we should give them the opportunity to discuss indefinitely, and not be asked to approve the reports, and at the same time suggest that we should withdraw the resolution and not ask them to vote upon it. I say that I am quite prepared to have the resolution withdrawn at once, if that is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite, and if, having regard to the necessary procedure, the house will give its unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: May I say with respect to that, it was not entirely a matter of accommodation or convenience to us. That should be made clear at the outset. The Prime Minister knows that it was only by way of regularizing matters that the discussion was held on the motion for concurrence, so that it would not come upon the motion to set up the war expenditures committee. The government would have found itself in an awkward and embarrassing position if the discussion had come upon the motion to set up the committee. So that it was not a matter of accommodating us but of accommodating the house generally. Moreover, I would say to the Prime Minister that to withdraw his motion now would be tantamount to shutting off any discussion of the reports of the war expenditures committee. The opposition is anxious to have the evidence taken by the committee brought down. But the motion for concurrence has been made, and an amendment has been moved to it, and we at least have the right to discuss the question whether the evidence shall be tabled.

War Expenditures-Mr. Gray don
May I make it very clear to the Prime Minister that having listened to the statements that have been made by one member after another of the war expenditures committee I can see no reason of security or national interest which would prevent the tabling of the evidence. For that reason, and since I certainly am opposed to the government making any move now to discourage the discussion, I say this: when the discussion has taken place, let the government withdraw their motion. That is the proper way. The government must not ask that the debate should now cease.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It is your suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that a discussion between the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and myself is out of order, but, Your Honour having permitted the leader of the opposition to speak as often as he has, I might be allowed one further word in reference to the matter we are discussing, I would remind my hon. friend and the house that the report was tabled at the close of last session. When this session began its proceedings I was asked whether the report would be discussed at this session, and I replied-and my words will be found on Hansard-that reports which were made in a previous session died, so to speak, with the session and that they were not to be taken up at a new session. That was the position which I took, and took rightly, on behalf of the government. Then it was that the request was made that there should be a chance to discuss some of these matters which were referred to in the report and which hon. gentlemen opposite wished to discuss. I was led to believe that if they were given that opportunity it would probably shorten discussion on the motion to establish a committee on war expenditure. It was then to oblige hon. gentlemen opposite the government took the only means possible to that end, namely to have a resolution brought in which would enable the report to be discussed at this session and later a motion for concurrence, and thereby allow this discussion to take place. Of course it requires the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw a motion, and the leader of the opposition evidently takes a different view of the matter from that taken by his distinguished follower from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Gordon Graydon: No, I did not. The Prime Minister cannot say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It
is obvious.


Gordon Graydon: It may be obvious to you, but-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just allow the record to speak for itself and leave it at that.


Gordon Graydon: I would like, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Well, if the record is
going to speak for itself the record is going to be there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The record is
there now.


Gordon Graydon: I just want to say this to the Prime Minister, that at a proper time in this debate, after the country has heard the pros and cons of this, we will consent, as my hon. friend suggested, to the government withdrawing the motion. But it is a question of time. There is no distinction or difference on this between the hon. member for Lake Centre and myself, although the Prime Minister now tries to put words into my mouth in order to show a difference between us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Graydon: Just a minute. The hon. member was telling me yesterday that it is a bad thing to be interrupting. I want him to take his own advice. I say to the Prime Minister, let us get the record clear. If the government wants to withdraw this motion, when the debate is concluded, without a vote, I am quite agreeable, and that will also meet the wishes of the hon. member for Lake Centre; there is no difference between us.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Withdraw it after they . have refused the evidence.


Thomas Vien: This whole discussion, I need not point out to the house, is entirely out of order.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is interesting, though.


Thomas Vien: I should like to draw the attention of the house, with reference to the discussion which has taken place, to citation 3S3 of Beauchesne:
Where an amendment has been proposed to a question, the original motion cannot be withdrawn until the amendment has been first disposed of by being agreed to, withdrawn or negatived, as the question on the amendment stands before the original motion.


Gordon Graydon: Then the Prime Minister is out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So were you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In good working order 1
War Expenditures-Mr. Slaght


Thomas Vien: Standing order 53 provides that a member who has made a motion may withdraw same by leave of the house, such leave being granted without any negative
voice.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: I desire to address myself briefly to the amend

ment before the house. I had not intended to speak on this motion at all, but I wish to call the attention of hon. members to what I regard as a very unfortunate position that we have drifted into by reason of the presentation of this amendment. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Sterling) asks that the evidence taken in camera be tabled. Let me say in passing that I have formed no opinion one way or the other on the merits of the real dispute here. I should hesitate, indeed, speaking for myself, to reach a conclusion that my friend the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has deliberately made any misstatement to this house. I wish to record that. But I am impressed with this situation. The committee, sitting in camera by their own choice and motion, desired to have before them in evidence certain contracts, as is apparent from this debate and as all members of that committee-of which I was not a member-are aware. On their behalf, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), instead of wanting to hold back anything, took the course of asking the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Australia to permit the contracts made by them with the Aluminum Company, and the circumstances under which they were made, ito be placed in evidence before the committee. Those governments at first declined, and upon being pressed by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, reluctantly consented to these contracts being placed in evidence on the definite understanding and condition that they should be received by the committee in camera.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is no evidence of that.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is all in the record.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is in the record in this debate. I do not know whether the hon. member was a member of the committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I was.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Will he rise in his place and say that they were not procured on that understanding?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: So far as I know, no.
* Mr. Mackenzie King.]


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Then the hon. member must have been away. It is not permissible perhaps to read from a current debate, but the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated here yesterday definitely, in effect, that he procured these documents and this evidence for that committee on that understanding; they were placed before the committee on that understanding; no member of the committee in this house rose to question that statement, and I accept it as true in substance and in fact. I do not desire to be controversial in this matter; I repeat, I have formed no opinion on the merits of this question. But I do think we ought to have some regard in the parliament of Canada for the solemn undertakings of the government of Canada; and if the hon. member for Danforth, supported by the hon. member for Yale, and praised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker)-a member of my profession-and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon)- a member of my profession-will pause for a moment to see the position in which they propose to place the Canadian government, if their amendment should carry, in the eyes of our mother country and our sister commonwealth nation of Australia, then it seems to me that they will take a grave responsibility so to act in the name of the Canadian parliament, and I shall oppose it as long as I am able to. Let there be no doubt about that. These documents were forthcoming, and the evidence surrounding them was given on the distinct pledge of that committee, given through the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who helped the committee to get them. The pledge was that the secrecy of in camera would be preserved with reference to them. Need a Canadian parliament go any farther? Personally I should like to have had all the evidence placed before this house. I should like to have read it and to have discussed it.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: When I am through, if my hon. friend will wait.
I say, therefore, that it would be a gross breach of an undertaking by Canada to the mother country and to Australia to give effect to the amendment now before the house and to table the contracts with the evidence surrounding them. My reason for saying that is that the committee received them on the understanding that they were to be received in camera. Now, what is your question?


George Russell Boucher: Would my hon. friend tell the house what "in camera" does mean,

War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver
or if he agrees with the meaning put on it
by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) ?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes, I do, and it certainly means this: that the motherland and Australia provided, for their own protection and for their own purposes, with which we are not concerned, that the evidence and documents would not be tabled in the Canadian House of Commons and made available to Hansard and open for discussion and reading in this house. It certainly means that. Because of that I appeal to the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Danforth, than whom no one in this house has a higher reputation in the industrial world for keeping his word, for refusing to breach an undertaking, and the hon. member for Yale, an outstanding member with the reputation of not going back on an undertaking to which he is a party. The same reference with regard to reputation applies to all hon. members who have spoken and who were members of that committee, including the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). If the house has a true realization of what we would place ourselves in were we to pass the amendment, let us drop this controversy. I appeal to the mover and the seconder to withdraw the amendment.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to receive an answer from the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in regard to a statement which he made respecting the work of subcommittee No. 1, during the year 1941 when it investigated the British commonwealth air training plan. I know That my hon. friend would want me to put the record straight. What I am about to say clearly illustrates once again that human memory is often frail. My hon. friend stated that civilian companies operating air observer schools were inquired into in 1941; that the committee was remiss in its duty in not taking steps to remedy some conditions which should not have existed at that time; that as a result the hon. member for Lake Centre felt impelled in 1942 to bring the matter to 'the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and that he did so during the session of 1942.
I hold in my hand the report of subcommittee No. 1, dated November 3, 1941. This report was tabled in the house on that date. I oall your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact, first, that the report was tabled in the house the session preceding the one during which my hon.. friend states he brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Air. I wish to thank my hon.
friend for bringing up this point, because it clearly illustrates the manner in which the war expenditures committee functions, a helpful and vigilant manner, seeking to redress wrongs, seeking to find waste and to cure waste, seeking to do that without taking political advantage or do anything that would be harmful to the war effort. I am reading from page 556 of Votes and Proceedings, Monday, November 3, 1941:
The subcommittee fully appreciates the fact that the air observer schools are being very efficiently managed and that these schools are performing an important war task. . . .


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member who is now speaking took exception last night to my making some comments regarding what had taken place at a previous session, and the Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, called me to order. I was not permitted to continue my speech. I see no reason why the hon. member for Halton should be permitted to discuss this question, particularly having regard to the rule that was drawn to my attention.


Hughes Cleaver: I believe Your Honour was in the Chair when the hon. member for Lake Centre raised this point. I believe it was understood I would have ' an opportunity to answer it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Understood by whom?


Thomas Vien: There was no understanding you have 'the right to reply to the hon. member, as far as I am concerned. The hon. member has the right to speak on the amendment because he has not spoken previously. I -have Taeen -following -the argument of the hon. member very carefully. I presume he is endeavouring to show to the house the reason for the actions of the committee with regard to the matters under consideration, and also the subject of the amendment, namely, the production of the evidence. He has not dealt with that, but I assumed he was leading up to that point, and I am bringing it to his attention.


Hughes Cleaver: Let me continue the
quotation from our report:
The subcommittee fully appreciates the fact that the air observer schools are being very efficiently managed and that these schools are performing an important war task and also appreciates the fact that measures of economy should not be permitted to slow up our war effort but as the actual circumstances have altered sharply since the contract was * first entered into the subcommittee decided that a conference should be called of executive officers representing all of the schools, that the facts should be frankly placed before them and their cooperation invited. The conference was held on June 4-
War Expenditures-Mr. Cleaver

That is the June preceding the year 1942 to which my hon. friend referred.
-and as a result the operating companies have all voluntarily offered to agree to a reduction of what is described in the agreement as flying hour profits from $1 per flying hour to 35 cents per flying hour.
That was a reduction of sixty-five per cent in the profit to Ithe air observer schools. And the contracts were re-negotiated and re-signed with the sixty-five per cent reduction. That was all done the year before my hon. friend raised the point in the House of Commons.
I do not intend to delay the house long, but since my name has been drawn into the discussion I should like to make a brief statement. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) mentioned my name in the statement which he made, and I should like to make it abundantly clear-I do not think he did, though I am not suggesting that he did it intentionally-that I never at any time suggested that a motion for concurrence in a war expenditures committee report should be voted upon.
The problem arose in the past. Your Honour had already ruled at previous sessions that a motion to set up a committee is a motion to set up a committee and that members cannot discuss, on a motion to set up a committee, anything that had to do with committee reports or other extraneous matters of that kind, that the debate was restricted purely to the motion before the house, namely, the motion to set up the committee. That had the effect of restraining members of the opposition who wished to criticize the work of the committee and its reports and preventing that criticism from taking place, and I well remember the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) wanting a year ago to discuss the report on a particular matter and the Chair ruled the discussion out of order on that ground.
Then we are faced with the other problem, that under the rules of the house the committee reports are dealt with in the session in which they are tabled, if at all. So that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who w'as deeply interested in the aluminum report, mentioned in his first speech in this house at this session that he intended to discuss the aluminum report, or words to that effect, on the setting up of the committee, obviously if that debate were to take place something had to be done to regularize it. Then, too, later on there were some suggestions from members of the opposition that they wished to debate the aluminum report.
On one or two occasions I asked the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) if there were any other reports of the 1943 committee which the opposition wished to debate, because,

while I have not receded at all from the position which I have always taken, that the house cannot intelligently debate a committee report based on evidence taken in camera, yet I do not wish to be accused for a moment of attempting to stifle or to prevent hon. members of any of the opposition parties from expressing themselves freely with respect to any work done by the war expenditures committee. The result of the entire problem was that, as it appeared, the only way we could regularize the debate with respect to the full work of the war expenditures committee was that a motion should be made that the reports tabled in the previous year should be considered at this session, and then bring on the actual debate on a motion for concurrence.
I do not think it was in anyone's mind that a vote would be taken and that the matter would be pressed to a vote on the motion for concurrence. Certainly it was not in my mind, and the sole purpose of the present motion is to permit hon. members of the opposition groups to make any and all and sundry complaints which they wished to make with respect to any part of the work of the war expenditures committee.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: The
question, before the house at the moment is simply whether the evidence should be tabled, and it is to that question I desire to direct my remarks. It seems to me that the argument that should impel our minds is a very simple one. I wish to join in the strongest possible terms with- the forceful statements made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). The honour of the house is the highest argument that can be pleaded. My hon. friend has shown that to table this evidence would be to break faith with our sister parliaments in England and in Australia. That should be sufficient. But there is a further point, almost as forceful as that, which I should like to lay before the house.
It has been stated by hon. members who know the facts that witnesses have come before this committee and have been assured by the chairman that their remarks were in camera, and they were gjven to understand that their evidence was secret. It is not possible for any member of that committee to say that statements of the kind were on the responsibility of the chairman alone, and bound him only, because every member of that committee, no matter to which party he may belong, who sat and listened to the evidence given by the witnesses, as the result of and following the assurance given, bound himself by his silence to the undertaking given by the chairman. And for any hon. member

War Expenditures-Mr. Roebuck
of the house, I care not to which party he belongs, whether it be government or opposition, now to vote to break the pledge of the chairman, is to vote to break his own pledge, tacitly given to the witnesses.
I would not for one moment presume to teach ethics to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He is a member of the same high profession to which I belong. I would recall to his mind, however, that when we were students at school the consideration which we were told was the highest that could actuate the doings of a solicitor was that of keeping faith, being honourable and decent and proper in one's conduct. The hon. gentleman has said that this committee is a watchdog for the house. Well, a watchdog is a rather poor dog that is not an honest dog. I say that if this committee violates its pledge and its assurance to the witnesses it is not an honest committee. And any member who violates a pledge of that kind is not an honest member, or at least he is not dealing honestly with witnesses before the committee. I go one step farther. The members of this committee are representatives or I might say agents of this house. They are commissioned by this house to make the inquiry on our behalf, and so a pledge given by that committee is bind1-ing upon the house itself and, I submit, upon every hon. member of this house. For any hon. member to vote to violate a pledge of that kind'-well, it is unthinkable. I am sure it will not be done by any hon. member of this house if he simply thinks about what he is doing.
I know it was arguable at one time whether or not evidence should be taken in secret or in camera. That is a subject which is open- to argument. I am inclined to think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put the argument so strongly that it should carry most minds. Still, the question as to whether the evidence should be taken in private or in public is a matter of argument. But once it has been taken in secret, it is no longer a matter of argument; it is beyond argument whether we should then later on make it public. I say, that is beyond argument.
They say that honesty is the best policy, the wisest course to pursue. I suppose that is open to argument, but I do not propose to argue it. I have been taught that and I accept it, that honesty is the best policy. Philosophically it may be different; I do not know, but I am not going to enter into that question. It may be possible for one to grow wealthy by being dishonest, but I for one am not in that business. I do not argue that question. I accept the principle of honesty.
So, too, one may convenience himself, as it has been suggested we should do. I would like to see the evidence and read it. There may be other reasons as well why, as a matter of expediency rather than of principle, this evidence should be brought down.
But I come back to my principle, and I say that keeping good faith with those with whom one is associated is a far more important consideration than mere expediency or convenience. I say, therefore, the arguments I have heard in support of bringing down the evidence are aside from the point; they are futile. They should hardly be expressed. Our hands are bound, irrespective of our convenience or our expediency, as a matter of honour. I would like my constituents to know that I voted against this amendment, upon my honour as a member of this house.	1


Mr. M. J. EDWARDS (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that as one whose name is proposed to be added to the list which will constitute this committee at the next session, I have not been greatly exercised or greatly disturbed in my mind about the facts in connection with the case, but rather as to the modus operandi of our committee. The more so was my anxiety aroused by reason of the principle enunciated in the house last night by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, when he said, as reported at page 703 of Hansard:
That evidence was given not in secret but in camera, and there is a very well defined rule that evidence given in camera is not given in secret, that a member has to be guided by his own conscience as to what he will subsequently divulge. I want that to be clearly understood, because that is the difference between secrecy and in camera.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the case. Evidence which has been given secretly cannot be divulged. -
I was greatly exercised to hear that principle announced as the one which should be followed, and I assume it is the one followed by the leader of the C.C.F. and that his followers feel they are entitled to follow. It is obvious, from what had preceded, in the discussion, that the chairman of the war expenditures committee did not put that interpretation upon the words "in camera". Hon. members will recall that when he chided some members of the committee for having divulged some of the evidence given before the committee in camera, all the members of the war expenditures committee from the official opposition, with one exception, were prompt to rise in their places and repudiate the suggestion that they had in any way broken this pledge, or the implied promise of secrecy



War Expenditures-Mr. Edwards
involved in the fact that the meetings at which they sat were held in camera. No such protest was heard from the members of the C.C.F. That was hardly necessary because I understand the constitution of the committee was such that only one member of that party, the one who happens to be its leader, was at that time its member of the committee. He announced an entirely different principle, stating, "True, the meetings were held in camera, but that is- different from being held in secret. And what I shall reveal or may say after the hearing would be entirely within my own discretion, or as my conscience dictates."
Is that the principle to be adopted? Is that the principle approved by the house in regard to the conduct of the proceedings in the house and in committee? If I am to sit on any war expenditures committee, or any other committee, I for one would like to know what is meant when it is said that we may hold or shall hold our meetings in camera. Does that mean that I may be the sole judge, according to the dictates of my conscience, of what I shall reveal to the outside world? Surely that is not the position? Surely that is not the principle to guide us in our deliberations in the house? If so, then I for one will not be a party to sitting in any committee held in camera.
I admire the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). He certainly had that idea, namely, that when he sat in a committee "in camera" le could not discuss or reveal any of the information he obtained therein. He said, in effect, "I will refuse to sit in the committee when it is sitting in camera, because my mouth would be sealed with regard to any information disclosed therein".


William Henry Golding: That was his opinion.


Manley Justin Edwards: The amendment proposes in effect and in fact that the house shall reverse the decision made by the committee itself, the committee to which it gave full judisdiction and control as to the method in which it would conduct its proceedings. I for one would disapprove, on principle, any such proceeding by the house, not alone for the very high ground taken by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), namely, that international relationships may be affected, but on what to my way of thinking is an equally high ground, namely, our own national security, and the honour and integrity of our own membership.
It does seem to me that if no rule is laid down we shall never get anywhere, in so far as having any effective work done by these committees is concerned. I suggest that this

afternoon we have been more concerned with personalities and personal reputations than with the object for which these committees were set up. If we were to view, the work of these committees objectively rather than subjectively, and not in so far as the reputation of individuals is concerned, I submit that there would be little or no discussion about the report. I for one deplore the fact that it was found necessary to move concurrence in these reports. I certainly would not have expected the leader of the C.C.F. group or any of his supporters to vote concurrence in that report. Why? Because the report refers specifically to charges made by him and his personal reputation for probity and maybe honesty is involved in this report.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a question of privilege. It has been said several times to-day that my personal integrity, my personal honour and my personal probity are involved in this report and that I am on trial. I was a member of that committee which inquired inito aluminum, not into me personally. Had that happened, the investigation -would have taken an entirely different line. While I am on my feet may I say that, as far as the evidence is concerned I believe now that it has to be tabled. The speech I made last night was on the report, not on the evidence, as I can show by the documentation of everything I said.


Manley Justin Edwards: May I draw to the hon. member's attention the paragraph from which I quoted, to be found on page 703 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
I submit that I have used the figures and the evidence given to the committee and quoted in the report before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: And quoted in the report before ithe house.


Manley Justin Edwards: Yes, but I ask the hon. member to listen to his next statement:
"I have also, in a very few particulars, referred to the evidence which was given in the committee."
Not in the report.


Major James William Coldwell: But I did not quote it.


Manley Justin Edwards: You referred to it.


Major James William Coldwell: You will find in the public records ithe statement I referred to last night.


Manley Justin Edwards: I leave it to any fair person to draw his own conclusion in regard to that. The third report, under the heading "Genesis of Inquiry" states:
The necessity for the inquiry arose as a result of certain statements or allegations made in the House of Commons by Mr. M. J. Coldwell, M.P.-

War Expenditures-Mr. Edwards


Major James William Coldwell: Was that in the order
of reference?


Manley Justin Edwards: This is in the opening paragraph of the committee's repont.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not in the terms of reference and I oppose that sentence.


Manley Justin Edwards: I am only stating what the report states.


Major James William Coldwell: That is why I am opposing it.


Manley Justin Edwards: I continue:
-leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, and particularly on June 14, 1943.
Then the allegations are set out. The conclusions of the report contain the following paragraph:
For these reasons set out in the foregoing report your subcommittee finds that none of the allegations is substantiated by the facts.
I submit that the opening and the conclusion of that report are offensive to the hon. member, and they should be. I further submit that the committee did something that it should not have done. It dignified the hon. member's allegations and gave them prominence to which they were not entitled. If that practice is adopted every private member will be able to rise, in his place and make some allegation, true or untrue, and perforce it will be sent to one or another of these committees for investigation and approval or disapproval of the allegation. That individual or the party to which he belongs would be the matter in issue rather than that which is the main function for which these committees were set up, namely, the investigation and report on what economies may be effected Surely these committees were not set up to vindicate or discredit an individual's reputation or allegations. As I conceived it, and as I believe was understood by all members of this house, and as is stated in the terms of reference, these committees were set up to examine expenditures defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services and for other services directly connected with the war. Their job was to report not what they found, but to report what, if any, economy could be effected. Their job was not to prove or disprove any charge made by a member of this house or by somebody outside or to justify or discredit the position taken by any individual or group.
A minister of the crown has given his solemn undertaking to Great Britain and Australia, and possibly to the United States, that this evidence would not be divulged to the public, 100-48J
and to take this action would be to accomplish a breach of his obligation. It would also Ire a breach of the undertaking expressed or implied to every man who appeared before the committee to give evidence.
Mr. BLACK .(Cumberland): Does the hon. member think the witnesses who appeared before the committee would not have told the truth if the sittings had been open sittings?


Manley Justin Edwards: That is a matter of
opinion for my hon. friend to answer in his way and for me to answer in my way. If you will produce the witness and let me examine him I shall form an opinion. As I say, it is purely a matter of opinion whether certain individuals will tell the truth under a given set of circumstances.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I consider it to be a reflection upon the witnesses and I think it is also a reflection on our house and this parliament when it is said that we cannot get honest evidence from witnesses who appear before a committee set up by this parliament.


Manley Justin Edwards: No one even suggests that. Does the hon. member suggest that every witness who appeared before the committee told nothing but the truth and the whole truth?


Gordon Graydon: You have to assume that, do you not?


Manley Justin Edwards: I do not think you have to assume that. None of them was sworn.


Gordon Graydon: Was none of the witnesses sworn?


Manley Justin Edwards: No; I have not heard of any. -


Mr. GLADSTONE:: Yes, they were sworn.


Gordon Graydon: If they were not, it would be a strange thing.


Manley Justin Edwards: I for one, Mr. Speaker, would be glad to have the direction of some wise person, from yourself, as to what the term "in camera" means as used in the records and proceedings of this house. I have found in the parliamentary debates of the British House of Commons, under date of May 21, 1941, that the very same question arose, and with your permission, sir, I should like to refer to page 1541 thereof, where before the house Sir H. Williams' rose in his place and said:
On a point of order, I should like your guidance, sir, in a matter which affects myself incidentally, and a number of other members of the select committee on national expenditure.
War Expenditures-Mr. Church


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few moments to refer to the text of the resolution setting up the war expenditures committee and to the amendment which has been moved by the hori. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) to the motion for concurrence. When the hon. member for Danforth moved his amendment, as reported at page 707 of Hansard, on February 21, he referred to the appointment of the war expenditures committee in 1941, the first year it was appointed, and to its reappointment in 1942, when there was a long debate in the house on the text of the resolution setting up the committee. I objected at that time to the text of the resolution; for I felt, in view of the statements made in the house by the government, that the committee when appointed would have its hands tied behind its back, having being committed to the exact text of the resolution, which prevented the committee from deciding on questions of government policy such as those to which the hon. member for Danforth referred.
Talk about giving comfort to the enemy! Why, Mr. Speaker, the enemy knows all about it; there is no doubt about that. I read the record of the debates of congress at Washington which I receive almost every day, and there they have an extensive debate on the cost of power, the aluminum deal, the work of United States companies in Canada, the large capital expenditures made by these companies here in peace and war, the development of the national resources, and so forth. All these matters have been discussed publicly. Nobody wants to give comfort to the enemy. There is not a member on this side of the house who wants to do anything except help the government to carry on the war effort as long as it is doing so efficiently.
fMr. Edwards.]
Addressing myself to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Danforth, I wish to quote what I said on March 5, 1941, as reported at page 1259 of Hansard when I predicted and objected to the very state of affairs that has come about in this war expenditure committee, which reminds me almost of the committee of one hundred. The committee seems to have turned itself into a Tower of Babel. It is purely a partisan committee. I predicted just what would happen in the remarks I made in the house on March 5, 1941. in view of the text of the resolution appointing the war expenditure committee of that year. I said then, as reported at page 1259 of Hansard:
I have already expressed the hope in this house that this committee will not be in any sense a whitewashing committee but will deal thoroughly with Canada's war effort. I hope it will consider the whole war effort, not from any partisan point of view but for the purpose of letting the people know the real facts with regard to what Canada is doing, and be in effect a fact-finding committee. If the committee is intended to be a business committee, appointed to go over all expenditures incurred since the war-expenditures past and current-in connection with defence and all that sort of thing, very well and good. But I hope that the committee when appointed will cover all the ground and will see to it that the Canadian people are given the real facts about our war effort.
I added that I hoped the committee would see to it that the Canadian people would get value for their money. That has not been done. What happened at the first meeting of the committee? They passed a resolution that the committee had nothing to do with past war expenditures. In other words, as the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Danforth, showed, and as I said in 1941, the committee just holds postmortems on war expenditures. That is all it does. It has nothing to do with government policy.
In further support of the amendment I wish to read one or two other paragraphs from the remarks I made when speaking of an appointment of the committee on war expenditures in 1941. I said, at page 1257 of Hansard of March 5, 1941:
What is the object of having a select committee if it is going to have its hands tied behind its back through the failure of the government to give it the power which any committee should have in order to function properly regarding war expenditures, manpower, recruiting, munitions and overseas policies?
I notice by the explanation which the Prime Minister gave of the resolution last night that the committee has no power to go into any question of government policy.
Then what is the use of the committee? I went on to say, at page 1258:

War Expenditures-Mr. Church
So far as this war is concerned the committee will have its hands tied behind its back because it has no power to deal with any question of government policy regarding the war. . . . My second point is this. The government has decided that it is to be the tutor, custodian and guardian of the committee.
And so the government is, when it refuses to allow the evidence to be produced upon which the committee's report is based. I continued:
The committee is not to be allowed to do anything but what the government allows it to do. The government will decide, so far as its war efforts is concerned what information shall be kept secret and what not.
I went on to object to the lack of parliamentary control.
The men who have been nominated to the committee are all good men. I have served on the committees with some of them, but they have failed to carry out their functions, the majority of them who are government members, because their hands have been tied by the government of the day so that they cannot decide questions of government policy.
The aluminum transaction in which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is particularly interested was investigated at Washington by a committee, and the newspapers of the United States were full of all the ins and outs of this particular deal. The enemy could have found out all about it from the newspapers of the United States. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, we owe a duty to our allies in this war in reference to these war contracts. Somebody will have to pay for them some time, and after the war there will be a demand for the payment of war debts by the various nations of the allies. There is no doubt that objection will then be raised to some of these contracts and accounts as excessive. For that reason I think it would be advisable to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Danforth and table all the evidence. In this war so far we have made one fatal mistake. We have surrendered too much financial, political, military and economical control and initiative over these expenditures for war to Washington, and surrendered too much power and initiative in a military sense as well.
The people of Canada are paying for this war, and they should have something to say about it. Three hundred years ago a civil war was fought in England-for what? To gain control of expenditures. If this is the best we can do in the way of running a secret war expenditures committee, the sooner the committee is abolished the better. It would be preferable to appoint five business men. I do not criticize the members because
I believe they are bound by the text of the resolution and it is very difficult for them to do their duty. But as Burke said long ago, when a man becomes a member of parliament he is not a member for his constituency, he is a member for the whole country. He should be here to protect the taxpayer,, the man who to-day is groaning under the heavy debt of the war-a large part of which expenditure, as I observe in connection with the war appropriation bill, in fact about one-third, is really not for the war at all. Recently the chairman of the war expenditures committee of Great Britain spent about a week here. A number of hon. members saw and conferred with him, as I myself did. I read the British Hansard and know something of the reports of their expenditures committee since the war started. I find that they conduct their business in a wholly different way. Under our system, the auditor general has no control over the war appropriation bill. The government has appointed what they call a comptroller of the treasury, and as long as he finds that the accounts which this expenditures committee are investigating are within the four corners and the five subsections of that bill he has to put upon them the 6tamp of his approval. I contend that there is wide dissatisfaction through the country with the work that the war expenditures committee has done and left undone. That is the view of the business men to whom I have talked; they are asking why we stand for this thing; and history is going to condemn this parliament for the haphazard manner in which this three or four billion dollars a year is being spent and the dead hand of the treasury'. I repeat that a good part of it has nothing to do with the war at all.
Hon. members who belong to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are trying to persuade the country that they are the only people who have supported the policy of protecting our natural resources in respect of light, power and transportation. In this they are not altogether correct, because those of us on this side of the house have supported in season and out of season the principle of developing our natural resources in light, heat and power for the benefit of the people.
Regarding other clauses of the agreement, I fail to see why any member of this house has a right to go to the United States and give an opinion on contracts of this kind, because after all the defence of Canada regulations apply to us as well as to our constituents. I have no objection at times to any member going over there. I believe, however, having looked into the agreement and the text of it, that some of the provisoes were improvident.
War Expenditures-Mr. Reid

No doubt the agreement was entered into at an acute stage of the war, and of course Ottawa had nothing to do with the power angle and huge cost of it, which is controlled by Quebec, who had already arranged the terms and created a private monopoly in power.
I believe it would be better if the government disclosed all the evidence herein and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what is in the evidence. I saw and read some of the testimony given in Washington, and I may say I could find nothing in it which would help the enemy, who knows it all anyway.
I believe the people want the facts. If we are to have a war expenditures committee, let us have one which will not do any whitewashing but will let the people know the whole truth about the conduct of the war. In this respect I believe the committee has failed, and I hope that before the house closes this year some other system will be adopted whereby war expenditures accounts will be looked into more carefully and under a really modern system, with a view to protecting the taxpayer. Let it never be forgotten that it is the taxpayer who is paying for the war.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the war expenditures committee I wish to say a word or two on the amendment at this stage of the discussion. It is not my purpose to deal at any great length with the amendment because I hope that I may have the privilege of speaking later on when the motion itself comes before the house. As a member of that committee, however, I am and have been, surprised at many of the speeches that were made in the house this afternoon. I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the amendment itself is somewhat beclouded. To my way of thinking there are in the amendment before the house two issues and they have caused different speeches to be given by various members, and particularly members on the opposition side.
There is a great deal of room for argument as to why the proceedings of the war expenditures committee should be in camera or in secret, and. I shall have a word to say regarding the words "in camera" and "secret" in a moment or two. But surely after the war expenditures committee has, by deliberation, decided to hold its meetings in camera and after we have had the various officials and high

authorities before us and they were told by the chairman of the committee, acquiesced in by every member of the committee, that they were speaking to us in secret and off the public record, I am just wondering how members of the opposition side who sat on that committee and gave that assurance to those officials can now support, tacitly at least if not openly, the demand that all the information and all the evidence be now tabled.
The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) dealt this afternoon with the tabling of evidence from the point of view of giving assurance to Great Britain, Australia and other countries that the evidence submitted to the committee would be in camera or in secret. I am speaking to-night as a member of the committee who gave his assurance and his word, tacitly it is true, to those witnesses that they were to speak to us in confidence and in secret. While I realize it is every man's right to settle what he himself will do-he is the keeper of his own conscience-yet I for one am not going to be a party to going back on my word. I want that known clearly and distinctly. I want no accusations made that I am doing it because I belong to the Liberal party. When I have an opportunity to speak on the main motion I intend to deal particularly with my own stand in regard to it and perhaps with the stand of other members, but at the moment I am speaking to the amendment.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-dale (Mr. Jackman) challenged any member of the committee to rise in his place and say if the evidence were produced on the floor of the house or made available to the public it would injure our war effort. As hon. members know I was on subcommittee No. 1. That subcommittee dealt particularly with the building of ships, both naval and cargo. I, therefore, was not a member of the committee which deliberated on aluminum and I am not in a position to know all the evidence or the assurances given by the members who dealt with that subject. But I do know this, and so does every hon. member who sat on the subcommittee, that there was evidence given to that committee in secret, and I ask hon. members who were on the committee to put to themselves this question before they vote when they are speaking about tabling the evidence before the entire membership of the house, or making it available to the public by placing it before the public accounts committee. Evidence was given us as to the number of landing barges, the number of Algerines, the number of mine-sweepers and the number of other naval vessels. Admiral Stevens appeared before that committee, and no member of the committee, to my knowledge was inter-

War Expenditures-Mr. Hill
fered with in any way at that time. Everyone of us was permitted to ask of1 Admiral Stevens any question he liked. Are we going to ask now, Mr. Speaker, that all the evidence relating to naval ships, where they were built, the speed of them, the armament and all other matters pertaining to them, should be placed 'before the public accounts committee- and just on the eve of an invasion? Take the number of landing barges; that was given to us in secret. Is this House of Commons going to demand that the number of landing barges, the make, shape and size, cost and1 where built, be revealed' to the country at large? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if that situation applies you can rule me out of that committee. I will not sit on it any longer. I am not going to be a party to that; and I repeat I do not want any accusations made that I am doing- so because I am a member of the Liberal party.
Then we had information given to us as to the number of Canadian merchant ships in existence compared with the number that Australia, .New Zealand and South Africa had. Are we going to reveal that? Is that what the opposition wants? In addition to that we had a man come before us who is in charge of the Park Steamship company. Before he gave his evidence he asked us if it was in secret and he was told it was. Then he told us the number of ships at sea. He told us where those ships were going, the ports they sailed from. He told us the number that had been sunk. Are we going to place that before the public accounts committee? That is what the amendment means.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it does.


Thomas Reid: I am placing it squarely before the members of this house. Do not let us confuse the issue. If we are asking the committee to sit openly let us argue that way, but if we are arguing now that all of the evidence be made public after each and every member has given his word that it would be kept secret, then I for one will do the utmost I can to defeat the amendment.


Mr. B. M. HILL (Charlotte):: As a member of subcommittee No. 1, the shipbuilding committee of the war expenditures committee, I wish to place before the house my views on the amendment. Some of the matters which I had intended to place before the house have already been dealt with by the previous speaker, and I agree with everything he has said. Forty-three witnesses were called before cur committee. Each and every one of those witnesses, before he gave evidence, was assured that the evidence would be given in
secret and that he could speak freely; that any evidence which was given would be used only in making a report to the government, and would not be given publicity. Each and every member of the committee gave his assent to that undertaking, and that the evidence should be given in that way. It has been said in this house that much of the evidence given would not give comfort to the enemy I agree with that. In fact the evidence given before our committee dealt largely with the marvellous production of naval ships and merchant ships by Canada in her war effort. That certainly would not give comfort to the enemy. As, however, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said, there was a good deal of other evidence which would certainly give comfort to the enemy and might be detrimental to the war effort of this country. As he said, we were told where all these merchant ships were going, the ports between which they were plying, and practically the dates of sailing. We were told when they might sail. Could that evidence be given to the public and the press? Not at all.
I agree that if you wish to debate the question whether evidence should be given in secret or in camera that is a matter of argument, but we should abide by the decision of the house. And after the house has decided that evidence shall be given in camera, then I submit that hon. members have no right to demand that the evidence be tabled.
I am surprised that a member of the house should move such an amendment. I do not believe that the hon. member who moved it realized its implications. I would ask him to reconsider the amendment and to withdraw his motion. I am sure that if he carefully considers the implications of the amendment he will withdraw it and not ask for a vote on it.
When I pledged my word to these witnesses, that the evidence they were giving was being given in secret, I gave that word with the understanding that it would be honoured. I believe that a man's word is stall of some value, and I say to hon. members who sat on the committee that each of them is in the same position. I do not believe that they can possibly vote for this amendment after having so pledged their word. I say further that the amendment implies that if the members of the house vote for it they are violating the moral obligation given by a committee set up by this honourable house and composed of honourable members of the house, and that to my mind is a very serious matter.
I call on the members of the house, if this question goes to a vote, to weigh it very
War Expenditures-Mr. Fraser

carefully, realizing exactly what they are voting for. I ask them to realize that they are simply voting to violate a moral obligation given by an honourable committee of this house set up by this honourable assembly.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I did not intend to say anything on this amendment, but since the two previous speakers have addressed the house in the way they have done I cannot help taking part in the discussion. They have tried to tell the house that this amendment means that we are going to spoil the war effort. My hon. friend nods his head.


Burton Maxwell Hill: You are violating a moral obligation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member must know that the amendment simply means that evidence taken regarding expenditures that are out of proportion to anything reasonable should be tabled.


An hon. MEMBER:: All the evidence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Hon. members may say "all the evidence,'' but they know that everyone must use a little bit of discretion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no discretion in the amendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The government themselves have introduced motions that one could pick- holes in, but I submit that this amendment is one that should be carried. I will tell the house why. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) said last night:
My hon. friend can move for the return of any of this material he wants which would bring it quite within the discussion of the house.
I do not know whether he was speaking with authority; I doubt whether he was. But if he was, then I should like to read to the house a motion I had on the order paper of February 11, No. 4. It was an order of the house for a return showing cost of materials, cost of labour, amount of overhead cost, of each ship of 10,350-ton class and of the 4,700-ton class constructed since the beginning of the war in, first, the government-owned yards and secondly privately owned yards. This motion was dropped. I submit that the taxpayers are entitled to know where their money is going and I am sure that if the hon. members who have spoken were in our position instead of on the government side they would demand the same thing and hammer their desks, as they often do, in support of their claim.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Halton, who was chairman last year, speaks
[Mr. Hill.)
with authority, but he may, because I notice that the other night he evidently spoke for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). I have here a clipping dated February 18, 1944, from the Toronto Telegram:
M.P. promises sixty per cent tax cut as war ends. Sixty per cent reduction in taxation immediately after the war if the King government remains in power was pledged last night by Hughes Cleaver, M.P. for Halton and chairman of the House of Commons war expenditures committee.
The hon. member went on to say this:
In spite of the fact that I represent the most unpopular government in the world, I am going to suggest some things that we plan to do.
I do not believe that the taxpayers of Canada know how the war expenditures committee was set up. The government members are trying to make it appear that there was an absolutely even distribution among the members of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, yes, you are. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely lopsided, because the opposition had very few members on the committee-four out of twenty-four.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You did not elect enough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is not a fair democratic thing to do.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The distribution of ability was much more even.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When hon. members say that since it was in camera the evidence should not be brought forward, the amendment means that when expenditures are made and there are millions of dollars spent for ships-I am going to say for ships, because that is what we have been dealing with-we should know something about it. Millions more have been spent than should have been spent. One firm, I believe, spent six or seven hundred thousand dollars more than another firm. I know we had to have the ships, but I honestly think the people should know why one firm can get six or seven hundred thousand dollars more for building a ship than another firm, and for exactly the same type of ship. Why should wages be lumped, and material the same way, in the building of a ship? I do not think hon. members who talk about secrecy have put it before the house in just the way it should have been put.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am a very simple man-

War Expenditures-Mr. Adamson


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -but not as simple as the government thinks, and I represent about a hundred thousand similarly simple and direct-minded people. The charge has been made, as I see it, that the Aluminum Company of Canada produced aluminum for between eight and nine cents a pound, and sold it for twenty-one cents. That is the inescapable conclusion one can draw from what has been said. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has made these direct and specific charges. They have not been refuted by the government.
The government makes one charge and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar makes another. Unless the report and the evidence are tabled, we are going to have a continuation of this debate from now on. It is going to take place on every public platform in Canada from Halifax to Vancouver.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that a threat?
not believe the government has done so, but unless we do get that evidence I shall be forced to accept that conclusion.
One thing more. Shortly we shall have a discussion as to the relative costs of the production of ships. What is correct I am unable to say, and the country is unable to say. The charge has been made that the cost of ships was away out of proportion in the government plant. We have to have the whole evidence on those cases. The people of Canada are not interested in tortuous legal arguments, or whether discussions were in camera or in secret. They want to know whether the money they are spending in taxation is properly spent. They want to know whether the arms, vehicles and equipment we are sending our troops are good arms, good vehicles and good equipment-and that is all they care.
The government has to make that point clear, and it cannot make it clear if the report is not tabled. That is all I have to say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The report is tabled.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It has to be settled; either the government is right and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is wrong, or the government is whitewashing the aluminum company. I do not know; I am not on the committee. But it appears to me that in the argument of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon he was employing the holier-than-thou tactics he employed against Byng in 1926, where a report was coming up that was going to be unfavourable to the country, and he wanted to kill that report before it was given publicity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And the people backed him up.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Backed who up?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Prime Minister.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, they have not had a chance yet.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The same tactics were
being employed this afternoon in the house. Apparently there is nothing in the evidence particularly secret or likely to give aid or comfort to the enemy, and furthermore I understand that the majority of the statements were sufficiently documented in the report itself. I wish to warn the people-and I am speaking directly to the amendment-that either we get the evidence in this case, or the government must stand accused, without answer, of whitewashing this company. I do


Agar Rodney Adamson: The evidence, I should have said. This is one of the most sericus charges which has been made. Either this committee is set up purely as a means of covering up, or it is a committee set up r,o serve the interests of the Canadian people. The government will have to make the decision and it will have to make that decision fairly soon.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton. East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STIRLING:: I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). Had I voted ,1 would have supported the amendment.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. R. H. McGREGOR (York East):: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What boats?


Robert Henry McGregor: The 10,000-ton boats. The price of the boats built on the coast was $1,422,000. That is a difference of $624,000. If you allow the contractor $50,000 profit on the boat, the price was $574,000 higher than it should have been. Yet in spite of the fact that the contract was approximately $575,000 higher than it should have been, they say they saved $300,000 per boat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is kind of backhanded figuring.

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member misquoted what he said yesterday and what I said yesterday in reply to him. I submit that I have the right to read the question and answer which appears at page 697 of Hansard.
Mr. MeGREGOR: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will go ahead and quote what he said
yesterday.


Hughes Cleaver: Here is the question and answer:
Mr. McGregor: Was that carried out at the price the hon. member mentioned a few moments ago, both on the Pacific coast and on the St. Lawrence?
Mr. Cleaver: The answer is yes.
And, Mr. Speaker, the answer is still yes. The figures to which my hon. friend is referring-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Order. The hon. member can make a speech another time.


William Earl Rowe: He can make his own speech later.


Hughes Cleaver: The figures-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must point out that he is merely making a contradiction, and I think that is all that is necessary.


Hughes Cleaver: It is a misquotation of the report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It affects the privileges of this house, Mr. Speaker.


Hughes Cleaver: Your Honour, if I may, I have referred to the question of privilege and read from Hansard. I am now stating that the hon. member has misquoted the committee's report. The figures which the hon member has quoted are the actual cost figures, and in the one yard in question where the ships cost-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: -$1,969,000, that yard made a loss.


William Earl Rowe: That is not a question of privilege; that is a speech, which you should make later.


Hughes Cleaver: No; it is a misrepresentation.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman states that he is raising a question of privilege. There is no privilege; it is a matter of fact; and in this connection I would read the following excerpt from Beauchesne, page 54:
111. If a member desires to ask a question during debate, he should first obtain the consent of the member who is speaking. If the latter ignores the request, the former cannot insist, even if he thinks he is being misrepresented. He cannot make a denia^ during the speech, but he must wait until the' member has resumed his seat and then he may ask leave to make a statement, or he must wait until his turn comes, to address the house. Standing order 12 is compulsory. No one has a right to interrupt a member who is addressing the house, by putting a question to him or by making or demanding an explanation. A member may allow interruptions through a sense of courtesy, but it is entirely at his option to give way or not to an immediate explanation. The Speaker in the United Kingdom house has warned a member that if he continued disorderly interruptions, he would name him as disregarding the authority of the Chair. On the 24th _May, 1881, a member persisting in disorderly interruptions was named by the Speaker, whereupon a motion was made that the member be suspended from the service of the house.


William Earl Rowe: He should have known that, too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. With all due respect to Your Honour, you have absolutely misconstrued the entire suggestion by the hon. member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish those howling dervishes of the Tory party would keep quiet while I state my point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Speaker has given his ruling.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am rising to a new question.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not debatable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no Tory who ever lived will make me sit down.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker's ruling is not debatable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not speaking to Mr. Speaker's ruling; I am speaking to a new point entirely.


William Earl Rowe: Is the minister taking exception to the ruling? It is not debatable.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is rising to a point of order, and he is entitled to state his point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your ruling is not debatable.


Thomas Vien: It is not a question of the ruling. I want to hear the point of order.

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The position taken by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) was not a point of order; it was a question affecting the privilege ' of this parliament, and I so state now. I say that if any hon. member misquotes any report of this parliament or any report of a com

mittee of this parliament, it is a matter affecting the privilege of every single member of parliament, and the hon. member has every right in the world to explain thoroughly the actual facts of the report. Hon. members know I am right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go into your foxhole.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody should know better than you.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has stated what he says is a point of order. I do not agree that it is a point of order. I repeat what I have already read:
If a member desires to ask a question during debate, he should first obtain the consent of the member who is speaking. If the latter ignores the request, the former cannot insist, even if he thinks he is being misrepresented. He cannot make a denial during the speech, but he must wait until the member has resumed his seat and then he may ask leave to make a statement, or he must wait until his turn comes, to address the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say another word, Mr. Speaker? This is not a question of-


Grote Stirling: Order. Mr. Speaker is on his feet. Have you any manners?


William Earl Rowe: Out of order again 1


Thomas Vien: I wish the house would come to order. This is a serious matter. The hon. member stated that 'he rose on a question of privilege. I have not noticed, nor do I recognize that it was a question of privilege he was raising.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody thought so but
himself.


Thomas Vien: He has a right to make a correction in the manner I have stated. When the hon. member who is speaking resumes his seat, he may then ask leave to make a statement, or he must wait until his turn comes, to address the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say another word?


Thomas Vien: No. I have given my ruling.


William Earl Rowe: You are through.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) may continue his speech.


Robert Henry McGregor: I regret to have raised the temper of my hon. friend, but I just wish to clear up this point as to whether I was right or wrong. The hon. member for Halton said that that was the cost price of the boat. What I did say was that the cost price of that boat was, on the coast, 11,825,000.


Hughes Cleaver: You said, the contract price.


Robert Henry McGregor: And I said that the contract price of the boats being built on the coast by the Burrard Dry Dock Company was four hundred thousand odd dollars.


William Henry Golding: No. a million.


Robert Henry McGregor: After giving them a fee of $50,000 on each boat. Then the difference on the boat was-I have it some place here-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Robert Henry McGregor: The difference was
$574,000 on a boat. That is what I said. That is right, and I will defy the hon. gentleman to contradict it.


Hughes Cleaver: I am prepared and will be pleased to contradict it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member, I submit in all charity, is hopelessly confused.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We do not want any of your charity.


Hughes Cleaver: There are two things involved in this report, and my hon. friend has simply confused them.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Surely the hon. member has no right to make a speech.


Hughes Cleaver: I was asked to, and I will
make it very short.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member was not asked to.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) who has just spoken made a statement and challenged the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) to contradict his statement.


Hughes Cleaver: There are two factors. One is the contract price at which these ships were to be built, and the contract price on the west coast was fixed at some $1,800,000, and on the east coast at a little lower amount.

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor


Gordon Graydon: You are just as confused as he is. You do not know the figures either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Abide your answers.


Hughes Cleaver: What has confused my hon. friend is this, that in the report the committee has indicated the actual cost to two shipbuilding firms of building these ships. The cost to one firm was 51,399,000. That firm made a very substantial profit, more than it should have made. The cost to the other firm, as mentioned in the report, was 51,969,000, and that firm made a loss. That is all there is to it.


Robert Henry McGregor: Of all the arguments that have ever been put forward in this house that is the stupidest. It is all right for the chairman of the committee to try to draw a red herring across the trail, but he is not going to get away with it. I spent a couple of months on this boat-building business. I want the hon. gentleman to understand that I know as much about these boats, or a little more than he does, and I still say that the difference between the high and low is 5624,000. I defy him to contradict me, and he can get up on his feet again if he likes.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I have
tried my best to explain to my hon. friend so that he will understand it.


William Earl Rowe: You do not understand it yourself.


Hughes Cleaver: Perhaps I ought to read to him paragraph 2 of the committee's report. It will be found on page 773, of Votes and Proceedings of January 26, 1944:
The most nearly comparable costs your committee could get were those for a ship delivered in July/August 1942 from each of eight yards and these costs ran from a low of $1,399,000 to a high of $1,969,000.
That is not the contract price; that is the actual cost of the company building the ship. The second company, where the cost was
51,969,000,	made a loss. It was higher than the contract price.


Robert Henry McGregor: Are you reading from page 773?


Hughes Cleaver: Yes.


Robert Henry McGregor: Well, now, I shall read from page 773. The 51,422,000 is the low. If the hon. gentleman will look at the paragraph above the one he is reading he will find the following:
.	.	. going all the way from $1,422,000 to
$2,046,000 for the 10,350-ton ship. . . .
I come back again to the difference of
5624,000	and, as I said before, give the people
who built the boat a profit of $50,000 and the boat is still 5574,000 too high. The hon. member had better sit down for a little while because I think his blood pressure is up a little. There is more than that to the matter. That is not the full cost of the boat. There is no depreciation in that. There are yards in this country building boats in which there should be 5135,000 to $140,000 depreciation added to the cost of the boats. Then they tell you they are building boats at a reasonable price. I say there are some yards in this country that deserve credit for the work they have done, but no credit has been given to them. I think we should just go over the list now and tell the people and the hon. members of this house those who are building the boats at a reasonable price and those who are not.


Hughes Cleaver: I object.


Thomas Vien: Are the boats the hon,
member is referring to contained in the report that is now before the house?


Robert Henry McGregor: I am afraid they are
not, Mr. Speaker. We shall continue with something that is contained in the report. The report states that this committee went into costs comparable with those of the United States and Great Britain.


Hughes Cleaver: Page, please?


William Earl Rowe: You do not need the page;
read it to-morrow.


Robert Henry McGregor: It speaks of an agreement made and the price agreed on by the British government. That was, as I said before, $1,760,000 on the St. Lawrence and $1,825,000 on the coast. It was said that the cost in Britain was 51,100,000. As a matter of fact the Trueman report says the cost in Britain was $800,000.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I understood your ruling was that the hon. member must confine bis remarks within the four corners of the report, must confine himself to figures given in the report. I understand he is now quoting from some British figures.


William Earl Rowe: You made the same speech
twice. Do not interrupt him again.


Robert Henry McGregor: I do not suppose we
are going to get very many ships built tonight, and I shall not be able to quote any evidence. I wish to say to the house that shipbuilding in most of the privately owned yards is a credit to this country. But I say further that in regard to any yard that the government have anything to do with, in regard to any yard that the government control, I cannot

War Expenditures-Mr. McGregor
find words to express myself ; therefore, I will say it is bad, and they know it. In spite of that they draw a red herring across the trail. They say they do not want to table the report on the aluminum company. It is not the aluminum company. They know what it is; it is the. shipbuilding company's report that they do net want to table. They know they dare not do it. I ask the house to investigate the Toronto Shipbuilding company. I ask the house to investigate Marine Industries. This company got a contract that was supposed to be for $1,700,000. In spite of the fact they say that the agreement was made between the British government and the Canadian company and that the price would be so much on the St. Lawrence and so much here, the price on the St. Lawrence was let to this particular firm for $60,000 more per boat than the price set by the government.


Hughes Cleaver: Page?


Robert Henry McGregor: Let them investigate Burrard's. Burrard's have done wonderful work. At the start of the war the government laid down a policy-and I think a resolution was passed in the house-that no firm could make more than five per cent. Let them check into that. Let them tell the people that Burrard's made a profit of thirty-seven per cent on one batch of boats and twenty-three per cent profit on another. Let them tell the people something about the Yarrow's contract. We know it.


Hughes Cleaver: Your Honour, once again the hon. member is deliberately transgressing your ruling. I do not want to weary the house by constantly objecting. He knows better than that.


Robert Henry McGregor: It must be worrying you.


James Arthur Ross: The government must be proud of it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member said that he would discuss only what was in the report, not the evidence. I do not find in the report any reference to what he is now stating.


Hughes Cleaver: There is not any such evidence.
Mr. HOMUTH': Why worry about whether he is referring to evidence?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman may continue, but he, must deal, as he said, with what is contained in the report.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have been called to order again. I do not see anything fair in this thing at all. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) spoke yesterday for forty minutes and, as I said yesterday, I venture to say that ninety per cent of the speech he made was taken from the evidence; yet I cannot say anything about the evidence. Probably I can say something about what I know. Everybody knows that they are building boats at the Yarrow yards in British Columbia. I should like the chairman of the committee to explain the contract with the Yarrow yard. I should like the chairman of the committee to explain the contract for the building of 4,700-ton boats in the Foundation Maritime Limited yard at Pictou.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member has asked me to explain-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: He did not ask you to do it right now. You have just made one speech.


Hughes Cleaver: Does the hon. gentleman want the explanation now or not?


William Earl Rowe: Sit down until he is through.


Robert Henry McGregor: We know the hon. gentleman is probably heading for the senate if he makes good on this job and we congratulate him if he does. However, let us take the Yarrow yard where there was a contract for $1,280,000, and they were not supposed to get a fee on that unless they earned it by quick delivery and lower costs. Well, in spite of the fact that the contract is for $1,280,000, the first boat they built cost $1,600,000 and the next one cost $1,700,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Where did he get those figures?


Robert Henry McGregor: From documents from the minister's own department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Presented through-


Robert Henry McGregor: If the minister wants to see them I will show them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Presented from what source?


Robert Henry McGregor: From your genial friend Mr. Geoffrion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Appearing before the committee?


Robert Henry McGregor: Trying to catch me again?

War Expenditures-Mr. Howe


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just asked you a question. Suppose you tell me. I ask you this question: how did you get that? From the committee?


Robert Henry McGregor: I am making the speech.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I ask you a question.


Robert Henry McGregor: You sit down and I will answer the question.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that my hon. friend is using confidential figures given the committee sitting in camera.


Robert Henry McGregor: I should like to know, Mr. Speaker-


Hughes Cleaver: I want a ruling on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hughes Cleaver: That is all right; you will not make me sit down. The hon. member is using figures which for security reasons should not be disclosed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Security for what-the Liberal party?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory tacticsl


Hughes Cleaver: On several occasions I have raised the same point. The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, deliberately violates your ruling and I submit it has gone far enough.


William Earl Rowe: Beginning to hurt, is it?


Hughes Cleaver: Not a bit.


William Earl Rowe: I think so, a little bit.


Robert Henry McGregor: We will leave the
Yarrow yard, Mr. Speaker. 1	.


Thomas Vien: Order. An hon. member has raised the point of order that the hon. gentleman who is now speaking is dealing with matters which are not contained in the report. We are confined to the report and everything that the hon. member says must be within the four comers of the report. When he is dealing with figures regarding other matters I wish he would give me the quotation showing where, in the report, the matter which he is discussing is dealt with.


Robert Henry McGregor: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if all the speeches that have been made in this house yesterday and to-day are within the four corners of the report, because-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. gentleman yesterday was proposing to speak along the lines he is now discussing and I told him then that he could speak only to the amendment,
and that he would have more latitude when the motion came before the house. I also indicated, however, that when the motion came before the house all that could be dealt with was what was contained in the report. The hon. gentleman recognized that at the beginning in that he indicated that he would refer only to matters within the report and not to the evidence. Apparently he is now referring to matters outside the report and from documents which are not a part of the report. I will therefore ask him, when referring to matters in the report, to give me the quotation, citing the page from which he is quoting.


Robert Henry McGregor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But as I understood yesterday, the Speaker said that we would have much more latitude if we spoke at this time than on the other motion. Be that as it may, I suppose we can speak of things about which we know, whether they are in the report or not. I wonder, would the house like to have the story about the 4,700-ton boats built in Pictou and a comparison with those built in the Davies yard. I say that this is a real scandal, to have a 4,700-t.on boat in one yard costing more than a 10,350-ton boat in another yard, just because one yard is operated by the government and another by a private concern.
, I will say a word or two about destroyers as mentioned in the report and then I am through. It states in the report that we are building four destroyers in this country. I should like the chairman of the committee to tell the members of this house the cost of destroyers in Canada, the cost of destroyers in Britain, when this contract was let, and when the first one will be delivered. I venture to say, sir, that unless this war lasts until 1950 the destroyers will not be delivered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the greater part of the address given by my hon. friend, but I assume from the bit he gave yesterday and the bit I heard to-day that he has been comparing costs of ships in various yards. One remark that I heard him make to-day was that costs in. government shipyards were very high and costs in private shipyards were reasonable. Let me tell him that the lowest-cost shipyard we have in Canada to-day is government owned and operated.


Robert Henry McGregor: Where?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At Montreal, the United Shipyards.


Robert Henry McGregor: Will you let me tell the story on the government shipyards in Montreal?
War Expenditures-Mr. Howe


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will sit down I will continue. We are launching 10,000-ton ships from that yard at the lowest cost of any shipyard in Canada.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Is that in the report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yesterday the hon. member was comparing the cost of ships from the Port Arthur shipbuilding yard and the cost of ships from the Toronto yard. He was rather complimentary to me, because I represent Port Arthur and he represents the constituency of Toronto-


Robert Henry McGregor: Oh, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Robert Henry McGregor: York East.


William Earl Rowe: You got him wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very close to Toronto. I believe the Port Arthur Shipbuilding company is a very efficient yard and I believe that the costs there are the lowest costs of ships which are built on the great lakes, of the type of corvettes and mine-sweepers. I believe that the labour in the Port Arthur district is as efficient as any labour that can be found in Canada. In fact, I know of no better labour anywhere, and I know the management of that yard is excellent. I agree with everything he said about the Port Arthur yard. But when he gets nearer home, I hardly think he does his subject justice. There are harsh words said about the bird that fouls its own nest, and I am afraid he has been coming very close to doing that. I will tell the house something about the Port Arthur Shipbuilding company. The Port Arthur Shipbuilding conmpany was organized in 1909. It has a dry dock; one of the most expensive, and certainly the best dry dock on the Canadian great lakes. It has a machine shop capable of building any engine that goes into the ships and corvettes that are built at that yard. It has one of the best boiler plants in Canada, and builds its own boilers. It has been building ships since 1909, and-


Thomas Vien: I must point out to the minister that I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to see that the debate is carried on within the four corners of the report, so that extraneous statements will not have to be replied to by others.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is a reply.


Thomas Vien: If the minister is making reference to the report, I would be glad to have him speak. But I must know that the

matters are dealt with in the report, the matters about which he is now speaking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report certainly compares the cost of ships in various shipyards. It speaks of the cost of ships at Pictou- and the cost of ships at Toronto, and it certainly drew to the attention of my department matters of comparative shipbuilding costs which we have been trying to correct. I believe I am certainly within the terms of the report, and certainly in the speech by the hon. member which I heard yesterday he compared Port Arthur costs with Toronto costs. I am finishing up the analysis.


Thomas Vien: If, as the minister informs me, these are matters within the report, then I accept it, and he may continue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are definitely matters within the report.
I am simply saying that in Port Arthur we have a long-established shipyard with the very finest facilities. We have there men who have been building ships for a good many years, a nucleus of trained shipbuilders. I would expect that yard to do well.. I am delighted that it is the best yard; but certainly it should be as good as the best, because it has better equipment than any other shipyard on the great lakes, and it has a personnel which I think is fully the equal of any other.
What is the situation at Toronto? In Toronto the yard was started on a bit of waterfront wholly undeveloped for shipbuilding purposes. Berths were built there and sheds were put up in which certain steel work could be fabricated. The equipment of that yard is not a patch to the shipyard at Port Arthur-no boiler-making facilities, no engine-making facilities, and only the crudest type of steel fabricating facilities. There were few trained shipbuilders in Toronto.


Robert Henry McGregor: On a question of
privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down, sit down.


Robert Henry McGregor: On a question of
privilege.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no question of privilege.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Speaker, I made an attempt yesterday to explain the Toronto yard, and I was not allowed. If the minister has that privilege, then surely I have it.

War Expenditures-Mr. Howe


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister is speaking to the motion; the hon. member was speaking to the amendment.


Thomas Vien: Yesterday the hon. member was speaking to the amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: He does not know the difference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, this Toronto shipyard was carved out of nothing, in the progress of this war, and the men were collected from anywhere. The number of trained shipbuilders in the Toronto yard one could count on the fingers of his two hands. It is natural, I believe, that the costs in the Toronto yard should be high. There has been no neglect on the part of the government. We have made two changes in the management of that yard, and each time for the better. We had the original contractor who bid for the ships, just as any other contractor bid for them, and was awarded the ships on the basis of being the low tenderer. He did not do well. Then we formed a crown company and put in charge of it seven of the leading businessmen of Toronto, men who I believed had the necessary business experience to carry out successfully a project of that kind. Still our costs did not come down satisfactorily, and we made another change in that management. We now have an experienced builder in charge of the yard, and I may say that the costs of the last ships are vastly better than the costs of the earlier ships. But let us admit that the costs in the Toronto shipyard are higher than the costs at Port Arthur or Collingwood or Kingston, all of which were organized yards, with a background of experience, and with some adequate equipment. 'What does my hon. friend wish me to do? Does he wish me to close the Toronto yard? The Toronto yard is doing the best it can. We are giving it all the support we can, to bring it in line with established yards. But let me say this-the Toronto yard has turned out a number of corvettes and mine-sweepers. Had it not been for the Toronto yard those ships would not have been afloat, and our navy would not have had them. Those are factors that we must consider. If we are to close every yard that cannot do as well as every other yard, then it means that the production of that yard cannot take part in the war.
If my hon. friend says there has been anything improper, or anyone trying to do other than his best in any yard, then he has a case against my department. But he has not suggested that. He just says the yard has not done well. But the yard has done the best it could; it has turned out a very considerable number of ships, and it has turned them out in a time of great crisis.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as late as last February I was called to a meeting in Washington, when the problem of that day was how to get sufficient escort ships to check the submarine menace in the north Atlantic. That was one year ago to-day. I came back to Canada determined I would get the last possible ship out of our Canadian shipyards.
I did not think a difference in price should be sufficient to stop my using every facility in the Dominion of Canada for that purpose.
The same situation occurs at Pictou. The Pictou yard is a high-cost yard. Why? Because it was started with no background, no trained workmen and only very limited facilities. Prior to the war there was at Pictou only a small repair yard. When the need for merchant ships became tremendously urgent those in the department who were responsible in the matter surveyed all the locations in Canada which seemed to be suitable for the expansion of our merchant-shipbuilding programme. They chose Pictou because it had a favourable location, and because there was a nucleus of trained men at that point.
The facilities were provided. We built four berths there. Here again may I say we had no dry dock and none of the facilities which surround old-established shipyards. We simply went on the beach at Pictou and scratched together four building berths. We have changed the management at Pictou because we felt the management there was not doing all it could to build the ships in the time required, with the reduction in costs that we could expect even from a yard that was using wholly untrained personnel. There again, what would my hon. friend have us do? Would he have me close Pictou because it is a high-cost yard?


Robert Henry McGregor: I never suggested that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has turned out a type of ship vitally important at this time; and I can say to the house that within the last three weeks we have had most urgent cables for help in delivering 4,700-ton ships to Great Britain, urgently needed for operations within the next three or four months. Pictou has turned out practically all of the 4,700-ton ships which have been built. I think two or three were built on the St. Lawrence, two or three at Saint John, and the rest at Pictou. But we were able to supply a considerable number of 4,700-ton ships to meet those very urgent demands from the United Kingdom, and I am glad we were able to do so. I am willing to take the full responsibility for having ships built in a high-cost yard at a time when they could not be built in any other yard in Canada. We have had to build where we could; we used the facilities that were available. We

War Expenditures-Mr. Howe
have had to move into second-grade facilities when first-grade facilities were not available. If there is any tapering off in the programme we shall be able to move from second-grade facilities into good facilities. That is what we will do in shipbuilding. As long as this urgent war-time demand continues I am going to build these ships anywhere I can, and pay whatever price I must.
My hon. friend has spoken of the condition when the committee's examination was made. That was at least six or seven months ago. I can tell him that the position has improved greatly since that examination was made. I invite the committee on war expenditures to return to the same shipyards it has criticized in its last report, and examine the situation anew. I know its members will be surprised at the improvements in cost that have been effected in these yards.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then the hon. member was right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is my hon. friend suggesting now?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am saying the hon. member was right in the report of six months ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did I say that he was not right? Where did this argument start? It occurs to me to wonder what the people of Canada will think of this committee, which is supposed to safeguard the treasury in the expenditure of government moneys for war. My department is doing the same work as this committee. We have an investigation branch and we investigate anything that comes in, in the nature of a complaint or criticism. We even investigate anonymous letters. Several people are in gaol to-day because of the investigations that have been carried out by my department. We are investigating continuously. We have a staff not quite as large as the membership of the committee, but that staff is engaged continuously on investigations and have been for three .years. I have expected a great deal of help from this committee, and it has been a help. The investigations of the committee have acted as a spur to our people toward making sure that the situation is in hand.
Let us examine this aluminum situation. The Canadian treasury is a buyer of fabricated aluminum. Less than one million dollars worth has been bought directly by the government, and indirectly through contractors about
840,000	worth of fabricated aluminum has been bought. My officers tell me that in 1941 the results to the aluminum company showed a net profit of 3-7 per cent on sales to the dominion government and its contractors, 
while in 1942 there was a substantial loss on the books of the aluminum company in carrying out these contracts. These contracts do not carry an escalator clause, and the increased costs of aluminum were for the account of the aluminum company and not for the account of my department. These are the only transactions affecting the Canadian treasury in the whole aluminum company picture.
What do we find? We find that this committee has investigated the question of cartels, the question of whether the aluminum company was a member of a cartel. Does that affect the Canadian treasury? We find that it has gone into the question of government ownership as against private ownership. Does that affect the Canadian treasury? I may say that subject was looked into very carefully before we made any decision in connection with the expansion of the aluminum company. We took account of the fact that part of the operations of the aluminum company were in British Guiana, that other operations were in Newfoundland and others in Canada. We also took account of the fact that when we entered the aluminum picture the British government had already made a great investment in this country, using its own capital.
We decided that it was not a situation calling for government ownership. We made that decision knowing all the facts, and it was a decision purely by the government. It is all very well for the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to say that we should have built aluminum facilities as a public enterprise, but that ivas a decision for the government to make. Once that question is accepted, I think everything else falls into place naturally. In the matter of special depreciation, we did everything that had to be done in order to keep faith with other governments which wished1 to purchase aluminum in this country. Neither the British government nor the Australian government nor the United States government were able to buy aluminum from any source at a price lower than aluminum was bought by them in the Dominion of Canada. I think those members of the committee who heard the evidence will admit that at once.
I ask why the committee spent weeks of its time investigating aluminum when that fact was well known to them. Purchases by other governments were made by government agencies when those governments knew all the facts. Those governments believed they were being fairly dealt with by the aluminum company in this country. There were private transactions between a government agency in the United States and the Aluminum Company of Canada, and between an agency of the

War Expenditures-Mr. Ross (Souris)
British government and the Aluminum Company of Canada. The fact that in one or two transactions I happened to act as the agent for the British government has nothing to do with the Canadian treasury, because anything I did in that connection was done for the British treasury and not for account of the Canadian treasury.
It may have been necessary to go into the cost of ingot aluminum as a factor in the case of fabricated aluminum, although I think even that is rather far-fetched. The committee has obtained reams of evidence on the cost of ingot aluminum. I reiterate that the aluminum situation as it affected the Canadian government was a simple one. We bought about $45,000,000 worth of aluminum, not directly by the government but mainly through contractors, and the report of the committee states that, on balance over the whole transaction, the aluminum sold to the Canadian government by the aluminum company was sold at less than the cost of production. We have bought fabricated aluminum for our aeroplanes cheaper than any other government has been able to buy fabricated aluminum for its aeroplanes. I have ample, evidence to support that statement.
I suggest for the future guidance of the committee that it accept the place intended for it, namely, that it act as an assistant to the treasury of the government of Canada in time of war, in an effort to make sure that improvident transactions are not entered into. My department will welcome any help we can get of that kind. We have in the past, and I can assure hon. members of the committee that we will in future take active steps to correct any situation that the committee may bring before us. If it can bring us &n example of dishonesty I shall be the most delighted man in the world. Members of the committee can regard it as scoring off the government if they like, but I will regard it as a means of recapturing money that has been taken wrongly from the public treasury. I am looking for that sort of thing constantly myself and I shall be very glad to have the help of the committee in that direction. I welcome their investigations of comparative prices. Perhaps we may know of them, but if they are brought forward by a committee we shall take still more energetic steps to correct discrepancies. It does not seem to me that this should be treated as a game in which the effort must be to score against the government. Rather it is a question of getting behind the treasury and helping the Department of Munitions and Supply to save every last dollar that can be saved. I appeal to all hon. members to stop the type of debate we
are having here to-night. This is no time for a contest between one party and another. The situation is that we have a committee, its members drawn from all parties in the house, faced with a common task and we hope working toward a common objective. If the committee will work in that spirit, I can assure its members that their work will be more effective, and that the work of my department will be more satisfactory to the people of Canada.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I have been ruled out of order at other times in trying to discuss the war expenditures committee, and I shall take only a few moments now.
First, I wish to express my disapproval of the manner in which the committee has sat in camera. The committee is composed of twenty-four members-eighteen government members and six for the opposition, all told. The committee has sat in camera, and a wrong impression has been created in that regard because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaking yesterday, after citing the manner in which a similar committee sat in camera at Westminster, stated:
There is always opportunity for hon. members to discuss matters before the public accounts committee if they have reason to believe that there are situations which should be discussed there.
All I have to say in reply to that is that on May 19 of last year the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) moved and I seconded a motion that the subject of the wartime information board be brought before the public accounts committee for investigation. A lengthy argument ensued in the house, led by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the chairman of the war expenditures committee, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), supported by the government, and the motion was voted down. They stated that the proper place to investigate that matter was before the war expenditures committee. That was the government's attitude at that time. That was oveir nine months ago. As I stated, the chairman of war expenditures committee argued that the matter should be investigated, if anywhere, before 'the war expenditures committee. Yet to my knowledge the matter has never been investigated before that committee.
There are many other matters to which I should like to refer, but since they are not mentioned in the report I might be ruled out of order. There was the purchase of
764	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Ross (Souris)
property at exorbitant prices. There has been wasteful and extravagant expenditure of the taxpayer's money in these years of war.


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you recommend?
Another hon. MEMBER: How do you know?


James Arthur Ross: I have all the details of the purchase of Gimli airport in Manitoba. The statement was made here that the government paid an average of $72 an acre for that property.


William Henry Golding: That is not true.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is going back to 1941. What report is he referring to? Certainly not the 1943 report.


James Arthur Ross: An hon. member asked me how I knew that there had been extravagant expenditure.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member's statement a moment ago was not true.


James Arthur Ross: I will prove before this session is over, if we complete the session, that it is still true. I will produce the evidence at the proper time. I say that there have been many other such matters which are not included in this report which we have never had an opportunity to investigate properly. The point I was trying to make clear was that the Prime Minister stated yesterday that we could discuss matters before the public accounts committee if we had reason to believe there were matters that should be discussed there, and I have already cited one example which occurred last year which the government refused to let us consider before the public accounts committee.


Hughes Cleaver: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I take it that when a member misrepresents a report to this house it is distinctly the privilege of any member of the house to call Your Honour's attention to it. The hon. member has stated that the wartime information board was not referred to a subcommittee for investigation. I ask him to read the minutes of the committee of July 22, 1943, where he will find that the matter was referred to subcommittee No. 3 and on account of the length of the aluminum inquiry it simply was not reached. The members of that committee worked hard-


James Arthur Ross: That is exactly the statement I made, that it was not investigated by the war expenditures committee, and the chairman has just borne out my statement.
There is a statement in the report with respect to agricultural implements. I do not
''Mr. J. A. Ross.]
know how much time the committee spent in investigating this matter or how much it cost the taxpayers of this country, but I do know that the average farmer, at least in western Canada, knew the condition with respect to shortage of agricultural implements long before the committee investigated. We have known for some time that agriculture, despite a reduction of twenty-three per cent in labour, has increased agricultural production of this country by some forty-eight per cent. Only thirty-eight per cent of our Canadian farm machinery is produced in Canada, sixty per cent being used in the west and forty in the east. I wish that the committee had spent some of their time in investigating wasteful and extravagant expenditures of the taxpayers' money. If they had gone about that in proper fashion they might have brought about a very great saving to the taxpayers.
I am utterly opposed to sitting in camera, and the very fact that the committee sits in camera is a green signal to those people in this country-and I am sorry that we have them- who are looking for easy money from the public treasury to go ahead and get this easy money where it is possible to get it. If they knew that all these matters would be investigated in the open many of them would never attempt to get this easy money in the fashion in which they got it in the past. The Truman committee in the United States sits in the open, and I think that if we conducted our sittings in Canada in the open we could bring about a tremendous saving in war expenditures to the taxpayers of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of privilege which I wish to raise. This afternoon while I was speaking regarding air observer schools in this dominion the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), who throughout the day has been rising on all kinds of questions, made the statement that what I had stated was not in accordance with the facts and that all difficulties connected with the air observer schools and the very large profits which they had been receiving had been entirely settled in the summer of 1941. I had made the statement, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was not settled until May, 1942, when I brought the matter up in the house, and up until that time the only assistance I received from the hon. member for Halton was interference when I endeavoured to show in this house that these schools were receiving exorbitant profits. I now refer to the pages in question which establish that what I said was in accordance with the facts and that it was not until May, 1942, that this matter was brought before the house by myself.

War Expenditures-Mr. Boucher
I refer first to page 2357 of Hansard of May 12, 1942, where I pointed out the profits these companies were receiving. Then at page 2370 I went on to discuss the set-up of these companies, and I showed where certain parent companies were receiving from $12,000 to $15,000 from the companies that had contracts with the government. Then I referred this afternoon to the fact that while the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), thought the statements that I was making were not in accordance with the facts, because he relied upon statements made by the hon. member for Halton which were subsequently established to be far from in accordance with the facts, the minister stated the following day, as reported in Hansard for the same year, at page 2391:
I owe an apology to the hon. member for Lake Centre for having to some extent doubted the statement which he made with respect to air observer operating companies having a parent company.
Then the matter was continued until the minister investigated it, and as I paid a tribute to him this afternoon I stated that he put an end to this condition of affairs that was wrong but was defended by the hon. member for Halton, who stated all too frequently while I was bringing the matter before the house that the profits to which I referred as exorbitant were non-existent. At page 2701 of Hansard of the same year there is a complete answer given by the Minister of National Defence for Air, setting out in detail, on pages 2701 to 2705, the profits that these various companies were receiving. It was not until after May 25, 1942, after I had brought the matter before the house, that finally the minister, recognizing in all fairness that the thing was wrong, put an end to it.


George Russell Boucher: I did not at first contemplate entering this debate to-night, but, having heard the accusations of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), the present chairman of the war expenditures committee, in connection with the partisanship of this whole expenditures committee, I feel that as a member of the 1943 war expenditures committee it would ill befit one to hold a seat and not rise on this occasion,
I think the debate so far has amply illustrated the confusion, the confounded confusion of the public of Canada and the members of the House of Commons over the whole existence of the war expenditures committee, when you have the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) start up to-night as he did in this house and ask the war expenditures committee what they were doing in this investigation, what a nuisance they were to him, and what trouble they were raising.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Russell Boucher: I think the very words of the Minister of Munitions and Supply indicate clearly that the war expenditures committee has been functioning as an obnoxious organization for this parliament to have. And then, when we turn around and find that members of this house are being asked to vote concurrence in a report brought in by twenty-four members, eighteen or whom are on the government side and six on the opposition; when 245 members who cannot hear a word of the evidence, who cannot be told a thing about the evidence, who can be given a report and not given an ounce of material wherewith to judge the wisdom or the folly of the recommendations or the truth of the allegations set out are asked to put the seal of their approval, as elected representatives of the people in a democratic state, on a report of this kind, that is to deny the existence of democracy. I say that hon, members have been elected to the House of Commons to perform a function on behalf of the people who sent them there. If the members of the House of Commons are denied the privilege of looking into the expenditures in this great time of expenditures, this time of war, and to report to the House of Commons itself, simply because witnesses are called by the chairman of the committee and told it would be in camera; that is, because they were told >t would be in camera the members of the house cannot be given the data, then there is something wrong with the supremacy of parliament. We are denied the privilege of acting and functioning as we should, as representatives of the people, according to a truly British-Canadian institutional procedure. To think that 245 members of the house, less twenty-four, cannot go into such matters as wartime housing, the manufacture of aluminum, and the building of the Gimli airport, and that such things must be kept secret for fear they should console the enemy; in other words, that we must vote blindly and ignorantly concurrence in the report, does not add up.
I say to the members of this house through you, Mr. Speaker, that when a member of parliament elected to represent not only his own constituency but Canada at large, cannot compare costs, cannot get evidence, whereas the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the parliamentary assistant to the minister (Mr. Chevrier) can rise in their places and give facts from the department which the members of the committee are denied the right to give, there is something wrong with democracy.

War Expenditures-Mr. Boucher


Mr. OHEVRIER:: On a point of order, if the hon. member will read the remarks which I made yesterday he will find that everything contained therein is contained in the report and these are not statements which are not available to the committee.


George Russell Boucher: Last year I was privileged to sit as a member of the war expenditures committee, subcommittee No. 1. I do not hesitate to say that an industrious time was spent by all members of that subcommittee. Some sixty-nine sittings were held, some forty-seven witnesses heard, and many plants were visited. All the sittings were held in camera, even those dealing with housing for the people of Canada. The members could not even get a copy of the evidence which was taken, the day after it was taken, for their own perusal or to assist them in coming to their conclusions, except that they could go to the clerk of the committee's room, look at the report there, read it there, or return it within a short time. Members were served from the department of government and the corporations that were investigated with prepared briefs, handed to us members of the committee to read, and then picked up, after they told us what was in the brief, before we had a chance to read it. I say also that in most, though not all of the meetings of the subcommittee to which I belonged in 1943, representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and at times, representatives from companies we were investigating sat in at our committee to tell witnesses what they could say and what they could not say; and on one or two occasions we had difficulty in proceeding with our investigation by virtue of the solicitor of one of the companies we were investigating objecting to witnesses answering questions.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, just how long are we going to be subject to a breach of the rules of the house?


George Russell Boucher: We have had the hon. member for Halton attempting to make about fifty-two and one-half speeches this afternoon.


Hughes Cleaver: This is a breach of the rules of the house, Your Honour.


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member does not want to hear the rest of it, but I should like to give him a little more, if he will kindly remain in his seat. I do not want any questions or any speeches or any interruptions from the hon. member for Halton.


Hughes Cleaver: Am I not entitled to raise a point of order?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has raised a point of

order. The hon. member who is now speaking should confine his remarks to the report itself. That has been the contention all evening. I will ask the hon. member to abide by the ruling of the Chair.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps I misunderstood the conditions under which we are discussing the motion, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it, the motion for concurrence in this report was introduced by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was not.


George Russell Boucher: It was introduced by the chairman' of the committee. The Prime Minister stated that it would be followed by a motion to set up the war expenditures committee for another year, and that great latitude would be granted the house. In making .my remarks to-night I am not stating anything that happened in the way of evidence in the committee of last year, because I was not a member of it. I am stating circumstances wffiich by analogy, I should say, have a direct bearing upon whether or not we concur in this report. I do not feel that we can decide whether or not to concur in the report without the evidence on which it is based, without the facts upon which the reports were formulated and unless we know the nature of the sittings, the type of sittings that were held, and the investigations that were carried on. I say that is very apropos so far as the members of this committee are concerned when they are asked to concur in or reject the committee's report.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has made a statement. I think his remarks would be more appropriate when the resolution for the appointment of the committee is before the house. We shall then be dealing with the committee and his experience on it. At the moment we are dealing with the report, and all hon. members have been confined within the four walls of the report this evening. I should like to ask the hon. member to confine his remarks within the limits of that report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word in regard to what Your Honour has just said? Perhaps at the same time I may be able to clear up a certain amount of confusion; that is, by way of explanation, not to enter into debate. From what my hon. friend has just said I gather he is assuming that the government proposes to insist on hon. members voting on this question of concurring in the report. Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house this afternoon when the mover of the resolution (Mr. Cleaver) indicated that he was quite prepared to withdraw his motion once hon. members had concluded their discussion. The government does not intend to

War Expenditures-Mr. Boucher
insist upon having the resolution put to a vote. The purpose of this discussion-and now, Mr. Speaker, I refer more particularly to the remarks Your Honour has just made-has been not merely to discuss the report and the question of the approval of the report. There was an understanding that a certain latitude would be allowed to discuss war expenditure matters generally as the house would were its members discussing the appointment of the war expenditures committee. By allowing that latitude it is assumed that when this present discussion is concluded the motion constituting the committee will be voted upon without further discussion. For that reason it has, I believe, been generally and rightly assumed that a certain latitude would be allowed in debate in order that once the discussion on the present motion was concluded, we would be in a position to have the committee appointed in the quickest possible time, I hope this evening.


George Russell Boucher: I thank the Prime Minister for the words he has just spoken. I do not feel I should have to ask the government whether they intend at a future date to withdraw the motion now before the house in order to decide whether I should speak on it. The fact of the matter is that the motion is now before the house, and whether the Prime Minister sees fit to withdraw it or is willing to withdraw it matters not, until such time as he exercises his prerogative to withdraw it. Meanwhile, it is in debate. That being the case, may I proceed?
The members, as I said before, were dealing with matters of a very intricate nature, dealing with some things that undoubtedly would give assistance to the enemy if they were publicized. The main committee consisted of twenty-four members. It was divided into three subcommittees. I think the subcommittee on which I served had eight members. I had the privilege of recommending to the main committee that the members of the subcommittee be granted the assistance of cost accountants and counsel to help them carry on their investigations. In 1943 our subcommittee formulated certain reports which were brought before the house that year. I do not wish to read them in detail, but I should like to indicate to the members of the house that some pointed suggestions were made to the department and to this house, matters such as accelerated depreciation, shortage of accountants in the Department of Munitions and Supply, increasing costs, absenteeism, labour conditions and so on. All of these things require intensive research.
I do not think it is proper for a member of the subcommittee to say that when the committee
has brought in a report its work is done. That is not true, until the work is thoroughly done. I ask the hon. members of this house to realize that there have been terrific expenditures made by this government for temporary buildings for private concerns as well as for public concerns. Many of' these buildings are for war purposes only. When the war is over or a short time thereafter they must be disposed of. There are millions of Canadian dollars invested in them. The assets are there, and according to present arrangements they must be salvaged in some way before this war is over. Millions of dollars have been spent on private enterprise in the enlargement of plant and production facilities necessary for war production. This has all been paid for out of the taxpayer's money, put up by the government of Canada. That must be all salvaged in some way in post-war disposition of such assets. The question is whether it shall be returned to private industry or carried on as a government enterprise. I do not feel that information with regard to these matters should be denied members of parliament, when one considers that they have been entrusted by their constituents with, the job of looking after their interests in the parliament of Canada. I do not feel we can shirk our responsibility by saying we can sit in camera. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) this afternoon agreed1 with the definition of "in camera" as laid down by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon, member for Lake Centre said that "in camera" meant leaving the membership of the committee the privilege to use their own judgment as to what evidence should be disclosed.
I see rank confusion in the minds of the hon. members of this House of Commons with regard to the functions of this committee. I think I am corroborated in that by the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). When we consider that millions of dollars have been spent, investigations have been authorized and held by the members of this house in the war expenditures committee, and when we consider that the government has had protection in this committee by reason of the large number of government members on it, so amply illustrated this afternoon by the hon. member for Halton, the chairman of the committee, showing rabid partisanship, I say there is nothing to inspire confidence in the people of Canada in the war expenditures committee, and that it is time the government cleaned1 house and stepped in and looked upon the matter as a businessman would look upon a business proposition.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I wish to

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell.
make one or two slight observations. We seem to be in the same embarrassing position now as we were in when the debate started yesterday afternoon, the position of having to vote upon a report based upon evidence which we have not been able to peruse. This would be quite all right if the report had been a unanimous report; but it was not a unanimous report. There was one hon. member who dissented. His dissension was in the form of a speech, and it is tantamount to a minority report in substantiation of charges which he made last year. I do believe that the government should, if possible, provide some way or another by which the charges that were made by the hon. membe.r for Rosetown-Biggar can once again be reviewed. The position that we are in is simply this. We have to satisfy our own minds in voting on this question. I should like to vote concurrence in the report because, when we set up a committee to undertake a work of this kind, to investigate war expenditures, I like to have confidence in that committee. Evidently all the groups in this house except one have been more or less satisfied with the report, apart from one or two things brought out in the debate. As I say, 1 should like to vote concurrence, but I must confess that I cannot see in the process of the present debate that the charges of the member for Rosetown-Biggar have been entirely and satisfactorily refuted. On more than one occasion he has made the statement that the report is a whitewash. That was brought out, when the report was first submitted, by going into the press, and it was said two or three times when he spoke yesterday. He is perfectly convinced, it see-ms, that the report is a whitewash. What I have to satisfy myself of is whether the report is in fact a whitewash or whether his charges are eyewash. It must be one or the other, and I cannot entirely satisfy myself on this matter.
Here is another thing I want to say, and in saying it I do not want the member for Rosetown-Biggar to carry away any inference from my remarks. I do not direct this to him; I am speaking of the matter in general. The position we are placed in is this-and perhaps I should not refer to the hon. member in this connection. I am doing so only by way of illustration. He could go out and say that his charges were not refuted and he could say that the government refused to produce the evidence because they were afraid to do so. He could say that he urged the production of the evidence. Furthermore, speaking in general terms now and not referring to him, a member could take

the position that he urged the production of the evidence, as a sort of bluff to hide behind, knowing very well that the evidence would not be produced.
I have been told that the evidence submitted on behalf of my hon. friend fell completely flat. I am not prepared to accept that on the basis of his speech of yesterday, and yet what can I do? I cannot do anything in the matter for the reason that I have not access to the evidence; and so long as I have not access to the evidence I am afraid I shall have to vote against concurrence, much as I should like to vote concurrence. I urge upon the government, if at all possible, in order to allay any suspicion, that the charges made by the hon. member fof Rosetown-Biggar should be refuted in some way or another, and -that can be done perhaps by having the matter reviewed again by the war expenditures committee that is to be i set- up for this session. I do urge something of that kind. I believe it would be protection for them besides having all the cards laid on the table in order that all members might be satisfied.


Vincent Dupuis: Even at this late hour of the debate, since I was a member of the subcommittee of the war expenditures committee I think I would not be doing my duty if I kept silent and did not give the reasons why I am in favour of the motion, because in normal times I am so absorbed in the spirit of freedom that I would not allow anything to be hidden not only from this House of Commons but from the public in general.
The spirit of liberty, as we all know, is so strongly entrenched in our minds that we consider it as an inalienable right. As a matter of fact, we can trace the origin of our mentality on freedom as far back as the sources of our culture. But we are engaged in a struggle against the most dreadful enemy of all times; and if on the one hand it is repugnant to our love of freedom to follow his despotic attitude, on the other hand, should we not at least refuse to give him unwittingly all the information which he no doubt is so anxious to get from us?
This should not be an occasion where opportunists should try to derive political benefits out of such decisive questions. The lives of our sons and our national security as well are at stake; nay, the civilization o{ the world is more than ever in the scale. The result of this gigantic upheaval depends not only upon the success of our armed forces but upon victory, and especially upon the fruits of victory. A peace based on Christian principles will be

War Expenditures-Mr. Dupuis
obtained by our common effort, by the collective sacrifices of our personal interests, and by the obliteration for the time being of our political ambitions.
For fifteen years I have had the advantage of following the deliberations of this house. It has enabled me to get acquainted with most hon. members, irrespective of political affiliations, and it is indeed a great pleasure for me to say that I do not know of anyone who would not in the bottom of his heart be ready to help his neighbour. I do not know of anyone whose nature would be so low as voluntarily to hurt even an opponent in such a way as to do him personal harm. I am convinced that everyone of us is anxious to do his share according to the means given him by Providence, to foster the great future which is the destiny of our own country. In fact I know of many of the people's representatives, irrespective of race or religion, who for many years have sacrificed their personal ambitions and legitimate family interests for the public weal. More than that, I am in duty bound to declare, in justice to many of my colleagues, that I know of not a few who are so imbued with Christian principles that these words of the poet might rightly be applied to them:
He doeth well, who doeth good To those of his own brotherhood;
He doeth better who doth bless The stranger in his wretchedness;
Yet best, oh, best of all, doth he Who helps a fallen enemy.
It is true that sometimes we witness in this house exhibitions by word of mouth which are foreign to the lofty sentiments of the soul. Generally, however, these expressions are uttered in the course of a hot debate, and I am sure that if we could look within the conscience of the one who did it, we would soon discover that he is the first to regret his action. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can say without fear of contradiction that each and every one of us is big enough in these critical circumstances to put on the altar of his country his personal ambitions, his legitimate pride and his political advantages for the sake of the national exigencies of the hour.
If I dare speak for the party to which I belong, at any rate if I can speak for myself, I may tell you, sir, that the publicity of the deliberations of the war expenditures committee would undoubtedly turn to the advantage of the Liberal party. I contend that the publicity of the report would show that, notwithstanding the strenuous, not to say the laborious effort of some of our opponents to discover scandal, they absolutely failed to do so. Far from my mind is the intention of 100-49
proving that everything was perfect. After all, those who are engaged in war production are only human beings; as a matter of fact, most of them were lacking in experience in the production of war implements. In some industries, it took more time to acquire the proper skill, and so the cost of production was higher. But in no case is there to be found any wilful intention to defraud the crown.
As a further argument I should like to remind hon. members of this important fact, that when the motion was put before the house to institute the war expenditures committee, it was agreed by a large majority, if not unanimously, and after a long debate, that the deliberations of this committee would be in camera. So that if according to the rules of our democratic system the committee was constituted with that very condition of secrecy, how can we go back on our decision and ask, now that it is done, to demolish what we have so cautiously built? We would not be fair with ourselves. We cannot logically change our minds. Among the many reasons given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech last night, as to why the deliberations of this war expenditures committee should be kept in camera, the most conspicuous one is that we should not give comfort to the enemy. If it is permissible for me to express my opinion concerning our conduct in the house about this question of secrecy since the outbreak of the war, I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have always been astounded by the imprudent manner with which all sorts of details have been freely given about our war effort.
Listening to the innumerable questions and answers about this subject, I very often fancy what would happen if Adolf Hitler had been allowed to sit within the precincts of the house, and the following question had been put to him: "Which would be the most agreeable to you, that the details of our war effort be rendered public, that the deliberations of our committees dealing with our war production be handed to you, or that all this information be kept under cover and the deliberations of our committee dealt with in camera?" Where is the hon. member in this house who has not already the answer in his mind? Where is he who would not say, for Hitler, "Most decidedly, please give me these details." Surely at this psychological time, when Hitler is confronted with ultimate defeat, if he could speak to his secret agents who, no doubt, are still to be found in our midst, surely he would tell them, "Do the utmost to obtain from the House of Commons of



War Expenditures-Mr. Lockhart
Canada any details about their endeavours, so that even in my desperate situation I may do my best to overcome their deadly production."
In conclusion, may I be permitted to entreat each and every hon. member in this house, imbued as we all are with the spirit of patriotism, to examine the present state of our war aims, to put aside our political quarrels and to show that we are big enough to take a wise decision, even if we are bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the present administration, and to decide once and for all until the ultimate victory that no detail, no matter how small it may appear to us, be rendered public, lest, through unknown and mysterious channels, such information might contribute to help our enemies.
At any rate, speaking for myself, if my attitude, if the humble share I have taken in our war effort, if the very imperfect contribution I have taken in this debate could have the result of saving the life of one of our soldiers or even of protecting him against the slightest wound, I should consider this as the greatest gift granted me by Providence in reward for the whole of my public life.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):	Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the house for more than a few minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. LOCKHART:: 
Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time because I understand it is the wish of the house to dispose on this matter this evening. I have been a member of this committee since it was organized three years ago. While I have not agreed with all the decisions of the committee I have endeavoured to work with them and be of some service. The report being discussed to-night is a majority report. We were not allowed to submit a minority report, but I wish to say that I am not in agreement with all that is contained in the report. Matters which I think could have been

War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
incorporated in the report have been excluded, but it is the report of the committee as a whole.
As I have stated in the house, in meetings of the main committee and of the subcommittee, I am opposed as a general rule to sitting in camera. Such sittings should be the exception. The members of that committee should be trusted to see that no information was made public which might prove detrimental to our war effort or bring comfort to the enemy. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) has referred to the investigation into wartime housing. When that matter was referred to the committee a year ago I took a definite stand that the meetings should be held in the open and that the evidence should be available to other members of the house and the public. I made a motion to that effect, but I was overruled. The choice then rested with me of deciding whether 1 would continue to sit on the committee or whether I would retire and I decided that I would sit in with the committee and serve the best I could.
The same might be said with regard to the inquiry into cargo shipbuilding. There was hardly a bit of evidence which came before the committee in connection with this subject which could not have been made available to the members of the house and the people of Canada, the taxpayers. They certainly paid a high price in some of the yards compared with what was paid in other yards. It may have been that certain matters in connection with the cargo ship investigation should have been withheld, but again I say that the members of the committee should have been trusted to see that no evidence was divulged to the public which should not be divulged.
I was not a member of the subcommittee which carried out the aluminum inquiry, but from the information submitted to the house by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) and other members of that committee, I cannot see that any information disclosed before that committee could not be made available to this house and the public. If there were contracts or undertakings which the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) had entered into with other governments and which he wished withheld, there was not a single member of that committee who would not have approved his request. I think it is in the interest of the minister, of the government and of the people of Canada that all the information with respect to the alu-100-49i
minum industry should be made available. At least it should be made available to hon. members of this house, even if in a secret sitting. They are entitled to full information in connection with these large expenditures.
I was a member of subcommittee No. 1 last year which inquired into naval and cargo shipbuilding. I am ready to admit that there were certain matters with respect to naval shipbuilding which should be withheld from the public, but I would like every hon. member to have the same information with respect to that matter that I had myself. Most of the information, even in connection with naval shipbuilding, could have been made available to members of the house and the public.
I was surprised when the Minister of Munitions and Supply refused to support a motion submitted by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asking for comparative prices on the 10,350-ton ships and 4,700-ton ships as between private yards and government yards. I think the house is entitled to that information. If the costs are higher in some yards an explanation should be given, as the minister did to-night. I am disappointed that the minister did not agree to that motion.
The chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), has made the statement which appeared in the report of our committee, although I did not favour having it put in, that there was a saving of from thirty to forty million dollars through the reduction in prices paid for cargo ships. I do not think that is a fair statement. Conr-tracts for the first cargo ships were at a very high price1 placed with inexperienced yards. I go farther and say that if the lower costs due to greater competency and efficiency in private yards were compared with that in government-operated yards, even after the stated reduction of from thirty to forty million dollars, there would be a real and additional saving of from thirty to forty million dollars by having the cargo ships built in private yards.
Information has been submitted on behalf of the war expenditures committee-and this also is contained in the report-regarding the cost of the 10,350-ton ships. The average cost was given at $1,632,000. The cost of the first six ships built in private yards was $210,000 below this average price I have just mentioned. The private yards did excellent work and credit must go to the workmen and the management.
I wish also to pay my respects and express my appreciation to H. R. MacMillan, who was president of Wartime Shipbuilding and to his
772	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
assistant, Mr. C. F. Dewar, now president of the crown company. I.believe on the whole they have done a good job.
Our committee carried on under the greatest handicaps. Very few of us were lawyers. Some hon. members keep repeating that members of the opposition were looking for scandals and that we did not find any. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) has just made such a statement. So far as my colleagues and I were concerned, we had no such thoughts. All we were concerned about was to get information and point out where savings could be made and greater efficiency 'obtained. As I said, we were handicapped in our investigations. We were without a solicitor, without an accountant, and with no secretariat to assist the members of the committee in assembling evidence. The witnesses who came before our committee were usually supported by outstanding counsel representing the Department of Munitons and Supply. We had not been in session for ten months when tve started the 1943 sessions, and we have not been in session now for the purpose of taking evidence for about three months. We did the best we could, but we were able to touch only the mere fringe of war expenditures. If the members and public expect that we were checking up on all war expenditures in order to safeguard the country's interests, any claim of the kind is merely to beguile the public, for no complete study could be made of any single .branch of war expenditure.
Our committee, No. 1, was assigned certain specific lines of investigation. We investigated naval and cargo shipbuilding and spent most of our time on that. We also had assigned to us "R.C.A.F. services and aircraft production"; "contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies"; "airport, aerodrome and air force buildings construction, specifications and designs for such projects, and inspection thereof during construction." We had only one day's evidence under all of these three heads. Mr. R. P. Bell, Director General of Aircraft Production, who I believe has done excellent work, appeared before us one day only and gave merely a general resume. The appropriation for "air services" for the fiscal year 1943-44 totalled the enormous sum of $1,129,421,414. The responsibility of checking this huge expenditure of over $1,000,000,000 was assigned to our committee, and we had only one day's hearing to deal with this huge expenditure. For the next fiscal year, 1944-45, the appropriation for air services is the enormous sum of $1,090,000,000. We have a responsibility to this house and to the public to investigate this to

see that there is reasonable efficiency and no waste in its expenditure, but as I say we were barely able to touch on this huge expenditure of over one billion dollars for last year for air services. I say again that if the public or the members of this house think we are safeguarding their interests, to suggest it is simply beguiling the public, for no matter how determined we might be, we simply were not capable of making the investigation in the time at our disposal.
I wish to point out some other things. At a meeting of the general committee on war expenditures on October 14, I made the following suggestion, as reported by the committee to the house:
Mr. Black suggested that the disposition of war products and the allocation of the billion dollar mutual aid appropriation be inquired into by the committee.
In order to proceed with the subcommittee meetings called for htis day, the chairman suggested that the committee meet again tomorrow to consider the question raised by Mr. Black and any other matters to be brought before the committee.
On the following day it was reported as follows:
. . . it was agreed that subcommittee No. 2 had the power under the terms of its reference dated July 22, to inquire into the disposition of war products. The question of inquiring into the allocation of the billion dollar mutual aid appropriation was referred to the agenda subcommittee.
Mr. McGregor submitted that the committee should inquire into the salvage of government-owned construction equipment not in use. This was also referred to the agenda subcommittee.
Again I say it is my opinion that the war expenditures committee, having the responsibility of checking the expenditure of one billion dollars for mutual aid, should at least have examined into it, but we were not permitted or were not able to do so. In any event, no information under this heading was placed before us, and yet it was one of the major expenditures.
Tremendous quantities of war materials were being piled up along railway sidings and in storage, but no inquiry was made into their disposition or to ascertain whether any economies could be effected. Yet that was the responsibility assigned to this committee. Again I say we were unable to do it, and if the members of this house or the public think we did it, I say that they are just being beguiled.
In our 1943 report submitted to this house on January 27, 1943, this is one of the recommendations that was made:
That as soon as company financial statements are available for the year 1942 a special study should be made of profits, accelerated

War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
depreciation and corporate taxation. The question of excess profits and accelerated depreciation has caused the subcommittee considerable "onceni.
That is a recommendation to the house and to our committee, I presume, that we should look into accelerated depreciation. We had some evidence of accelerated depreciation. I think there must be accelerated depreciation, but I feel that this committee should have this information placed before it. We had references by some of the witnesses to certain of the shipbuilding companies. Notwithstanding that I asked for this information and other members of the committee wanted it, it was never placed before us, although it was recommended the previous year that it should be inquired into. Again I point out the futility of this house or the public expecting our committee to discharge all that was expected of us.
We inquired to a limited extent into taxation on workers in shipyards. Dissatisfaction with respect to taxation on the "cost of living bonus," excessive taxation on overtime and full time, and no receipt when deductions were made of refundable taxation, were the main causes of absenteeism. We made some recommendations with respect to that in our report now before this house. I think that is a very important matter, to keep up the morale of our workers not only in shipbuilding yards but in mining industries and wherever war work and other work are being carried on. That situation has not been satisfactory, and we were not able to go into that to the extent that we should have liked.
I should say a word with respect to the programme of building the 4,700-ton Gray type ships. As the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) pointed out, there is great necessity for a larger number of ships of this type; ships drawing 20 ft. 10J inches of water, fully loaded. While the larger, 10,350-ton ships have a twenty-seven foot draught and can use only the larger national ports and the St. Lawrence, the 4,700-ton Gray type ships can use the outports, many of which are in the maritime provinces.
I am pleased to learn to-night from the minister that the programme of producing a larger number of these ships is being proceeded with.
Our report submitted to the house with respect to the 4,700-ton ships is as follows:
There is also variation in prices of the 4,700-ton ships from a low of $1,063,000 to a high of $1,854,693. In the yard, however, where the highest price obtained it was found this was the price of the first ship and the actual price of its eighth ship was $1,422,440 with an estimated price in the same yard of $1,235,279 for the tenth ship. The attention of your committee was arrested by the higher cost prevailing at Pictou, Nova Scotia, for the 4,700-tonners and made strong representations in that regard and during the course of our inquiry we were pleased to note that the cost had been reduced. The costs given above do not include capital expenditures or special depreciation.
We found there was a spread of eighty per cent in the cost of building this one type of ship in different yards. That information was placed before the house to-night by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), and as I interpret the remarks of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the hon. member was severely criticized because he pointed out the excessive costs in the government yard at Pictou. If there is a spread of $800,000 in the cost of a ship that in private yard costs $1,063,000; if this committee is going to be of any service to the taxpayers of this country why should we not point that out? Why should we not have misgivings with respect to that?
But that does not tell the whole story. There was a capital expenditure at Pictou-I do not know whether I am permitted to give these figures, but I will give them only in round figures-of nearly $3,000,000. There was an expenditure on building a wharf there, the contract being, I think, for $156,000. I do not get those figures through our committee's report, but from other sources. That contract was awarded to the Fundy Construction Company. When the money was pretty well expended the wharf slid into the harbour; the contractors were paid off, and the work was completed on a cost-plus basis at an estimated cost, I believe, of $383,000 at the time of our investigation, although less than that sum has been expended. That is all added to the cost of building ships in these government yards. Again I say, if the members of our committee are going to consider seriously our responsibility, why should we not give attention to these terrific costs in government yards such as the one at Pictou?
I might also refer to the information which came before us at the Montreal government yard. The costs there were staggering in comparison with the cost in some private yards; and I say it was our simple duty to make recommendations with respect to these excessive costs. We endeavoured to do so, and I believe that the representations we made, and indeed the mere fact that we were making these inquiries, induced the government, the minister, and those who were responsible in these yards to give better value, better service, better efficiency, so that our inquiries resulted to a very considerable extent in a reduction of the cost in these government yards.
The hon. member for York East gave certain figures to-night with respect to the cost of

War Expenditures-Mr. Graydon
naval ships in Toronto in comparison with the cost in other yards. I believe that the figures are set out in our report, otherwise I would not mention this. The cost in the Toronto yard, as I remember, was almost half a million dollars, nearly fifty per cent higher than the cost in other yards. If we are going to function at all, why should we not take those figures seriously, and have some apprehension as to these excessive costs in what was a government yard, in comparison with other private yards?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not follow this any further. There is much more that I might say. As I remarked earlier, I was reluctant to go on this committee. I disapproved the procedure of having most of the inquiries in camera. I was outvoted; I subscribed to the wishes of the majority of the committee. I endeavoured to work with them as individuals; I endeavoured to be of service to the committee and to the taxpayers. I find that my name again appears on the list of members of the committee which is to be set up by this house when this debate is over. I am not anxious, as I said, to go on the committee; I should like to be relieved. On the other hand, if the membership of this house feels that I can be of service, I believe it is my duty to place myself at the disposal of the committee and I will again endeavour to work with my associates. But again I make an appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government and members of this house that investigations of matters which are not injurious to the war interests of this country and our allies, and which cannot be of comfort to the enemy, be held in the open and not in camera, not in secret, because the members of this house and the taxpayers of this country should have the benefit of the information which is placed before the committee.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to make one
observation only, and that is to put our party on record. I understand that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is about to withdraw his motion, as was arranged. In view of the fact that there will be no vote and in order to place our party on record, may I say that if there were a vote our party would have voted unanimously against concurrence in the report for the reasons which have been given by the members of our group.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I now ask that the motion for concurrence in the report be withdrawn, for reasons I have already given.
Motion (Mr. Cleaver) withdrawn.
(Mr. P. C. Black.]



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent w'ith the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members, as follows: Messrs. Black (Cumberland), Cleaver, Donnelly, Dupuis, Edwards, Fauteux, Ferland, Gladstone, Golding, Hill. Homuth, Hurtubise, Jackman, Knowles, McGregor, Nixon, O'Neill, Picard, Pinard, Pottier, Reid, Shaw, Tripp, Winkler, -with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put to the house I wish to take a moment to place our position on record. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) proposes the constitution of the war expenditures committee, I wish to make it very clear that in so far as our party is concerned we are going to oppose the setting up of the committee. We opposed it last year and we are opposing it this year for the reason that we have felt the committee's ivork has been rendered largely unimportant because it has continuously sat in camera. That being the case, we wish to oppose the setting up of this committee. I wish to caution the government and the house by this reservation. Our members who have been named on this committee reserve their rights to refuse to sit on it if it or its subcommittees decide to sit in camera. That is the reservation which we desire to make. May I say to my hon. friend and to you, Mr. Speaker, that we feel in making this protest and by reserving our rights so far as refusing to sit on the committee if it sits in camera, we are doing something that is worth while in bringing out into the open the whole question of war expenditures in Canada. I make my position clear in connection with this at this time, so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind as to the stand our party is taking with respect to this question.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall take only one minute. We approve the setting up of this committee. We believe it can and does perform a useful function. We share the view that this committee should sit in public except when information concerning the security of Canada or our allies is at stake. Then we believe that the committee itself should decide to sit, not in camera, if you like, but in secret. We want to see things open to

War Expenditures-Special Committee
the public except when something affecting security arises, which I think is not likely at the present time.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE:: (Lethbridge): The members of our group are also heartily in favour of the setting up of the committee, but we feel also that the committee should be so managed that a large percentage of its sessions could be open. Those that should be held in camera we feel could be held in camera without doing harm to the war effort, and with no disadvantage to the country.


Ernest George Hansell: There is just one observation I would make in this connection. I believe that though meetings are held in camera or in secret-there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the terminology or the definition of one or the other-there is a verbatim report made of the committee's proceedings. I believe that that report should be kept in the secretary's office and accessible to all members of parliament. I believe that we could trust the members of parliament just as much as we can trust the members of tihe committee. If that were done, we would not have what we have had in the last couple of days.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall take only one moment. First of all, I would direct the attention of the hon. members to the fact that the two parties, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party have expressed their approval of having a committee on war expenditures. The Progressive Conservative party propose to vote against the instituting of such a committee. I hope the attitudes will be clearly understood by the public. The purpose of the committee is to assist the treasury in effecting economies in war expenditures. That is the sole purpose of it, as set forth in the motion. But the Progressive Conservative party is unwilling to assist the treasury and the government in effecting economies in war expenditures.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister is not going to put words in my mouth again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am making my own statement and I have the right to make it.


Gordon Graydon: Make your own statement, but do not put words in my mouth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not putting any words in my hon. friend's mouth at all.


Gordon Graydon: You certainly are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I am saying that the leader of the opposition has said
-I believe I am entitled to speak-that his party proposes to vote against this motion.


Gordon Graydon: Right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is for the purpose of establishing a committee to effect economies in war expenditures. To do so, the committee is free to inquire into any war expenditures that are taking place in the country. I can draw only one conclusion from that, namely that the party represented in this house by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, is unwilling to assist the treasury in effecting economies in war expenditures. That is the purpose of the motion. May I say that I am amazed, inasmuch as hon. members have before them the example of Westminster, and I make no apologies for citing Westminster as an example. The expenditures with respect to war at Westminster are very, very great indeed. When the members of all parties at Westminster are quite prepared to serve in assisting the treasury in effecting economies in war expenditures I can find no reason in the world why hon. members of this parliament should take a different attitude. However, in taking that different attitude they assume responsibility for the attitude which they are taking. While I may question and regret the course his party is taking I am glad that my hon. friend has made it so clear that his party is not prepared to cooperate with the government in a measure intended to effect economies and save waste in war expenditures in Canada on a motion which is identical in every particular with a motion which has been adopted year in and year out at Westminster.
Much has been said in the discussion by hon. gentlemen opposite to create the impression that the rights of private members in some way are being taken away because some matters are referred to the committee and because its members sit in camera. May I assume for a moment that there is no committee at all? The rights of private members will remain just exactly what they have been at all times in this parliament. By appointing the committee we are not taking away the rights of a single individual. What we are doing is giving to all hon. members of this house an opportunity to make inquiries into public expenditures, which they would not have but for the existence of the committee which we are establishing at the present time. That I want to have clearly understood. There is no right of an hon. member being taken away by the appointment of this committee. Every hon. member has the same right that he has always had with respect to any matter that
776	COMMONS
War Expenditures-Special Committee
should be investigated. He has the same rights to-day as he had in this parliament before the war began. But if this committee is appointed additional rights will have been given to hon. members inasmuch as there will be a committee which will be sitting in camera and which because of its sittings being in camera will be afforded an opportunity of carrying out investigations wider and broader than has ever been given to any committee in this parliament of Canada.
In regard to sitting in, camera, I am not going to repeat the arguments that I have already given. They are set out in what I have said speaking to the amendment and in what has been said by other hon. members. I should like to bring up one point, however, which has escaped attention thus far, and it is an important one. When a committee begins an investigation in public, instantly the public gets the idea that there is something wrong about the matter which is being investigated. There are, let me assume, a dozen different industrial establishments in Canada that are carrying on similar classes of business, making munitions'and other war supplies, others having to do with shipbuilding and the like. This committee-has the'power to go into all these concerns and investigate them fully, and if they find anything that is wrong they can take immediate steps to have it remedied. But every one of these concerns is surely not to be placed before the public as an institution that has been doing something contrary to the public interest and must therefore be investigated by a government committee. That would be the effect of having sittings held in public instead of in camera.
Honest firms in this country are entitled to the protection of the government when they are serving the country in a time of war. If the government were to take the position that every firm that is assisting in the war effort, conducting its business honestly, doing the best it possibly can, is to be held up for public investigation, I do not know what would become of the industrial establishments of Canada and of the reputation of our industrial leaders. Surely we have a right to begin with the assumption that men are honest, that they are not all dishonest; and being honest that they are entitled to protection until it is shown that they are doing something wrong. That is the purpose of having the proceedings conducted in the way that has been followed. I hope it will be remembered that the businesses that are being investigated are assisting in the winning of the war.
There is a further point to be kept in mind and it has been repeated over and over again

in the old country in many connections. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Churchill himself, said to me one day, and he has said the same thing publicly: Until this war is ended, so far as the public is concerned1, do all you possibly can to have them keep their eye on the ball; and the ball that the eye has to be kept on to-day is the winning of this war, the most terrible war in the history of mankind. I say, therefore, that if you begin a series of investigations in public with respect to different war industries before you know whether any wrongdoing has been done, before you have given any chance to concerns that may have taken some steps which they should not have taken, to correct the mistakes they have made and to make amends, and do this at a time when our armies are fighting as they are at the front, and when the war effort of the united nations is at stake, you take a position that cannot possibly be defended.
Investigations by government committees attract no end of public attention. They are the	sort	of thing	that	the press naturallymakes the most of in headlines. Begin a series of investigations from now on, conducted in public, and you will have every day	the	papers of	the	country filled withsensational headlines whether there is ground for believing that there is any wrongdoing or not,	and	the people	will	be reading that sortof thing	instead of	paying attention to the
war effort of the country.


Gordon Graydon: Do you think the Trueman committee is a bad committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not making any comment on what is taking place in other countries, but I say to my hon. friend that when it comes to choosing between the method of carrying on parliamentary business in the United Kingdom and in the United States respectively, I prefer to follow the British practice.


Gordon Graydon: That is what you did not do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hour is late, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not go farther into the matter, but I wish to repeat that we are in times that are very grave indeed, much graver than hon. members have yet begun to realize, and we are heading rapidly into a situation which will be the most desperate this world has known. I say, therefore, that for any body of gentlemen to refuse to assist the government in every way they possibly can in this war effort, in effecting economies, or to ask the government to take a step which

War Expenditures-Special Committee
will confuse the public mind and divert it from the winning of the war, into an effort to win elections and make political capital-


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -is to take a step-


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege and I want the Prime Minister to sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will tell my hon. friend-


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a member always has the floor. The Prime Minister knows that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that?


Gordon Graydon: A question of privilege always has the floor. I have the floor and I am asking the Prime Minister to sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not sit down at my hon. friend's request.


Gordon Graydon: At the request of the Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly; and so far as His Honour the Speaker is concerned I am quite prepared to follow the rules of this house. But I am not going to-


Gordon Graydon: I have the floor on a
question of privilege.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: You haven't got it yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not going to tell me to sit down.


Gordon Graydon: I have asked you to sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down yourself.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman wish to rise to a question of privilege?


Gordon Graydon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the question of privilege is this. The Prime Minister again, of course, has become very much exercised-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the question of privilege?


Gordon Graydon: The question of privilege is this. The Prime Minister has made a very serious charge against me and against this group which I at the moment lead, and that is, that instead of confining our efforts to winning the war we are now bending our efforts towards the winning of elections.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: I want him to withdraw that remark. It is not becoming the Prime Minister, and I know that if he were not in such a heat he would not make such a statement.


James Arthur Ross: That is something he would not do, of course.


Thomas Vien: The statement of the Prime Minister, as I heard it, was not a charge against the leader of the opposition-


An hon. MEMBER:: No personal motives at all.


Thomas Vien: -nor against the hon. gentleman representing the Conservative party.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Who represents that party ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Bracken. He is not here.


Thomas Vien: Order. The statement was an expression which is very common across the floor of the house and I do not think a question of privilege arises out of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Vien: There should be no
applause when a statement is made from the Chair. It is the duty of the Chair to look after the interests of both sides of the house and I deprecate deeply any applause given when a statement is made from the Chair.


William Henry Golding: Just before the vote is taken-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.20 p.m. until Thursday, at 3 o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order made Monday, February 21, 1944.
Thursday, February 24, 1944