1945-12-18

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bradette -that the second report of the standing com-

Repatriation oj Ukrainians
mittee on external affairs, presented on Monday, November 12, be now concurred in; and the amendment thereto of Mr. St. Laurent.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Last evening during the
discussion on external affairs I gave the committee an explanation of the government's attitude toward the subject matter of this resolution. I made it clear that the government was prepared to have the estimates of the Department of External Affairs referred to that special committee. At the time it was agreed that when this motion came up this morning, the amendment, and the motion as amended, would be agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the public accounts. A single copy was tabled on November 12, but I am advised that the printed copies are not yet available, though under the statute we were supposed to have *had them some two months ago. Can the minister advise when they will be available, and could they be distributed to hon. members even though we have left Ottawa, so we shall not have to wait until next session in order to have them?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I will make inquiries and let the hon. gentleman know later to-day when they will be printed. As a matter of fact I had lost touch with the matter; I assumed they would be printed and tabled before this. It would be a great pity to have to mail them, because they are so bulky, I will find out to-day how the matter stands and let the hon. gentleman know before the house prorogues.
Later:
(In committee of the whole).


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the leader of the opposition will allow me to state this in committee, he asked a question while the Speaker was in the chair in regard to the public accounts. I have made inquiry, and I am told that the public accounts will not be ready before another month. They will be mailed, however, or expressed to all hon. members of the House of Commons as soon as they are published. The reason for the delay is that we have superannuated a number of employees
at the printing bureau who have not been replaced; the session came on, with all the printing tasks which it involved; we have had various royal commissions, and it has been impossible to have this work done.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I should like to reply to a question the leader of the opposition asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare on December 15, dealing with the staff administering family allowances. I will send him over a copy of the. reply, but it can be summed up as follows:	the regular staff
numbered 458 and casual employees, 543, a total of 1,001.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are still nine questions on the- order paper.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): They will be referred to during the course of the day. With regard to the question raised yesterday by the leader of the opposition respecting any orders for returns or notices of motion for production of papers which probably could not be produced during the day, may I refer to standing order 81 which states:
A prorogation of the house shall not have the effect of nullifying an order or address of the house for returns or papers, hut all papers and returns ordered at one session of the house, if not complied with during the session, should be brought down during -the following session, without renewal of the order.


John Bracken: Is there any rule preventing the government's bringing them down earlier than that?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: If the government can, it will.


John Bracken: I hope it can, and will. REPATRIATION OF UKRAINIANS


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister of which, I regret to say, I have not had the opportunity to give him notice. This morning I received a telegram from the Ukrainian-Canadian committee, a copy of which I believe was sent to the Prime Minister. Has the government any-
Supply-Justice

thing to say on the subject of further forceful repatriation of Ukrainians from military occupation zones to the east? They are being refused food unless they agree to go. This is a question of great concern to Canadians of Ukrainian origin. Can the Prime Minister make a statement in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The subject to which the hon, member has referred is one which relates to Europe. I am not in a position to say whether the representations made are wholly correct. I would suppose in that respect that my hon. friend is in the same position as I am. I can assure him however that the government has watched this whole Ukrainian situation most carefully and, so far as it is within our power to control matters, we have sought to see that the course taken would be such as would protect their interests.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
467.	Departmental administration 

 further amount required, $11,950.
Mr. HACKETT:: Will the committee not continue from where we left off last night?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not necessarily.


The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is now considering the supplementary estimates for the Department of Justice.


John Thomas Hackett: I understood that when we adjourned last night we were to carry on this morning at the point where we left off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no arrangement to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
468.	Combines Investigation Act, administration-further amount required, $32,000.
Mr. BENTLEY:: Yesterday when the
estimates of the Department of Labour were before us we asked about combines investigation and the Minister of Labour informed us that^ that was now under the Minister of Justice, who was not present at that time. I should like to tell the Minister of Justice that there was a little matter that we left in the hands of the Minister of Labour which would come under this particular item. We should like him to look into this as quickly as possible. I refer to the case of Merchants Consolidated Limited and the Vulcan Hardware people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We feel that they have something worth investi-tMr. Hlynjia.]
gating and we should like this to be done as soon as possible so that we may have the results.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
808. Departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, $1,500,000.
George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, when we were dealing with this item last night I was pointing out that the war expenditures committee had brought in a report stating that it was the intention to call the committee together again at the next session. We think it advisable that this or some other committee continue the investigation of War Assets Corporation between now and the time any such committee may be set up at the next session. The sales and operations of the War Assets Corporation leave a great deal to be desired so far as public information is concerned. Purchasers throughout Canada who try to obtain materials from War Assets Corporation find that there is very little information as to what supplies are available. Something of a run-around is being given to these people.
We were told in the committee that a certain price structure had been set up and that a certain policy was being followed in connection with the pricing of commodities, but those who have endeavoured to buy articles from this corporation find that that is not the policy that is followed. People may be asked to make a bid for certain articles but when they try to get hold of them they are told that someone else has purchased them. It is evident that someone has a priority, that someone higher up has the power to sell these commodities and they are withdrawn from the market overnight.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The policy of merchandising wras dealt with fully in the committee.


George Hugh Castleden: I agree that is so, but the policy outlined in the committee is not the policy that is followed with these people who are trying to purchase material. As I say, there is a difference between the actual operations of the corporation and the policy that was supposed to be laid down. Take machine tools, for instance. ' When people tried to purchase these they found that they were not available, or that they were available only to dealers or agents. There appears to be a division of authority. These people find either that War Assets Corporation has no power to sell this material, or that someone higher up has already made a deal. On September 24 I placed a question on the order paper asking:

Supply-Reconstruction
What was the total value of the buildings, equipment, supplies, and other materials:	(a)
sold; (b) exchanged; (c) loaned; (d) leased; (e) otherwise disposed *of by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as of August 31, 1945, under the -Surplus Crown Assets Act?
What is the total amount received by the government for the materials referred to in question 1 ?
That question, was never answered by the committee, and the committee is to be disbanded with the prorogation of parliament. Apparently that information is not to be given. There is a question on the order paper at the present time which I placed there on November 12 and which has not been answered at this late day. It reads;
What persons or companies, if any. have been paid or allowed commission by War Assets Corporation on sales or exchange of goods by that corporation?
What is the amount of commission to each person or company?
Apparently that question is not to be answered. The War Assets Corporation published an annual report as from July 12, 1944 to March 31, 1945. Apparently this corporation has changed completely in its personnel. There seems to be practically an entire new company in operation, because we find this on page 5 of the report:
To obtain the complete picture of surplus disposals in Canada there should be added to the record of the corporation the surplus disposal operations of the Department of Munitions and Supply prior to the formation of the corporation and later running in parallel with it, and there should also be added transactions negotiated by the director general of war surpluses, Department of Reconstruction, Ottawa.
These three operations added together show a total volume of material disposed of amounting to $19,768,000 divided as follows:
As to what that material was and what the original cost of it was, we are given no information. We do not know what kind of deals were made; we do not know what the material was originally worth. On page 12 we find an analysis of sales. In the case of real estate all the information given is that there were two sales of a total amount of $13,000. What good is that? We want to find out whether the Canadian people are getting proper value from these sales. It says there were 2,086 sales of scrap metal totalling $1,257,568.15. For trucks and tractors, there were 1,107 sales-this could mean 11,000 trucks-totalling $871,366.63. There were 1,555 sales of ferrous metals, totalling $840,180.08. That sort of information is not good enough. As I said, the people of Canada were ready to spend money lavishly to win the war. The war had to be won and war is a costly business. Apparently there is a lot of
monkey business in it as well. The Canadian people will deeply resent the giving away oi the handing over of assets valued at billions of dollars without a proper accounting. The kind of thing that makes us suspicious is what is set out in a press report from Washington which appeared in yesterday's papers. This reads:
Britons, Canadians who were in Britain, and perhaps some Americans will be a little dismayed to learn that the gasoline used by the Luftwaffe bombers which droned over London every night early in the war was "made in U.S.A." So were the casings_ of thousands of the magnesium fire bombs which were used in the fire blitzes.
A war department report presented to a special -Senate committee here says that I.G. Farben, vast German chemical trust, exploited cartel agreements with American companies to make nazi armies self-sufficient in^ strategic materials needed to start and maintain the war. From the United States it^ got new methods for making components of high octane gasoline including tetraethyl lead, and when it could not make tetraethyl lead in time for the start of the war in 1939, it got 500 tons from the Ethyl Export Corporation of the United States.
The report goes on to say that the I.G. Farben company found ways to make through chemistry what was not readily available in Germany. It goes on:
Other things, which it could not make, I.G, Farben obtained through its cartel cohorts in foreign countries.
One of the greatest of these was Standard Oil of New Jersey, which made known to I.G. Farben its revolutionary process of producing iso-octane and utilizing it for motor fuels.
One of the German scientists said in a report brought to light by the War Department investigating committee "production of iso-ootane originated entirely with the Americans and became known to us in detail in its separate stages through our agreement with Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and is being used extensively by us. The process for producing tetraethyl lead, essential for the manufacture of aviation gasoline was obtained in exactly the same way."	_ _
In addition -to making and stockpiling magnesium for bomb castings, the report says Farben Company purchased large stocks of magnesium from the Dow Chemical Corporation of America to build up its reserves for the Luftwaffe.
Farben had about 2,0-00 cartel arrangements including some with Aluminum Company of America, E. I. Dupont de Nemours. Imperial Chemical Industries of Great Britain, and companies in France and Japan.
It is evident that in the operation of a war there are people who make money out of it, and it is beginning to dawn on the peoples of the world that until we take the profits out of war it will be difficult to end war. When this war is over I think the people of Canada are going to demand a complete investigation of War Assets Corporation to find out what is happening to our assets, who is obtaining
Supply-Reconstruction

them, and whether Canada is making a good bargain in their disposal. So far as this house is concerned we have no information on these things. It is very difficult to get information. That is why I ask the minister to see that a committee of this house, or perhaps the very committee that was set up to investigate War Assets Corporation, be allowed, under the powers granted to the government by the special powers bill, to continue its investigation.
I personally wanted to visit some of the War Assets plants. I was informed by the minister that he could not give me a blanket pass to visit the plants but that War Assets would have to be notified in advance. He was willing to give me an introduction to the manager of any plant operated by War Assets if I would notify them when I was coming, and would make arrangements for me to make a tour of the plants.
What we need is a committee with power to go around and visit War Assets plants. We do not want this investigation shut off for another three months. That only means that when we come back here the barn door will be open and the horse gone. I would ask the minister to make a statement.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I want to say a word or two about the committee that was_ appointed to investigate War Assets Corporation, and the reason I want to do it is that I feel that I have been called upon as a member of that committee to take part in a solemn farce. I wonder if parliament wants to leave that situation as it is. What do I mean by a solemn farce? I will try to state it briefly.
This committee was set up with twenty-five members, a very sensible lot of men; they looked to me quite sensible. We sat in a large room and I felt quite important, almost as if I were at a peace conference. The newspaper men were all there, solemnly taking down what we said. Official reporters were there taking down our every word as if the whole thing was important. Senior civil servants were there, running in and out. You really felt that something was stirring. I was so much impressed that I believe I wrote a letter to the chairman saying that I felt pleased that something was really going to be done. If I did, hon. gentlemen will be amused about that, though as I look back I do not know whether to be amused or indignant.-either one or the other; one either should laugh or be angry. Why? What happened? We had eight meetings. Several of the meetings toward the end were held while the house was sitting, and unless you can split yourself in two or three pieces, and I could not do that, vertically anyway, you

could attend only one thing at.a time, the house or the committee. In the committee we were given statements by officials of War Assets Corporation, a sensible lot of statements; I had no quarrel with what they said. I think those officials were good men, and what they were doing seemed sensible. But it was made clear that they were not actually dealing with the important things; these were dealt with by the Minister of Reconstruction. I do not know how he deals with them when he is in Bermuda attending an air conference, and if I may digress for a moment I want to say what I said in the house once before that unless the Minister of Reconstruction can split himself in four he cannot do efficiently what he is attempting to do to-day.


Lionel Chevrier: He is doing a mighty good job.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will speak to that. W'hat I am talking about now is what the committee has done, or rather did not do. The committee got these statements, which I thought were very sensible statements. Then I thought we vvere getting to the stage where we. should oe able to get our teeth into, something, or, is one membqr of the committee said, see the work in action. What do I mean? I mean by taking some actual cases.
We had a steering committee, which I thought was going to bring forward some actual cases. We were asked to send cases to the steering committee, and I sent in one or two. What do I mean by cases? Not suggestions of any impropriety. I just mean cases where on the face of it, it looked as if the disposition of a certain property had not been provident, perhaps had been done hurriedly, perhaps with not as great efficiency as might have been.
Let me say again that there was no suggestion of scandal or anything of the kind. It was just a question of trying tb get the committee at work on something. I hope that I shall never be asked to sit on such a committee again. I was told by an experienced parliamentarian when this committee was first set up, "Don't imagine it will ever do anything". But I was young in experience here, and I thought perhaps this was a committee that would be different. I just want to say that it was no different. Up to the present we have not been allowed to do anything of any value because we have just had these general principles, and as the hon. member for York-ton has just said, we were not allowed to see the thing in action.
The way we suggest of seeing it in action is that we should be allowed to go on with

Supply-Reconstruction
our investigation during the recess. I do not know that I agree with the hon. member for Yorkton that we should go around and visit the different plants. I doubt very much that I would be in favour of that. But I would be in favour of having some continuous connected time for our investigation so that we can really deal with this thing. I ask members present whether it was sensible towards the end of the session to appoint a group of men who could meet only eight times many of whom were not able to be there all the time, and who could only hear a story told them, very pleasantly, of certain things that were happening. But the main things never came before that committee because the main things are the sale of plants, going concerns, and that is dealt with by the Minister of Reconstruction. I am not complaining about that. That may be quite all right. But what I am saying is that either the committee should never have been set up at all or it should have been allowed to do something.
I do not want this house to make a fool of itself in the eyes of the public. That is what we are doing. I think that the operation of the committee is inconsistent with the picture that was drawn by the Prime Minister-I wish he were present to hear what I am saying-and with what he said and said so well the other day about the part which this house should play.
I finish as I began, by saying that I object to the history of this committee; I object to our being now dissolved after three or four weeks, for two reasons. First of all, we were just beginning to get 'hot, as the phrase goes, to get to a position where we could have gone ahead with some intelligence. Now we are going away for two or three months, and when we come back I suppose it will not be possible to set up the committee the first day we return, and if we do, we have a dozen other things to occupy us. This committee is dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars of the assets of the people of this country. One can only look on all this as a bad joke, or something to get angry about, and I alternate between one and the other.


John Thomas Hackett: I suggest to the minister that I might ask a question which he could answer at the same time as the questions he is about to answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to reply to what the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for Yorkton have said. In the first place let me say that in my opinion this discussion is superfluous, and I say this having in mind what the Minister of Reconstruction said when this whole question
was debated on his war appropriation estimates. I would not like to take up too much of the time of the committee, but I think in fairness to the Minister of Reconstruction I should point out that in the course of the debate on the war appropriation estimates a large part of the subject matter of this discussion was gone into. I pause for a moment to quote what the minister said as reported in Hansard, page 2349.
I should like to point out that there has been a duplication in the first item, in that departmental administration is also in the civil estimates. I mention that so that when we discuss it now it will not be_ necessary to discuss it again in the civil estimates.
In the civil estimates we have item No. 308, "departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, $1,500,000." That was gone into fully at that time. And I cannot see why it should be gone into now. However, as I said a moment ago, some statements were made here this morning which I think should be replied to. The discussion which took place in the committee had to do with the alternatives which were mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Yorkton and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I do not know whether the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario made a motion, but I do know that the two alternatives suggested to the committee were, first, that they sit after prorogation, and, second, that a royal commission be set up. It was pointed out that if sittings were to take place after prorogation they would be irregular because of the rules and proceedings of this house. As for a royal commission, I cannot see how a royal commission would be of any value at this time. Nobody has suggested that there were any scandals, nobody has made any charges, and if there were any charges to make, it was before the committee that they should have been made. The hon. member for Yorkton said in his statement a moment ago, "There is monkey business going on." Well, if there is monkey business going on I think it is up to him to say where the monkey business is, and if on his responsibility as a member of parliament he has any charge to make, let him make it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On his responsibility as a member.


Lionel Chevrier: He should have made it before the committee. Did he make it then? I say to him that he did not, but he chooses the dying days of the session to say, "There is monkey business going on." The place to make a charge of monkey business is before the public accounts committee.
Supply-Reconstruction


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order, I said the thing that made us suspicious was the kind of thing which happens when profits are made in war. I said that profits are made in war; war is big business, and there is monkey business too, and that is why I read the report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not what the hon. member said at all.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has been making statements in this house which are sometimes more or less accurate; and when he speaks as he did a moment ago, I say to him that profits which are made in war have nothing to do with War Assets Corporation. That is not the business of War Assets Corporation. The hon. gentleman knows that when War Assets Corporation was set up last year the powers of the minister were specified and the duties of the corporation were therein set out. It was its business to take over from the crown assets allocation committee any surplus material declared to the latter by other departments and to dispose of it by sale. That is the business of War Assets Corporation.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario says that he took part in a "solemn farce." I am sorry that the hon. gentleman should make that statement. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. gentleman and for the manner in which he has conducted himself since he has been a member of this house; but when he says that that committee is a solemn farce, such a statement is not accurate. He was a member of the committee. He could have complained. The committee held seven or eight sittings and heard as many witnesses and made a report. Surely the hon. gentleman should have objected then, as he does now,-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister allow me an explanation?
I intended to say, and perhaps this would be a good time to say, that there was a vote, in which I took part, on a motion that by some means the work of the committee should continue in the recess. Incidentally I might say that that motion came very near to being carried. I think there was a majority of only one or two against it. I think that is an answer to what the minister is saying now. We did our best in the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I say it is not an answer to what I said, because as far as the first part of my statement is concerned there could be no answer; it would be contrary to the rules of this house to sit after prorogation. And does the hon. gentleman suggest that there should be a royal commission on this matter at this time?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say that-


Lionel Chevrier: No, I am not going to allow the hon. gentleman to speak at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I not ask a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is perfectly correct in what he said about the committee. It was explained that it could not sit. I was in favour of a royal commission, and it was not in my mind, and it is not in my mind yet, that the institution of a royal commission suggests any scandal. I was careful in what I said a few minutes ago not to suggest any scandal at all. I was very emphatic about it.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman and I agree on that, so let me pass on to another part of the remarks which I proposed to make.	-
Something has been said by the hon. member for Yorkton about the policy in Washington. Let me tell him this, that the United States policy so far as War Assets Corporation is concerned is very much the same as our own; in fact I can go a step further and say that to a large extent they have copied our policy, or that their organization is based on our policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: They have sent a
representative from Washington to Canada to study the manner in which we are disposing of our war surplus material, and they did not send him here because they did1 not like the manner in which we were doing business; I am sure it is because they approved of it.
* I am sorry that I should have had to go into this at greater length than I anticipated.
I repeat that the matter was gone into fully by the Minister of Reconstruction, and I cannot see why it should be gone into again to-day. The committee has made its report, it has made its decision. It strikes me that parliament should accept the report, and I ask this committee to do so.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


John Thomas Hackett: I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that I was on my feet and ceded my place to someone else a few moments ago, and I ask the privilege of saying a few words now. I point out to the minister that the complaint advanced by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario rests on something which has arisen since the Minister

Supply-Reconstruction
of Munitions and Supply made 'his statement on November 21. At that time it was anticipated-


Lionel Chevrier: May I Interrupt the hon. gentleman and say to him that that is not so. We should not now be dealing with the war expenditures committee. We are dealing with an item for departmental administration. If the hon. gentleman sticks to that then, strictly speaking, there should be no discussion of the war expenditures committee.


John Thomas Hackett: If the minister thinks he can make a statement and prevent a reply for the reason just given, he will have to have the rules amended. I am pointing out that the excuse he gives is of no avail because the objection which was raised by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has arisen since the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. When the minister made his statement it was believed that there would be an opportunity for investigation which has since in the result been denied. That is the ground of the complaint of the member for Muskoka-Ontario. Furthermore, I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the diffipulty is the absolute lack of information. It is the secrecy, it is the unwillingness to tell, it is the recrudescence-of the spirit of autocracy and buraeucracy that is troubling the people at the present time. This surplus war assets corporation-


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


John Thomas Hackett: Certainly.


Lionel Chevrier: Is he making the statement, or is he prepared to state, that in the war expenditures committee any official denied any information that was asked for?


John Thomas Hackett: I am certainly prepared to say that no information was given and that no opportunity was afforded for getting it.


Mr. LALONDE:: That is not true.


Mr. BRADETTE:: It is not correct.


Maurice Lalonde: As a member of the committee I rise to a point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is foolish to make a statement such as that.


Maurice Lalonde: On a point of order-


John Thomas Hackett: I intend to proceed with my remarks.


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: I wish to rise to a question of privilege. This may not derive exactly from the remarks made by the hon. member for Stanstead, but it arises directly from the remarks made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. By the statements he
has made in this house he makes me and othei members of the war expenditures committet parties-


John Thomas Hackett: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a matter of privilege.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It certainly is. The hon. gentleman said something which the member who is raising the point thinks is a reflection upon his attitude in the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: It does not arise from
anything that I have said in this committee, and since I have the floor I should not be interrupted.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: If the hon. member will wait until the member for Stanstead concludes-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rule is that a question of privilege can be taken into consideration at any time.


John Thomas Hackett: Not while another
member has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Cote) will wait until the member for .Stanstead is through, he will have an opportunity to state his point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does not have to.


John Thomas Hackett: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted, that the difficulty appears to be that so far as the war assets corporation is concerned, no one can get any information from it with regard to the method of disposal of its assets.


An hon. MEMBER:: What information
were you denied?


John Thomas Hackett: The assets of. this
corporation are estimated to be something approaching-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I would quote standing order 16:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.


John Thomas Hackett: I call the attention of the chair to the fact that no question of privilege arising from my remarks is before the committee.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: That is no answer.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member for Verdun will wait until the member for Stanstead is through, hr can state his position.

Supply-Reconstruction


John Thomas Hackett: The rule says "immediately" and three hon. members have spoken since the challenged statement was made.


William Henry Golding: The committee will make better progress if it permits the member for Stanstead to complete his statement, and then the member for Verdun can state his point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not according to the rules.


John Thomas Hackett: I was pointing out to the committee that it is absolutely impossible to get from the surplus war assets corporation any information concerning its assets.


Maurice Lalonde: You are not even a
member of the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: I am not asserting that I am. I am merely telling the committee that it is impossible to get from the War Assets Corporation any information concerning the assets which it has for sale. The national income of the whole country before the war was four billions, and we are informed that the assets to be disposed of by this company amount to nearly twenty-five per cent of that huge total. For over a year I for one have been attempting to get information concerning the sale and liquidation of these assets, and whenever I have endeavoured to get information concerning the sale of vehicles, trucks, jeeps and sundiy machinery, invariably there has come a long letter of explanation intimating that this was not the time, this was not the place, perhaps if I wrote to Calgary or to Vancouver, or perhaps if I waited until next fall, or perhaps if I did not bother with it any more I would get as far as I had got. The complaint is that the War Assets Corporation is absolutely beyond the reach of the Canadian people, absolutely beyond the reach of the ordinary member, at least of members of the opposition; and any information that one seeks from the ordinary vendor of materials, any information that one seeks from any large distributor of materials on this continent, is not forthcoming. It is that type of conduct, it is that type of arrogance, it is that unwillingness to divulge information to would-be purchasers, that constitutes the basis and the genesis of my complaint.
I point out to the minister that in fairness to the Canadian people, in fairness to his own government, these arbitrary methods should be abolished. It should not be necessary that one be forced to resort to extraordinary methods to get elementary information concerning the purchase of commodities which we are told are offered on an

equal basis to all Canadians. It is that attitude that is resented, that attitude of the War Assets Corporation that is resented by the Canadian people. It is that attitude that makes one wonder, without knowing, if there is something wrong. It is that attitude that makes people say, "Are we living in a democratic country?" Why was this War Assets Corporation set up? It is away beyond the reach of parliament. We are told it is beyond the administrative powers of the minister. It seems to have been set up as a kind of buffer state between parliament and the people. It is because of this attitude that there is a great deal of unrest and uncertainty and a longing that a few rays of sunlight and fresh air be allowed to permeate the transactions of this body.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has qualified the proceedings of the war expenditures and economies committee as a solemn farce. As a member of that committee and of the steering committee I want to reply to the hon. member on a point of privilege. I have attended each sitting of that committee, and I think I can draw conclusions much better than an hon. member who has been there perhaps twice or three times, or not at all. I want to say that everything that has been done in that committee has been decided by the members themselves. The committee has been master of its own procedure. The steering committee studied at length the best way and means of progressing within the terms of reference to that- committee. A member of the committee had two ways in which he could place any particular fact or request before the committee. He could either put questions himself to the witnesses from the War Assets Corporation or he could communicate with the steering committee. That steering committee received only one complaint; it came from the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and was in regard to the sale of Fairmile boats.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I correct the hon. member?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is a question of privilege. The hon. member is wrong; I think he will find I did not do that at all.


Paul-Émile Côté: It may take more than a few moments to make the hon. gentleman understand that this was not a solemn farce, that we have been doing our work

Supply-R econstruction
carefully and have achieved some results. As far as the hon. member is concerned he brought only one complaint before the steering committee, in connection with the sale of Fairmile boats, and this was answered most satisfactorily by Mr. Peterson, sales manager of the corporation, in a brief which he presented to the committee. I am satisfied that all those who have read the briefs presented to the committee should be satisfied, because in eight or nine meetings we laid down the basis for our proceedings; we learned the set-up of the War Assets Corporation and were informed about their policies, and we put ourselves in a position to answer any complaints or inquiries that might come to us as members of the committee. We are ready to do a good job again next session, as soon as we resume our activities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For certain reasons it is necessary to have the Speaker in the chair for a moment or two, and therefore with the consent of the committee we can resume this debate in a few moments.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAl/s SECRETARY
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, December 18, 1945.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret. Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the senate chamber on Tuesday, the 18th December, at five o'clock p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
308. Departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, $1,500,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I want to correct two statements made by the hon. member for Verdun. He referred to me as having made a complaint to the steering committee. I want to make it very clear that there was no question of complaint; it was a question of bringing up certain things which I
thought should be inquired into. In the second place he was quite wrong in saying that my inquiry concerned Fairmile boats. My inquiry referred to two other companies. That is not important, but I think I should make this correction to show that the hon. member is not quite as knowledgeable as he would appear to want us to think.


Maurice Lalonde: I rose a few moments ago on a question of privilege also, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Stanstead said something which in my opinion is not accurate. He made the statement that the right of investigation had been denied in the committee of which I was a member. May I say to the hon. member that he does not know what went on in that committee, because he is not a member of it. If he wants to get some information as to what went on it would be very easy for him to get the pile of papers and briefs that were presented to the committee. Instead of making a statement which he cannot prove it would be better for the hon. member to read with the greatest care all the information that has been given this committee. If my memory serves me well, we received ten or twelve briefs summarizing the work of the War Assets Corporation and the other crown company, the name of which I forget for the moment. The hon. member for Stanstead is a serious man; he is a lawyer of great reputation in my province, and I do not understand how he can rise in his place here and make a statement about which he has no knowledge.
The hon. member said the right of investigation had been denied. I should like to know to whom that right was denied in our committee. I attended perhaps six meetings, and all members were absolutely free to ask any questions pertinent to the briefs presented. So far as I am concerned to a certain extent I cross-examined the witnesses who appeared before us, and I am in a position to declare that, we were absolutely free to seek information and to get right to the bottom of the matters put before us. I invite the hon. member for Stanstead to come to our meetings. We have nothing to hide. We are there to do a good job, something else than a solemn farce. I was quite surprised to hear my hon. friend, for whom I have great respect, make the statement publicly in this House of Commons, to be broadcast all over Canada, that the work of our committee was a solemn farce, and I am protesting against this fallacious declaration by the hon. member. It was not a solemn farce. We were doing a solemn work for the good of the people of Canada.
Supply-Reconstruction


Mr. PROBE:: I want to say a few words about tihe reconstruction phase of the matter which is before the committee this morning. As citizens of Canada we have had six years of self-denial. In public and in private our confreres of the government have taken credit for the efficient prosecution of the war. In her industrial output Canada has made a mark that does credit to all sections of this country. That output was due to the energy and patriotism of our scientists, our service personnel, our war workers and all other classes in the country who made sacrifices without hope of material award, but with the hope and faith that in this country there would be a better post-war condition than the one we left behind us when Hitler challenged our right to live in our way.
In this connection I would recall to the minds of hon. members the first days of the session in September, 1936. At that time the Minister of Munitions and Supply as he was then known, told us, and kept repeating day after day, that not one aircraft contract could be let'-


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Oliver Probe: This is relevant.


William Henry Golding: We are not dealing with 1939. This is an item in the Department of Reconstruction for departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization, and we must confine ourselves to that item.


John Oliver Probe: Very well. In leading up to this point the Minister of Munitions and Supply capitulated to the demands of industry and private capital. He bought equipment; he bought plants with the money subscribed by the war savings of the Canadian people. He arranged for the-


William Henry Golding: Order. \


John Oliver Probe: Are we in this House of Commons not to be allowed to present our points of view?


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member please resume his seat?


William Henry Golding: In committee of the whole remarks must be relevant to the item before the committee. The hon. member is now dealing with what happened when the w'ar began, something which has nothing to do with this reconstruction item.


John Oliver Probe: Not at all, no.


William Henry Golding: I suggest the hon. member should confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


John Oliver Probe: We got the job done, and the war is over. We thank the government for having piloted us through. Now the people of Canada are demanding certain reconstruction rights which were promised in the years which have passed. We want individual reconstruction pf the veterans, the war workers and the small business man, so as to enable rehabilitation and reconstruction of home and business.
Yet we have this farce-and I like that word, as used by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, because it is only too true-of talking about houses when people do not have a place to rest. As a new member I am amazed when I listen to the solemn talk which takes place in connection with these matters, when the job of government should be to get -to grips with actual realities. The Liberals have said that they are business people and that they will see the job through and reconstruct Canada. I say that in no small measure we have here the means of reconstruction. Through War Assets Corporation many individuals and small businesses which suffered most as a result of the war could receive a great measure of reconstruction.
During the session dozens of questions were asked of the Minister of Reconstruction as to what was happening with these huge surpluses of commodities. Each one of them was solemnly evaded with the promise that an opportunity would be given to the war expenditures committee, when set up, to investigate every matter fully. And so very late in this session, the government saw fit to establish that committee, of which I was a member. It held its first meeting on November 13, and adjourned a week. It met for one hour and fifteen minutes twice a week for eight complete weeks, and then at its last meeting sat in camera, to prepare the report which was presented to the house.-and1 which, in essence, said nothing more than that we had met, and that we hoped some day to meet again.
I should like to read the terms of reference of that war expenditures committee. It was resolved on November 6:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for national defence and demobilization, and for other services directly connected with the war, including the disposal of surplus war assets, and to report, what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein.
As a result of the first meeting of the steering committee it was decided that the

Supply-Reconstruction
preliminary investigations should follow along certain lines. On November 20 the steering committee recommended

-that the main committee determine its future activities with the understanding that it will first inquire ino the four following subject-matters in the order named, viz: -
1.	The Crown Assets Allocation Committee.
That was covered to the extent that we received a report from the president, and asked questions thereon. Then

2.	War Assets Corporation.
That was covered to the extent that we heard half a dozen briefs and were given an opportunity to ask a number of questions. There is still a backlog of questions, the answers to which have been promised by the corporation. Up to this time many very important questions have not been answered. The remaining two were:
3.	The Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, Limited.
4.	The Wartime Prices and Trade Board.
The stabilization corporation was to be investigated on the basis of certain correspondence asked for in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with the Cardoza charges. And then followed the wartime prices and trade board. Neither of these organizations has been investigated


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I must
object to this procedure. I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member's right of free speech in the house; but surely the two last-named organizations come under the Department of Finance, and could not possibly come within item 308 which we are now supposed to be discussing.


John Oliver Probe: The steering committee had recommended-


William Henry Golding: I do not think the hon. member is in order, in the manner in which he is dealing with this item. Item 308 has to do with departmental administration, including expenses incidental to organization.


John Oliver Probe: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I shall postpone anything further I have to say on these two items until we reach the estimates of the Department of Finance.
May I at this time rush through some criticisms-and I hesitate to go quickly, because this matter is too important to discuss hurriedly. These are my observations as to what happened in committee, or what failed
to happen. The word "farce" still applies, and I thank the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario for it.
From questions asked in committee I am satisfied that there has been considerable disposal of war assets by the Minister of Reconstruction without prior knowledge or recommendation of the officials of War Assets Corporation.
Second, the staff is not familiar with the duties of other departments of War Assets Corporation. That is, there seems to be no interdepartmental liaison.
Third, the reconstruction needs of special areas or groups have not been considered. Perhaps I may be permitted to give one example, namely farm tractors. The list of vehicles sold by the automotive branch, as explained to us on November 27, indicated that 189 farm tractors had been disposed of by War Assets Corporation; 40 of which were sold in Quebec, 102 in Ontario, one in New Brunswick, two in Nova Scotia, two in Prince Edward Island, 28 in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan, 12 in Alberta, and one in British Columbia. The reason that item comes to my mind specifically is that my province is definitely one of the major agricultural provinces of Canada; it is a province which could make use of tractors, and yet its economic need for that particular type of equipment was not considered. That is contrary to the original terms of the policy set out by the Minister of Reconstruction.
There has not been a proper general advertising of surpluses. The priorities as established on paper by this document entitled "How to buy war surplus materials" are not being honoured. There is an unequal availability of these materials by areas, and the sales by provinces which I have given lend strong support to the point I am trying to make. As of October 31, 1945, the sales by provinces of war assets materials were as follows:
British Columbia	$ 1.817,465 71
Alberta	
793,87.7	82Saskatchewan	
377,895	63Manitoba	
685,081	44Ontario	
16.948,100	57Quebec	
11,216.486	84New Brunswick	
' 661,031 84Nova Scotia	
479.426	71Prince Edward Island	
145,291	71Newfoundland	
172,272	53Foreign	
4.039,605	90Dominion government	
2,796,629	99Grand total	$40,133,166 59
No special consideration has been given by War Assets Corporation to the need of equipment by farmers and small industrialists or
Supply-Reconstruction

the special needs of veterans setting up in business for the first time. In fact, these veterans are definitely discriminated against, because the position taken by the corporation is that only dealers who were in business m 1941 are permitted to buy through the regular channels.
Contrary to the policy expressed by War Assets Corporation, the speculator is not being kept out of the picture. This applies particularly to machine tools which are being advertised for sale in the leading papers of Montreal and Toronto by people who have bought them from War Assets Corporation. No attention has been paid to the request of departments of education throughout the country for such things as lens equipment, moving picture projectors, radio transmitring equipment, aircraft frames and engines, kitchen equipment, shop tools for manual training, and things of the kind.
I want to be constructive as well as critical. I brought up some of these points in the committee, and I should like now to indicate briefly what this particular branch of government should be doing. I contend that there should be no direct sales made by the Minister of Reconstruction or his staff without prior advertising in the press of Canada. There should be no distribution on a partial geographic basis. There should be no destruction, that is, making scrap out of what to the casual examiner appears to be worth-while equipment, until provincial and municipal bodies and schools have been given a reasonable opportunity to remove this equipment. The one exception to this would be munitions. If priorities are to be continued as a matter of policy, then they should be made effective. When the crown assets allocation committee notifies War Assets that certain materials are to be allotted to it, at the same time notification should be given to the provincial and federal governments. That would mean only ten copies of a slip indicating the material available, its location, whether used or new 'and its approximate value. Those bodies should be given two or three weeks to take up their priority. If it is not taken up, then the material could be made available to the general public, with proper advertising of the full particulars of these surpluses.
To let surplus automobiles be distributed by the automobile manufacturers association of this country is ridiculous. Trucks and other merchandise that might be suitable for veterans should be disposed of through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs assured me the other night that he was taking up actively witl} the Minister of Re-
construction the matter of securing some portion of the tools that are available and which might be used by the veterans. I wish him every success in that. If he does not have any better success in getting that material than we had in getting concrete answers to our questions in the eight meetings of one hour and fifteen minutes each that were held, then the veterans of this country will not receive the consideration that is their due.
A word as to distribution. The ordnance services are still in existence in every military district, and they could be used as distribution agencies for surplus war assets to get these items into the hands of the individuals who need them rather than having them go through the cartels who are going to get them.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee, but the govern-^ment seems to be giving the impression that they do not want an investigation held and the limelight of publicity thrown on the operations of War Assets Corporation.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no such impression, and my hon. friend knows it.


George Russell Boucher: If my hon. friend has that conviction, he probably reflects the fact that the Minister of Reconstruction has it in his mind and that the cabinet ministers and some members of the government .have it in theirs; but let me assure him that it is not in the minds of the Canadian people. They want to know just how this colossal disposal of public property is being taken care of. They want to know whether things are being run correctly. As I listened to the hon. member for Verdun and the hon. member for Labelle I thought that they both spoke too long and said too much for their argument. They explained how the war expenditures committee had met to investigate various matters of war expenditures and economies that needed investigating. I understand that committee held eight meetings. Members had given to them for discussion and consideration eight voluminous briefs, each of which would take a long time to analyse. The members of the committee were told that they were privileged to ask questions on the briefs submitted to them.
The committee got certain advice on certain aspects of this situation, and it made a report. No concurrence in that report was moved in this house, and the same is true of the report of any war expenditures committe which has sat since the beginning of the war. There has been no discussion of those reports in detail. That is not enough where we have a government in power for five or six years, a govern-

Supply-Reconstruction
ment which has brought a war to a successful conclusion but which has on hand large volumes of war assets to be disposed of. These are things which are short at the present time; the people are anxious to secure them, and in fairness to everyone I think the greatst publicity should have been given to their disposal.
The government may be sure that everything is all right, and everything may be all right, but I think it would be worth their while having the test of publicity and of public opinion placed upon their actions. If they are so sure that they have the most perfect way of disposing of war assets, they should be ready to convince the members of this parliament that their judgment was right, and through the members of this parliament convince the people of Canada that war assets are being properly, efficiently, wisely and fairly disposed of. That is all we ask; surely that is not asking too much. Even at this late date in the session, if there is anything we can do to get the government to bring publicity to bear on the actions of War Assets Corporation, we will do it. The war expenditures committee has sat for about five years, almost every session since it was first set up.


William Henry Golding: The item on war expenditures has passed. War expenditures cannot be dealt with on this item.


George Russell Boucher: We are dealing with administration and reconstruction, Mr. Chairman, and this is a part of reconstruction. War expenditures have to do with reconstruction as well as with waging war. They deal with the disposal of assets which are a part of reconstruction.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


George Russell Boucher: I will speak louder, but there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. I might even whisper it in the hon. member's ear. That would be a better way than trying to rush this thing through in the last few moments of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: No one is trying to do that.


George Russell Boucher: I urge the government to set up the committee early next session, or continue the present committee, if you like; for there is a big work to be done and the public are waiting to be satisfied about what is being done with our .war assets. May I appeal to the government to give more publicity to the disposal of this country's goods, to let the public know that everything is being done properly.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the value of the war assets which have been sold to the Netherlands government to date, or say up to October 1? What was the original value of the equipment? What price was received for it?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that that question was dealt with by the president of War Assets when he filed before the committee a summary, consisting of from ten to fifteen pages, of the custodian sales to November 30, 1945.


John Thomas Hackett: Can the minister state the value of the assets that have been placed in the possession of War Assets?


Lionel Chevrier: That statement was
filed by Mr. Berry when he gave his evidence before the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: I want to know the cost.


Lionel Chevrier: The total amount is set out in the minutes of proceedings of the committee, No. 6. giving a summary of custodian sales for November 30, 1945. That gives the original cost price, the sales price, the terms, and. the percentage realized.


John Thomas Hackett: But that is only up to-


Lionel Chevrier: November 30, 1945.


George Hugh Castleden: It does not include the sales of.assets overseas to the Netherlands government. Another question: What is the amount of commissions paid or allowed by War Assets in the sale of their goods to date?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that was the hon. gentleman's question on the order paper. I am sorry I cannot give him that information now, but I will ask the officials of the Department of Reconstruction if they can give him the information.


John Oliver Probe: What amount, if any, of military clothing and equipment has been sold to the Dutch government for use in eastern waters?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman is referring to military equipment sold to the Dutch government, that matter comes under the Department of Munitions and Supply. It would be assets that had not been declared surplus to War Assets Corporation, and the Department of Munitions and Supply through its agents would deal with it. On this item I cannot give any more information than that.


John Oliver Probe: The Prime Minister promised us some latitude in asking questions. I am not trying to embarrass the minister unduly. I think it is a fair question.
Supply-Finance


Lionel Chevrier: I am not saying it is not. I am saying that the material is in the possession of Munitions and Supply, and is not the.property of War Assets Corporation. Until it becomes the property of War Assets Corporation I cannot give my hon. friend the information.


George Hugh Castleden: A moment ago I asked what equipment had been sold to the Netherlands government, and the minister referred me to the summary appearing in the minutes of proceedings, No. 6. But that summary is a summary of custodian sales of lands and buildings disposed of. It has nothing to do with the 130.000 blankets and other materials sold to the Netherlands government.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will look at the appendix which was filed with the committee on page 98 of the minutes of proceedings, volume 3, he will find there under the heading, Consolidation of Sales Invoices, the total amount of foreign sales, $4.039,605.80. That is not broken down as between Dutch and other governments, but the sales are itemized and the total is given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
[Stage Direction]
51. Departmental administration, $639,578.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: No one of average intelligence can doubt that we should try to save as much time as we can to-day. If there are no other reasons for it, there is the eagle glare of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Nevertheless what we are doing now is not simply disposing of a few millions or tens of millions of dollars. What we are really doing is considering the whole basis of the expenditure of sums which to me still look astronomical, and I think it is fair to spend a few minutes on that. I regret very much that we are dealing with this matter in the expiring hours of the session, but that is something that we cannot remedy now.
When I spoke on October 19, commenting on the minister's budget speech, I pointed out that to my great surprise there was no statement of affairs, one might call it, given to the Canadian people. We were told the deficit of this year, and if I remember aright we were told the estimated deficit from November of this year to November of next year, but as I said then, we were given a mass of figures really related to nothing. I felt that we should have some estimate from the minister of our national income and some projection into the future. We were not going to hold him to a million or ten million, nevertheless I felt

that we had the right to ask for some statement of our position, and I do hope that we are going to get it now, because I think it is important.
That statement should contain in my opinion a few simple things. It should tell us roughly what we may anticipate in the way of a reduction in the deficit next year, the year after, and so on. I observed with interest that in the budget speech in London of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he grappled in a general way, though only in a general way, with that question, but he did attempt to forecast when they might expect to get to the stage of balancing budgets. Incidentally let me say here-and I think in this the minister will agree with me, if in nothing else that I say-that we hear bandied about now such phrases as "deficit financing", "expanding economy" and so on. These words properly have a place in our financial jargon, our financial vocabulary and perhaps in our financial thinking, but they seem to lead sdme people who ought to know much better to talk as if you could go on borrowing and borrowing without limit. I hear men who ought to know much better comforting themselves by saying, "It is all right so long as we borrow from ourselves." My understanding is that the minister does not agree with that view, and I think it would be well if he would take occasion to say something on it to-day.
I mention these things because it seems to me they go to the very root of the matter. The minister must be perturbed, as every thoughtful man is perturbed, when he considers the astounding heights to which our expenditures have risen. I do not think I need say any more about that now. I shall wait in the hope that the minister may be able to do what I am asking him to do.
As to my second point, I speak as a new member, and perhaps in some ignorance, and part of what I say may appear somewhat naive; if so, I am sorry. I watch these estimates going through and I see hundreds of thousands of dollars being voted for various items-I am referring now in particular to the supplementary estimates, because I assume that they would have had particularly careful scrutiny-and I ask the minister, because I regard the matter as of great importance, to what extent is the Department of Finance really effectively acting as the watchdog of the treasury?
Let me illustrate what I mean. The other night there was an estimate before the committee for some hundreds of thousands of dollars; it came before the committee arid

Supply-Finance
actually there was no explanation given on it until it was asked for from this side. Then an explanation was made in general terms, and it did not seem worth while holding up the business of the committee to crossexamine the minister on this o<r that item.; I do not think we could have done it very intelligently at that point. But can the minister say something to indicate how that sort of thing is handled in his department? When some expenditure is proposed, is it merely a case of the department head saying, "Well, this is a useful expenditure, it will be for the good of the people of Canada"; or is there some yardstick which is being used? Has the minister some budget which he is working to; does he know what we can afford or not afford? Those are two things on which I earnestly hope the minister is able to say something to the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What was the item that the hon. gentleman had in mind?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It was the film board, and the vote, I think, was $335,000. I take that merely as an illustration.
There is another thing I might mention as I am on my feet, although it is really a separate matter. I want the minister to tell us something about the operations of the wartime prices and trade board. I mentioned this to him before. What I suggest is that he might take one of the branches of the department, say food, and let us know how it operates. Also, because I think it is closely related, I should like the minister to say something about the subsidies, and I mean subsidies of all kinds; for example, payments to millers, presumably to keep down the price of flour; payments of freight to bring western grain to the east; all kinds of things which, in my opinion, are in effect subsidies. ^ In elucidating that subject I hope the minister will say whatever he can say as to the policy with regard to subsidies: whether they are confined to the necessaries of life, or as the case may be.
I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will think I have been commendably brief. I hope the minister will not be so brief, because I v do feel that, in particular, the first question I asked him goes to the very root of the matter. The people of Canada look to him; they respect him; and I would not willingly say anything to add to his burdens. But I think it is one's plain duty to say that we must not be allowed just to wander along hoping for the best. In war time, of course, we had to do that; we could not do anything else. It was not a case of saving money;
indeed it was almost a case of determining how fast could we spend money, because we were spending in order to get the munitions of war. Nobody blamed the minister for *that; everybody praised him for it. But now the shoe is on the other foot. I sympathize with his difficulties, but sometimes I ask myself, with all proper deference, whether it is possible, having spent tens and hundreds of millions of dollars without really looking at both sides of the nickel, to get down to the present task, which is, as I understand it, tc have a plan to work to, and to work to it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The questions are very fail questions. The trouble is that to answer them at all fully would take a long time, and while I do not object to taking a long time I do not think it is the wish of the committee that I should do so.
With regard to the first question-what are our plans for future budgeting?-the answer cannot be very satisfactory, because we are functioning in an atmosphere of great uncertainty at the present time, owing to the unfinished state1 of the negotiations with the provinces. We made certain offers to the provinces which would involve the assumption of greatly increased social service responsibilities by the dominion government and largely increased1 subsidy payments to the provinces by the dominion government, and we have no idea whether those proposals will be accepted or not. The provinces have made it fairly clear that they will expect our expenditures and subsidies to be much greater than those which we have proposed, and therefore it is impossible for me to be at all definite as to what our uncontrollable expenditures will be over the next few years. I may mention however that during the last year or thereabouts an interdepartmental committee has been sitting considering dominion-provincial relations and payments from the dominion to the provinces and what responsibilities each should assume. Draft budgets-I think I can call them budgets, although they are not detailed at all-have been prepared covering periods two, three or four years hence, and these are based upon various alternative assumptions in respect of national income. That is, they have been based upon the assumption that our'greatest production would be twelve billions or ten billions or eight billions. Perhaps there is another alternative still, but the general principle that will apply to budgeting for the next few years is this, in periods of depressed national income-and by that I do not admit for a moment that we must necessarily have a depression income in any year. But the income in some years will
Supply-Finance

be less than in others. I might describe the years which we shall have to keep in mind as fair, good and excellent, and in a period of high national income we certainly intend to balance our budgets and have surpluses. In certain other years we shall just be able to balance our budgets, while in still other years we shall have to have deficits. I have announced the policy of the government to be to budget not for a surplus each year, as has been the ambition of ministers of finance in past years, but to budget rather for cycles and to face the certainty that if some adverse conditions strike the country it may be as a result of developments beyond our borders. It may be as a result of weather. There are several causes to which such conditions might be attributable, and it might be necessary for us to have deficits. It is impossible for me to place before the House of Commons now a five-year plan-that is a five-year budgeting plan. It is impossible because we have not completed our negotiations with the provinces, and we do not know within-well, I would take a figure of two hundred or three hundred million at any rate-what our expenditures will have to be as a result of agreements that we make with the provinces. That is a matter that we shall have to iron out.
This question was raised. I was appointed chairman of what was called a subconference of the dominion-provincial conference at the time it met in August, and the representatives of one of the provinces asked the same question. They said: "It is all right for you to ask us to enter into these agreements, but what are your plans? Can you tell us what your budget will look yke, what your statement of receipts and expenditures will look like in, say, the fiscal year 1948-49 or 1949-50?" I said in reply: "Yes. I can tell you that, on the assumption that our proposals are accepted; but I dare not tell you that without the deletion of a great deal of information, because it involves plans with regard to tax rates, corporation taxation, individual taxation and so forth, which simply cannot be made public." And I can no more make it public in this house than I could before the dominion^provincial conference. Therefore, a minister of finance, it seems to me. in this month of December in this year 1945, is limited to a statement of general principles. The general principles are that we shall have as our objective the balancing of budgets over a period but not to balance budgets every year. Some years we shall have surpluses, some years we shall strike an almost exact balance, and some years we shall have deficits.
That is a brief answer to the questions which the hon. gentleman has asked. It may be briefer than the exposition of the subject entered into by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know. But I have asked myself several times during the last year whether I should not make a speech somewhere in which I should tell the public of Canada how we hoped to finance and what methods we would use in financing for the next few years-to what extent we would raise money by borrowing, to what extent by taxation, to what extent if any by bank borrowings. But every time I approached the subject I backed away from it. I discussed it with the deputy minister of finance two or three times, and backed away from it because of the uncertainty inherent in that situation and necessarily arising from it. The uncertainty was so great. However, we did go as far as we could in the white paper on reconstruction last spring and also in speeches I made in the victory loan campaign, when I made similar statements. I cannot be more definite.
All we can do is to take it a year at a time. We have been definite about the present fiscal year: everything is before the house; and we shall have to be equally definite for the next year when we present our estimates for the next fiscal year and budget for that fiscal period.
I agree that we should' not go carelessly on hoping for the best, but should have some principles on which to proceed, and it may be possible to be much more definite if we are able to come to an agreement with the provinces. If we are not able to come to such an agreement-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the minister a question? The sum of $300,000,000 which he mentioned as being the possible variation according as this or that agreement was made with the provinces surprised me by its size. Will the minister enlarge on that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would prefer to withdraw it rather than explain it. When I made the statement I said I did not know what figure to use, whether one, two or three hundred millions, because there are so many things that have to be considered. There is the question of our share of a health insurance plan, for example. The total cost of a health insurance plan to the governments, if I remember correctly, is about $250 million a year when fully in operation. The total cost of old age pensions on the basis which we proposed is something like $200,000,000 a year, if I remember rightly-that is for the

' Supply-Finance
non-means test old age pensions, those which will be paid to everyone from the age of seventy, regardless of means. Then there is a wide range in the amount which may or may not be payable to the provinces. As regards subsidy arrangements, we have not got down to that. We offered a minimum of $12 per head, rising with national production and with the population of the particular province. Well, I understand, although it has not been very definite, that some provinces think it should be more like $17 per head. What that will work out to I have not dared to write down, but it will make a tremendous difference. And so I am pointing out that when you are dealing with items, several of which are two hundred million or two hundred and fifty million, and you begin bargaining, the swing or variation is not small, when dealing with the provinces. I do not know what we shall agree to. I want an agreement with the provinces, but I cannot agree to an arrangement with them which will make our budgetary position impossible. I cannot do that. The old bad system would perhaps be better than that. The whole thing is that I cannot be definite about the future in the light of present uncertain circumstances.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would it suit the convenience of the minister if I made one or two comments on his answer to the first question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Anyone who 'has tried to think about these matters must realize the difficulty the minister pointed out before the luncheon recess. I have two comments to make. He pointed out that one of the great difficulties he faced arises from the fact that we have had no agreement between the dominion and the provinces. I bad thought of making no further comment, except the perfectly proper one that this is another indication of the great difficulty which has been experienced by the Minister of Finance, and no doubt other ministers of dominion-provincial relations, in the delay in dealing with this matter, a delay which in my opinion had nothing to do with the welfare of this country.
The minister pointed out the difficulty-and of course it is a real one-of projecting the financial condition of the country. But he
did say-and I fully accept the statement, because everyone knows it must be done- that 'he' had made various projections as to such and such a national income, such and such a tax, and such and such expenditures. My suggestion is that more can be told to the people of Canada than has been told. I am not suggesting he should give all details; of course I am not. But there is no reason why the calculations he arrives at as to national expenditures and national income should not be given, on the different bases.
After all, what is being done now is that this is being left to private enterprise. Various responsible people are putting forward these calculations, and I think the calculations I have read have been intelligently prepared. Why should not the people of Canada have that from their own Minister of Finance? Let me say again that I know there are certain details which it would be un-wise to ask the minister to put forward, and of course I would not ask it. I proceed with the suggestion that more can be given us than has been given, and that to withhold it is, first of all, to withhold from the people of Canada what is their own business, and, secondly, it is leaving it w'ith other people who are not as responsible as is the Minister of Finance.
I have just one further comment to make. The Minister did suggest that he had in mind making a speech on this subject. I think he said he had considered making it during the victory loan campaign, and stated further that he had considered that he might make it at some other time. I hope a new member has not become too sensitive about the privileges of the house, .but I would venture to say to the minister that this body might have the right to" expect that a statement of the kind would be made to it. Of course it cannot be made this afternoon, and I am not proposing to say that it should be. As I said this morning, we have not time for that. But I would certainly leave it with the minister that this is something which is not merely of academic interest, but something of interest to every thoughtful citizen of Canada. It is of interest to all responsible people in business, because naturally they are full of anxiety and concern. Why would they not be? We are all full of anxiety and concern. We cannot see the future clearly. I do think, however, that we are entitled to ask the Minister of Finance to take the people of this country into his confidence. In saying this I repeat that there must be due regard to certain things concerning which he would be entitled to maintain certain reservations.
Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only thing about making a statement of that kind now is that it would be made on certain assumptions which might prove to be unjustified, as a result of our negotiations with the provinces. That is the only trouble with that. It would be confusing. Projections we have made have been on the assumption that our proposals will be adopted exactly as made. There is no indication that they will be. There may be very wide variations from them, and therefore any statement made would be confusing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not asking the minister to do it now, although I would point out that even $200 million or $300 million, which is certainly a tidy sum, is not what it was when our total expenditures were $500 million or $600 million. It is not such an overwhelming figure as to dwarf everything else, when our expenditures run into $3,000 million or $3,500 million, as I suppose they will during the next year. However, I am not persisting in that.
I do recognize the difficulty, and what I am talking to the minister about is that as soon as may be possible-perhaps not before this house meets again-we should have a statement to let the people of Canada know what the minister can tell them about their affairs. At the present time I submit that, so far as the minister is concerned, we are just like the babes in the woods; indeed, perhaps we are worse than the babes in the woods, because at least they knew they were lost.


John Oliver Probe: What was the practice with respect to the payment of commissions for the sale of victory bonds to' the forces overseas? I notice a large item for expenses in connection with victory bonds. Was the normal practice followed in connection with commissions and, if so, who got the cheques?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No commissions were paid for the sale of victory bonds to the armed forces overseas, and no commissions were paid for their sale to employees in plants which were on the payroll plan.
I think I ought to answer the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario first, as to' what extent the minister is really the watchdog of the treasury. He wanted information as to how far the Minister of Finance goes in checking expenditures. That is a long story. I have gone into it at various times in the past; I have been frank about it and my frankness has got me into trouble. I have been criticized in the newspapers for what I said, but I

think in the long run frankness is probably the best policy. I shall be frank again to-day. - The chief check that the Minister of Finance has on expenditures in time of peace, when we are proceeding on the basis of bringing in estimates in detail before parliament, is in the preparation of the estimates. Normally we begin about November of each year to ask the departments to submit their estimates for the coming fiscal year. The estimates come in; and the staff of the treasury board, without reference to the minister in the first place, go at those estimates and try to have them reduced. They are successful to a considerable extent in having t'hem reduced. But various departments demur, and some go even farther than that and vigorously and violently protest against the proposed cuts. The matter is then taken up by myself with the various ministers and by the treasury board with the various ministers, and after a considerable amount of argument the estimates are still further reduced until they reach the form in which they appear before the House of Commons.
When speaking in this house on a former occasion about non-war estimates I was severely criticized by one of the leading metropolitan newspapers for saying that I considered my responsibilities pretty well finished at that point; they criticized me for abdicating at that stage. But I really do not abdicate at that stage, because many of the expenditures to be made under items passed by the House of Commons must be made under orders in council passed pursuant to various acts of parliament. Time after time I have taken exception to those orders in council. They are then referred to the Department of Finance for study and report by the Minister of Finance.
So far as my own duties are concerned, I have often said that the most difficult thing is not the control of prices; the most difficult thing is not the borrowing of money; certainly the most difficult thing is not taxation; the most difficult thing is not housing; perhaps the most difficult thing, the thing that is hardest on the nerves is the perpetual watching of expenditures made under authority of orders in council. The reason it is such a strain is that unless the Minister of Finance is very careful, an order in council will be passed which in itself may be sensible and wise but which would set a precedent for expenditures to follow which would be most serious from the point of view of further financing or from the point of view of economy in expenditures. That is the practice in time of peace.

Supply-Finance
In. time of war the difficulties of being the watchdog of the treasury are greatly increased. They are greatly increased, not because expenditures have to be so much greater but because of the flexible system we have to have in time of war. We bring in a War Appropriation Act which enables money voted thereunder to be applied to almost any project or purpose. The various departments decide that money should be devoted to this, that or the other purpose, and the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance thereupon become much greater than if the scope of the expenditure were limited by a parliamentary item. That is the reason why all through the war the tendency of the treasury has been to force expenditures into the estimates as much as possible and out of the War Appropriation Act.
I am afraid I am making a self-righteous speech here, talking about other ministers and so on. The treasury may be wrong about this; in fact the treasury is apt to be very wrong in time of war, because action is more important in war than economy. Other ministers with the very best of intentions, men who get action and so on, desire flexibility. They desire the power to put money to this, that or the other purpose, and they find themselves up against this somewhat financially minded Department of Finance which is cramping their style all the time. I do not know whether on balance to take credit for these watchdog operations or not, but they go on to the best of our ability.
We have an institution called the treasury board. With the exception of the Minister of Public Works the other night, who, thank heaven, did say a good word for the treasury board, I cannot remember of anyone ever saying a good word on its behalf. We talk about putting a watch on expenditures, but how much assistance do we get in this house in watching expenditures? Nine-tenths of the speeches in this house are asking for bigger and better expenditures. That was the case all through the last parliament. While this session did not start out in that way, it finally got that way. If the government is making large expenditures, it is not because the ministers are trying to make those expenditures; it is because of public and parliamentary demands for those expenditures. That is why the expenditures are being made. At times I feel as though I am against the whole world when I try to keep a lot of these expenditures down. We just do the best we can, that is all, and keep them down.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, first I want to say that I 47696-235
realize what the minister is up against. I have been trying myself to avoid making any suggestion for increasing expenditures because I wanted to be in a position to come along and talk about economies. I am perfectly conscious that we on this side have been suggesting expenditures. In fact we had differences of opinion in the ranks of this party no later than last Saturday night.
There is one thing I should like to ask the minister, a thing which I believe goes to the root of the whole matter. I think he will agree that in the next two or three years economies will have to be made that are just beyond anything that have ever been attempted before by the Department of Finance. If things go on as they are now, first of all the minister is going to break his own heart, which would be undesirable and, second, he will fail, which would be even more undesirable from a public point of view.
I ventured when I spoke on the budget to refer to what is called the Geddes committee in Great Britain after the last war, and I was careful to say that I thought that Geddes' axe went too far and probably produced evil results. Nevertheless I do not believe that there is any hope of getting our expenditures down within any reasonable time until the shoe is put on the other foot, and until somebody-and I cannot see anybody else but the Minister of Finance-tells the other departments what they are to have. Otherwise it seems to me the minister is just fighting a heroic battle, if you will, but a losing battle.
Take just one thing mentioned in the house by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the civil service estimates, amounting to 8229,000,000, or half as much our whole pre-war budget. Without taking more time I suggest to the minister that the procedure which he has just suggested will utterly fail in the years that are ahead of him. He must devise some entirely new procedure. I understand that in Britain the shoe is more or less put on the other foot, that the treasury there does call the tune; that it tells departments what they can have. I am speaking without any parliamentary knowledge, just looking at it as a business proposition, and it seems to me that as I said before unless the minister does that he will break his heart, and second, he will fail.	_
Would the minister care to take a single item in the estimates, the film board item or anj'thing else he likes, just to show the committee what happens when a supplementary estimate comes before him? Perhaps he would take one of his own estimates. There is an item at the top of page 22 of the supplementary estimates, 1945-46, $200,000

Supply-Finance

for printing and stationery. I would be interested to know just what is done, who is responsible; just what technique was followed in having that item inserted? I am just wondering whether the minister was satisfied that somebody looked into that and arrived at the conclusion that that was the amount required, or did somebody just say: We need quite a lot of money and 1200,000 will go through as well as any other figure?
One last comment. I hope-and I am going to suggest this to my leader and I think he will be sympathetic-that at the beginning of the next session we are going to say that these estimates will be looked into in a very different way from this time. We shall have a chance to find out what the score is.. That has not been possible in the last few days, but next session I hope we shall be able to do it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The item of $260,000, which includes the $200,000 mentioned by my hon. friend, was not given personal attention by me. The officials in my department put it into the supplementary estimates without comment, and I aecepted it, having confidence in the officials. The treasury board officials would have received that estimate from the comptroller of the treasury, Mr. B. G. McIntyre. My confidence in Mr. McIntyre would be such, knowing him to be an old employee of the finance department, having been in the department I should say between thirty and forty years, and having a keen appreciation of the importance of economy, and by the very nature of his workbeing engaged in checking expenditures all the time, that if he said he needed $260,000 I would know it to be true, and that would not be an item I would check.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not suggest for one moment that the minister should take his own time to check it. I am speaking earnestly and only with the desire to help him, and with the full conviction that I am right, when I say that unless the minister can devise some scheme which puts the shoe on the other foot he is in for a bad time, and we all are.


John Bracken: There was a discussion in the committee of supply the other night on the estimates for the film board, which appear in three different places, in the main civil estimates, in the war estimates and in the supplementary estimates. Could the officials who are with the minister figure out what the total appropriation for the film board is? The total has never been presented to the house. What was the total last year and what is it for this year?
IMr. Macdormell.]


James Lorimer Ilsley: We will try to get that
information and give it a little later.


Mr. ROSS (St Paul's):: I do not like to
repeat, but I think this will bear repeating. In 1938 we had 44.000 civil servants in this country, and we paid them $88,000,000. In 1945 we had 150,000 civil servants and the amount we paid them, for 1944-45 was $229,000,000, according to the return I got. That is about half our normal peace-time budget. My purpose in rising is first to bring that to the attention of the house and the country.
The other thing that I have in mind is this. We have 150,000 civil servants, and with three to a family, this means that 450,000 people in this country are living off 12,000,000. That does not take into consideration the number of civil servants working for the various provincial governments and for municipal governments. That is just a little more than Canada can stand. These 150,000 civil servants have been doing a job and a good job in this war. But that number must be cut down. They are not engaged in constructive effort; they are non-constructive, and what we want to do is put some of them back into useful enterprise.
I think that is one of the biggest jobs before the Minister of Finance, the treasury board and the government at the present time. I urge them with all the power at my command to try to cut down this overhead, so that we can cut down the cost of government in this country and reduce the burden of taxation on the individual taxpayer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the item carries, I
think I should answer the question asked me by. the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who wanted me to give some indication of the activities of the wartime prices and trade board. It is hard to cover that subject in a few words. We have an annual report from the wartime prices and trade [joard which covers the work of the board fully. I presume -that the hon. member has lead that. He particularly referred to the question of subsidies. He intimated to me very kindly last night that be would be asking me something about subsidies, and I jotted down the main types of subsidies that are paid and the reasons why they are paid. When we imposed the over-all or general price ceiling in the fall of 1941 we realized that some provision would have to be made for imports. That is, if the price of goods went up abroad it would be impossible for importers to import those goods and sell them under the Canadian price ceiling unless they were subsidized. So the first important class subsidy which was authorized was the import subsidy, which has continued from that day to this. The tendency

Supply-Finance
through the years has been to take more and more articles off the subsidizable list. To begin with we subsidized any import, but with a little experience it became apparent that^ it was hard to justify the payment of subsidies on the importation of certain types of luxuries, so they were taken' off the subsidy list. Those are the import subsidies.
The second class of subsidies I want to mention is an interesting class. It was discovered that retailers were selling in some cases in the base period-the period was a few weeks in the fall of 1941-and that their prices during that period were based upon the purchase price of goods which they had bought perhaps six months before. In the meantime the wholesalers' price had gone up so that it would be impossible for the retailers to continue to sell, say in the spring of 1942 and later, unless they were able to buy the goods from the wholesalers at the prebasic period price, the price which they charged as early as the spring of 1941 or the fall of 1940. So we then paid these roll-back subsidies, subsidies which rolled the wholesalers' price back to the appropriate period which enabled retailers to sell under the price ceiling. That is a second class of subsidy.
As the years went by, costs increased1 in various ways to certain domestic producers; and while we have not recognized increased wages as a reason for the payment of subsidies, many other costs are recognized as a reason for the payment of subsidies, and domestic subsidies are paid to some industries to enable them to produce and sell under the price ceiling. That is the third class of subsidy.
Another class of subsidy, of which I believe there is only one example, is the milk subsidy, which was undertaken for the specific purpose, not of keeping the price at what it was during the basic period, but to reduce it two cents below what it was in the basic period, in order to prevent the cost of living index from rising unduly. That is a consumer milk subsidy, a very important subsidy, and virtually the only one of its kind. This is the fourth type.
The fifth which I should mention is the bulk trading losses. Some goods are purchased by government agencies and sold to the trade in Canada or to the Canadian public at a loss. This subsidy applies to dried fruits and to some other commodities which I have forgotten for the moment-it is immaterial.
But these are the main types of subsidies. These are the subsidies which are payable by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corpora. tion, which is the agency of the wartime prices and trade board.
In addition to these, there are production subsidies which are recommended and paid by the Department of Agriculture. They are for the purpose of encouraging or of maintaining production and to some extent correcting inequities as between farmers and other producers in the country. They are substantial. In that class would come the butter subsidy and the fluid milk subsidy-except this consumer milk subsidy I have mentioned; the canned milk subsidy, the cheese subsidies, and some others: there are certain other subsidies paid by the Department of Agriculture.
These are the subsidies. We are getting out of subsidies as fast as we can.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word about amounts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The subsidies on bulk trading losses from December 1, 1941 to September 30, 1945 amounted to $296,288,670.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have here the price board's report up to December, 1944. It gives the subsidies from the inception in the autumn of 1941 to December, 1944, totalling for the commodity prices board $200 million, and totalling losses on commodity trading at $25 million.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: According to the best additions I can make, if you divide $225 million by three you would have $75 million in the two following years. Including the current fiscal year, the total subsidies are on a much higher scale than that, something in the nature of $150 million.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which year?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I a,m taking the current year. I am looking at the statement of September 28 last, and including such things as millers' subsidies, subsidies for transportation, and so on, and I made* it something in the neighbourhoood of $150 million. I do not want to pursue that very far, and if the minister can make a general statement as to whether these subsidies are going up or down I think that will suffice for my purpose at the moment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That Canadian millers' subsidy was not included in the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation subsidy; that is a separate subsidy. But the question the hon. gentleman wants answered is whether they are likely to be less, or much less, in 1945 than in 1944. The trend is down. In the first nine months of 1945 the subsidies payable by the
Supply-Finance

Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, amounted to $68,584,697. There are two reasons why they should be coming down. One of the important elements in subsidies was the war risk insurance and high costs of freight bn some imports; those have gone down very considerably.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word as to future policy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are working on elimination of subsidies. Some of the subsidies have been eliminated already. We intend to get out of these subsidies just as soon as we can. It is a question always whether it is desirable to authorize a price increase or to continue the subsidy; in some cases one seems to be desirable, ,and in some cases the other seems to be desirable.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That matter of price suggests one question I should like to ask. -Are the price controls to be increasingly applied merely to necessaries?
I pointed out to the minister the other day that it is a serious thing if the price of food rises, but, except to a limited class of the community, it is not a serious matter if the price of jewellery rises. That is an exceptional case. But what is the policy? Is it that as quantities become adequate the minister will take the price controls off?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The main reason for price controls is shortage, and when the conditions of shortage disappear the reasons generally for the controls will I think have pretty well disappeared also.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But I mean when they disappear specifically, in any particular case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. WRIGHT:: When the Americans lifted their price ceiling, how did it affect the amount of subsidies we had to pay in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They did not lift their ceilings on articles that we were subsidizing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sony to be so disobliging, but I am not making any apologies. This is a serious matter. I do not find myself immediately convinced by what the minister has said about not being able to lift the price in any one case because of its effect on others. I am not disputing that that may to some extent be true, but if that argument is pushed very far it may result in continuing controls beyond the point where any of us would like to see them. One question the minister has not answered is this, and I will make it specific, so as to take up as little time as possible. I do want a picture, very brief, of just how one specific control works. Take food. I was in a little store in my riding and I imagine the amount of groceries in it would not occupy the space of more than twice the size of that table. An inspector had been in during the afternoon checking up what was there. I do not say that he was checking groceries particularly. In fact, two inspectors had been there that afternoon. Will the minister indicate how far the control goes in the case of food, how it gets down to the small man, and what is being inquired into when the small man is investigated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a retail price ceiling on the articles that are identical with those sold in the basic period. He must sell at basic-period prices unless there has been an order raising the ceiling on those particular articles. If there are different types of articles there have been orders fixing the respective price ceilings under which he must sell. It may have been an order fixing the wholesale price, with a mark-up permitted him. They are circularized and informed of the prices and the enforcement branch makes checks to see that they are complying with the law. New price fixations run from six thousand to seventy-five hundred per month.


John Bracken: The minister spoke of the wartime prices and trade board. Is that the organization that administers meat rationing? .


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: Is there any thought of discontinuing meat rationing?

Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; there is no thought of doing so. I do not mean that we shall always have it, but there is no thought at the moment of discontinuing it.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister said in answer to my question that price ceilings had not been lifted in the United States on articles subsidized coming into Canada. I understand that on oranges in the United States the price ceilings were lifted and subsidies were paid on them coming into Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have not subsidized
oranges since the 1st of January, 1945.


John Bracken: Has the minister with him at the moment any advisers who are familiar with meat rationing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Moderately so, I think. The rationing experts are not here, but the officials who are present could give some advice.


John Bracken: I remember when the minister was dealing with this matter two or three months ago he indicated that there had been a tripartite arrangement on the part of Britain, the United States and Canada, in whieh the United States and Canada undertook to increase the supply of meats sent to the old country and to liberated countries. A meeting was called by President Roosevelt, as I remember. Can he tell me when that meeting was held.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In April, 1945.


John Bracken: At that time this government undertook to send more meat to the old country. If I remember rightly the government was sending sixty million pounds per month and it undertook to send about seventy-five million pounds per month, and to do that it was proposed by rationing to reduce the average amount consumed in Canada from, I believe, 145 pounds to 130 pounds per capita. I believe that is correct -the difference was about fifteen pounds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was from 145 to 115, but we undertook to raise it to a little over 130.


John Bracken: That was to make it possible to send additional amounts overseas.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not to send more than we sent in 1944, but to live up to the programme that we had outlined as appropriate for us in 1945-more than we otherwise would send.


John Bracken: After coming back from that conference you undertook to increase the amount you were then sending oversea*.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, yes; I think that is correct-more than we otherwise would send.
It was going down, if I remember correctly, and we wanted to keep up the programme.


John Bracken: When dealing with the question of meat rationing the minister made that statement. It is reported at page 393 of Hansard. My point is this. The government proposed to increase the amount of meat it was sending overseas at that time. It did so at the very time when it knew that meat production in Canada was going down by double the amount by which it proposed to increase the supply for overseas shipment. The minister will find, by analyzing his own statement at page 393, in the first eight months of this year 270,000,000 pounds less of meat was produced than in the same period last year, 30,000,000 pounds a month less, and the government, in the face of that, undertook to send 15,000,000 pounds more a month overseas. My question is: Why did you not bring in meat rationing then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is referring to April? Why did we not bring it in earlier than we did?


John Bracken: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a good deal of opposition to it and it was something that could not be brought about abruptly. Many preparations were necessary for it and the matter was considered for quite a period before we decided upon it.


John Bracken: The only point I wish to make is this, and it will all be found in the minister's own statement. He proposed in September to increase the amount of meat we were sending by 15,000,000 pounds a month, and to do that he asked the1 Canadian people to eat less. In the very same address and in his own figures he pointed out what the bureau of statistics had always known, that the production of meat in Canada as shown by the slaughterings of live stock was down by more than thirty million pounds a month. My question is: when the government knew that and knew it would have to bring in rationing, why did it not bring in rationing then instead of leaving it until September?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was decided to bring it in long before September, but a great deal of preparation was necessary. I think it was decided about July. The middle of the summer, in the hot weather, is a bad time to bring in meat rationing, and there was continual argument about it. A great many people thought meat rationing would not
Supply-Finance

increase the amount of meat available for overseas; that there would be so much opposition to it, so much friction, and so on. We had a great deal of opposition and friction; we must not forget that. We had a strike of miners in Alberta lasting for more than a month following the introduction of meat rationing. We had a butchers' strike in Montreal, and we had endless delegations. We persisted, however, and it was the right thing to do; but the restoration- of meat rationing was not something to be entered into lightly.


John Bracken: I suggest that the opposition to rationing, whatever it was, should not have been allowed to influence the government to postpone that decision when it knew it was increasing the amount of meat going overseas and when it also knew that at the same time production in Canada was down almost twice as much a month as in the previous year. The government under- * took to send an additional fifteen million pounds a month overseas at the very time it knew production was down thirty million pounds a month compared with the previous year. Yet it did not bring in rationing until September. The reduction in production was known to the government in January of this year. Its own statistics show that from 200,000 to 300,000 fewer hogs were killed each month from January onward during the first half of this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public debt charges-Servicing of public debt- 60. Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services -of fiscal -agents, London, registrar's fees, etc., $280,300.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask just one question in regard to the figures shown for the provinces, a statutory item following this one. Do these figures still stand, or has anything that has happened in the interval caused them to be altered? Are these still the working figures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: These figures still stand with the exception of the figure for Alberta, which was raised the other day by legislation.


George Hugh Castleden: There is also a statutory item covering the interest on the public debt. Could the minister give us a comparison of this item for 1945-46 with the same item for 1939-40? I see the increase this year is Si 9,253,628, and I am just wondering whether the debt increased in the same proportion as the public debt charges.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would have to send for the 1939-40 figures; I have not them here.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister could not give me any approximate idea?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; I have not those figures here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants -and contributions-federal district commission-
66. Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, -and improvements -to -the -parkway -system under the control of the federal district commission, $133,500.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I understand that the grounds around these parliament buildings now are cared for by the federal district commission. Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot be sure about that. I thought the public works department had something to do with it, but from this it would seem that the federal district commission looks after the grounds.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am told that they are now cared for by the federal district commission, and I wish to make this comment. Until last year the grounds around these buildings were kept beautifully, and we had flower beds which really enhanced the appearance of the grounds. Last year, however, because they were not cared for by the same staff, the flower beds were allowed to run into the grass, particularly at the west end of this building.
I do not know that the commission is doing as good a job as our own men did. Previously the work was very well done, and I have often wondered why the care of the grounds was turned over to the federal district commission. Certainly they are not as beautiful as they were.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
68. To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $5,122,560.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is an increase of $2,000,000 in this item. What are the reasons for that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The increase here is
$1,903,040. The vote provides for salaries and expenses of the comptroller of the treasury s office. The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, provides for the appointment of the comptroller of the treasury for the purpose of maintaining more complete control over the administration of the' consolidated revenue fund. The act assigns the following duties to the comptroller:
(1)	The issue of public moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund by cheque, or other instrument as directed by the treasury board.

Supply-Finance
(2)	Certification that there is a balance available in the appropriation by parliament for the specified service, before any issue of public funds shall be made.
(3)	Certification that there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available out of the amount authorized by parliament for the particular service to pay any commitments before any contract or undertaking involving a charge on the consolidated revenue fund is entered into.
Since the outbreak of war, there has been a large increase in the work performed in many of the offices of the comptroller owing to enlarged war-time staffs and increased expenditures. Funds have been made available under the war appropriation, however, for expenditures in connection with distinctly war services.
There is a statement in regard to the increases, but I think it is too long to read.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want the minister to read a long statement, but here is an increase of 82,000,000 or about 66 per cent in the expenditures of the comptroller's office in one year, and it comes at the end of the war. There must be some substantial explanation for that. Really I am wondering whether some other expenditures have crept in there, because it is hard to understand why the amount should be almost doubled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Here are some of the items: promotional and annual increases, SI 13.700; net increase resulting from transfers between normal and war staffs, $69,495. Those'are small, but look at this: increase for national health and welfare, $656,500.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister explain just what that is? Is that in connection with family allowances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Largely.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is that expenditure not carried by national health and welfare? I do not understand that. We have heard quite a lot about the very, low cost at which that was operated, and it is astonishingly low. I could operate at a low cost, too, if somebody paid all my expenses.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Our system is that when
departments pay money they pay through treasury officers. We have our treasury officers, officers of the comptroller of the treasury, in all the departments of government. Very often they are almost regarded as officers of that department, although in actual fact they are really officers of the Department of Finance. If I am correctly informed, that system was introduced in 1931, when the new act was
passed. It was considered a reform, and perhaps it is, because it places under the Department of Finance the actual paying of money iu all departments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think I need question the matter farther. I did not ask for complete details, and the minister has explained in a general way. I suppose we have to accept it as it is. There is no system whereby a civil servant is graded according to the number of employees he has under him, is there?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance-	. *,0noon
89. Departmental .administration, ?1°0,830.
John Bracken: Would the minister answer the question I asked respecting the film board?


Mr. McCANN:: The expenditures of the
film board are in three or four places, and perhaps therein lies the difficulty in finding out what the total expenditures have been. In the main estimates is an item of $810,000, which has already been passed. The details of this are found at page 147 of the estimates.


John Bracken: I do not wish to have details. However, we were aware that the items chargeable to'this service were to be found in different places. They were not given to. us at one time. I just wished to have the totals for this year and last year.


James Joseph McCann: In the main estimates there is an item of $810,000; in the supplementary estimates there is one of $335,000, and under the War Appropriation Act there is an item of $1,280,000, giving a total estimated expenditure of $2,425,000. This amount does not include the $500,000 in a revolving fund, which is recoverable. In 1944-45 the ordinary expenditures were $775,000, with an additional $1,341,000 under war appropriations, making a grand total of $2,116,000 for that year, as compared with $2,425,000, plus $500,000 in the revolving fund, for 1945-46.
If the hon. member is interested in the details in respect of the main part of the item, which came under national war services and amounted to $1,280,000, he would find that detail in Hansard for Friday, September 28.


John Bracken: I was not in search of detail. What the minister has given is exactly what I wanted. These amounts were available somewhere and, while I am not suggesting that anyone hid them, we could not find the complete story.
Supply-Finance


James Joseph McCann: Well, does what I have said answer the question?


John Bracken: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: I admit it would be much clearer if the various expenditures were consolidated. In past years I have found myself in exactly the same position as the leader of the opposition finds himself in to-day, where it took a lot of ferreting out to determine what the total expenditures in a department might be.


John Bracken: The moral to be drawn from this is that it seems to me that when these estimates are brought forward someone should give the committee a frank and full picture of each service, stating that there is so much here, so much there, and so much somewhere else, and that it adds up to a certain amount.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under this item for departmental administration I should have asked if there has been any discussion between the dominion and the provinces with a view to having a little less by way of insurance departments than we have at the present time throughout the country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That matter was mentioned at the last meeting of the coordinating committee, attended by the premiere, but it was not discussed for any considerable' time. I should hope that it would be discussed later. It must be remembered, however, that the provinces have always been most retentive of their jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
458. Royal Canadian Mint, including ,the Dominion of Canada assay office, further amount required, $47,245.
Mr. ADAMSON:: I put several questions on the order paper respecting overages at the Royal Canadian Mint. I received a letter in the matter this morning, and I understand that all overages at the mint go into the consolidated revenue, fund, whether they arise from the operation of the cotrelle, or from sweepings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot answer that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Could the minister find out from his officers and let me have the information later?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Division
[Stage Direction]
225. General administration, including authority to create positions and make appointments within the division, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil ..Service Act and the said positions and staff so ap>pointed 'are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act, $888,073.
George Hugh Castleden: What has the department done in connection with preparing a more simplified form of income tax return to be made out by those engaged in agriculture? I understand that an attempt is being made to spread the income tax over a five-year period. The minister said earlier that the department was doing something in connection with preparing a simplified form, and had hoped to have something ready at this time. I do not want a long statement, but I want something that will be comprehensive.


James Joseph McCann: The question of income tax assessment of farmers and ranchers was raised some time ago in the house, and I undertook then to make a statement indicating the basis on which they are assessed, having in mind' two particular problems; first, cash versus inventory and, second, what might be called dispersal sales by ranchers and farmers of their cattle.
I am advised that farmers and ranchers are assessed on either the cash disbursed and cash income or on an accrual or inventory basis. The ca$h basis, as its name implies, takes into account only the cash received and the cash paid out during the taxation year. At the inception of the Income War Tax Act farmers as a class did not keep accurate accounting records, and to a lesser degree that still is substantially true. In the main they only keep memoranda regarding the money received and the money spent. Because of this, farmers, unlike other business concerns, were permitted to use the cash basis and to report as income that which they paid out, the difference representing the income on which they were taxed. This method fitted in with the factual position of farmers, and found general acceptance by farmers because it was simple and could be easily understood. As stated, they regarded that which they sold for cash in the year of sale and that which they bought for cash in the year of purchase as representing income and outgo. They set one off against the other, and the difference indicated their income for that year. This method of determining revenue and expense does not apply to capital assets that were bought or sold during the year, that is, farm machinery was

Supply-National Revenue
not an expense in the year of purchase. It was a capital expenditure and was subject to depreciation. Likewise machinery sold was not brought into revenue account.
The second system was, as stated, the accrual or inventory basis. This requires the maintenance of proper accounts and records, taking into consideration not only the cash receipts and the cash outlays but maintaining an accurate record as to inventory of live stock, grain and other revenue producing assets on hand at the beginning and end of each year, so that the cost thereof could be carried forward and offset against the sales in the year of sale. Likewise it required the maintenance of a record of accounts receivable and accounts payable. The number of farmers using this accrual basis is in fact very small. Generally speaking it is not their practice. They are not accustomed to it. They are not skilled in it and, generally speaking, they find it difficult and confusing. The practical application of the income tax law was therefore on a cash basis.
There were practically no objections raised to farmers reporting on a cash basis until the advent of war and the resultant increase in their sales, particularly of live stock at substantially increased prices. Herds had been built up by farmers. The cost of raising or purchasing, maintaining, attending and feeding the cattle had been allowed as an expense in years prior to their sale. Thus all expenses over successive years were taken during the successive years as an expense against whatever income there might be in those years from all sources. The herd, by natural increase or by purchase, continued to grow

that is, expenses continued successively over the years-but no substantial sale of cattle took place. Then a sale of a substantial portion of the stock did take place. The sale price as usual was income in the year of sale. The farmer perhaps felt aggrieved that in the year of the substantial sale of cattle he should be called upon to declare his income on the cash basis, even though that was the usual basis.
Now it is quite clear that he has laid the foundation over the years in respect of which his assessment should be levied, but the high rates of tax, together with the high income, with the resultant heavy, tax, creates in him a sense of dissatisfaction. His tax will be much higher than that which he has normally been paying over the past years. Not having felt the weight of sudh a heavy tax he feels that there is something wrong in asking him to pay a heavy tax in the year of substantial 47696-236
sale on the mere basis of relativity when compared with the prior years of small tax liability.
The taxation division, appreciating the difficulties and the concern of such farmers, under date of February 24, 1944, instructed the inspectors of income tax across Canada that any farmer or rancher who had previously filed his return on a cash basis but who desired to change to an accrual basis would be permitted to do so, and outlined the procedure to be followed in such cases. Briefly the procedure was as follows: First, ascertain, the inventory of cattle, grain, et cetera, on hand at December 31, 1935; second, tax that inventory as income of 1935 along with the income of 1935 previously reported; and third, adjust subsequent returns in accordance with the inventory at the end of each year.
The instructions also indicated that where actual inventories could not be accurately determined, a reasonable estimate of such inventories would be accepted, provided that in future the farmer or rancher took 'actual annual inventories. The inventory values were to be taken having regard to the appropriate stock market and grain market reports in the locality of the taxpayer at the various dates. The effect of this ruling was to spread the income arising from a substantial sale over a number of back years, including the year of sale, instead of considering the total receipts as income of the year of sale. This resulted in relief from an excessive tax burden to the farmer by ascribing his income to the years during which the inventory grew in value. .
This method is dependent entirely upon the farmer being prepared to go in future on an accrual basis and keep accurate records henceforth of cattle, grain, et cetera, inventories, accounts receivable, accounts payable, et cetera-in other words to maintain a proper accounting system, if he continues in business. There are no statistics of the number of farmers or ranchers who have changed from a cash basis to an accrual basis, although on general knowledge they are believed to be comparatively few.
Another problem arose in connection with farmers who were giving up business and selling their entire herd and inventories in a bulk sale. The claim was made that it was unfair to tax in one year the proceeds of the sale of stock which had been acquired over a number of years. Again it had to be pointed out that the cost of raising or purchasing that stock had been allowed as an expense of previous years, and having returned their income on a cash basis the cash received on.

Supply-Notional Revenue

a bulk sale was strictly income of the year of sale. It was realized, however, that some injustice would be occasioned by taxing on this basis, and the taxation division has permitted a spreading back of the proceeds of the bulk sale over a period of three to five years, including the year of sale.
In doing this several factors have to be taken into consideration, that is, the inventories, accounts receivable and payable, et cetera, at the end of each of the three or five years, and in many cases they have to be estimated. In any case relief from an excessive tax burden enures to the farmer. At page 2745 of Hansard of November 30, the hon. member for Souris suggests an example be given of how such a method would be worked out. We will take his arbitrary figure of a bulk sale in 1945 of $10,000. Assume that the farmer's inventory was as follows:
1941		   $1,000
1942		 5,500
1943		 7,000
1944		 8,500
1945		   10,000
Instead of taxing the total proceeds of the sale of $10,000 in 1945 the taxation division would be prepared, if there were no other factors to be taken into consideration, that is, accounts payable, et cetera, to deem $4,000 to be income of 1941 and $1,500 to be income of each of the four subsequent years. Most cases are not as simple as this, and all factors have to be taken into consideration in coming to a conclusion, but the fact remains in the case of a bulk sale where the farmer is going out of business, a reasonable adjustment is made. The inspector of income tax is always ready to discuss and recommend adjustments in the matter of bulk sales by farmers.
Questions have been raised as to the taxation of the proceeds of breeding animals. Inasmuch as^ the cost of purchasing or raising such animals has been allowed as an expense, the proceeds of sale represent taxable income. Indeed, the animal may be considered a breeder to-day and to-morrow be slated for re-sale. It is suggested that it is part of the farmer's merchandise; that is, what he deals in, and therefore on sale returnable as income.
With regard to the taxation of the proceeds of wheat participation certificates, the treatment of such is covered by order in council P.C. 6020 of August 1, 1944, which provides that any additional tax found due by reason of including the amount received from the encashment of wheat participation certificates with other income of the farmer in the year of encashment over and above that tax which would have been claimed if the farmer had 
been taxable in the year of receipt of the wheat participation certificate be remitted in any individual case.
Finally, it might be pointed out that by the 1944 statutes, section 4, subsection 5, chapter 43, provision is made for spreading a loss sustained by a farmer over a number of years, that is, one year back and three years forward; thus a loss sustained in 1944 could be claimed first against the 1943 income, and if not recouped in that year, then successively against 1945, 1946 and 1947.
I think that with that comprehensive statement on the record, hon. members interested who give it a little study will find that it covers in as clear a manner as it is possible to do it the whole question which the hon. gentleman has raised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Income tax division-
226.	Internal inspection .and verification, $445,774.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: To
what extent is the auditor general responsible for auditing the receipts of this department?


James Joseph McCann: The accounts of the Department of National Revenue taxation division come under the audit of the auditor general in exactly the same way as the accounts of any other department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Income tax division-
227.	District offices, $11,075,604.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister explain this substantial increase? Then I wish to make one comment.


James Joseph McCann: The increase is due almost entirely to the enormous increase in staff. No department of government has, I think, grown more rapidly in war years-that is, of all the older departments of government^-than has the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue. The expenditures for salaries in 1944-45 were $6,250,000, and for 1945-46, $8,775,000, an enormous increase.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was the expenditure two years back?


James Joseph McCann: I have only the figures for one year preceding.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the expenditure jumped up this year more than usual?


James Joseph McCann: No; there has been a fairly gradual growth during the' past four or five years of war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just wish to make this comment. This in-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
crease in expenditure represents a great increase in staff. I do not suppose that it is any mystery to any of us why it is necessary; but I point this out, having regard to what the Minister of Finance said last October, that it was not proposed yet to have a full-dress inquiry into our system of income tax collection, that the time was not yet opportune. I think he was wrong then, and I think he is even more wrong now if it is delayed any longer, for every time we engage a lot more staff-that is inescapable, no doubt-the thing gets more and more set and it becomes harder to make a change. You have more people doing things that you have to-change if you adopt a new system. I earnestly suggest to the two ministers concerned that every month they delay does not make it any-, easier;. it only makes it harder. It is a matter that should not be delayed. I am not going to repeat any of the things I said two- months ago, particularly because I see thqt the deputy minister is here. -What I said then were strong things, and they were fully accepted throughout the country. Most people are groaning under the various things they groan under in connection with the income tax, apart from the amount of tax they pay, and I earnestly suggest that this inquiry should no longer be delayed, for every month of delay makes the system harder to change. A full-dress and comprehensive inquiry should be instituted at once.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The details given on
page 146 show that the staff of the district offices has increased by 1,168, and that the staff of the main taxation division has increased by a substantial number. That, of course is to be expected. The details also show that the expenditure for temporary help has gone up by 81,029,000. That is for temporary help, not likely to become - permanent?


James Joseph McCann: The increased expenditure
has been due to the increased amount of work. During the war years employees were taken on in the department only on a temporary basis.
I think the increase in the temporary staff is a little more than the increase in the permanent staff. But it has been due entirely to the increased amount of business and the fact that -these employees were not taken into the permanent service during the war years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I quite appreciate that.
What is the explanation of the increase of 1,168 in the permanent staff?
Mr. McCANN.: That is following the policy of the government in all departments to give employment to returned men and women from the armed services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
228. Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for it to customs, excise -and income tax secret investigation services, $15,000.
Mr. McKAY:: This amount of $15,000 is apparently for secret investigation services in connection with customs, excise and income tax. Is this a separate service conducted by the Department of Justice, or is it part of the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Have the results justified the expenditure?


James Joseph McCann: This item has to do with services in connection with customs, excise and income tax investigations. Certain people have to be paid a moiety for the amount of work which they do in connection with these investigations. Payments are made on the approval of the deputy minister in whatever division the investigation takes place.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is it separate, or is it under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


James Joseph McCann: Although the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do some work for the customs and excise division these payments
are to what might be called casual informers.
. * '


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
582. Departmental administration - further amount required, $40,480.
Mr. HAZEN:: I am sorry that neither the Minister, of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Agriculture is here, for there is a question I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce under this item. It is brought to my attention that a large quantity of seed potatoes has been sold from the province of New Brunswick to Spain. All seed potatoes from the province of New Brunswick, I am informed, are sold or supposed to be sold through the special products board of the Department of Agriculture, except those that are sold to Venezuela and the United States and, I think, to Cuba. Under the regulations of the special products board the dealers or shippers of New Brunswick have the business divided between them on a quota basis. All exports are filled by the dealers and handled through the special products board. For1 example, F. W. Pirie Company, Ltd., of Grand Falls, N.B., got about 16 per cent of the' business; Porters Ltd., of Perth, N.B., got 16 per cent; McCain Products Co. Ltd., of East Florenceville, N.B., got 16 per cent; and Hatfield Industries Ltd., of Hart-land, N.B., got 16 per cent; the rest is divided among the smaller dealers. My information is that this large sale of seed potatoes to SpaiD
Supply-National Defence

is not being made through the special products board, as sales are supposed to be made; that the dealers or shippers of New Brunswick were not notified of the sale, that they were not given their fair share of the business, but that, in some way which should be explained, one dealer or perhaps more who possibly had some pull with the government was given the business. The special products board, I am informed, in reply to inquiries which were made a day or two ago, refused to give the quantities of potatoes that were being shipped or the names of the shippers. The board stated that it was done under a private agreement-whatever "a private agreement" may mean. The transaction, I believe, is contrary to the regulations; it is not playing fair with the shippers and dealers; it has the ear-marks of somebody having some particular pull; and it seems to me that light should be thrown on the transaction.
I ask the minister these questions: Have seed potatoes been sold to Spain? If so, how many were sold and at what price; what shipper or dealer supplied the potatoes, and if there was more than one, who were they and how much did each supply? What was the date of the contract and what were its .terms? Has an export permit been issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce; and if so, for what quantities was it issued, and when? Was the sale made through the special products board? If it was not made through that board, how was it made, and when? Why were not all the shippers or dealers in New Brunswick permitted to share in the business?
These are questions which, I think, should be answered. It is difficult to understand, if this sale has gone through, why it did not go through in the regular way and why all the shippers or dealers in New Brunswick did not get their fair share of the business.


James Joseph McCann: I must admit that I am not in a position to answer the question, and there is no use in bluffing about 'it. I am only handling these supplementary estimates for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his unavoidable absence from, the house; but [DOT] I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that the questions as indicated on Hansard will receive the personal attention both of the minister and his staff and that the answers will be sent to the hon. member for St. Iphn-Albert.


Douglas King Hazen: I thank the minister very much. I shall appreciate it if the minister will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. HnzrjiJ
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Normal services-
181. Grants to military associations and institutes, as detailed in the estimates, $10,425.
John Oliver Probe: I want to make a very short plea at this stage on behalf of the Canadian men and wromen in the army of occupation. I have had quite a number of letters, as no doubt all hon. members have, concerning conditions in Europe. I have summarized them briefly, and I should like to have the Minister of National Defence make some statement with respect to them. The most common allegation at the moment is with respect to the inadequacy and bad quality of food received by other ranks in the army of occupation. I was over there at a time when the black market situation was not too good, in France particularly, and United States and Canadian boys were penalized because advantage was taken of the quartermaster. It seems to me that if the men are suffering as a result of this, the Minister of National Defence may have means of investigating it.
The second important criticism which is commonly received is a protest about the lack of educational and vocational training for the occupation troops. I know that an elaborate scheme was set up to provide that material over there, and I wonder whether it has fallen down, whether the staffs have left the continent and the boys are limited to their own initiative.
The third matter is with respect to lack of proper recreational facilities. I have here a number of clippings from the Overseas Maple Leaf as late as the 28th and 29th of November complaining about that. I will not read them, but I should like to know what facilities are available. *
Of course there is also the perennial complaint, arising from considerable resentment, that former combat men, some of whom were wounded in action, are placed in the army of occupation while N.R.M.A. men have been returned to Canada. Might we have a brief statement from the minister explaining how he is safeguarding the morale of the army of occupation?


Mr. ABBOTT:: First, on the question of food: as I said a little while ago, the rations which our men are receiving are exactly the same as the rations issued to the British troops. We have always supplied our troops with the same ration, but we are supplementing it to some extent with fruit juices. The basic ration however is the same as that received by the British army of occupation.


John Oliver Probe: And they are getting it?

Supply-Legislation


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had no complaints as to the inadequacy or bad quality of the ration. The ration on the continent was cut, as I announced in the house some little time ago. Formerly, when the troops were engaged in combat service, there was a surplus ration. Now the ration is the same for all the troops of occupation, that is all the com- [DOT] monwealth troops.


John Oliver Probe: The British standard, supplemented by-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Supplemented by fruit juice. As to the lack of vocational and educational facilities, this is the first complaint I have heard. We are doing our best to see that these facilities are provided and will continue so long as our troops are there. As to the provision of recreational facilities, my hon. friend will appreciate that it is somewhat difficult to maintain the same standard and quality of concert parties as we had when more of the troops were there. An effort is being made to see that these facilities are provided because we realize how important it is to the morale of the troops. As regards combat men being retained in the army of occupation when N.R.M.A. men and others are not sent there, the answer is that you cannot run any army with totally inexperienced men, or men with a low degree of training. It has been necessary therefore, in the army of occupation, to have some high-point men who have seen combat service to provide the necessary discipline and supervision, but they are being replaced as rapidly as shorter service men can be sent forward.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Normal services-	.
183. Battlefields memorials, $49,0/5.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this vote pertain wholly to battlefields memorials?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons	, r.
111. The Speaker of the House of Commons- salary and motor car allowance, $7,000
Allowance in lieu of 'residence, t>h00U.
The deputy speaker of the House ot Commons-salary, $4,000.
Mr ADAMSON:: I wish to make a suggestion which I think is very timely. We have watched these estimates going through, having sat here nearly a month, meeting at eleven o'clock in the morning and sitting until eleven at night. Some of the estimates have been rushed through with the everlasting complaint of insufficient discussion. First of'all I would ask the government to set up
the rules of the house committee as one of the first of its acts at the next session of parliament, and to see to it that the committee meets. This session we had only one meeting, and only covered one-eleventh of the work of the previous committee. We brought in only one recommendation.
There is a second suggestion I have to make. The proceedings of the house in the last few weeks have become a travesty. We are ceasing to be an efficient instrument of democracy. We are losing our efficiency, and are ceasing to carry out the function of expressing the will of the people. This is a serious situation. I wish to make one complaint here and now, and to carry on from where the Minister of Labour left off the other day. I suggest that consideration be given the question of having estimates reviewed in a committee of the house before being brought on to the floor, and that when they are brought in here they come down as one item. All contentious debate could be held at this time. The external affairs committee passed through this house, to-day or yesterday, a resolution that the estimates of that department be put through the special committee first. There has been a resolution, and there is general agreement, that the national defence estimates should go to a committee on national defence and be discussed there. I shall not discuss the obvious advantages of being able to have experts questioned orally instead of having them here mumbling and passing over to the minister a piece of paper of which the minister may or may not have full comprehension.
I suggest further that we follow the British practice and institute a limitation upon debate. This session we have had long debates on the speech from the throne and on bill 15. They may have been important debates; possibly that on bill 15 was. But frankly we do a lot of beating the air. The debate on the speech from the throne was not of great importance. I suggest to the government that at the next session serious consideration be given to the limitation of these debates which have been so long, so that we shall not go through the travesty of bringing in estimates as we do and behaving as we have done in the last two or three weeks. Parliament is on trial at this moment as never before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, who is in charge of the estimates, may I refer for one moment to the observations of my hon. friend. His leader asked me a question yesterday morning when I was not in the house, and I replied to the question
Supply-Legislation

since then indicating the determination of the government to have that committee set up as soon as possible after the next session is convened. Every single point which my hon. friend has referred to was carefully considered by that committee last year. The question of having estimates referred to committees was one upon which we could not agree, and as regards the limitation of debate we made specific recommendations to the house. We did not however receive great respect or support from the house when our report came in. I hope that at the next session the committee, whoever its members may be, will have greater success than we had last year in regard to the very constructive suggestions of the hon. gentlemen.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I suggest that the degree of desperation that is obviously prevalent in this house now may bring results when the committee meets again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry my hon friend feels that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Oo-nmons-
7S72fl" Estimates of ttle Sergeant at Arms, $332,-
John Ritchie MacNicol: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: Was he compensated for that considerable amount of extra work?


James Horace King: I do not believe he was, and I should be pleased if it were the wish of the house that he should receive some compensation for his services in that regard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps I should not say anything with the Clerk present, but he has always been veiy helpful to every one of us. He has always been willing and ready to assist us in any possible way, and if he did all that extra work I suggest that he should receive some compensation. It does not sound reasonable to me that he should not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, 'hear.


James Horace King: I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has brought the matter to the [DOT]attention of the committee, I shall bring his remarks to the notice of the internal committee on the administration of the house, in the hope that we shall succeed in our representations.


John Bracken: I suggest that Mr. speaker use his influence with the government as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The suggestion is
noted.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I wish .to biing to the attention of the government a matter that I brought up before when the public works estimates were under consideration. On that occasion I spoke briefly, as I shall again, but I wish the committee to remember that the importance of my remarks is in inverse ratio to their brevity. I spoke then on the lamentable wages and salaries paid to those who work in this house to promote our comfort and convenience. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Labour to the fact that there are several messengers on this staff, men who were in the army for four or five years and who served overseas who are going to be out of work when this house rises; and as far as I know no provision is being made by the government for their employment. That is a heartless and callous way to treat these men. The other matter is that the low salaries which are paid do not give the employees of this House of Commons a chance to live in decency, and I would strongly urge the government to review these wages and increase them, so that this parliament may give a lead to industry and commerce in the matter of wages and salaries paid to employees. [DOT]


James Horace King: I will take into consideration the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and he may be sure that I have as much sympathy for the employees of the house as he has. If it is possible to do something in order to be fair to them I shall do it with pleasure.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
appreciate Your Honour's sympathy, but these men are going to be out of work in a day or two. Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us if he has made any plans to give these men work to tide them over? They have nothing to look forward to. They fought for this country, and now they get $4 a day here. Surely you are just not going to put them out_ on the street like that, just before Christmas.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I can say that o\er the years I have had as much sympathy with ex-service men as any man in this house. The case of these men has been brought to my attention, and I have taken action, instead of talking about it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is very good.

Supply-Legislation


Mr. LENNARD:: I want to ask several
questions which the rules prevented me from putting on the order paper several months ago. Who is the purchasing agent for the parliamentary restaurant? When was he appointed? Why was he appointed? Is it a full-time or part-time position, and what salary does he receive?


James Horace King: The purchasing agent for
the restaurant is a gentleman named Martial Rheaume. He has been appointed permanently, and I think his salary is around S2,000 a year. I am told he is making a very fine job of it.


George Russell Boucher: I do not wish to let this
opportunity pass without referring to the fact that last year in this house we discussed the difference in the pay received by the protective staff of the House of Commons and the protective staff of the Senate, and I do not believe proper action was taken. I would refer that matter to Mr. Speaker also, bearing in mind that the protective staff on this side of the building, although doing more work than those on the other side, receive less pay; and I do not believe the ratio between them, is at all fair.


James Horace King: During the recess I shall
be able to take time to look after my administration. 1 will look into that matter and do for the protective staff, as for others, whatever may be possible.


[Stage Direction]
Library of Parliamentnih General administration, $81,888.
Douglas King Hazen: I would ask if we could not have better lighting in the library. The light is very poor, and I do not see why it should be difficult to have it improved. It is impossible to read there in the evening with any degree of comfort, so that I would ask Your Honour to be so good as to look into this matter. I would suggest also that the whole library system be modernized. There shou d be an information desk where a member could ask for what he wanted and be directed to where he could find it. I believe the method of conducting the business of the library should be brought up to date.


James Horace King: Some days ago I had an interview with the librarians and acquainted them with the complaints of some hon. members. I have asked them to prepare a report for next session. We have a committee on the library; as soon as that committee meets we will study the report, and I hope every hon. member will be satisfied.


Douglas King Hazen: While I am speaking about lighting, might I direct attention also to the lighting in the railway committee room. When we have to meet there at night it is most difficult to read anything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item agreed to.
122. To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament for payment out ot the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary *assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him ;as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister .may determine and ,to represent his department in the House oi Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a
year, $40,000.	/
John Ritchie MacNicol: In previous sessions a number of hon. members, including myself, have complained about the fact that the auditor general did not provide the house with full details. I have no complaint this session. I wish to compliment the auditor general on the statement he has given us this year. I am one of those who have studied it very carefully; and next year if it is even more complete it will be all to the good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
.GENERAL
neral-	.	,
484. Printing of parliament, including sal-ies of staff of the joint distribution office, rther amount required, $510.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is all.


William Ross Macdonald: Since this is the last sitting of the committee of supply I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank all hon. members for the respect they have invariably shown to the Chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before the resolutions are reported, may I on behalf of the government, and having had some little responsibility for directing the proceedings of the house, thank the leaders and members of all parties and groups in the house for their excellent and kindly cooperation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before we conclude, Mr. Chairman, may I thank your assistant the deputy chairman, the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), for the courtesy he has extended to all members of the committee.
Supply Bill


William Henry Golding: I was hoping perhaps I would be in the chair so that I might have an opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the kindness of all hon. members while I occupied the chair helping out our good friend the Deputy Speaker. I should like also to congratulate the new members who have come into this house following the last election. It is a splendid thing to see the young men who have come here taking such an active part in our work. I have been here for quite a few years, and I must say they are a very high class of young men indeed. I wish to thank every hon. member here for his extreme kindness to me while I was presiding over the committee, and to wish you all a merry Christmas and a very happy New Year.
another speech. I am sure the members of the Hansard staff know where the indifferent speeches come from-and also where the good ones come from.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope so.


John Bracken: I wish to thank them for the way in which they have improved the speeches I have made.
. ^r' MacNICOL: And there should also be included Mr. Young and Mr. Galbraith. [DOT]


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

John Bracken: I was a little afraid yesterday that I was developing a bad habit, and I am afraid I still have it to-day. I am very glad to add my word of commendation to the two men who have acted as chairmen of this committee during the last two or three months, and as well to all the officials of this house in Mr. Speaker's organization. If it is not out of place I should, like to say especially how much we appreciate the services rendered to us by each of the young men I see in uniform over to my right. As a last word I should like to compliment the Minister of \ eterans Affairs on the admirable way he has helped the opposition to get the government's estimates through the house.
, ^r- CASTLEDEN: I should add a word lrom the members of this group. We have appreciated the fairness with which we have been treated and the consideration that has been given us, so that we have had an opportunity to speak on all matters.


Mi BOUCHER:: As one. of the member! for the city of Ottawa I think on behalf ol the city I can extend to all a cordial welcome back in a short time, and our appreciation of your visit with us for the past few months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say a fiM] word m connection with the remarks of the leader of the opposition. We often mention the members of our staff here. We very seldom have heard mentioned the hardest working members of the staff of the house, that is the members of the Hansard staff, who have sat with us and have listened to some indifferent and some good things until the wee midnight hours. I think the whole house will join with me in extending our thanks to them.


John Bracken: Under this new item of business I hope I shall be allowed to make fMr. MacNicol.]



SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.	yj
ivii.	moved:
rr-at t?w?rds making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal! ^|ar9 e_n^n8 March 31, 1946, the sums of $117,775,292.34 and $21,931,048 respectively be Canada ^ °f the consoIidated revenue fund of
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in Mr Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 244, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March,
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed. '

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

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes, to the extent of the limited supply available. Cash.
2.	Yes, to members of experimental farm staff, etc.
3.	Yes. Cash.


PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Charles H. Larose, Esquire, acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Martha Louise Manful Hatch.
An Act for the relief of Nora Jean Cunningham Brisbane.
An Act for the relief of Therese Bonenfant Fusco.
An Act for the relief of Mildred Euretta MaeKay Disher.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Emerson
Whittemore Schlemm.
An Act for the relief of Andrew Lawrence Card.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Annie Morrison
Wisely Pitblado.
An Act for the relief of Joe Eisen.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ellen Therese
Cramer Watson.
An Act for the relief of Rita Gendron Reid. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Evelyine Pearl
Edwards Aird.
An Act for the relief of Helen Turner Luke. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lois Elizabeth
Allworth Pierce.
An Act for the relief of Armandine Cecile LeBrun Lachance.
An Act for the relief of Grace Irene Paquet Hopkins.
An Act for the relief of Alma Joan Begin Oswald.
An Act for the relief of George Ernest Reed. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Sylvia Heather
McCulloch Peck.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Keith Beattie.
An Act for the relief of Robert Coull.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Violet Beach
Meredith.
An Act for the relief of Max Engeliberg.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Bertha Harris
Fineberg.
An Act for the relief of Nils Jens Pettersen.
An Act for the relief of Benjamin Charles Stafford.
An Act for the relief of Florence Mary Daniel Nightingale.
An Act for the relief of Edward Stephen Vasselin.
An Act for the relief of Robert Marshall Miller.
An Act for the relief of Dorina Laurin Wallis. An Act for the relief of Helen Louise Clark Leet.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Anita Duffy Gregson.
An Act for the relief of Irene Grace Harman Smith.
An Act for the relief of Lorna Maud Clerk Kingsland.
An Act for the relief of Edgar Jean.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ethel Maybird
Wright Latramouille.
An Act for the relief of Marie Rose-Alba Germaine Belair Blanchard.
An Act for the relief of William Bernard McCarrick.
An Act for the relief of Lome Edward Souva. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Edith Gertrude
Jackson Holloway.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	George Allenby
Bradshaw.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Fitch Farber. An Act for the relief of Vencel Humenay.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Waldo	James
Cousins.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Albert	Wilson
Harvey.
An Act for the relief of Iris Ester Wester-berg Duffy.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Della	Frances
Gardner Hudson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph	Gerard
Fernand Arthur Groleau.
An Act for the relief of Audrey Nathaniel Smith MacNair.
An Act for the relief of Ovila Bernard.
An Act for the relief of Albert Edward Spray. An Act for the relief of Helen Isabel Dibblee" Brown.
An Act for the relief of Robert Hiscock.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Jacques Noel
Cerminara.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph	William
Henry Beausoleil.
An Act for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Lunn.
An	Act	for the	relief of Neil Sinclair
McKechnie.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Albert Evariste
Gelinas.
An Act for the relief of Royal Tessier.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Aurore	Leblanc
Proulx.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Margaret Susan
Bradshaw Hodgkinson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lydia	Donalda
MacDonald Fletcher.
An Act for the relief of Charles Edward Varney.
An Act for the relief of George Louis Bush.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of John Hall Jones.
An Act for the relief of Madeline Daisy Harvey Bell.
An Act for the relief of Georges Moshonas.
An Act for the relief of Ann Agnes Hyson Kellogg.
An Act for the relief of Anna Ostronoff Smilestone.
An Act for the relief of Doris Alice Davis Stackhouse.
An Act for the relief of Olive Maud Prouse Palmer.
An Act for the relief of Mary Mueller Pierotte.
An Act for the relief of Anthony Malt.
An Act for the relief of Roderick John Elder.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Francis George
Dennis.
An Act for the relief of Zenon Alary.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Muriel Watson Hooper.
4? Act for the relief of Pearl Woodward McGregor.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lily Bromberg
Seidlitz.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Clarence David
Cowan.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	William John
Mitchell.
An Act for the relief of Nathan Labovitch, otherwise known as Nathan Labow.
An Act for the relief of Fannie Bly Blanshay.
An Act for the relief of Annette Lea Marion Macnab.
An Act for the relief of Gerald Franklin.
,An ^or the re^ef of Ivor Edna Nancy Mosher Clarke.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary MacRury
Tait.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ernest Stanley
Powell.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Anastasia Stack
Kormylo.
,,4,n	Act	for	the	relief	of	James Christie
Miller.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Francis Needan
Quirk.
An Act for the relief of Virginia Wallace Knowlton Tousaw.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Pearl Craig Maclnnis.
An Act for the relief of Celia Calp Hecht.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Marcel
Rouleau.
An Act for the relief of William Arthur Smythe.
An Act for the relief of John Guerin Bowles.
An Act for the relief of Molly Margaret Evelyn McCuaig Stead.
An Act for the relief of Robert Kirkpatrick Scott.
An Act for the relief of Emma Hull Mack.
t* 4?	^01 the relief of Kathleen Annette
Rolfe McLaughlan.
An Act for the relief of Catherine Winifred Howard Bailey.
An Act for the relief of Evelo Browning Couch Harvey.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Hazel Margaret
Robertson McLarnon.
An Act for the relief of Marie Azilda Yvette Rowley.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Adelard
Emilien Lemay.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Edward Arthur
Robinson.
An Act for the relief of Marie Marthe Fabiola Germaine Trempe Barlow.
An Act for the relief of Thelma Ann Tongue Grant.
An Act for the relief of Jean-Jacques Lahiere.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Edgar Thomas
Lucas Graham.
An Act for the relief of Edith Pearl Roe Gardner.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Dorothy Marie
Christensen Korning.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Frank Edward
Quartz.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Eileen Campbell
Burfind Morris.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of Elma Eva Inch
Evans.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Rheaume Marchildon.
An Act for the relief of Godfrey John Kool.
An Act for the relief of Eric John Hollingsworth.
An Act for the relief of Pamela Sarah Atkins Berends.
An Act for the relief of Frances Gladys Ruth Leveille Williams.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Ada Greenwood Pringle.
An Act for the relief of Edward Vaughton Molson.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Jean McKay Hepplewhite.
An Act for the relief of Alfred Henry Gray.
An Act for the relief of Dante Antonio Olak.
An Act for the relief of Josephus Barzyk.
An Act for the relief of Florence Mardie Harding.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Lavoie.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Gardner Bradford.
An Act for the relief of Olive May Marks Sanderson.
An Act for the relief of Marie Regina Eliane Arcand Dorval.
An Act for the relief of Joan Frances Timms Couture.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Helena Henry Bates.
An Act for the relief of Nellie Sapphire Tanham Herring.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Edith	Louise
Boutilier Snow.
An Act for the relief of Cyril James Morgan.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Adolp'he Aime Berthiaume.
An Act for the relief of Molly Shusterman Percher.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Harold	James
Chesterman.
4-1!	Act	for	the	relief	of	Emma	Grace
Kriticos.

Prorogation
An Act for the relief of Donald John Northey Armstrong.
An Act for the relief of Goldie Boltuck.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Irene	Nelson
Johnston.
An Act for the relief of Justinien Joseph Damase Gerard St. Amant.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Olive	Pashley
Mackie.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	John	Graham
Gatehouse.
An	Act	for	the	relief of Gertrude Violet
Kerwin Desjardins.
An Act for the relief of Winifred Madge Jones Brown.
An Act for the relief of Winnifred Catherine Bird Jackson.
An Act for the relief of Archibald John Pratt. An Act for the relief of Mary Theresa Sharp Mackay.
An Act for the relief of Edith Elise Holbrook Hume.
An Act for the relief of Amy Helen Bowerman Hume.
An Act for the relief of Mary Anderson Bell Graham.
An Act for the relief of Leopold Levesque.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Fraser Bennett.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Sylvia Pamela
Solomon Lande.
An	Act	for	the relief	of	Annie Kandel
Ashkanazy.
An Act for the relief of Rose Acomsky Bloom. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ethel Meakings
Downs.
An Act for the relief of Evelyn Isabel May Ramsay Jarvis.
An Act for the relief of Arthur John Frederick Temperton, junior.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Ann Westover Coleman.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Marie Gertrude
Owens Conant.
An Act for the relief of Louis Rumble.
An Act for the relief of Sarah Silverstone Miehelin.
An Act for the relief of Roderick Auguste Robert de Lotbiniere Harwood.
An Act for the relief of Emile Bastien.
An Act for the relief of Cecilia Kate Burrows Andrea.
An Act for the relief of Helen Eaton Gair Curnew.
An Act for the relief of Jack Bailey.
An Act for the relief of Winnifred Pearl Simcox.
An Act for the relief of Robert Dickerson Silverman.
An Act for the relief of Mary Arden Stead Eberts.
An Act for the relief of Omer Guindon.
An Act for the relief of Leona Mary Murphy de Marky.
An Act for the relief of John Robert Mackenzie.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Silverson Holmes.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Lawrence Loucks.
An Act to provide for a Prize Court and Prize Law in Canada.
An Act to authorize a certain Agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act to amend The Transport Act, 1938. An Act to amend The Alberta Natural Resources Act.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways System during the calendar year 1945, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Canadian Jewellers Institute.
An Act to incorporate Dominion General Benefit Association.
An Act to incorporate Ottawa Valley Trust Company.
An Act to incorporate The Arctic Institute of North America.
An Act to amend An Act to incorporate The Royal' College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Alliance Nationale.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Slovak Benefit Society.
An Act to amend The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
An Act to incorporate the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
An Act to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
An Act to amend The War Charities Act, 1939.
An Act to amend an Act respecting Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company.
An Aet to incorporate International Air Transport Association.
An Act respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company and Pere Marquette Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America.
An Act to incorporate The Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Whitehorse.
An Act to amend The Penitentiary Act, 1939. An Act respecting The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.
An Act to incorporate Compagnie de Fiducit-d'Amerique or, in the English language, Trust Company of America.
An Act respecting the Manufacturing, Inspection and Sale of Maple Products.
An Act to amend The War Service Grants Act, 1944.
An Act to amend The Export Credits insurance Act.
[Stage Direction]
Governor General's Speech
An Act to amend The Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
An Act to amend The Dominion Succession Duty Act.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into an Agreement with the Province of Alberta to amend the Agreement entered into with that Province under the authority of The Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1942.
An Act respecting the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
An Act to amend The Veterans' Land Act, 1942.
An Act to confer certain transitional powers upon the Governor in Council during the National Emergency arising out of the War.
An Act to amend The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
An Act to amend The Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to amend The National Housing Act, 1944.
An Act for Carrying into Effect the Agreements for an International Monetary Fund and an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
An Act to amend the Trust Companies Act.
An Act to provide Rehabilitation Allowanaces for veterans.
An Act to amend the Senate and House of *Commons Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for National Defence and Demobilization.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills:
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks his loyal subjects. accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.
Governor general's speech
After which His Honour the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the twentieth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the -Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
More than three months have elapsed since the unconditional surrender of Japan, following upon the unconditional surrender of Germany, brought to an end a world war which has lasted for six years. But peace throughout the world had still to be attained. We are now passing through a period fraught with the inevitable difficulties and dislocations of a time of transition from war to peace. Efforts to establish an enduring peace must be the first concern of all nations.
An essential step towards world peace is the-relief of human_ suffering occasioned by war and the restoration of the countries pbysieally damaged by war. To that end, the further aTMtT'r>riuti°n.s you have made for international relief and rehabilitation will be of the utmost service.
Canada's determination to do her full part in maintaining international peace and security has been expressed by the unanimous approval given by both Houses of Parliament to the Charter of the United Nations. A delegation, including members of both Houses, is at present in London attending the meetings of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations Organization.
During October, after a brief conference at Washington with the President of the United States, my Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom for discussion with members of the British government and for consultation with Canadian representatives in Europe. Shortly thereafter the Prime Minister joined with the Frjime Minister of the United Kingdom in conversations with President Truman at Washington on the subject of atomic energy. Their discussions resulted m an agreed Declaration. The initiative was thereby taken in an international effort to prevent the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and to promote its use for the benefit of mankind. The approval you have given the declaration will further this initiative.
The visit to Ottawa of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his address to the members of both Houses of Parliament were deeply appreciated. The visit afforded opportunity for an expression of Canada's admiration for the spirit and resolution of the people of Britain in meeting the difficulties and privations of this post-war period.
Efforts to stimulate the expansion of external trade and the restoration of a world economy have been intensified. These ends will be greatly furthered by the vastly increased appropriations you have made for export credits to allied countries and by your approval of Canadian participation in the International

Governor General's Speech
Monetary Fund and the Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Negotiations are under way to extend export credits to the United Kingdom. Far-reaching proposals on trade and employment for consideration by an international conference have been advanced by the United States government and are now before you. My Ministers welcome the presentation of these proposals.
With your approval Canada became a member of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The first meeting of the new organization was held in Quebec City in the month of October.
In November, the Co-ordinating Committee of the Dominion-Provincial Conference, which includes the Premiers of all the Provinces, devoted several days to 'a detailed and frank exchange of views with my Prime Minister and other of my Ministers. A Dominion-Provincial Economic Committee was set up by the Coordinating Committee to examine and report to the participating governments upon the economic factors affecting Dominion and Provincial proposals and relations. The Co-ordinating Committee will meet again early in the new year. My Ministers are resolved to continue their utmost endeavours to reach an agreement which will place the Federal Government and the governments of all the provinces in a financial position to discharge effectively their several responsibilities.
The members of the armed forces serving abroad have been returning to Canada as rapidly as transport facilities would permit. The release of men and women from the forces is keeping pace with repatriation.
Pending a decision as to the size of the permanent defence establishments, interim arrangements have been made for continued voluntary service in the armed forces of members of the three services who have the required qualifications.
A special committee of the House of Commons, has given close study to the various statutes and orders relating to the care, rehabilitation and reestablishment of war veterans. On the recommendation of the committee, a Veterans' Rehabilitation Act has been enacted and amendments have been made to the War Service Grants Act and the Veterans' Land Act. The Government intends to propose that the committee be reconstituted at the next session to complete its examination of the measures which are being consolidated into a Veterans' Charter.
Steady progress has been made with the conversion of war industries to civilian production. Provision has been made for the amalgamation of the Department of Munitions and Supply with the Department of Reconstruction. The work of the Department of National War Services is all but completed.
War restrictions are being removed as rapidly as this can be accomplished without occasioning inflation or other economic disturbances.
In order to make possible the continuance of controls essential -to the welfare of the people, a measure has been enacted to permit the extension of certain specified emergency powers during the period of transition from war to peace.
To accelerate the construction of houses as the supply of materials and the availability of labour increase, amendments have been made 'to the.National Housing Act. Provision has also been made for the establishment of a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Special attention is being given to the provision of low-cost housing for war veterans and to making emergency shelter available during the present shortage of permanent housing.
Provision has been made for increasing the capital of Trans-Canada Air Lines to permit of the expansion of our international air services.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the financial provision you have made for all essential services, as well as for expenditures arising out of the war and for purposes of reconstruction.
The unprecedented response to the Ninth Victory Loan was heartening evidence of the determination of the Canadian people to consolidate victory.
A measure of relief from the wartime burden of taxation has been a significant feature of the session.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
My Ministers were gratified at the approval given to the proposal that Canada should possess a distinctive national flag. At the next session, they will propose that the Select Committee of both Houses be reconstituted in order to complete the task of considering a suitable design for a Canadian flag.
It affords me pleasure to state that a successful beginning has been made in the planned development and beautification of Canada's capital and its surrounding area as a national memorial to commemorate the service and sacrifice of Canadians in the war just ended.
On taking leave of you at the close of this momentous year, I pray that Providence may continue to bless our country, and to guide the nations of the world in their efforts to establish an enduring peace.
This concluded the first session of the twentieth parliament.

[Stage Direction]
< i
« ; [DOT] .
.
!<;
! . ' ' ' *
>
!*; !
* [DOT]

* (' * .
r*I i.. *:
[Stage Direction]
. -J [DOT]
.
*
[Stage Direction]
« . '

*
						
						
						
						
						
						
						
						
						
						
-[DOT]I " r hv-rt						
						
						
[Stage Direction]

it '*[DOT]/"jjov "o ;;[DOT]/