THE WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: A week has now passed since the landing of Canadian troops in Sicily. I should like to make a brief statement on the progress of operations.
During the week, our thoughts have been mainly with the army. No account of the Canadian share in operations would be complete, however, without a reference to the other two services.
The battle for Sicily really began weeks before the landing of the allied troops on Saturday last. Ever since the close of the Tunisian campaign the allied air forces in North Africa and the middle east have been "softening up" the island of Sicily for the coming invasion. In those operations, Canadian airmen, in R.A.F. and in R.C.A.F. squadrons, have had1 a large share.
Operating under the immediate command of Major General James Doolittle of the United States Army Air Corps, an R.C.A.F. bomber wing composed of an unstated number of squadrons helped to pave the way for the allied invasion of Sicily by terrific bombardment of the island. During the landings and as the allied forces have continued to strengthen their position in Sicily, Canadians in the air have been blasting enemy troop concentrations, strong points and supply columns.
In addition to the bomber squadrons, a Royal Canadian Air Force Spitfire squadron which distinguished itself in the Tunisian campaign is participating in the Sicilian action. It cannot be revealed whether this squadron is yet based on a Sicilian field, but it is known that many members of the R.C.A.F. are among the aircrews which are now operating from captured aerodromes on the island.
There are, of course, thousands of Canadian personnel included in the Royal Air Force squadrons operating in the Mediterranean as there are in almost every R.A.F. unit around the world. No reports on their participation are available, but it is safe to assume that there are few, if any, Royal Air Force squadrons operating in the aerial forces being thrown against Sicily in support of our armies which do not include Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. Other Canadians are flying Wellington bombers, harassing and disrupting enemy supply routes from the African mainland.

The War-Sicily
While operations of our air units and our personnel out of the United Kingdom are not directly linked with the Sicilian campaign, their activities are having the effect of tying a great part of the Luftwaffe to Western Europe. Were these Luftwaffe units released for service in the Mediterranean they could make our operations there far more difficult.
In the Sicilian operations, the Royal Canadian Navy has also been represented. We have been advised that several hundred Royal Canadian Naval Officers and men acting in conjunction with and under the direction of the Royal Navy, took part in the hazardous work of safely effecting landings for the troops engaged.
For many months now, almost two thousand Canadian Naval personnel have been training at a combined operations base in England, * preparing themselves to take part in landing operations. Their ships are known as "assault landing craft". A number of Canadian sailors took part in the combined operations when landings were made in North Africa in November last. This week, they took their craft, under enemy fire, and ferried in troops who were part of the first wave of the invading forces to move on to the beaches. We shall await with interest a more detailed account of their hazardous work.
Coming now to the army, its operations began at dawn, Sicilian time, on Saturday, July 10, when the British, United States and Canadian troops commenced landing on the shores of Sicily. The landings on the beaches had been preceded by allied paratroop landings beyond the coastal defences.
According to statements made by prisoners, the landings were a complete surprise and caused much confusion. The element of surprise, combined with the fact that the landing areas were defended only by static or semi-static Italian troops, resulted in very light casualties for the landing forces. The bulk of enemy operational divisions were in the central part of the island.
The Canadian division, now identified as the first division, landed at the southeast tip of Sicily. Two and one-half hours after landing they had captured their first objective, and made contact with the British division on their right flank. Meanwhile British and American forces had landed to the east and west of the Canadians.
Canadian troops captured the airfield at Pachino six hours after landing, and a short time later were in Pachino itself.
On Monday, July 12, General Eisenhower visited the Canadians on Pachino peninsula. He sought out Canadian headquarters, but headquarters was moving forward so rapidly
that he was unable to make contact. That day the Canadians captured several inland towns. The first enemy counter attack was met and beaten off.
At Ragusa, an important inland junction about 25 miles northwest of Pachino, the Canadians made their first contact with the American forces.
I believe that this is the first occasion on which Canadian and American troops have been fighting side by side. We were, of course, both engaged in the last great war together, but I think this is the first time that Canadian and American troops have actually been fighting shoulder to shoulder in action overseas.
Shortly before midnight, Augusta, an important naval base, nineteen miles north of Syracuse was captured by British and Canadian troops. The port is stated to be in perfect working order.
On Tuesday, July 13, Canadian troops made further advances, repulsed counter-attacks and captured the first Italian general to surrender, together with his headquarters staff.
On Wednesday, July 14, Canadian armoured forces landed at Syracuse and moved north, while other Canadians were making progress over forty miles northwest of their landing places. It was revealed that day that the Canadians formed part of the eighth army, under the command of General Montgomery.
On Thursday, July 15, the eighth army including the units of the first Canadian division continued its advance along the east coast towards the Catania plains repulsing strong counter-attacks.
Yesterday, July 16, the advance continued on all sectors, and by the end of the day which completed the first week of operations, a wide arc enclosing about a quarter of the island had been occupied by the allied forces. Over 20,000 prisoners and a large quantity of arms and material had been taken.
So successful, within the week, has been the combined operations of the armed forces of the United States, Great Britain and Canada that yesterday morning, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt felt justified in addressing to the people of Italy the proclamation which I read to the house at the opening of the morning sitting. The proclamation stated that the sole hope for Italy's survival lay in honourable capitulation, and that the time had come for the people of Italy to decide whether Italians would die for Mussolini and Hitler-or live for Italy and for civilization.
It is eminently fitting that the first division of the Canadian army should have been given the honour of taking part in the first major Canadian land operations of the war. The men of the first division were the earliest to volun-
The War-Sicily

teer; they have waited longest for action. They are the most seasoned formation of Canada's army overseas.
It will be a satisfaction to General McNaugh-ton, who led this first division when it sailed for Britain in the autumn of 1939, and who led parts of it to France in the summer of 1940, to have seen these officers and men, after three years of waiting, now carrying the fight into the enemy's camp with such conspicuous success.
Having this in mind, and realizing that the people of Canada would wish that an immediate word of congratulation should reach our troops upon their initial success, together with an assurance of our unfailing support of them, I sent the following message to General McNaughton on Monday last:
I know you must be exceedingly proud of the fine results of your long and ardous tour of duty. I congratulate you most sincerely on the achievement already evident in Sicily. Please arrange to have transmitted the following message to the Canadian Force Commander:
Message begins: Major-General Guy Simonds, Commanding Canadian Forces, Mediterranean.
"All Canada rejoices in the news of the initial successes of Canadian troops in Sicily. Will you please extend to the officers and men under your command every good wish for the complete success of the hazardous operations in which they are engaged. Here at home, in Canada, the eyes of all are fixed on Sicily. We know that there is heavy fighting ahead. We know, too, that the Canadian forces will do honour to themselves and to our country. Please give to all the assurance that our hearts are with them, that Canada is proud of the patience and courage of her army overseas, and that Canada will not fail her fighting men." Message ends.
We have reason to be thankful that the Sicilian landing operations were completed with very light casualties. Also that the resistance encountered during the first week of operations has ben comparatively slight. The successes of Canadian forces in the field should not, however, leave us unprepared for word of much heavier fighting which may follow at any time. There are strong enemy forces on the island and already stiff resistance has been encountered. Provided we guard against undue optimism, the people of Canada have every reason to rejoice at the results so far achieved in the first major operations in which the Canadian army has taken part. It is not too early to say that Canadian soldiers in Sicily are upholding the traditions established by the Canadian Corps of a quarter of a century ago.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement just made by the Prime Minister, I take it to read that the message to the Commander 
in Chief of the Canadian forces in Sicily was a message from the government and people of Canada to the forces under his command. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to couple it with a message from the parliament of Canada if that has not already been done in his message.
What the Prime Minister has said I think is most apt and appropriate in the circumstances. The upholding of the splendid traditions of our Canadian troops in these most recent operations is a matter of great national pride to Canada. While our troops have fought on many occasions with valour beside the troops of Britain and the other dominions, on this occasion our troops were fighting side by side with our American cousins to the south, and I think this will be hailed as another milestone in the close cooperation between these two members of the united nations who are engaged in this war.
We as members of the Progressive Conservative party want to join with the Prime Minister in the message which he has sent overseas and to ask him also to cable the good wishes and a good word from parliament itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just say that any of these messages I have sent are sent on behalf of the entire country. I hope that that will be understood. In the messages I am speaking both for parliament and for the people of Canada.



GENERAL HENRI GIRAUD


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there is another matter or two which I think should be recorded in our Hansard
During the past week, as hon. members are aware, the government has had a visit from General Henri Giraud, the commanding officer of the French forces in North Africa, and copresident, with General Charles de Gaulle, of the French committee of national liberation. General Giraud is known to all for his heroism as a soldier, for his brilliance as a general, and for his complete devotion to the cause of France and of the united nations. He is the highest ranking representative of France to visit Canada since the black days of the summer of 1940. As a brave French officer, General Giraud is among the foremost of those who, throughout the war, have kept alive the military honour of France. In his own personality he embodies the heroic spirit of the French people.

Right Hon. H. V. Evatt
After his escape from Germany and German-controlled France, General Giraud's presence in North Africa, immediately prior to the allied landings, became a powerful factor in helping to rally all Frenchmen in Africa to the cause of the united nations. Without the liberation of North Africa, the invasion of Sicily, which has been so brilliantly commenced, could not have been undertaken.
General Giraud's visit enabled our government to receive at first hand a full account of developments in North Africa, and to discuss means whereby, in the coming months, Canada may be able to contribute aid to the French forces which now are taking their place with British, American and Canadian forces in the liberation of Europe.
Among the measures of cooperation which it is hoped to extend to the French national committee in Algiers is that of assisting, under our mutual aid legislation, in the training as aircrew, of a number of young French cadets from North Africa, in the schools in Canada of the commonwealth air training plan.
An especially pleasing feature of the visit of General Giraud to Canada's capital was the wholehearted way in which representatives of all groups of the supporters and friends of France joined in demonstrating the unity of their support for the French committee of national liberation of which General Giraud and General de Gaulle are the co-presidents.


RIGHT HON. H. Y. EVATT   VISIT TO OTTAWA OP ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OP EXTERNAL AFFAIRS FOR AUSTRALIA
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker during the
week, as hon. members are aware, the government has had a visit from the Right Hon. H. V. Evatt, Attorney General and Minister of External Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia.
When Doctor Evatt last visited Ottawa, in the spring of 1942, Japanese threats to the security of Australia were very great indeed. During the months since, the combined efforts of the armed forces of Australia and the United States have held the Japanese enemy at bay and have frustrated his attempts to consolidate his hold on the land base which most nearly threatens the Australian mainland.
During his visit, Doctor Evatt discussed with my colleagues and myself possible means by which, under our mutual aid legislation, additional supplies might be made available by Canada to Australia. We also discussed means whereby assistance might be given in other ways which would serve to further the
common interests of Australia and Canada in the destruction of enemy power on the Pacific. Some aspects of post-war planning were also discussed. Doctor Evatt's visit served to emphasize how clearly the defence of Australia and the defence of Canada are both part of the world-wide fight for freedom. In particular, it helped to underline the extent to which the control of the northeast Pacific by American and Canadian forces, including the destruction of enemy forces in the Aleutians, is aiding in the final defence of Australia, just as the control being achieved by American and Australia forces in New Guinea, the Solomons, and elsewhere in the southwest Pacific, is aiding in the final defence of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: A few days ago the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc) directed an inquiry to the Department of Agriculture on a shortage of butter boxes in Quebec province, especially the eastern townships, and I promised to get him what information I could on the matter.
I am advised by the Department of Agriculture that an officer of their dairy branch has been in the province of Quebec looking into the matter of a shortage of butter boxes. It is further advised that the trouble is due largely to a shortage of labour; there is timber available, but not the workers. The question has been taken up with national selective service and it is hoped to remedy the situation.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I now table exchange of notes between Japan and Canada on the restriction of Japanese immigration into Canada. I promised the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that I would do so.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HANSELL EXPORTS OF COAL-QUESTION AS TO DISCLOSURE OF DESTINATIONS

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, which, I think, will be discovered to be a
Privilege-Mr. Hansell

privilege affecting every member of the house. I asked a series of questions some few days ago, which questions were passed as an order for return; it was in respect to the production and export of coal. The second question was:
What is the total tonnage of coal exported, and to what countries, for each of the years 1939 to 1943?
The answer comes, from the Department of Trade and Commerce I think, to this effect: In keeping with the present practice in the United States and the United Kingdom it is deemed inadvisable to state the importing countries. My point of privilege is that I am unable to get the information as to what countries this tonnage of coal vras exported to. May I now ask a question of the minister on the basis of the answer which I received here. Is the practice not to reveal countries to which we are exporting coal a temporary policy of the government on account of the war, or is this a permanent policy, that we are never to know what countries coal is exported to?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the policy of the government not to reveal destinations of exports is purely a war matter. I may say at the same time that this matter gives us a very great deal of trouble. There are certain exports the destinations of which should not be revealed. I personally do not see much harm, if any, in letting anybody know to what country coal and certain other articles are exported, but it is hard to draw the line, and the practice generally followed is to maintain secrecy as to all exports.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, while I have no idea how long the session is to last, there are a number of matters passed as orders for returns and some questions on the order paper the answers to which I would like the Secretary of State not to defer too long. Perhaps on Monday, if he does not mind, he might do as he did prior to the Easter recess, and that is give the house a list of matters which have not been answered or orders for returns which have not been complied with; so that we shall know exactly where we stand in respect to this matter.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: It runs in my mind that of 522 returns ordered,
[ Mr. Hansell.]
all have been returned except 54. About a week ago I asked the official in my department having charge, in view of the fact that we are approaching the close of the session, to do everything possible to expedite these returns. I know he has done so. I shall be very glad to do as the leader of the opposition requests. I take it that what he is asking for is a return as to each item, not just the figures as to it, but each outstanding order?


Gordon Graydon: That is right.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I will see that it is done.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of bill No. 107, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Escapes and rescues.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The words "or subsequent" are added-"or subsequent to his conviction." I assume that some case has arisen which makes this necessary in the administration of justice. Perhaps the minister will explain.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It came about in this way. There was a tesd case before the court of appeal; the magistrate dealing with another case wished to have the benefit of the decision that would be given by the court of appeal before pronouncing sentence, and when the time arrived to recall the convicted person for sentence difficulties arose over this section in the code.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-"Common betting-place" defined.
Mr. NEILL:: The same principle is involved here as I was discussing last night in connection with another bill. It presses to an extreme degree the liability to prosecution by the use of language that is so conclusive and comprehensive as to take in almost anybody under any conditions whatever. The section as it stands now in the old act, giving the definition of a common betting-place, reads:
. . . opened, kept or used for the purpose of facilitating or encouraging or assisting in the making of bets upon any contingency or event, horse-race or other race, fight, game or sport, by announcing the betting upon or announcing

Criminal Code-Betting
or displaying the results of horse-races, or other races, fights, games or sports, or in any other manner. . . .
And so on. That is the present definition of a common betting place, and it is now sought to be amended by putting in the words "used or intended or likely to be" used for the purpose, and so on. That embodies the same vicious principle to which exception was taken last night. Section 8, the next section, applies the same principle to newspapers that circulate information calculated to assist people in betting, and now the mere fact of advertising the results of sports-baseball or any other sport of that sort-would render them liable to a heavy penalty. This is an indictable offence, making the accused liable to a year in gaol without apparently the option of a fine. "Used or intended or likely to be used." We know of places such as pool rooms and cigar stores where it is the custom for men to gather in the evening to learn, over the radio or otherwise, the results of sporting events of the day. It is now going to be made a penalty, a very serious offence, if you have a place where you do that, even if it is only "likely" to be used for that purpose-"intended or likely to be used." Is not that going rather far in restricting the liberties of the people? The explanation given on the opposite page is this:
The object of this amendment is to make more practicable the enforcement of the provisions of the criminal code with respect to betting.
I respectfully suggest that instead of making it more practicable it simply makes it easier and more convenient for the officers of the law. It is intended to make it easier for the officers of the law to secure conviction because at present they have to break into a place and find people engaged in betting and so on, and of course the material is there, whatever it may be. Now, however, it is simply sufficient to allege that the place is "intended or likely to be used" for the purposes mentioned. Surely that is carrying things too far. It is the old and evil doctrine of convicting a man first and letting him prove himself innocent if he can. Last night, speaking of a similar bill, the minister in charge, the Minister of Transport, was able to invoke the war as an excuse. It was a war measure, he pointed out, and we have to submit to certain restrictions of our liberty in war time, but that afterwards these restrictions would be removed. But this is not such a case, because we cannot conceive that the success of the war depends in any degree upon some petty cigar store being prosecuted for running a betting-place. And, as I say,
the penalty is severe. Such places are classed along with common bawdy houses as disorderly houses, and the penalty is up to one year's imprisonment and on repetition two years without a fine.
I suggested last night that in modern times the custom has been not to inflict very severe penalties with the idea of preventing crime. We have found that it is better, both from a humanitarian standpoint and as a matter of common sense, and moreover it is more effective, to make the punishment fit the crime without being excessive. Look back over history and you will recall that a hundred and fifty years ago it was' quite a common thing to deport people to Australia as criminals, and sometimes, going further back, to hang women for stealing a loaf of bread. Many instances are on record where such things were done. The idea behind such penalties was that extreme severity prevented crime. But the inhumanity of it dawned gradually upon people so that we no longer inflict such penalties.
I was curious to see what definition the dictionary would give of this word "intended," and I found it meant affianced lover. That did not give me much light. I want to know how anyone can tell what I "intend" to do under any given circumstances. I wonder the press gallery are not interested in this, because they also are liable under section 8.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have not reached section 8. If the hon. member will allow me to intervene at this stage I have an amendment to section 7 which will meet for the most part the objection he has voiced. Perhaps it would save time if I were allowed to put the amendment now. With respect to section 8 I shall have a modification to suggest which may facilitate discussion, but as regards section 7 I would move:
Strike out the second word "or" in line 35 and substitute therefor the following: "to be used or outfitted or equipped in such a manner as to be."
As amended it would read:
Used or intended to be used or outfitted or equipped in such a manner as to be likely to be used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
think that that carries the minister very far. It is a little more qualified, that is all; but the objection on principle remains. It is a question of intent. What is the equipment or outfitting that is had in mind? A telephone in a library or living room, or a radio might, in the opinion of the convicting magistrate, be sufficient to constitute a common betting-place. I do not know what gives
Criminal Code-Betting

rise to this particular class of legislation. I assume it arises out of the failure of the provincial authorities to get all the convictions they desire. It may be that they are justified in asking the consideration of parliament to this type of legislation. But I do suggest that it is a type which smacks of prohibition days, about which the hon. member for Essex East so often reminds me, and concerning which he expresses some surprise. While I do not think a high court judge would be influenced by this type of legislation to any very great extent, it is the sort of legislation which gives prosecutors and the type of magistrate we sometimes see on police court benches an opportunity to go much farther than they might otherwise go. That might be the effect, if the police magistrate had that particular type of mind which happens to be out on a witch hunt, where he would convict one of anything.
I should like to know the reason for this legislation. I remember in the days of prohibition having been shocked when I read of the sort of procedure, and the sections relating to prosecutions arising from temperance legislation of days gone by. In my early days as a lawyer I had a great deal to do with prosecuting, as well as defending, and most frequently came in contact with the old Canada Temperance Act. I was glad to lay down the burden when prohibition came in, because I did not want anything more to do with it. I suppose that in my lifetime I have been connected with at least five hundred cases having to do with violations of the liquor laws.


Mr. MARTIN:: That is, law cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes, not the other kind of cases. I was shocked to see the type of legislation these legislatures put into effect. It seemed to me that a good deal of it must have come from some of those fundamentalist states we read about, down in the south, where-


Mr. MacINNIS:: Where they do not believe in evolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, where they do not believe in evolution, and where they frown on everything. In principle, this is the same kind of legislation; and unless the minister can show some real cause for it,
I do not think he ought to proceed with his amendment. I was surprised to find this provision in the bill, because from his statement upon introduction I understood there was to be in this measure no new substantive law. This is legislation of that kind, and I do 
suggest that it is a widening of the definition of a betting house or a gaming house, and that, therefore it changes the substantive law of the country.
Unless the minister can make out a case, I am opposed to this type of legislation. There is a burden of proof placed on the crown or upon the prosecution, and that should not be eased through the lifting of that burden by parliament, or by making it easy for a magistrate to elect that in the exercise of his judicial discretion he may place an interpretation upon a set of circumstances or a certain position which a reasonable man would not do. That, it seems to me, is the possibility under this amendment. The effect will be to make it easy to get convictions, in lieu of a position under which it was more difficult to do so. I hold no brief at all for betting, or anything of that sort. I do not take part in it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should.


Mr. KINLEY:: Everybody does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not this type of betting, bookmaking and the like. I do not think we ought to make it easier. I suggest further, that there is a principle involved. Before proceeding I say the minister must justify the use of this language.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Would the minister explain, when he rises to reply to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, what the amendment is going to be to section 8, so that we may discuss it now?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to section 8 I had intended, if section 7 is adopted, to ask the committee to add:
Provided however that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the publication of news or records in relation to any race, fight, game or sport, or to contestants therein, in the ordinary course of publishing a bona fide newspaper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That helps.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Before proceeding further may I make my position clear, because I believe what I shall say will be informative. The criminal law, including criminal procedure, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament. But the administration of criminal law is within the jurisdiction and is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces. It is perhaps the one instance in connection with which legislative jurisdiction is in one body and administrative jurisdiction is in one or more other bodies. This is the only place where an amendment can be made to the substantive law, or to the procedure. The attorneys general of the provinces have the responsibility of enforcing

Criminal Code-Betting
the law, and therefore they are closely connected with the application of the rules of procedure we lay down. From time to time they make representations to the federal department that, in their view, certain improvements should be made in the procedure. The stand taken by the federal department is that when a plausible case is made out for one of these representations it would be improper for the department not to bring it before parliament. Parliament is composed of people representative of the population of the whole country. They are at the same time inhabitants of Canada and of their own respective provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is carrying that doctrine further than his predecessor. He had to be convinced it was a proper change before he would bring it in.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That may be; but my view is that when a plausible case is made out by an attorney general or by attorneys general for an amendment with respect to procedure I feel it my duty to bring it before parliament, because parliament is the only body which can deal with and pronounce upon it. I would not take the same view with respect to the creating of substantive crimes. That, in my opinion, is on a different footing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister thinks this is a matter of procedure.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The principle behind this amendment is the desire that betting should be curtailed. The section which it is now proposed to amend is not one which creates a crime, but rather one which defines a common betting house. There is another provision which says it is an offence to keep a common betting house.


Mr. BOUCHER:: ' It really enlarges the crime, though.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I submit not. It does not change the thing which parliament wished to curtail.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Therefore it is a matter of procedure.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is a matter of procedure, as to how we shall go about it, to lessen what was looked upon as the evil of betting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not quite "that; it is the intermediate stage.


John George Diefenbaker: It has to do with the evidence upon which convictions may be secured.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Of course that is practically the same thing. These provisions of the criminal code cannot be expressed only in the form of pious wishes; they have to be accompanied by provisions whereby they can be enforced against those who would not give way to the expression of a pious wish. There have been representations from the attorneys general of three provinces that the, to them, evil of betting was increasing, and) that it would be of advantage to tighten up the methods of restriction provided by the code; and the form in which the amendments were first presented here was the form suggested by those gentlemen. After the bill was printed and became known, representations were received by the department making objections of the kind voiced here this morning by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. On considering the matter I thought the objections were well taken and that the mere word "likely" was too broad. For that reason I have brought in this morning the suggestion that it should not be left so that anything at all could be held to be "likely", but that it should be confined to a place outfitted or equipped1 with the things usually found in places used for that purpose. I do confess that this removes the necessity of proving subjective intent on the part of the person prosecuted, but the purpose of the law is not to assure the purity of mind of the person charged; what is aimed at is to curb the effect, and this would make it sufficient to prove objectively that what had been provided was a thing that brought about the result we wished to eliminate. My position in that regard is that I am going to suggest that section 9 be dropped. That section concerns the telegraph and telephone companies. We in the department had thought that by using this language we would be giving them further protection, but they do not think that is so, and for that reason I am going to ask the committee to allow this section 9 to be dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was section 9 asked for by any of the attorneys general?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: What was asked for by the attorneys general was much more drastic than I would care to submit to the house; I do not think there was a plausible, case made out for it. What was asked for by some attorneys general was that it be a crime to let any of this news come over the wires. I did not think there was a plausible case presented, because that would curb legitimate activities at the same time that it would
Criminal Code-Betting

eliminate the thing these attorneys general wanted to eliminate. I thought that on balance the inconvenience of curbing legitimate activities would be greater than the inconvenience of being unable to prevent the facilities from being used from time to time for purposes that may be undesirable.


John George Diefenbaker: What attorneys
general suggested the changes that were made in sections 7 and 8?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 7 was suggested by the attorney general of Ontario and the attorney general of British Columbia, and concurred in by the deputy attorney general of Alberta. Section 8 was suggested by the deputy attorney general of Alberta, concurred in by the attorney general of British Columbia, and favourably commented upon by the former attorney general of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Conant. My position with respect to what is to be left of sections 7 and 8 is that I bring them before the house, and represent to the house that they have been suggested by the attorneys general of two or three provinces; that they appear plausible, and that this is the only body which can deal effectively with the matter. I am going to listen, to see if the proposals receive support from any of the representatives of the population of Canada, and if they do not receive that support I think I shall be entitled to conclude that the evil suggested by the attorneys general is not sufficiently apparent to have created a very great impression. That is the position. I do not think it would have been proper for me to say to them, "No, you cannot even get this before parliament." They are the ones who are administering these laws, and they say it would appear to them desirable to have them tightened up in this way. They have pointed out that there was a growing evil of increased betting by people who should not be using their resources at this time in that way; that large sums were being lost, and the suggestion was made that it required conversion into American exchange for the profits arising out of these transactions to be transmitted to those to whom they were finally destined. But if the situation is not such that members of this house have seen the evil and recognized that something should be done about it, I do not intend to insist upon the passage of even these modified sections 7 and 8.


George Russell Boucher: Could the minister give any figures that would indicate the number of unsuccessful charges that have been laid, and the number of successful charges? I speak with some experience in the matter, and I have in mind that it is more difficult to get the principals to lay charges against the keepers of common gaming houses than to secure a conviction once a charge is laid. That being so, I do not know that we are getting anywhere by taking this action. I think perhaps the minister could persuade us of the necessity of this amendment if he could show' us that there has been great difficulty in securing convictions, that in spite of so many charges having been laid, few convictions have been registered. That would definitely indicate that an amendment to the procedure w'as necessary, that communities desiring to stamp out this evil had done their best but that something in the law made it so difficult to obtain convictions that the social reform desired was impeded. Unless that situation is made evident, however, I do not think we should so extend procedure as to enlarge the crime and thus make it more difficult to institute an action and secure a conviction. I think it is generally acknowledged that if a penalty is very severe it has the effect of lessening the number of charges laid. If the provisions dealing with intent are made very wdde, it leads to great variation in the way in which these matters are dealt with by various judges or magistrates. It may be found that in certain communities, where revenue is sought, they revert at times to a loose and easy way of getting convictions, the purpose being to secure fines rather than to bring about a moral uplift. We should look at that carefully and not facilitate the securing of convictions by magistrates or judicial officers who may be seeking to obtain revenue rather than to raise the moral standing of their community. I think all of us know that in certain communities for many years the gambling interests have been prosecuted periodically. They pay their fines and the next day return to business and carry on for some time unmolested. It is hard to convince the public that there is a wholehearted desire to stamp out gambling, that there is not just a desire to obtain revenue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely that is not done in Ottawa.


George Russell Boucher: I shall not make any
comment as to where it is done. Perhaps if we read the news about the Ottawa district we might find some reference to this. I do

Criminal Code-Betting
not think we should make it easier for those who go after convictions to obtain them in the court.


John George Diefenbaker: I find it difficult to follow the argument which has been advanced by the Minister of Justice as to why these amendments were introduced. In my opinion this amendment does not result in the constitution of any new offence or in the widening of an offence. It is purely procedural; it provides an opportunity for the crown to establish that an offence has been committed without having to prove, as has heretofore been the case, that the premises are kept or used for the purposes of making bets. As originally set out in the bill the proposed section would have constituted the most dangerous invasion of the rights of the individual that could possibly be imagined. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out the situation quite clearly, not only to-day but last evening. However, the amendment which is now suggested does not appear to me to be open to the objection that could be taken to the original amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Certainly not to the same degree.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to the same degree. The words of the amendment are, "intended to be used," in other words intent must be established. Then the amendment reads, "or outfitted or equipped in such a manner as to be likely to be used." The operation of a gaming house where people resort or have the opportunity to lay bets is a crime according to the law of the land. As I see it, all that is being asked for by this new amendment is that the crown be not required to prove something that it has been almost impossible to prove affirmatively, namely, that the premises have been kept or used for the purpose of facilitating bets.
There have been quite a number of cases in which courts of appeal have held that the evidence was not sufficient to bring the charge within the strict provisions of the code. I cannot understand the minister's attitude when he says that if hon. members of the house do not think that betting is serious and widespread the amendment will not be proceeded with. As I say, this does not constitute a new offence; it does not make a crime of something which has not been a crime heretofore; all it does is to facilitate the conviction of the wrongdoer who heretofore has been able to secure an acquittal.
Generally speaking, these particular provisions have been the statute law of the land for over forty years, or for almost one hundred years under the common law, without amendment. The modern bookmaker is able to evade the law as it stands at present. I feel that the objection which was pertinent when the bill was introduced, namely the words "or likely to be used" has been removed. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister of Justice is to be commended for having introduced the number of amendments he has. The criminal code is hopelessly out of date in many of its sections. There are a great number of anomalous sections and there has been no endeavour since our criminal law was first codified to revise it with a view to bringing it up to date. Different interpretations have been placed upon the same section by different courts. We continue year after year to use the same code, making only a few changes or adding a patch here and there instead of once and for all bringing it up to date after a period of fifty years. We should appoint a parliamentary committee, or a committee representative of the attorneys general and composed of outstanding counsel, to go over the code and bring it up to date, to the end that the purpose of the codification may be secured, namely, that the law shall be clear so that justice shall be done. Sections have been permitted to remain in the statutes which have no meaning whatever. "Or" has been interpreted as "and", an interpretation that is contrary to the actual intention. This is but one example of a section that should be revised.
I do feel that the minister should give consideration to the desirability of having carried out a piece of work that would be monumental in its results, that would be tremendous in its scope. It would require some years of effort, but it would make our criminal code something worthy of our country. Codification is intended to represent the law as it actually is at the moment it is codified. I ask the minister to give consideration to taking what I believe would be one of the most forward-looking and advanced steps that could possibly be made, namely, the removing of the anomalies that now exist in many sections and the recodifying of the criminal law thereby bringing it up to date and in accordance writh modern practice.


Mr. REID:: I do not think an attempt should be made to intimate that members of the committee are in favour of the encouragement of betting or gaming houses. I do not think that need be stressed at all. My chief objection to the amendment is that it places a greater burden on the accused to prove further that he is innocent, and that is something which I believe we should not do. The old adage that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty would not obtain under this
Criminal Code-Betting

legislation, and the amendments proposed only make the position of the accused worse in his having to prove himself innocent.
The minister has said that two attorneys general have asked for this amendment, including the attorney general of Ontario. Has the minister brought his information up to date? There is a new attorney general for the province of Ontario, and he might not approve this amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is he? Mr. GRAYDON: They change so often.


Thomas Reid: I think these amendments might very well be left over for a time at least, although some of the amendments proposed may seem to have considerable merit. I am glad that the minister is open to suggestions, but the amendments proposed do not in my opinion take care entirely of the situation. I have in mind that in British Columbia there is published the B. C. Breeders' Gazette and Racing Manual, and under this amendment a man might be charged simply because he had this publication in his possession as betting or aiding betting material. I suggest that delayed consideration be given to the amendments.


Alan Webster Neill: I must agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the amendment proposed by the minister does not do much to relieve the objections. I look at it in this way. It says "used or intended", and there is a comma there. That settles that. That brings within the act the person who uses or intends to use. Then if it had gone on to say "and equipped" it would have been different, but it says "or". A man "intending to use," can be convicted on those words, even though not "equipped". That is a separate offence so to speak. I do not see a great deal of improvement in it.
The hon. member for Lake Centre suggested that the minister had left it for the house to decide whether it wanted gambling or otherwise, but that was not my view. I think the minister was doing a very fine thing when he proposed to take away the support of the government from the measure and leave it to be decided by those who are the representatives of the people. Certainly the question as it presents itself to my mind is not: Do we want betting? The question is: Do we want a worse evil created as regards the liberty of the subject than would be created by doing away with this section altogether? As the minister has been kind enough to put it up to the house, I would move, in order to crystallize the situation, that section 7 be struck out.


Mr. HAZEN:: In my opinion the amendment proposed to be made by section 7 to section 227 of the criminal code is most objectionable, and I think the amendment which the Minister of Justice moved this morning, if I understood it correctly, is almost equally objectionable. This amendment is a departure from one of the fundamental principles of our criminal law-that before a person can be charged with a crime he must have committed an overt act or must have failed to do something which the law says he shall do. This amendment makes it a crime for a person to have a wrongful intent. It is a retrograde step, an encroachment on the principles of British justice. If this amendment becomes law it places in jeopardy the freedom and security of the citizens of this country. It seems to me that if there is one duty more than another that members of parliament owe to their constituents, it is to be zealous in guarding their freedom and security and maintaining the fundamental principles of British justice.
In the fourteenth century the opinion was held by some legal authorities in England that the intention to commit a crime constituted an offence. In the sixteenth century such an objectionable doctrine was overruled, and the principle was established that the intention to commit a wrong was not in itself a crime. The reason for this change in the law, I think, is obvious. It was made, I believe, because of the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving what was going on in another person's mind at a particular time, and because of the fact that even if that were proved, it was impossible to find that that person might not on further consideration change his mind and commit no offence. This amendment, if it becomes law, is a step back towards the middle ages.
In Holdsworth's History of English Law, volume 8, page 443, I read the following:
It was well settled in the 16th century (in spite of the opinion to the contrary held in the 14th century) that a mere intention to commit a crime, unaccompanied by any overt act, entailed no criminal liability. "The imagination of the mind to do wrong" it was held in Hales v. Petit (1563) Plowden, page 259, without an act done, is not punishable in our law, neither is the resolution to do that wrong, which he does not, punishable but the doing of the act is the only point which the law regards; for until the act is done it cannot be an offence to the world, and when the act is done it is punishable.
That case quoted by Holdsworth was decided in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
I turn now to a judgment delivered in the twentieth century, to a judgment of Mr. Justice Riddell, of the Supreme Court of

Criminal Code-Betting
Ontario, in the case of Rex v. McCarthy, decided a few years ago, and I read these words:
. . . an intent is not enough for as Chief Justice Bryan said in Year Book 17 Edward IY, 2 pi. 2-
I might say that this case was decided before the reign of Queen Elizabeth:
"The devil himself cannot try the thought of a man".
And Judge Riddell adds:
It would he hopeless to look for greater subtility in the courts. Intending to commit a crime is not the same as attempting to commit it.
Our criminal code provides that a person is liable to a year's imprisonment who is found guilty of keeping any disorderly house; that is to say any bawdy house, common gaming house, or common betting house. A common betting house is defined by section 227, which is the section now proposed to be amended, as:
A house, a room or place (d) opened, kept or used for the purpose of facilitating or encouraging or assisting in the making of bets,
And so forth. That is a good definition. That is a real definition of what a common betting house should be. But this amendment would change that definition. It would define a common betting house as a house, office, room or place used-and here are the words to which I wish to call attention-"or intended, or likely to be used, for that purpose". The definition goes altogether too far; it makes an intention a crime.
I would ask hon. members what they would think if a person in their constituency was summoned to court charged that between a certain day and a certain day in a certain month he did unlawfully intend to keep a disorderly house, to wit, a common betting house at a certain named place for the purpose of betting contrary to section 229 of the Criminal Code of Canada. A man is charged with the intention of doing something, charged with an idea he has in his mind and which he may subsequently change. The whole thing is absolutely wrong and is absolutely out of place in this age.
What a man may intend to do and what he actually does are, very often, two entirely different things. Second thoughts are often best, yet under this amendment it is an offence to intend to do an act even though that intention is not carried out and the act is never done. It seems to me that this is going entirely too far, and that you cannot justify upon any principle a law of this kind.
There are various classes of crimes. Some are more serious than others. Betting is not
one of our more serious crimes; in fact some corporations are permitted under certain statutes, restricted as to time and place, to operate pari-mutuel systems of betting. Why should it be necessary to make such a drastic alteration, for a minor crime, in the principles of our criminal law? It seems to me that that is a question which is hard to answer. A precedent should not be established. We are told, in the explanatory notes to this bill, page 2, that under the code as at present worded-
. . . the crown, in order to obtain a conviction, must prove that the house, office, room or place alleged to be a common betting house was actually opened, kept or used for the purpose ... of facilitating or encouraging or assisting in the making of bets. . . .
I submit that that is exactly what should be proved if justice is to prevail in this country. A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and it seems to me that the onus should be on the crown to prove that the house, room or place alleged to be a common betting house was in fact used for that purpose by the accused, before it can obtain a conviction for the offence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the law to-day.


Douglas King Hazen: That is the law to-day. That is the law they propose to change by this amendment. This explanatory note goes on to say that:
Under the amendment it will be sufficient if the crown proves that the house, office, room or place was used or intended or likely to be used for such purposes.
* This clearly shows that the amendment proposes to make an intention an offence, and I say we should have none of it.
AVe are told that the suggested amendment was submitted by the attorney general of Ontario and concurred in by the attorney general of British Columbia, and I think the minister said to-day that a third attorney general had suggested this amendment, although the name of the province he represents does not appear in the notes to the bill. But I would say this, that there are some crown prosecutors who take an exaggerated view of offences which, when all is said and done, are not very serious offences. They take an exaggerated view of them on some occasions when they fail to secure convictions. Some crown prosecutors are over-zealous, and look for easy ways and short-cuts to obtain convictions when they believe offences have been committed. To change a fundamental principle of our criminal law to make it easy to obtain convictions against citizens of this
Criminal Code-Betting

country, who may be innocent, is a step in the wrong direction; it is a departure from British principles of justice and a step towards a new despotism.
Under our criminal law a person must do an overt act before he can be charged with a criminal offence. That principle is based on reason and common sense. It has stood the test of time. It should not be encroached upon to enable over-zealous crown prosecutors to obtain convictions for a crime which cannot be regarded as a very serious one. There may be parts of Canada in which a good deal of betting is going on at the present time, but to take a step of this kind to put an end to it is, it seems to me, introducing a cure which is and will prove to be much worse than the disease. So far as I am able to, I protest strongly against the proposed amendment, and if I am in order I will second the amendment to the amendment made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. GREEN:: I rise to support wholeheartedly the section as it has now been submitted by the Minister of Justice. I praise him for bringing in this amendment to the code and also for making the improvement which has been made to-day. I suggest that he will not go very far wrong if he listens to the points made this morning by my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is one of the outstanding defence counsel of Canada. I was very much impressed by his submission this morning, and when he said that the amendment as it now reads is a reasonable amendment I think that may be taken as gospel truth.
Some suggestion has been made that this is [DOT] only a matter of a minor offence, that there is nothing much to it, that it is only a little bit of betting on the side. Well, actually in British Columbia, and I believe in Ontario, this is a big-money racket, having, I believe, widespread connections with the underworld; and the betting is not on local horse races but on races held in the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Kentucky derby.


Howard Charles Green: It is on races of all kinds conducted in the states. It is estimated that from the city of Vancouver daily there has been wagered a sum of S30,000 under this scheme. The bookies who are in this business are not inoffensive, ignorant, innocent people; they are mighty keen business men who have figured out a way to defeat the law. That is the situation, and surely the parliament of Canada can face it and can put through an adequate remedy. I know that in our province the attorney general has been trying for 
several years to get an amendment put through to this effect. As hon. members know, he is Hon. R. L. Maitland, KjC., who also is one of the leading defence counsel of Canada and is thoroughly acquainted with the criminal code. He has been convinced for years that this amendment is needed. He is convinced that if such an amendment is not made these bookies will run wild.
That is the feeling in our province. I have here a press clipping of May 28, the day after the Minister of Justice introduced this bill, in which we find the following statement by the chief of police:
"Bookmakers have had their innings in Vancouver," says police chief Donald Mackay. "They're on the defensive now. It's been a long, hard struggle to curtail their activities, but if the proposed amendments to the criminal code are passed the bookies will be forced out of business." -
The next day there appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province, one of the leading newspapers of Canada, an editorial under the title, "Teeth in the Law", the last two paragraphs of which read:
There is no doubt about the evil or the difficulty. Bookmaking on horse-racing and some other popular forms of sport has literally found its way into innumerable holes and corners from which the ordinary processes of the law have been increasingly impotent to dislodge it.
It is bad enough when it is honest if illegal bookmaking within the gambler's code-bad in its demoralization of the lives of its addicts. It is worse when it becomes, as all experience shows, that it increasingly tends to become, a conscienceless racket. It is time long past due that the laws against the exploitation of gambling were provided with effective teeth.
It is all right for us to argue about what happened in Queen Elizabeth's time.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not argue about what
happened in Queen Elizabeth's time.


Howard Charles Green: Then I withdraw that. It is all right for us to look back over the centuries and try to maintain the majesty of the law, British justice, and so on and so forth; but here is a condition, an evil that must be met, and it cannot be met by the provinces but only by the dominion parliament. I suggest that the law-abiding public of Canada are entitled to receive this protection from parliament at this time and I urge on the minister that he carry out his original intention and put through this amendment.
Mr. KIN'LEY: The idea expressed in this legislation seems to violate my sense of fair play. I am a layman, but I have had experience with amendments to the criminal law, both in the provincial legislature and here, and while I realize that the minister

Criminal Code-Betting
is dealing with organized crime to a degree, and therefore must use drastic means in coping with it, I suggest however that when, instead of throwing out your net to catch criminals, you throw that net over a citizen and say to him, "Get out of it if you can," that is hardly British fair play. The thing that bothers me about this betting legislation is that the principle involved is that it is a criminal offence to take a chance. But everybody in the country does it. I cannot find many people in my section of the country who	do	not in	some	way	orother take a chance or who are not in some way entertained	by	getting	close to theborder of this betting law.	In order	tosatisfy public opinion we invoke the church and say that if	the	church	does	it it	is
permissible, or if the mayor of the town allows it you can have a bingo game or any of the other games usually played at fairs and exhibitions, which are therefore gambling places.
The difficulty about these provisions is that they affect all the people of the country, and when you make a law of this kind so drastic that the natural frailties of the people in a community are apt to be made crimes, that is not a good1 thing. It seems to me the minister might take into consideration the fact that he is dealing with a subject that has a great many applications. Even persons who play bridge may be affected; numberless people have bridge games where they give prizes and gamble a little. When you bring all these people into the net of criminal prosecution, I suggest that you are doing something about which we can hardly be enthusiastic. I trust the minister will consider this matter carefully.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister has told us that when this amendment saw the light of day he received many representations from the public. We know the opinions expressed of three of the attorneys general, and I should like to know whether he has received representations from the other six. If so, have any of them opposed this suggestion?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The only other attorney general who has made comment to the department in respect of these classes since the bill was published is the new attorney general for Ontario, who said that in his view it would be desirable to postpone this until at least another session so that it might have further consideration. He was, I think, the only other attorney general who communicated with the department about these sections since the bill becam'e public.


Mr. POTTIER:: The member for Lake
Centre indicated that there was no new offence, that the offence was not enlarged, but that it was a matter of procedure. Are the words "likely to be used" left in the section?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I submit that we are enlarging the offence. The original section used the words " opened, kept or used." This amendment uses the words "intended or likely to be used"-I am leaving out the other words about outfitting and equipping. The words "likely to be used" are left in the section.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are left in but are qualified by the amendment, "equipped in such a manner as to be likely." The likelihood is to be judged not generally but from the amount of equipment and outfitting that is found on the premises.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I still submit that we are creating a criminal offence which would not have been there before this amendment was introduced. On the general policy, I rather agree with the member for York-Sunbury and the member for St. John-Albert. We have to be careful about these amendments where we try to bring in by procedure what could not be got under the general common law. We saw what happened in the amendments to the customs act. The officials of the national revenue department found it difficult to obtain convictions. We saw one amendment after another, until it got to the stage that they could call in anyone, and he would have to answer all kinds of questions, and in some instances be asked to sign a statement. The result was that this procedure became wholesale, and they answered nothing. The law defeated itself. By trying to bring about convictions through matters of procedure they got no convictions at all, and the law was abused to such an extent that it received no respect.
I am always suspicious and afraid of these amendments which have as their fundamental purpose the making of convictions which otherwise could not be obtained. In some instances an offence may be enlarged so as to make it easy for officials who otherwise could not obtain a conviction. The suggestion of the new attorney general for Ontario, who I am sure must be a good one, should be examined, and it would be well to wait until next year. If he has not already been consulted, I should like to have the attorney general for Nova Scotia consulted in the matter.
Criminal Code-Betting


Angus MacInnis: I have very little to say, because in a certain sense this is a matter for lawyers. Yet I think it is dangerous to leave it with the lawyers, because there may be more than one vested interest in a matter of this kind. To my mind, so long as the word "intended" or "likely" is in the section, I do not think it can be satisfactory. I must confess to knowing nothing about gambling or betting houses. I shall put the case in another way. If we were dealing with some matter affecting labour, a subject about which I claim to know something, and we found there was a section in a labour law providing that a trade union or an officer of a trade union were guilty of an offence if he intended to or was likely to advocate a strike, I would object to such a law. For the same reason in this case I shall have to vote against the amendment. Nevertheless I believe there is a great deal in what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Lake Centre as to the evils with which we are dealing, and the facility with which the law can be evaded. I believe it has always been an axiom with us that a guilty person should go free rather than that an innocent person should be convicted. Because of the two points I have mentioned I shall have to vote against the amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I expressed some opinions on the section at an early stage in the discussion, I should like to say one more thing. The minister brings in a government measure which has the approval of council. This is government policy. It will not do for the minister to say, under our system of responsible government, "Here it is; take it or leave it".


Paul Joseph James Martin: We ought to grasp at the opportunity to kill this thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably so. However I am taking exception to the principle upon which the minister is sponsoring this bill. He should never have brought it in unless it had his approval. In dealing with criminal law under our system of responsible government, it will not do for the minister to come to parliament and say, "Here it is; take it or leave it." I have seen that happen before, and it is not responsible government at all.
I was inclined to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. However, a startling statement has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, one which makes me uneasy. If in the city of Vancouver there is a system of organized crime with which the authorities have diffi-

culty in dealing, under legislation now existing, admittedly that is an evil for which the Department of Justice is responsible, because it is the department clothed with the responsibility for enacting substantively or proposing criminal law in this parliament. Under these circumstances we are given occasion to pause and consider.
I have a suggestion to make to the minister. In my opinion he must assume responsibility for the bill. He ought to be sure there is a real case in support of it, one which cannot be met by the ordinary provisions of law as they stand to-day. He ought to satisfy himself on that point. If it cannot be dealt with, and we cannot stamp out that which is admittedly or at least is alleged to be a substantial evil-and I am impressed by what the hon. member for Vancouver South said in that regard-then he ought to put this bill through. But he ought to be seized of what the facts are. If in the opinion of those charged with the responsibility of administering the law in Vancouver this is the only way of dealing with it, with the modifications suggested by the minister, then parliament should not lightly throw this out upon the statement of a mere academic principle. Because there is no doubt that to a large extent we are doing away with the question of guilty intent if we pass this legislation. We must not forget that which the lawyers call mens rea, something which varies with various crimes. Very little of it is required in certain classes of criminal cases, and in other cases one must show very strong criminal intent.
My suggestion to the minister is that he let this matter stand until next session, that in the meantime it be reviewed by the Department of Justice, and further information obtained. The statement that 130,000 a day is leaving the city of Vancouver, through an organization of bookmakers, is a startling one.


Douglas King Hazen: It would have to get by the exchange board in some way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
been wondering about that. How in the world do the foreign exchange control board let this money go out of the country for this purpose? The whole position ought to be reviewed, and I suggest that the minister let this section stand over until next session. If the department is convinced that the law as at present worded cannot be enforced, then let the minister come before parliament, with the support of the government behind him. I do not believe we know enough about the factual position to pass the

Criminal Code-Betting
legislation this year, or to vote one way or another. From what I have heard, I would be embarrassed if I were to vote either way, because I have never yet knowingly supported the wrong. I may have been wrong, and I may have often supported1 the wrong, but I never have done so knowingly, and I do not wish to be put in that position to-day.


John James Kinley: They are so relative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is so. My suggestion therefore is that the position be examined more fully by the minister, and that then he should take the ministerial responsibility for either putting it through or not putting it through. The minister, under our system of government, must accept responsibility. He cannot fly kites. That is not responsible government as we understand it in Canada. Before bringing this provision before parliament he should have known that a great evil existed, and that it could be dealt with only in this way. Then he should put the force of the executive authority behind this in submitting it to parliament and say, "This is what we believe is absolutely necessary to eradicate the evil."


Mr. COLD WELL:: It seems to me there is a great difference of opinion. I think we all want to tighten up this legislation in order to wipe out the evil; for evil it is. I was going to suggest to the minister that if there is to be some delay, or if the suggestion just made is to be carried out, information should be obtained from some of the cities in this regard. I have noticed in the newspapers, for example, that an investigation is going on in the city of Hull, which is right beside this city of Ottawa, dealing with gambling and other conditions. I have noticed from some of the evidence that has appeared in the newspapers that during the course of that inquiry bookmaking and betting have been mentioned from time to time. It seems to me that if the department has not gathered the information upon which it is able to base its desire for legislation, then that should be done. I would vote for anything that would stamp out this evil-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You would not want that done by violating principles which are fundamental in our whole society?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, but I would say that all law restricts the liberty of the individual to some extent, in the interests of the public good.


George Russell Boucher: It should extend the
liberty of the individual.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Well, inasmuch as it restricts the liberty of the individual to do wrong, it extends the liberty of the individual to live in a manner that is right.


Mr. MITCHELL:: You should have been a lawyer yourself.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know; I am sometimes glad that I am not a lawyer.


Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: Why? Mr. BOUCHER: Let us not have a confession.


Major James William Coldwell: I sometimes listen to lengthy dissertations by lawyers, and perhaps that is why I am glad I am not a lawyer. However, I rose to say that I do think the minister should be given every support in trying to stamp out this evil, but in doing so we should be sure of the premises upon which we act.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish to add just a
word as to the principle of criminal law which I am sure interests everyone who has had anything to do with the administration of justice in this country. I must confess that I agree with those who oppose the introduction of the principle of finding a person guilty on the basis of an intention, or on the basis that a certain thing is likely to occur. I do so for two reasons, one of which has been touched upon already by the hon. member for St John-Albert. The safest principle for criminal law, which is a penal statute, is to have an overt act a necessary ingredient of the crime. We all recognize that almost every human being has his moments of anger, his moments of ill-advised passion, and that often, mentally at least, he contemplates what would be a crime, serious or otherwise. In the great majority of cases, thank heaven, that intention is never carried into effect, and no overt act is committed. If we attempted in our criminal code to punish every person who intended or had thought of doing a criminal act, it would be merely a farcical attempt to enforce an impossible law.
I agree with other speakers; I know of no habit that will so surely sap the strength of a nation as widespread gambling, yet it seems to be inherent in human nature to wish to gamble in one way or another. There is, therefore, a certain similarity between this evil and that of bootlegging, let us say; and from the experience we gained in attempting to control the liquor traffic we know that in the last analysis all law must have a measure of public support. If you do not have that support your law will not be efficacious in its application. I suggest to
Criminal Code-Betting

the Minister of Justice that even in the cities where this evil of gambling is prevalent, nothing would set public opinion more against this law than the conviction of a man because of some intention or some likelihood that he was going to commit an offence. I agree that this is a great evil; I fully appreciate the minister's desire to cope with it, but we should remember that we are lawmakers, and that fairness and justice in the law are much more important than to attempt, in a way that is offensive to our sense of justice, to cure an evil, when the cure may be worse than the evil itself.


Mr. FAIR:: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether under this amendment the Winnipeg grain exchange would be classed as a gambling house?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The facts concerning the Winnipeg grain exchange would have to be proved before a court, and the court would determine the position. Certainly it is not the function of the Minister of Justice or of any member of this house to apply a law to any specific case until the facts connected with that case are proved.


George Russell Boucher: Could the minister give us any information as to the difficulty of obtaining convictions under the existing law, in respect to equipment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I cannot give any statistical information. General representations have been made that the situation was such that these attorneys general did not care to attempt prosecutions because of the difficulty of having to prove criminal intent subjectively, having to satisfy the court beyond any reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent.
I wish to add just a few words. I do not think any new principle is being introduced here. As the paragraph is to be amended, it would be legislation of the kind which forbids, for instance, the carrying of offensive weapons, firearms and things of that kind. It is not a matter of intent; it is the overt act of being in possession or control of the dangerous thing that is forbidden.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury has suggested that before bringing such legislation before parliament the department should make sufficient investigation to enable the minister to come here and say, "Well, now, this is government policy and you must take it. I do not think that is really the doctrine that should apply in amending the procedural part of the criminal law. If the Department of Justice had the sole responsibility of aPPlying the criminal law, then we could come here and say, "Our experience convinces us that it is necessary to do this," but when it IMr. Graham.]
is not our own experience; when it is the experience of the provincial attorneys general, I think the department is entitled to come before this house, which after all is the grand inquest of the nation, and ask this house if, from its knowledge of the situation throughout the nation, the suggestion made by some of the attorneys general should be acted upon.
I should like to assure the hon. member for Swift Current that the advisability of having the criminal law revised and consolidated, and many of the existing inconsistencies removed, has been considered, and some serious thought has been given to it. I do not feel at liberty in these times to ask that that be undertaken. The matter will require the serious attention of quite a large number of people who during these critical times are otherwise engaged. It would be something similar to the decennial revision of the statutes. It has been some fifteen years since the last consolidated statutes came into operation, and it is always a matter of four or five years to prepare a new consolidation. Therefore it will be over twenty years before there is a new consolidation of the statutes of Canada. Thought is being given to this matter and some work has been done already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the criminal code?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On the criminal code.
Mr. DIBFENBAlKER: Who is doing the work?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Some work has been done by the law officers of this house, Mr. Ollivier and Mr. Fraser on the criminal code, but I have not felt that it would be proper at this time to ask parliament to set up a commission and to take the kind of men who would be required to do a proper job away from the occupations they are in at this time.
I can assure my hon. friend that all lawyers realize the great benefit there would be to the Canadian public as well as to the bench and to the profession in having this work done.
Section stands.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Progress reported.
The house having reverted to government notices of motion:



WAR EXPENDITURES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: War Expenditures Committee
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members, as follows: Messrs. Black (Cumberland), Blackmore, Boucher, Pinard, Cleaver, Coldwell, Donnelly, Dupuis, Fauteux, Ferland, Gladstone, Golding, Graham, Homuth, Hurtubise, Jackman, Hill, Nixon, O'Neill, Picard, Pottier, Reid, Sissons, Winkler, with power to send tor persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of this motion are similar to those of the motions in two previous years for the appointment of the war expenditures committee, the only difference being in the personnel of the proposed membership. Along with other members of the house I regret that the committee has not been set up earlier, but hon. members who follow the proceedings will, I am sure, appreciate the reasons for that. At an earlier stage in the session I indicated that I was most anxious to have all the standing and select committees set up at as early a day as possible. Indeed, such a request was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), and the government sought to meet it. I believe the standing committees were appointed earlier this year than they have been at any other session for years past, and the same is true I believe with respect also to the special committees. But it did happen that on the motion for the appointment of one or two special committees there were long debates, and as the government had before the house financial matters respecting the war which it was recognized were all-important, it was thought inadvisable to present this particular motion at a time when it was likely to hinder the progress of the government's financial measures. The most important measures, as members will recall, were the mutual aid bill, the war appropriation bill and the budget. The budget, which was brought in at a very early stage of the session, occupied time that would otherwise have been taken for the appointment of this among other committees.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the statement which I made in the house on April 10 and, which will be found in
Hansard at page 2290
Another matter which was stressed at the beginning of the session was that the government should appoint the committees at an early stage. Our attention was drawn to the fact that in other years some of the committees did not meet until well on in the session. We took great pains this year to have the personnel
of the committees in readiness and sought every opportunity to have them appointed at an early date. But there is still on the order paper, as hon. members are aware, notices for twp committees, one with respect to war expenditures and the other with respect to radio broadcasting. Thus far we have not been able to get these committees appointed. _
I think I did mention at an earlier stage of the session that we took about a week in appointing the committee on social security and the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation. Those committees might have been appointed in five or ten minutes and we could have had the discussion at a later stage. The main purpose is to get the committees appointed.
If it is at all possible I should like to get the committee with respect to broadcasting and the committee on war expenditures appointed before we adjourn for Easter. I do not know whether we can do so, but I hope we might be able to. There will be plenty of opportunities throughout the session to discuss matters with respect to them when the committees bring in their reports. But that rests entirely with the house. I am pointing this out now in order that hon. members may see just why it may be that in some of the business we shall be later in meeting their wishes than might otherwise be the case.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition will recall that before the house rose for the Easter recess I did make an effort to have the committee on war expenditures set up, but I was informed that there were members opposite who wished to participate in the debate and that the debate might take some little time. It was for this reason I did not introduce the motion before the Easter adjournment.
Members will also recall that there was an understanding between the leaders of the different parties in the house as to the order of business which should be followed with respect to the financial measures, and that it was agreed that every effort should be made to get the mutual aid bill and the war appropriation bill through with as little interruption as possible.


Gordon Graydon: If I may interrupt for a moment, I hope the Prime Minister was not under any misapprehension as to the setting up of this committee, because any arrangements that were made certainly were never made with a view to having the setting up of the war expenditures committee delayed until the end of the session. That was never intended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not mean until the end of the session, but anticipating that there would be a debate of some length on the motion for setting up the war expenditures committee it was felt that it was desirable not to permit at that time a lengthy debate which would delay consideration of the war appropriation measure.

War Expenditures Committee
. Mr. GRAYDON: I do not think there was any suggestion that there would be a lengthy debate on this motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was my understanding. I certainly did gather from the statements that were made that there would be a lengthy debate. I should add that, as hon. members will recall, during a considerable part of the session the government found it difficult to make headway with its financial measures, because when an effort was made to move into committee of the whole we were often met by an amendment from hon. members opposite in one of the three groups, and the effect of that was to delay considerably the time at which we were in a position to go on with pressing war measures. The house will recall that with respect to the mutual aid bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) explained that because of obligations which he had to be in a position to meet, or give an understanding to meet it was all important that that measure should not be delayed, and this being appreciated by the house, we proceeded with it without much in the way of interruption.
On May 10 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) addressed a question to me. He said:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will endeavour some time this week to arrange for the setting up of the war expenditures committee. The session is getting on.
I replied to him at that time.
I should not like to enter into the reasons which have made it impossible to reach that particular item on the agenda before this, but certainly almost every time the government has moved to get on with some of its most important legislation there have been interruptions for one reason or another. Other matters or measures have been brought up which have taken up a considerable amount of time. I understand the resolution referred to by my hon. friend is one that it is expected will take up some considerable time in discussion. In that event I think it should stand over until we have completed the measure which the Minister of Finance has introduced with respect to war supplies and also the war appropriation bill.
There was no exception taken to that statement from anyone in the house. That is why this committee has not been appointed earlier. The government held to the order of business which had been agreed to at the time I mentioned.
It may be thought by some hon. members that there can be no particular advantage in appointing the committee at this stage of the session, as we will be adjourning very shortly; but previous committees have had the opportunity of sitting through the period of adjournment, and I assume that this com-

mittee, once it is formed, will ask for that privilege, and also that the house will be prepared to grant it. So that the effect of the passage of this resolution at this time will be that the committee appointed will have, from the time of its being constituted until this session is over and parliament prorogues, a much better opportunity of going into the whole business of war expenditures, than it could possibly have had thus far; I mean, a much freer opportunity, because, as hon. members know, throughout this session there have been many committees sitting, and the time of hon. members has been pretty fully occupied.
I do not think there is any necessity at this time to discuss the resolution itself. As I have said, the resolution is similar to those which have previously passed this house, and it is on all fours with the resolution which has been adopted at Westminster during this present war and which was similar to the resolution adopted, after three years had elapsed, at the time of the last war.
I would just say in conclusion that if I should be in this particular place when another session of parliament meets I should gladly join with hon. members in seeking to have this committee appointed at the earliest possible stage of the new session.


Major James William Coldwell: I was disappointed that this committee was not appointed earlier in the session. As the Prime Minister remarked, I suggested it to him, and I think the facts that he has brought to the house this afternoon are sufficient proof that the house regards the committee as a very important one. I know that on several occasions when the house moved into supply other matters were brought up for discussion. No doubt that did to some extent delay the business which the government anticipated would be done at the time, but may I remind the Prime Minister that not all that discussion was promoted from the opposition side of the house. I remember distinctly that his own followers were active in the discussion of the mutual aid bill, and, I believe, had a great deal to do with the prolongation, if not the initiation, of the debate. There have been few opportunities this session to discuss some of the important matters which affect our constituents. The only opportunity we have of bringing such matters emphatically before the house is when we move into supply, and there have been few occasions of the kind this session.
In my opinion at least some of the discussion, perhaps a great deal of it, on the war

War Expenditures Committee
appropriation bill might have been curtailed had this committee been sitting, because a number of problems that we discussed on the floor would have been discussed in the committee, and those who were active in the discussion of various phases of the war appropriation bill were in many instances, I noted, hon. members who are suggested for this committee.
It is unfortunate that this committee was not set up earlier, and I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that in other sessions, he hopes, opportunities will be afforded for the earlier establishment of this committee. Those of us who had the privilege of meeting and discussing with the chairman of the British war expenditures committee the work of that committee at Westminster will have been deeply impressed by the importance of the British committee. When Sir John Wardlaw Milne was here the other day he was good enough to tell us something of the work of his committee, which also sits between sessions; and I only wish that ours might prove to be as effective and as efficient.
I think it is asking a great deal of hon. members to expect them to sit on this committee almost continuously between the sessions of parliament. Speaking for myself, last year I was unable to take even a few days' holiday, but I feel that during this time of war, members who are appointed to the committee regard it as something of a duty.
I shall not on this occcasion go into the matter at any considerable length. I wish to refer only to the report which was presented when this house assembled on the 27th of January. I think it was a good report, a report which showed that the subcommittees -all of them-had given close attention to the matters which properly had to be looked into, and that certain of the recommendations would be of far-reaching effect. I shall not quote the recommendations; they will be found on page 758 and succeeding pages of Votes and Proceedings of January 27, 1943, but in my opinion they are important. I do not know to what extent they have been oarried out. Into that we should inquire.
I was a member of the committee last year but in spite of that I would like to say that members of our party in the house appreciate the work which was done by all members of the committee, and the considerable sacrifice they made in remaining in Ottawa after the rest of the members of the house had gone home.
I hope that the committee this year will go thoroughly into certain phases of our

expenditures and will see to it that the various departments are closely checked. Even if the committee never reported to this house, the very fact that it does meet and does inquire and does call before it witnesses from the departments, who cannot appear before parliament itself, has a good and salutary effect upon the departments. Eor these reasons among others I support the appointment of the committee.


George Russell Boucher: Now that almost four years have elapsed since the beginning of hostilities, and about nine billion dollars have been spent in the prosecution of the war, it is obvious, I think, that some check on war expenditures on behalf of the members of the House of Commons is important. It is difficult to reconcile the importance of the war expenditures committee with the fact that the session has run from January 26 until the present time without this committee having been set up; indeed, that with such colossal expenditure going on the committee has not been in deliberation since about the middle of last November.
The composition of the war expenditures committee, consisting as it has done of twenty-four members, eighteen of whom are appointed from the government side of the house, and six from the opposition, shows that the opposition members have very little control over the workings of the committee. This is the third year of operation of the war expenditures committee, and so far no opportunity has been given members of this house to discuss the matters which the committee should investigate or the recommendations they have made. This is the sort of opportunity that is afforded us, in the dying days of the session, on a Saturday afternoon, when a great many members have already gone home. Add to that the fact that this war expenditures committee, from its inception, has been sitting in camera and that the individual members of the committee are in honour bound to observe secrecy, to make their inquiries without the help of expert evidence, without technical assistance, to get what information they require as best they can, and on information so obtained to base their recommendations, having little or no opportunity to carry out any real research before submitting their findings to the membership of the House of Commons. So far as I am concerned, that is not just democracy. It is not representative government, and it does not represent to the members of the House of Commons the true functions of the war expenditures committee.



War Expenditures Committee
There are no doubt occasions when secrecy and sittings in camera are necessary. The war expenditures committee could and perhaps should deal with many matters that carry with them possibilities of giving aid or comfort to the enemy, and in that event no publicity should be made possible so that information may go to sources that should not have it. I fully appreciate that. But I well recall, as a member of a subcommittee last year, a motion being brought before the committee to discuss war-time housing in public, and that motion was defeated-despite the denial of the member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver)-and the committee went into the subject of war-time housing.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Would the hon. member permit an interruption?


George Russell Boucher: To ask a question, but not to make a speech.


Hughes Cleaver: Does the hon. member not recall the fact that, notwithstanding that we sat in camera, the subcommittee, including two Conservative members as well as Liberal members, brought in a unanimous report?


George Russell Boucher: True. The hon. member for Halton seems to think that because the committee brought in a unanimous report, the statement he made in the house some time ago denying the making of a proposal that we should not sit in camera with regard to housing, has no effect. The main committee was divided into three parts, so that the official opposition could have only one member on each of two subcommittees and two on the third. Under the circumstances it did not seem to me, as an individual, that I could properly discharge the functions of a member of a political party, a member of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition-the official opposition-a member of the House of Commons of Canada and one who, representing a constituency in this house, has a duty to perform to his country beyond his constituency, beyond his party, beyond the official opposition. For when committees meet in camera, one must keep one's information to oneself. Every member of such a committee must observe the conditions of secrecy, and therefore cannot be given a proper chance to discuss or explain matters in the house.
Let me discuss, as I see them, the advantages or otherwise of sitting in camera. There is no doubt that when you sit in camera certain information can be given to the committee, which would not otherwise be obtained, with regard to matters on which the enemy should not be informed. But there are other aspects as well. We all know that, even when

meetings are held in camera, witnesses come before the committee in almost every instance with a brief prepared either by themselves or b3- the departments they represent or by companies or corporations for whom they are working. Such briefs are prepared with the minutest care, and on many occasions they were read to the committee. On a few occasions briefs were left with the committee for discussion and evidence was taken from them. Not only were briefs prepared in advance, before witnesses came before the committee, but on many occasions the Department of Munitions and Supply, and sometimes solicitors representing a company, were there with a watching brief to see that nothing was said that should not be said. There was therefore ample safeguard against undesirable material coming before the committee, without the necessity of sitting in camera.
In my particular subcommittee, as I believe in others, when secret information was given we were warned, and I believe the members of my subcommittee were particularly cautious not to disclose anything of a secret nature. On this point, I suggest that any gentleman is unworthy of membership in the House of Commons if he cannot use his own discretion to observe secrecy where necessary. Many committees sitting in camera can on occasion hear evidence that should not be repeated to the public, evidence that should be withheld from the press and kept off the record. But let me point out that when the witnesses give evidence before the subcommittee it is taken down by shorthand reporters and a copy is given to the witness. They have every privilege of changing it or of deleting from it anything they consider should not be in it. They can check' it or modify it. But one thing I did' observe and did resent was the fact that the members of the subcommittee sitting in camera could not obtain for their own use a transcript of the evidence taken from day to day. To be sure, they could go to the branch and look it over and leave it there, and sometimes they could take it out and bring it back; but in my opinion, doing the work that I felt called upon to do, as I am sure every member of the subcommittee on which I served also felt bound to do, through long periods of the holiday last year, and going through evidence of all sorts, the members of the subcommittee should have a transcript from day to day of the evidence taken so that they might peruse it carefully and make comparisons. They would then be in a better position to verify their reports, because they would be more conversant with all the material that had been submitted. But

War Expenditures Committee
in analysing the evidence that was given my powers were very limited. Indeed, I was very much impressed by the extent to which that limitation went, and many times I felt how futile it was for me to give an opinion and back up that opinion with any assurance without having expert or technical assistance to that end.
Let us take for instance a production plant [DOT]-Toronto Shipbuilding, let us say, or the Noorduyn aviation plant, or any plant you wish. We look over their payrolls and see that they have 9,000 or 10,000 men, with salaries ranging all the way from high brackets to low brackets. These workers are producing intricate mechanisms costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. How can we analyse the financial set-up of a company of that kind, without the assistance of someone versed in financial matters? How can we go into their books to find out if their excess profits taxes are correctly paid, what profits they are making, whether their costs are proper and economical, or whether their subcontracts are efficiently handled? For members of a subcommittee to go to a war production plant, in which colossal production is being carried on, a committee asked to produce an analysis without the assistance of expert evidence or expert help, is just like glossing over the surface. It is like putting wax on an already veneered surface.
Before we continue we should look into that phase of the matter. I do not cast any reflection upon the honour or the integrity of any witness coming before the committee. I have no reason to do that; but it has been argued to me that if the committee, sits in camera a witness can give evidence which is open and frank and complete. As a practising lawyer I have always felt that the best test and assurance of veracity and exactness is a sworn oath given in public. The whole set-up of our courts in Canada is based upon public hearings, and it has been done in that way for the protection not only of the witnesses but of the public. In my view the test of publicity is a most advantageous factor in any discussion of this kind. We know that our courts decline to accept evidence given on affidavit, because they realize that in respect of those affidavits there is no opportunity for cross-examination. The rules of evidence applying in our courts have been framed after years of experience in trying to get the best possible evidence. A person giving evidence before a subcommittee on war expenditures should be sworn. That person's evidence should be transcribed as sworn. Then it should be given to the members of the committee for their deliberation, and it
72537-315*
should be given the test of publicity, so far as it can be given. It should be given to the scrutiny of persons specially skilled in analysis of cost accounting, to a chartered accountant, or to some expert of the kind.
The subcommittee on which I have served has on a number of occasions called in people who were specially skilled in respect of certain work, and have asked them for their point of view in inspect of problems brought before us. That itself is illustrative of the necessity of having expert technical assistants before these subcommittees. If one were to look over last, year's report of the subcommittees and to investigate closely the ground they touched upon and the work with which they were charged, he would realize at once that thirty subcommittees, let alone three, could not properly discharge their duties. I repeat that before the committee on war expenditures can make a thorough investigation and report its findings with certainty and with assurance -and it should be in that position before it reports to the house-it should have at its disposal every possible facility for going into all the minute details with the utmost thoroughness. Here we are setting up, during a recess, a committee of twenty-four members. Undoubtedly it will be subdivided into three subcommittees. One of the subcommittees will be asked no doubt, to deal with government corporations, shipbuilding and aircraft production. To ask a subcommittee to handle that amount of work is to ask it to do not the work of a. few days, not the work of a few hours a day, but the work of years.
It is my frank opinion there is no limit to the amount of work the committee on war expenditures could do. There is grave danger in asking a subcommittee to deal with subjects much too involved and too intricate for their consideration, unless they have expert assistance. Some time ago the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) stated in the house that the war expenditures committee was investigating contracts. Well, if any hon. members present to-day remember the big books of contracts we had placed before us- books laden down with contracts-they will realize at once how utterly impossible it would be for any subcommittee even to scratch the surface of investigating such contracts. And the fact that between November 13 and this date the committee has not sat cannot help but reflect an opinion held by the government either that there is a lack of necessity for the setting up of the committee, or that the committee could not do its work well.
As we enter the fifth year of the war we should take some of these facts into consid-
49S6
War Expenditures Committee

eration. I believe that at least some advantage can be gained by a subcommittee on war expenditures sitting in camera, even though its findings cannot be passed on. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, the very fact that the committee on war expenditures is sitting may do some good. But that is not good enough for the people of Canada, and it should not be good enough for the 245 members of the House of Commons. A committee on war expenditures, if it is to be adjudged worthy of its existence at all, is worthy of serious consideration, serious discussion, and the serious analysis of hon. members of the House of Commons.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the committee on war expenditures since it was first established. As such I recognize I have a considerable responsibility to the house and to the country. Parliament has been most generous in voting money, and the people of Canada have supported its parliament in those expenditures. In fact in their desire to have the greatest possible effort made in .the carrying on of the war, our people are ahead of the government. It is the responsibility of parliament, one which has been passed on to a committee composed of representatives in parliament, to see that these moneys are properly expended.
I was not anxious to serve on the committee on war expenditures. In fact I can say I was adverse to serving on it. I was not able to attend at all times. I had responsibilities to discharge to my constituency, to my home and to my business, with the result that I was unable to attend at all times when the committee sat. I feel that .there must be some greater appreciation than obtains at present as to the immensity of the work devolving upon this committee. If the committee is to discharge its duties properly it should have been sitting continuously.
The hon. member who preceded me said that billions upon billions of dollars have been voted for war expenditures. In the fiscal year 1942-43 the vote for war expenditures amounted to three and a half billion dollars. When we reassembled in January we had to provide for a deficit of $858,000,000, nearly a billion dollars. Surely that is a great responsibility to be placed upon the committee charged with examining expenditures, to see that they are properly made. This parliament for the fiscal year 1943-44 is voting five billions of dollars for war expenditures and another $500,000,000 for civil expenditure. And if the experience in other years is repeated we will be faced with another deficit in this fiscal year. This means

an expenditure of $15,000,000 a day. To a great extent the public will hold this committee responsible for the proper expenditure of these tremendous sums of money. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of that committee I must admit that I have not fully discharged that responsibility, and I can make the further admission that as a member of parliament I do not think I am capable of dis-iharging that responsibility to this parliament and the people of Canada as it should be discharged.
There has been a great deal of adverse criticism of expenditures. The people are willing and prepared to have us vote all the money necessary and put the entire credit of this country at stake; but there is a great deal of misgiving in the province of Nova Scotia and all over this country that this money has not been always properly expended, and that there has been waste and extravagance. I have heard that said a hundred, a thousand times. The country was full of rumours of extravagance and waste at the time the construction work was going on at Debert, and we have not checked up on that. There were rumours of extravagance and waste in connection with Deep Brook at Windsor and the eastern passage airport. It was suggested that this latter work should have been investigated by our committee, but a special commission was set up, consisting of the late Hon. W. N. Tilley, K.C., who investigated the project and made a report. Nothing has been done with respect to that report, either by the war expenditures committee or by parliament, though it contained a very damaging finding to the effect that the successful contractor had obtained inside advance information. Apparently he was allowed an arbitrary advance classification of materials in connection with the eastern passage airport, which the other contractors were not given. The explanation was that he had asked the government officials and they had given him this arbitrary classification, which I think was ninety per cent earth and boulders, six per cent earth and four per cent solid rock. He also figured on a much greater yardage than the other contractors, expecting that additional yardage would be removed. That was unfair to the other contractors; that was not a proper standard to set for contracts involving the expenditure of millions of dollars; yet nothing has been done about it.
If we are to have a committee of this kind it should be in continuous session. No evidence has been taken by this committee since last November, though it is true that the committee sat for a few days prior to the opening

War Expenditures Committee
of this session in January, to draw up a report, and it is also true that the committee came to a unanimous conclusion. None of us on that committee is looking for scandals; certainly I am not, but we have a duty to see to it that the money is properly expended and that sound policies are laid down by the government. We have a duty to safeguard this country against waste and extravagance, but we have not been able to perform that duty; we have not done it, nor are we now capable of doing it. If we were to undertake to discharge that duty we would have to sit continuously, and not have an interval of eight months with no sittings at all, while expenditures are being made at the rate $15,000,000 a day, with an over-expenditure or deficit of $858,000,000 last year and a war appropriation this year of $5,000,000,000, with probably another overexpenditure or deficit of a billion dollars coming, to judge by the experience in the past.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe the members of this committee are capable of performing the duties expected of them by the people. I have nothing but good-will toward the other members of the committee. Our relations during the sittings of the committee have been exceedingly friendly, and I believe we have given each other our complete confidence. But the public expect more of the opposition members than they expect of supporters of the government. On one occasion this session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) took the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) to task for not having fulfilled his duty in this regard as leader of the opposition. I believe the public hold us responsible to a greater extent than they do members of the government party to see that these public moneys are properly expended. There are only four members of the official opposition on this committee with three subcommittees-four out of twenty-four on the committee. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made an appeal, I think to this house but certainly to the committee, for a larger representation from the opposition. It is true that we have a representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. It is true we had last year a representative of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), with whom we worked in close accord. The responsibility placed upon those six representatives of the opposition parties, if you want to style us all in that way, is an impossible obligation which I, as one member of parliament, with my responsibility to parliament, to my electors and to the people of this country, have not been able fully to discharge no matter how greatly I desired to do so.
I have nothing but goodwill for the other members of this committee, but many of them have obligations to the government. As our first chairman we had a very capable member, but I think I am fair in saying that his primary duty was to see that the interests of the government were protected. I refer to the former hon. member for Selkirk, now Mr. Justice Thorson, who became a member of the government. His successor was the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), the present Minister of Public Works, his primary and immediate duty also was to see that the government's interests were protected, that we brought in a proper report reflecting credit upon the government at all times. We also had as members of this committee hon. members who have since become parliamentary assistants, and others who are looking for favours from the government.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this committee, as it has been set up, cannot investigate these enormous expenditures and safeguard the public interest as the public expect it to do. Now the question arises whether at this late date, under existing circumstances, it is proper that we should once more assume this responsibility, whether in doing so we can do justice to ourselves, to parliament and to the people of Canada. In view of the information I have; in view of what has taken place; in view of the decision of the committee to sit in camera on matters such as war-time expenditures for housing, and so on, I have grave misgivings as to whether I should continue as a member of this committee. I owe some duty to my constituents, to my family and to myself. More is exacted of those of us who come from the far east and the far west, in discharging our duties here, than is required of members from central Canada. I have been away from home practically continuously for six months, and I do not know that very much more should be expected of me. I gave the assurance to my electors, as I have given it to parliament, that I would make any personal sacrifice in order to discharge my duties and contribute in every way possible to the winning of this war, and I am prepared to stand, by that undertaking, but I am doubtful about serving on this committee further.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few observations on this motion. First may I say that if the proposed committee had sat every day in the year I
War Expenditures Committee

doubt if it could have investigated properly the war expenditures now being made by this government. I am informed, however, that the last meeting of this committee was held on November 13 of last year, more than eight months ago.


Mr. GOLDING:: That is not correct.


James Arthur Ross: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is proposing to deal with something that may be the subject of discussion before the committee.


William Henry Golding: It did come before the committee.


Thomas Vien: I have no knowledge of that. What we are dealing with now is the motion to set up the committee and nothing else.


James Arthur Ross: The committee is not constituted at the present time. The committee of last year has wound up its work. Am I debarred from making any reference at all to this matter?


Thomas Vien: The only matter before us now is the setting up of the committee. What may have happened in the previous committee cannot be a subject of discussion, and what may happen in the future as a subject of discussion before the committee is a matter which may be referred to the committee when it is set up but is not a proper subject for discussion now when the setting up of the committee is being considered.	[DOT]


James Arthur Ross: I have great deference for your judgment and your ruling, but I find it difficult to understand why I cannot make any reference to any public expenditure when we do not know whether it will come before the committee or not.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to that point of order? I suggest that on a motion to set up a committee the custom of the house has always been to discuss the work of the previous committee. It will be agreed by all that we did that in connection with the committee on the defence of Canada regulations and the committee on radio broadcasting. In fact I made a forty-minute speech when we were considering the setting up of the broadcasting committee. So far as I am concerned, if -we are not to be permitted to discuss the work of the committee there is nothing to talk about. I might just as well take the names of those members that are here and tell you what colour their eyes are, where they were born, and so on. Unless we are able to discuss the work of the committee, as we have done in the case of other committees, there is nothing to talk about.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member who has just spoken will realize that there is nothing before the Chair except the motion for the setting up of a committee. The matter to which the hon. member is referring is something which in his judgment should come before the committee when it is set up. The debate so far has dealt with the question of

War Expenditures Committee
the appointment of the committee, and its administration when set up, but the hon. member is now introducing something which may be the subject of discussion and investigation by the committee.


Gordon Graydon: May I be permitted to say a word in connection with this point of order?


Thomas Vien: I have already given my decision.


James Arthur Ross: I have the report of the committee which sat last year. May I refer to that?


Thomas Vien: That would be similar to the reference the hon. member is making to Gimli airport, which may be a subject of discussion in the committee. When that matter comes from the committee to the house, the house will have an opportunity to discuss it. We are dealing now only with the setting up of the committee. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), dealt with matters of administration and the methods of approach to be used, I think in an accurate manner. I suggest to the house that the only subject we have to discuss now is the setting up of the committee.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order. Perhaps Your Honour has not recalled the discussion that took place when the question of setting up previous committees was before the house, notably the radio broadcasting committee. At that time a discussion took place similar to that which has been initiated now by some hon. members. On that occasion Your Honour permitted full discussion with respect to certain aspects of the report of the previous committee and its work, whether they were related to the points then being discussed in connection with the setting up of the committee, or whether they were interrelated subjects. I know that speaking to the motion I referred to many matters; I referred to the report and to other things which I felt were relevant. There is not likely to be an opportunity this session for the house to deal with the report of the previous committee, and surely we should not be prevented at this stage from dealing with matters which are relevant to the setting up of the committee. I implore Your Honour not to enforce your ruling under the circumstances, particularly when this practice has been carried on in connection with other committees this session.
Mr. C'OLDWELL: Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word. This committee is to be set up to examine the expenditure defrayed out
of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services. If we are arguing pro and con concerning that, we cannot discuss intelligently the value of this committee to this house unless we are permitted to refer to the matters which ought to be looked into by the committee. It seems to me that that is quite relevant to any argument regarding the committee. With due respect to Your Honour I submit that any other ruling would deprive this house of a right which is inherent in it. I suggest also that the procedure in this parliament-it may be wrong-is such that when reports of committees are brought here they are usually presented without a motion for concurrence. It is therefore only on the motion to reappoint the committee that we have an opportunity to discuss the value of the committee and sometimes even to refer to matters which were considered by the preceding committee. I hope Your Honour will not rule that the discussion must be restricted to the setting up of the committee.


Grote Stirling: On the point of order, I should like to look upon Your Honour's intervention as an admonition to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). It appears to me that he is expressing his opinion with regard to the motion before the house for the setting up of this committee, and he is basing his argument upon what he has seen happen in the past in connection with setting up similar committees. It would appear to me that it is a reasonable way of explaining to this house the opinion he holds if he bases it on actions of the committee which finished its work last year and is again to be set up. I hope that Your Honour will not prevent him from discussing the matter from the point of view of past happenings.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that unless one is permitted to discuss the possible functions of this committee in the light of the experience of those of us who have been members of the committee in the past I cannot see that there will be a great deal of value in setting up the committee at all. I think hon. members of the house should be informed as to the functions of the committee. But if we can discuss merely the setting up of the committee, as Your Honour intimated, I must agree with the hon. member for Macleod that the only thing we can discuss here would be the individuals whose names are mentioned as composing the committee, and that would be nonsensical. One of the matters that was brought before the committee last year was Gimli airport. The committee decided that it had nothing to
War Expenditures Committee

do with Gimli airport and that that matter should be referred to the public accounts committee. I understand that the hon. member for Souris was going to discuss the possibility of Gimli airport being the subject of inquiry by the war expenditures committee. I cannot see why he should not have every right to discuss that, because surely we must follow the same procedure in setting up this committee as in setting up all the others.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word on the point of order? I think there is a misapprehension among members of the house, especially members who have not served on the war expenditures committee, as to its proper functions. In Great Britain all the sittings of the war expenditures committee are held in camera, and in Great Britain consequently no debates have taken place-I have gone through the entire British Hansard of the war period-in regard to committee reports founded on evidence taken in camera. It is obvious that the house cannot intelligently debate a committee report founded on evidence taken in camera

evidence which is not before the house.


Gordon Graydon: What is the good of the reports, then?


Hughes Cleaver: Pardon me a moment; I am coming to that. Referring to the British Hansard I find as late as 1942 a member of the British house rising in his place and complaining that two and a half years have passed and on no occasion have the reports of the war expenditure committee been debated. I have a suggestion to make which I think will amply meet the express desire of hon. members who wish to discuss the Gimli matter. I am going to suggest to Your Honour a way in which I think it can be done quite within the rules of the house. Any member of the house who wishes to discuss a report of a committee which has been tabled may move concurrence in that report. I am free to admit that I anticipated, from what had been said in the house on several occasions, that some members would like to discuss the committee report with respect to Gimli, and so far as I personally am concerned as chairman of the subcommittee which inquired into that matter, I would welcome such a discussion. In order that the discussion might be an intelligent one I myself moved for an order of this house to produce all the evidence with respect to Gimli that was in the hands of the department. That material is now on record in the house and the Gimli matter can be intelligently discussed. But I do not think we should break any of the rules TMr. C. E. Johnston.]
of the house to discuss it. The hon. member for Souris has plenty of time to move the adoption of the Gimli report, which was a unanimous one. If he does not care to move it, some of his friends can move for its adoption, and then the report would be properly before the house for discussion. But I urge upon Your Honour that it would be most unfortunate if any member of the house could rise and without notice bring forward for debate any matter which had been considered by the war expenditures committee, because the other members would not be prepared for such a discussion.


Thomas Vien: The point of order raised by the leader of the opposition was as to the right of a member to refer to a report of a committee in which concurrence had not been moved. As I understand it, the hon. member for Souris was proposing to deal with the question of Gimli airport on its merits. If that be so, I declare without any doubt in my mind that it would not be within the rules of the house to discuss now the merits of the Gimli airport question. But if he wishes to refer to it as an illustration and without entering into the merits, simply to support his viewpoint and for the guidance of the committee in their deliberations, he would be in order. The reason I interrupted1 the hon. gentleman was that he was proposing to go into the merits of the question, which certainly he would not be in order in doing in a motion for setting up the committee.


James Arthur Ross: I was endeavouring to point out the manner in which I think this committee should function, and I was citing some examples to prove my point that the committee should hold open sittings.


Thomas Vien: So long as the hon. member does not enter into the merits of the question but merely refers to a particular matter of inquiry before the committee in support of his argument that open sittings rather than secret should be held, I think he would foe in order.


William Henry Golding: Just on the point of
order-


Thomas Vien: I have already ruled, and there is only one method by which my decision can be challenged.


James Arthur Ross: I was saying that I
could not understand why the war expenditures committee should hold secret sittings to investigate the purchase of any property in this country for war purposes. I have given one or two illustrations. I referred to Gimli airport because it is in my native province

War Expenditures Committee
and our citizens are very much interested in that particular deal, which was on everybody's tongue throughout the province. I am trying to make the point that inquiry into all such matters as these which certainly would not give useful information to the enemy should be conducted in open sittings throughout the country. I am sure that the government would be in much better grace had this been done, and if it were done in the future, provided always that information useful to the enemy is not made public. I shall not go into all the ramifications of Gimli airport, but if I did I can assure the house that that deal is one of many which suggest the desirability of open sittings.
I do not think I need take up any more time, although there is a great deal I might have said in respect to purchases of property through this country; some of them have been good, many of them have not been good and the public have been greatly dissatisfied. I cannot see the justification for not having set up the committee during eight months of the year, when the house has been in session three-fourths of that time. Now, in the dying days of the session, when this committee is constituted, it is certainly top-heavy with government members, eighteen out of twenty-four. The time available to carry on investigations from now until the beginning of the next session is, I am sure the people of the country realize, utterly inadequate for a thorough inquiry.


Ernest George Hansell: There is only one thing I wish to say in respect to the setting up of this committee. I think I can say it, not being a member of the committee. This committee has been sitting between sessions, and sitting between sessions involves considerable expense to the members. There is an amount appropriated for their expenses while they are sitting between sessions and away from home, and I do not believe it should be subject to income tax, as part of it is. Perhaps if there is an appropriation this year we could discuss it more fully when that appropriation comes up for consideration. But I am certain of this, that when these members travel across the country, as they do, and have to buy berths and meals on trains, the portion which is not taxed does not even meet those expenses. Besides, a precedent is being created which I do not think is desirable. As I am not a member of the committee I do not have any expenses paid, but I simply raise the matter
now in the form of a suggestion that the committee's expenses should be free from income tax.


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: There are one or two points about which I should like to say a word or two. Most of the comments I had in mind have been mentioned already, so that I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible.
In the first place, I think it is a matter of some concern to the people of Canada that this' committee has not been functioning during the earlier part of this session, and now the members of it must serve during the interval between now and the calling of the next session in 1944. I know that the house has been busily engaged on other matters of importance, but surely, inasmuch as this committee on war expenditures has to do with the day-to-day expenditures which are being made and have been made every day of this session, the examination of those expenditures, and any economies which might result from the findings of the committee should take precedence over the work of such committees as that on social security and reconstruction and rehabilitation. Not that I do not give the fullest importance to those committees, but after all, both of them have to do with post-war conditions, and as the Prime Minister has said, nothing is more important than, first, the winning of the war, and shall I say, the winning of it with some regard to economy if it does not interfere with efficiency. But we have seen over half the year go by with this committee not in session at all, with hon. members who might have been able to spend time on the war expenditures committee having to devote their time and services to other committees which might better have waited until the war expenditures committee had been set up and work had been done on it from day to day, so that the fruits of that committee-if any, and we might hope for some-could have been made effective with large savings to the people of this country.
When the committee was originally set up, some years ago, I had what was then regarded as the effrontery to write a letter to the Globe and Mail complaining about the seLup in regard to the numbers from each party; not that the numbers did not accord fairly with the proportion of party representation in this house; and as I recall the Prime Minister at that time rapped me on the knuckles as a new member of the house for suggesting that hon. members on the government side might not carry out their duty to their country as well as hon. members of the opposition. However,

War Expenditures Committee

I leave to the people of Canada the interpretation of that suggestion which I made and the implication which might be contained in it. Certainly no one holds the membership of this house, of all parties, in higher regard than I do, and I might say that that regard is much higher than the regard which the press of the country would lead the people of the country to hold. There are no finer and more public-spirited citizens than the members of this House of Commons.
Nevertheless, the Progressive Conservative party have only four members out of twenty-four, and the other groups have one member each; that is, six out of twenty-four. Even if all hon. members as individuals were equally aggressive in ascertaining where economies might be made effective, nevertheless you have four subcommittees, and to have only one member appointed from the official opposition to each of those committees means that that member must make himself available for every meeting. That, as we know, with the other parliamentary duties, and also the duties which some of us have of endeavouring to make a living as well as being a member of parliament, makes it extremely difficult to sit on the committee at all times. Surely some consideration should be given to allowing a greater representation on the part of the opposition than the Prime Minister has seen fit to accord it. I should hope that he himself would volunteer to increase that representation.
I am informed that there are some subcommittees of the committee on war expenditures in Great Britain on which the proportion of labour members-a minority of the national government-is greater than the proportion of members of the Conservative party, which is the majority party.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: To v'hich subcommittee does that apply?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am reliably informed that that is so, and I shall find out later for the hon. member.
Then again, as to the matter of secrecy: it is a severe handicap on this committee when matters which do not interfere with the national security are up for consideration, because one of the ways in which we get information is through the public coming forth and volunteering information to us. As it is, we occasionally hear of matters of gross wastefulness; unless they are backed up one does not put much credence in them, but if one is developing some matter which deserves investigation, and the public know of it, one very often finds that he gets further evidence from

the public, much of which evidence is worth sifting to find out whether it contains a germ of truth. As I understand it, in setting up the committee the government is as eager as we are on this side of the house to find out whether economies can be put into force. Everyone understands that when the government has spent nine billion dollars in connection with the war, haste is sometimes more important than economy, and therefore we cannot always expect that every possible dollar will have been saved that might have been saved if time had not been of the essence of the undertaking. I should think therefore that the government would be just as eager as we are to find any possible means of obtaining a greater output of war materials with as great a saving as can be effected. I repeat that this committee should be allowed to hear its evidence in public, except when some question of national security is involved, and I believe that as liberal an interpretation of that condition would be given by opposition members of the house, whose sole concern is with the war, as would be given by the government. But, as the hon. member for Souris pointed out, surely the purchase of land in this country for war purposes has very little to do with national security.
A point which I think should be emphasized, and which has already been brought up by several members, is that a permanent secretariat should be established for the committee, a secretariat consisting of accountants and possibly an executive secretary, such as committees in the United States congress engage-the Truman committee, for example. It is impossible for members, with the numerous duties which they have to perform, to be also a sleuth in the finding out of matters which require investigation. These accountants and1 secretaries who can devote their full time to matters that are deserving of investigation by all members of the house who may sit on the committee would be a most useful addition, because I submit that until we establish a proper committee system, with permanent secretariat, this parliament cannot function in as useful a manner as it should. It is impossible now, with the complexity of modem government, which is almost synonymous with modern business, for the average layman, w'ho has not had experience in business affairs on a large scale, to go into the various details that should be looked into; so that some trained and permanent secretariat is absolutely essential. While we may say that there is a great scarcity of accountants and of men wTho have the ability and capacity to serve on such a committee nevertheless there is hardly any

War Expenditures Committee
committee, or any phase of our war work, which is of more importance than this committee or than it can become. Therefore, if it is necessary to draft expert help from other government bodies, it should be done in order that this committee may function to the best advantage.
Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-
Clare): The hon. member suggested that in the British parliament party lines were not followed. May I take a moment to show the composition of the various committees in the old country. I have here a report of the organization meeting for the session of 1942-43, and the various committees, or inquiries, as they are called, are set out. I will enumerate them:
1.	Finance and establishments inquiry: Conservatives, 3; Liberals, 2; Labour, 1.
2.	Production and supply inquiry (a): Conservatives, 4; Liberals, 1; Labour, 1.
3.	Production and supply inquiry (b): Conservatives, 3; Labour, 3; and there is a Sir Edward Cadogan whom I cannot place.


Gordon Graydon: He may be C.C.F.


Thomas Reid: Not in Great Britain.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The fourth committee is
that on fighting services: Conservatives, 6; no Liberals and no Labour.
5.	Departmental inquiry (a): Conservatives, 4; Labour, 1.
6.	Department inquiry Ob): Conservatives, 5; Labour, 1; no Liberals.
7.	Special inquiry: Conservatives, 5; Labour, 1; no Liberals.
So that over there apparently they are not looking for Liberals or Conservatives or Labour in composing their committees.


Gordon Graydon: They are all together over there. That is the answer to that.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The hon. member who preceded me suggested that we should follow the practice in the old country where on some committees government members were not in the majority. I have shown on the contrary that, as we are doing, they are appointing a majority of the major party. They appoint a minority of Liberals, a minority of Labour and a majority of Conservatives, who happen to form the majority party in the house, in practically the same proportions as we do here. I bring this to the attention of the house so as to clear up the situation.


Gordon Graydon: It is hard to make that parallel.
52537-316}


Thomas Reid: As a member of the war expenditures committee I wish to say a word or two on the resolution, in view of some of the remarks that have been made. Considering the importance of the committee I think that certain information should be given to other members of the house who are not members of the war expenditures committee, because the question has been asked by members of the House of Commons, how did we employ our time; and there was a feeling that we were not utilizing all our time as members of the committee.
Subcommittee No. 1, of which I had the honour to be a member, studied all agreements and put on record a synopsis of them. They had every company making aeroplanes appear before the committee and the fullest opportunity was given every member to ask questions. We visited every aircraft plant and took a record of the financial set-up, going into the matter of profits and capitalization and looking over the balance sheets as best we could. We investigated salaries and high wages. We investigated hours of work and wages paid and made recommendations accordingly, because we did find in some instances that salaries had been greatly increased. We checked up on all these matters and reported on conditions generally. We found out how the employees did their work, the hours of labour, employment of women, cafeterias and restaurants, and whether the call-up by the draft board was affecting production. These are some of the things done by members of that subcommittee. The work was most interesting.
With reference to the expenditures that Canada has made on the war the question has been asked how a small committee such as has been set up could ever begin to look into all these outlays that have taken place. I would compare what we are doing with what has been taking place in Great Britain. In Great Britain they are spending an average of $60,000,000 a day and have a total committee of thirty-two members. Our expenditures will be between $14,000,000 and $15,000,000 a day and we have a total of twenty-four members; so that we are not very far out of line. As a matter of fact, if the argument advanced to-day is sound, Great Britain has not nearly sufficient members on the committee there; yet there has been no complaint from Great Britain regarding the wTork of that committee. I would have liked to see, and would still like to see, the members who go on that committee adopt the attitude of members of the British House of Commons. It was stated, and one will find it in British
War Expenditures Committee

Hansard, that the select committee over there felt that they were the trustees of the House of Commons as well as of the country, not the trustees of any party. They were not only the trustees of a constituency, but the trustees of the entire country. And when I acted as a member of the committee-I believe those who were members will support what I am going to say-I did my utmost on behalf of the people of this country, not on behalf of a constituency alone or a party, to find out what those companies were doing.
I am somewhat annoyed to hear members of the committee complain that there are not enough Conservatives on the committee or not enough Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members on it. I think we should be adopting an attitude such as was adopted in the British House of Commons-and it is to be seen in Hansard-where when they joined the committee they left their politics behind them, and represented the whole country. They did not represent any party or constituency.
We have heard some talk this afternoon about secrecy. Well, I have been long enough in the House of Commons to realize what has taken place and what does take place in committee meetings, so that I am in a position to compare open meetings with those held in secret. While I find no fault with the press at all, I do remember one committee which sat this session, which I think illustrated the point I am going to make. At the time I have in mind, during the present session, two committees were sitting on one day. One of those committees was deliberating on social security, but not a single press reporter was present. The committee was alone. The press reporters were to be found in the committee which was endeavouring to find out where the rugs were located. While I could not see one press reporter in the committee where they were discussing the welfare of our people, there were sixteen in the other committee. One could hardly get in where they were investigating Colonel John Thompson, and finding out who had got a rug or an armchair. I say then that if we had held our meetings openly, apart from the inadvisability of doing so, I doubt if we would have conducted any business at all. And I say without fear of successful contradiction that if we had held open meetings we would have had press reporters there, and members rushing in with prepared speeches stating that they had heard so-and-so, or rumours here and rumours there. To my mind the business was conducted splendidly in camera. If every member would go to that committee, with the
[Mr. Reid.)
idea in mind, not of party but of the House of Commons and the people, there would be no need to complain about any lack of representation.
The committee in Great Britain did not even report to the Prime Minister of Great Britain or to the cabinet ministers. They were not allowed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Thomas Reid: They did not report to the
British House of Commons. One committee which sat discovered one thing so serious that they said they believed it advisable not even to breathe a word of it to members of the other subcommittees.


John George Diefenbaker: That was just one case.


Thomas Reid: Yes, one case. But no report
was made to the Prime Minister or to members of the cabinet. And yet there was not a word from Great Britain as to these things not being done well or in secret. Are we less honest than the people of Great Britain? I say no. And in my opinion the criticism we hear in this House of Commons is lowering the morale of our people. They may get the idea that everyone who is in business in this country is a rogue and needs watching. Surely we must have some faith and trust, if we are going to carry on; and especially must we trust members who are on the committee, even though they are conducting their deliberations behind closed doors.
I have one or two suggestions to make to the Prime Minister and to the committee. He was correct when he said the committee should have been set up earlier. I think it should be set up at the beginning of a session, and a report should be made periodically to the house. I think too, that we should have a chartered accountant connected with our committee. It is not possible for the ordinary member of parliament to understand some of the balance sheets that are brought before him, and I believe the services of a chartered accountant should be placed at the disposal of that committee, to do much of the work we have been doing. A great deal has been accomplished, and we can take pride in what has been accomplished since the report was laid before the house in January. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been saved through the deliberations of that committee. ,1 believe that the committee should deal with all accounts, and that the committee should be empowered to go into the affairs of concerns engaged in war work, with respect to their set-up and their balance sheets.

War Expenditures Committee


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations before the motion carries. In the first place I have been at a loss to understand the Prime Minister's reason for not having set up the committee before. I recall that from the very first he said this committee would be set up as soon as the war appropriation bill was passed. That was the main reason for not having set it up. Well, he did go ahead and set up a lot of committees of much lesser importance than this one.
Those of us who sat on the war expenditures committee-and I can speak with greater authority for subcommittee No. 1, because that was the one on which I served-were almost unanimously of the opinion that the committee Should sit continuously. If it was to do beneficial work, it should sit not only when the house was in session, but when the house was adjourned; it should sit all the time. I am in agreement with hon. members who have said there is a tremendous amount of work to be done. Unless the committee is sitting continuously it cannot perform its duties in the proper fashion.
As to the work of the committee last year, I believe that after all our work we had just reached the point where we could thoroughly perform our duties. We had just got to the place where we knew what to look for when we went into a plant; we had just reached a point somewhere near efficiency, when the meetings of the committee were suspended. That was most unfortunate. The excuse or reasons the Prime Minister has given for not setting up the committee are at least ill founded.
There is one other thing I think should happen, if this committee is to perform its duties properly. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster when he says that periodical reports should be made to the house. I believe the work of the committee is of such importance that members of the House of Commons generally should know something about what is going on. In that connection it should be possible in some way- I do not know just how it would be done-[DOT] to inform members of the committee as to what action the government has taken or intends to take as a result of recommendations made by the committee. I feel quite certain that when the committee made recommendations last year the government acted upon them immediately. The committee, however, was not informed of that action. As a member of the committee I do not know that the government acted upon one solitary recommendation. Surely that is a wrong procedure.
Members of the committee would receive a great deal of encouragement if they knew their recommendations to the government were receiving serious consideration. Whether such report from the government should be made to the house or to the committee would be a matter for the government to decide. But certainly there should be some means of knowing what action was being taken.
It is true that the work of that committee is very important. I was one who thought it should sit continuously, and while it sat I pressed for that very thing, along with other hon. members. I do not wish to leave the impression that I was the only one. I wish to commend the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for his statement that he at least viewed the work of that committee in a non-partisan way. I believe he did, and I believe other members did, also. I believe that was the attitude of most of the members of the subcommittee on which I was working, and of course I became better acquainted with them than with the members of the other subcommittees, because we were in daily contact. Generally speaking the members of that subcommittee, including the chairman, performed their duties not from any political point of view but with the desire to see what they could accomplish.
That brings me to the question of the representation on the committee. I made this objection when the committee was set up a year ago; I repeated it when the committee had its first meeting, and I make it again to-day. I do not think the representation of the members of the house on that committee is fair and proper, though in this my view is probably contrary to that of the hon. member for New Westminster. Take the Social Credit party, for instance; we had one representative out of twenty-four. You may say that was fair in proportion to our membership in the house, but let me point out how it was unfair. The main committee was divided into three subcommittees, each of which had its own work to perform. We went for days without seeing the members of the other subcommittees at all; we might be away on the other side of Canada when subcommittees one or two were sitting, and in fact that very thing did occur. One of the other subcommittees brought in a report, which was accepted unanimously, though the member's of the other subcommittees knew nothing about it. That is the position in which I was placed, as a member of the Social Credit party. There was the report of a subcommittee, of which I knew nothing at all but to which I was expected to give my consent; and apparently I did give my consent, because the report was adopted. That should not be the
War Expenditures Committee

case; certainly I should not be asked to give my consent or approval to something of which I had no knowledge. Therefore I am going to repeat the suggestion that I have made several times previously. If the main committee is to be divided into three subcommittees, there should be at least three members on the committee from each party in the house; three from the Social Credit party, three from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and three or six or whatever is considered to be fair from the Conservative party. I do not think I can be accused of being politically-minded in making that suggestion; I make it purely from the point of view of fairness to the different parties in the house.
Then there is another matter to which I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker; that is, the way the business of the committee is conducted. I am not so particular whether the meetings are held openly or in camera; I can see some advantages in holding them openly, and I can also see advantages in holding them in camera. There is no doubt that sometimes more information can be obtained when the meeting is held in camera. The Gimli affair has been referred to. I do not think there was anything in connection with that matter which could not have been brought out in an open meeting, and probably our work would have been more effective, but on the other hand there are times-


Hughes Cleaver: If the hon member will permit an interruption, does he think, by any stretch of the imagination, that subcommittee No. 1 could have reached a unanimous report on Gimli if the meetings had been held in public?


Charles Edward Johnston: I may just say, without discussing the matter at length, that we did not investigate the Gimli situation, so that I do not see how the hon. member can ask me that question.


Hughes Cleaver: Well, the report is on the table.


Charles Edward Johnston: It was definitely understood that we would not investigate it. There is another matter which I think is extremely important in connection with these committee meetings. I believe when witnesses appear before that committee they should be sworn to tell the truth. In my opinion it is an absolute waste of public money, and a waste of the time of hon. members, to have people appear before the committee and give evidence which is not evidence at all but merely their own little story. They may be right or they may not.

I could point to two occasions, in connection with important matters having to do with the expenditure of large amounts of money, on which the evidence given was entirely contradictory. We did not know which was which, and no blame could be placed upon the witnesses because they could simply reply that they thought it was so and so, or something like that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member suggest that a man only tells the truth when he is sworn?


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall leave the Prime Minister to determine whether a man tells the truth when he is not sworn, or whether he does not; I am not going to argue that point. I am not accusing anyone of not telling the truth, but if the Prime Minister's argument is good there would be no sense in swearing witnesses in courts of law, even in murder trials; their simple word would be accepted. But that is not done.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister had better get together with the Minister of Justice with that point.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am
afraid they would find it difficult to agree.


Hughes Cleaver: I wonder if the hon. member would indicate why, when he was sitting as a member of that committee, he did not ask that all witnesses should be sworn. This is the first I have heard of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The chairman of subcommittee No. 1 must have a very short memory, because I did make that request.


Hughes Cleaver: Then I have no recollection of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, I am not responsible for the hon. member's recollection, but I do not think the point he has raised is well taken, anyway. I am trying to suggest improvements for the next committee, and I think that is an essential improvement. When this government is put to the expense of bringing witnesses all the way across this country, or, on the other hand, of sending the committee across the country, the evidence that is given should be absolutely correct; there should be no misunderstanding about it, and witnesses should be held responsible for the evidence they give. I am not going to refer to the instances I have in mind, but they were outstanding, and this is one of the matters that should be dealt with first by the new committee.

War Expenditures Committee
There is another change that I think should be carried out by the new committee; that is,
I do not believe the legal adviser of the Department of Munitions and Supply should be sticking around all the time. He was the biggest nuisance we ever ran across. Personally he was a fine fellow, but he was always there, trying to protect the department. As a matter of fact in some cases the witnesses were so confused that they would not give their evidence, and that is not a good thing. The new committee will find that unless they rectify that situation and keep this gentleman away, they will not get the evidence they should get. I remember that on one occasion we had to ask him to either get out or shut up, he was becoming such a nuisance, but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that when you have legal representatives there it throws a psychological atmosphere around the witness which you do not want present.
There is another thing-I seem to be finding a lot of fault with this committee-which I believe is quite important. Hon. members will recall that when this committee was being set up a year ago I stood in the place in which I am standing now and asked that a proper secretariat be appointed. I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) supported it. But we did not get any support in the house. When we went into the committee we again asked for it, but we did not get it. But when the committee had finished its sittings last year, I believe I am correct in saying that the members were almost unanimous in their approval of the appointment of a proper secretariat for the committee.
It is an overwhelming job for the ordinary layman to investigate these tremendous amounts and the way in which they are spent. Few members of the committee were capable of properly analysing an audit sheet or of saying whether the audit sheet brought before the committee was the one shown to the directors of the company. I am informed that that was not the case in many instances, that the audit sheets shown to the committee were not the audit sheets shown to the directors of the company. Only a legal man or a chartered accountant would be able to discover that. Every precaution should be taken to see that the information brought before the committee is authentic and that the committee is given the opportunity to delve as deeply as possible into these matters. I do not believe that can be done unless the committee has at its disposal a proper secretariat. Last year we found ourselves handicapped on many occasions because of the lack of that service. It is unfortunate that such a secretariat has not been set up long ago.
Another objection which was raised last year when the committee was first set up was that it was exceedingly difficult for members to be here all the time. After sitting continuously in the house for six or seven months, hon. members found it exceedingly difficult to sit here another three or four months. I was here last year for nine and a half months, and that is a long time to be away from home. You have to let your other work go. Members from the west had to stay here; they could not get home for week-ends as some hon. members can when the house is sitting.
There is no reason why this committee should not have been set up the first week the house opened. I think every member of the committee last year was in agreement that it should be set up just as quickly as possible so that they could perform the duty assigned to them. I am not a member of the committee this year, but I wish to express the satisfaction I had in working on the committee. I found that the members were conscientious and endeavoured to investigate these expenditures to the best of their ability. They did good work, and they saved the government a large amount of money. The exact amount I do not know, because the government has nearer reported back to indicate that it has acted on the recommendations. It would greatly encourage the members of the committee if they knew that the work they were doing was appreciated and had been acted upon.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries I should like to make one or two observations about this motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We are now in the one hundred and thirteenth day of this session of parliament. In other words, almost six months have expired since the house first convened for this session. This motion of the Prime Minister to set up a committee to examine the expenditures defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services has been standing on the order paper of the House of Commons since February 24.
I have just made reference to the orders of the day of. Friday, February 26, and under government notices of motions I find four motions for the setting up of committees. The first appears in the name of the Prime Minister and had to do with a committee on social security; this first appeared on February
War Expenditures Committee

16. The next motion, which appeared on February 19 in the name of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), was for the setting up of a committee on radio broadcasting. The third, which appeared on February 19 in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud), had to do with the committee on Canadian National Railways. The last one appeared on February 24 in the name of the Prime Minister, and has now been reached on July 17.
It is well known that the progamme of legislation is in the hands of the government. If this committee is essential now in the view of the government, it must have been essential in February of this session. It was fourth on the order paper to which I have made reference, and it has been the fourth or last to be called. But the government had it in its power to have altered that sequence, and this allegedly most important of the committees which were to be set up could have been called before any of the others. That was a matter which lay entirely in the hands of the government and the government must take the responsibility for it.
Mention has been made in previous debates -not in connection with this motion because there has been no debate on it-by the Prime Minister to the delays which have occurred, partly owing to the fact that amendments had been offered to the motion to go into supply. I do not suggest that the Prime Minister was blaming the official opposition for this; in fact I know that that was not in his mind, but I am bound to say that the official opposition has not moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply during this session. I think that ought to go on the record, because if there is blame attachable to any group for delaying important legislation, it should be attached where it properly belongs.
It is interesting to note the delays which occurred in connection with the setting up, prior to the Easter recess, of the reconstruction committee and the committee on social security. I checked Hansard and, speaking of delays, I found that in the reconstruction committee debate, 65J columns of Hansard were used by government meipbers, 42J columns by the official opposition, 31J columns by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and 49J columns by the Social Credit group. I am not finding special fault with that; but since mention had been made in a previous debate of delays that were said to be attributable to other parties than the government and perhaps to ourselves as the official opposition, I thought the Prime Minister and the government would like to 
have the record straight. A similar situation existed in the debate on the social security committee. I have not the figures before me, but I am safe in saying that a similar situation existed there. I hesitate to raise this question and would not have done so, had it not been that some mention was made of delays on a previous occasion.
The Prime Minister to-day in launching his motion made quite a proper reference to certain financial matters of importance which perhaps should have the right of way over some other matters that the house might wish to discuss, including the setting up of committees. I think no one in the house would have any quarrel with the Prime Minister with respect to the importance of the financial measures because, after all, it depends very largely on the situation in which one finds oneself and the programme of the house. But prior to the budget debate there were debates on the setting up of the reconstruction committee, the social security committee, the radio broadcasting committee, and now we are debating the setting up of the war expenditures committee. I can recall that there was some lapse of time between the beginning of the debate setting up the reconstruction committee and the social security committee and the commencement of the budget debate.
I think the house generally was of the opinion that the budget and certain other legislation had to come before this house and be passed before March 31. I quite understood, and I think members of the house generally understood that there were provisions in the budget which made it essential that it should be brought before the house and passed before that date. But, as it subsequently turned out, there was no such necessity. As a matter of fact the legislation which was supposed to be so essential was not passed by that date. In that connection may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that if we had taken an extra half-day or even a Saturday, because one Saturday is as good as another for doing the country's business, or if we had given up a Wednesday evening or a Friday evening, these matters which some members regarded as important could have been disposed of earlier. So that the Prime Minister's argument that the war expenditures committee could not be set up earlier because it would interrupt or delay the passing of the war appropriation measure falls to the ground. Even to-day we have set aside the war appropriation measure, which we said previously we could not do, in order to discuss this very motion. It seems to me there is not very much difference between

War Expenditures Committee
intervening on July 17 and intervening some time in May or March or April in the debate on the war appropriation measure or the budget.
We have now lost ninety-three sitting days so far as the setting up of the committee on war expenditures is concerned. If the government consider that this committee is doing the kind of job it ought to be doing, it seems to me that those ninety-three days were precious, and if they were precious, the committee should have been set up. If they were not precious, there is no particular reason why the committee should be set up now, in the last moments of the dying days of a dying session. Whether by design or by accident, the fact that the government have not attempted to set up this committee before is a tacit recognition on their part of the weaknesses of the committee itself.
What opportunity will there be to deal with the report of the committee that is being set up now? We shall be into another session before there is an opportunity to deal with the report of this session, and surely we are not gong to be put in the position of having to deal with the report of a previous session as well as the report of the current session.
But there are other reasons which I think I ought to bring before the government why the motion should not have been presented at as late a date as this. It has been mentioned by other members of the house, and I shall not repeat at any length their arguments. A distinct and important advantage would have resulted if parliament had taken advantage of the ninety-three days we have been sitting here, during which members could have conveniently served on the war expenditures committee because, if the committee is to sit between the adjournment of this session and the beginning of another, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), not only is it inconvenient to bring twenty-five members of the house to Ottawa to sit on the committee during the recess, but there is also the question of the expense, and expense to-day is an important matter. The expense of carrying this committee during the recess will be very much greater than if it were sitting during the session. That is an additional reason why I think the government will have to accept a heavy responsibility for not having brought this motion before the house sooner.
There is another angle with *which I should like to deal. I have never had the privilege and responsibility of serving on the war expenditures committee, and perhaps may deal
with it in a more detached way than those who are close to the work. The views I express could perhaps be taken as the views of those who look upon the committee as the public would do.
One of the features of the operations of this committee in the past which has aroused public dislike-and I say this very kindly to the committee and the government-is that it has abused its privileges, particularly in having recklessly gone into secret session much too frequently. I realize that the Prime Minister and other hon. members will have their own answers on this point, and I am quite willing to maintain an open mind with respect to it. But in dealing with expenditures, whether for war or any other purpose, supreme care should be taken lest people get the idea that you are trying to cover up something when you are trying to find out what is wrong. I have never yet been able to comprehend why the majority membership of a committee allow subcommittees to sit in camera on such a wide variety of subjects.


Thomas Reid: I gave the hon. member one reason.


Gordon Graydon: I know. I am not going to argue with the hon. member at the moment. But as regards the holding of secret sessions, why was there any necessity to deal, for example, with wartime housing in a secret session? How is the national security menaced as far as wartime housing is concerned? That is only one subject which might be brought up.
After all, hon. members have a sense of responsibility with relation to national security in time of war. Hot one of us would willingly allow a single bit of information to go from him or from any committee on which he sat, or from this house, which would give one iota of aid or comfort to the enemy. But with respect to matters which might almost be termed peace-time activities, such as the housing investigation, I believe the action of the committee in sitting in camera has done more than anything, else to bring its operations into disrepute. I am not making any charge, but here is what people will say: a committee entrusted with the investigation of the expenditure of public funds, of money which is actually collected in the open, are pursuing their inquiries behind closed doors. The public do not want the committee to be just a plaything of the government; they expect it to be a watchdog of the people's interest. That is something which we as members of parliament must carefully bear in mind.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), in interrupting the
War Expenditures Committee

hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) made what I thought was a significant statement. I was suspicious of the situation and I think his remark would convince almost anyone on the point. Surely we have not arrived at the position so far as these committees are concerned that in order to have unanimity in a report we must sit in camera. Let us not have unanimity in reports of committees if in order to obtain it we must pull down the blinds and close the shutters on the committee's structure.


Hughes Cleaver: Would the hon. member permit an interruption?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Hughes Cleaver: Does not the fact that a unanimous report is reached suggest to the hon. gentleman's mind that the correct solution of a contentious problem has been found?


Gordon Graydon: I would say that as far as the government is concerned a solution of a contentious problem has been found, but as far as the people are concerned it may be an entirely different matter.
The same principle seems to me to apply in connection with other subjects. Take the debate with respect to the wartime information board, whose expenditures relative to publicity were before this house not long ago. Hon. members will recall at once the answer returned by the government to the two motions which we made, in order to get before the public accounts committee the matter of the expenditures of the departments on publicity. "We do not want to send it to the public accounts committee," the government said in effect, "we want to send this to the war expenditures committee." How are you going to have an investigation of the wartime information board if you allow the setting-up of the committee to be delayed until the end of the session? That surely is not an argument worth speaking about. Further than that, was there any reason why the wartime information board's activities should not be open to public scrutiny? Was there anything to the argument that national security is in any way affected? I do not think any hon. member would go so far as that. After the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had made an impassioned speech in this connection in defence of the government, and had said in effect, although not in so many words, that perhaps it was not advisable that the investigation should be held in open in the public accounts committee, I asked the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who was temporarily leading the house, "Will you undertake that, if the matter goes before

the war expenditures committee, that committee will not sit in secret with reference to the wartime information board?" And he said, "I will give you no such undertaking." Technically, perhaps, that may have been right, but in every other respect, viewing the moral aspect of the matter, it was wrong. So that we find that the wartime information board, instead of being investigated by the public accounts committee, was shifted to the war expenditures committee, which has not been set .up until now. I need not point out in any further detail the difficulties and the delays involved in this proceeding.
I know the sort of answer which will be made from time to time as regards public sessions of committees. I realize as well as the Prime Minister or anyone else the frailty of human nature. But in all seriousness I point out that, with the public gaze directed upon expenditures generally, while perhaps here and there a subject may arise which the government would feel should be dealt with in camera, there are thousands of places as to which the bringing of the facts into the light of day will not only have a beneficial effect on the particular transaction, but it will do more. If every department of government recognizes that it may at any time be drawn into a wide-open investigation, with the blinds up and the doors open to the public, that will have as salutary an effect on departments generally as anything I can at present conceive; because the very threat of having the light of day shed upon any department of government makes for good government and discourages the opposite. That governments and parliaments are constituted as they are, with the checks and balances of government and opposition, with oppositions being given in peace time at any rate, and to some extent in war time too, a measure of freedom to criticize, subject to the national inteVests generally, is the reason why democracy has functioned as well as it has. The people realize then that their representatives can open up and turn the searchlight on wrongdoing, and it is a good thing for the government, because in every action they take behind closed doors of the cabinet council there is always in the back of their minds that they must come into the chamber and defend the expenditures they have made and stand up for the policies which they have put into effect. That is why democracy has functioned as well as it has. But the very moment people get the idea that there is such a thing as closed doors, even though it may be argued that there is no harm in going on, as will no doubt be argued by this government, they will say that where-

War Expenditures Committee
ever there are investigations to be made, they must be made in such a way that the public of Canada shall know what is going on and what the remedies are.
Here is the hon. member for flow River this afternoon- making a speech in which there is evidence of a good deal of knowledge with reference to this matter, which of course he could not disclose, and going so far as to indicate that although his subcommittee had made certain recommendations for a better policy in certain departments, he had not even heard whether the government had entertained any of the recommendations submitted or made use of the information and advice given. These are matters, too, which we must consider in connection with a motion such as this.
The object of publicity is to prevent wrongdoing. Let me make my position quite clear. I do not want to be raising scandals against this government in war time. I may as well tell the government that. Every move that I have made as leader of the opposition or as a private member has had regard to that principle. I have not made a single move, so far as I am aware, that has had behind it the intention of raising scandal. More than that, I have no use for those whose only object is to go on a fishing expedition or a scandal-mongering expedition or to try to do something of this kind in order perhaps to weaken the government's position in war time. I have no use for that type of public or private citizen at a time like this. We cannot afford, in a serious war-time period, to have enemies in Canada. -Our enemies are not Canadians; they are in Japan, Italy and Germany. I often think that we should re-orient our position in regard to our petty differences so as to recognize the importance of this point. It should be recognized by people in public life generally. That is important. But as regards just and honest criticism of the expenditure of public moneys, criticism that is made not for the sake of going on a fishing expedition or a scandal-mongering expedition, we should be sensible, because it is the people's money that is -being spent, not the government's money or our money. Keeping that in mind, we should let the people know what is being done. Surely that is not too much to ask of the goverment and -of -this parliament at this particular time.
A. relentless scrutiny of public expenditures is essential to proper war-time administration, and it is more essential from the point of view of the government -than from that of any -other section of the whole dominion, because the responsibility rests upon them.
I was very much impressed by some of the arguments brought forward this afternoon by
those who have had some experience on committees such as this, who felt their helplessness and their inability to study in detail the various contracts that had been entered into and the expenditures made. We are spending money at the rate of eleven times as much as we did in 1936 when the budget was brought down. We can realize, therefore, with the vastly swollen expenditures to-day, the result of the war, with all the ramifications of government business, that even the government itself must find it very difficult to keep abreast of developments. And yet twenty-five members of parliament are trying to investigate these expenditures, hardly any of them having any really technical knowledge of the various subjects into which they are inquiring. No matter how capable they may be in their several ways; no matter how conscientious, surely it is not necessary for me to tell the members of this house just how far the committee can make a detailed investigation and give a report which would be really intelligent, having regard to the tremendous volume of business in which the country is now engaged. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) admitted his helplessness, and I am sure the members of the committee generally are conscious of their incompetence for want of technical assistance. As the hon. member for Cumberland and others have pointed out, there is not the proper technical help; there is not a proper secretariat, which would bring to these various matters the kind of advice that is so essential if the work is to be carried on as it should be.
I think that ought to be fairly well recognized by everyone in the committee; and that, I suggest, is one of the weaknesses of the committee. The committee has to open the door and let in the light of day. Sittings in camera have become the rule rather than the exception, and that is the reason for the abuses against which I so strongly and vehemently protest this afternoon.
I wish to say this, that I am unable to support the motion of the Prime Minister; and the reason why I am not going to support the motion of the Prime Minister with respect to the setting up of this committee revolves around the necessity, I think, of some party in this house rising up and taking some decided, definite and effective stand as a protest against the secrecy of the sessions of this committee on war expenditures. In addition to that, I do so in order that we may also effectively protest against the lack of adequate representation of our party on that committee. Another effective protest, or reason for protest, lies in the failure to set up the committee at a previous time in the session. The Prime Minister himself must
War Expenditures Committee

recognize that most, if not all, of his reasons for setting up the committee are all gone, because we are now in the last week of a long session, and the committee has not yet been constituted. We take this position, too, as a protest against the lack of proper technical organization in the committee, and proper organization so far as the question of secretariat and experts to assist the members of the committee is concerned. That, it seems to me, too, must be protested against. We felt that the most effective means by which we can protest against these abuses, and against these irregularities which are going to reduce materially the effectiveness of the committee, would be to oppose the motion which has been made.
And more than that, I wish to say clearly that if the government proposes to go on, and the committee is set up, we must reserve our rights, as members of the Progressive Conservative party, with respect to making a decision to sit on those committees, particularly where they are being held in secret, and dealing with questions where actual national security in our opinion is not involved. In this way I place before members of the house our position. I do so because I feel that after all, great as were the aims and ideals of this war expenditures committee, the abuses which have crept in and the situations which have arisen from time to time have placed our party in the position where we have felt that some effective protest in the national interest is essential at this particular time.
Therefore, at this time, in closing my remarks, I desire to say that for the reasons which have been advanced we shall oppose the motion of the Prime Minister.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I have listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to what has been said from the floor of the house with respect to this war expenditures committee. I have listened to the reasons why the committee was not set up sooner, as expressed by some hon. members, and reasons why it possibly should not be set up at all.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has made a strong appeal against the setting up of this committee. He is a man for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. As a matter of fact, so much do I regard him that I say this now, without fear of successful contradiction, that unless Mr. Bracken gets a seat for himself in this house very soon there will not be any necessity for him to be here at all. That is the kind of a job I think the leader of the opposition is doing.

There were several objections he made which were not clear to me. First of all, he regrets exceedingly that the committee was not set up. Then, in his last words, just before he took his seat, he tells us that he opposes the setting up of the committee. That is the opinion that was going around this house just before Easter, namely, that if the government attempted to set up the committee the opposition would oppose it.


Gordon Graydon: Who said that?
Mr. O'NEILL: The hon. member asks who said it. I am telling him that that was the popular rumour in the house. That is who said it. But now the leader of the opposition tells the house he is going to oppose the setting up of the committee. It does appear that there must have been some foundation for the rumour going around the house. So that it does seem to me the government cannot be blamed very much because of the failure to set up the committee, when the opposition were going to oppose its being set up.
Just now reference was made to a unanimous report being brought in by the committee. The leader of the opposition has said that, so far as the government is concerned, yes; but so far as the public is concerned- well, that is another matter. I was not a member of the committee last year, but I was the year before, and I resent that remark a little bit. It seemed to me that he sort of cast a reflection upon those members of the committee who were from the government side.
Then the leader of the opposition complained about the percentage of representation of his party on the committee. So far as I am concerned I cannot see that there is any difference between the percentage of representation of Progressive Conservative members on that committee and the percentage on other committees. There is no different attitude taken toward the Progressive Conservatives from that taken toward any of the other parties. It is all based on percentage. It may be urged that that percentage is wrong. But my belief is that it follows the representation throughout the country. For instance, Ontario has a certain number of members in the House of Commons, and it is based-or is supposed to be-on a percentage of population. The same applies in setting up committees of the house. The Progressive Conservative party has twice as many representatives as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or the Social Credit party, because of the number of members in the official opposition party in the house.
Then some hon. members-and among them, I believe, the leader of the opposition-have

War Expenditures Committee
complained about lack of control in the committee. It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that any party should have control of a committee, and I do not think there was any attempt to have control. Certainly on the committee on which I served no attempt was made to have control of the committee. So far as I am concerned, in all the committee meetings I attended there were only one or two occasions when in my opinion it would have been quite all right to hold the meeting in public; or at least I could see no very good reason at the time for its being held in camera. But there was this point to be considered at all times, that we would get far better information, and get it more readily from the witnesses, if they were assured, before giving their evidence, that the meeting would be held in camera.
It was our idea to get that information. We were not trying to uncover any scandal, because we believed that the people in this country were just as sincere in their war effort as we were. Therefore there should not be any scandal to uncover, and we were not trying to uncover any. What we were trying to find out -was if there was any way whereby we could improve methods employed in doing their business. One particular instance I have in mind had to do with the head of one of the large hospitals in Canada, a man who did not have to come before the committee at all. Quite definitely that man would never have appeared before the committee, unless the meeting had been in camera. The things that he might say might be misconstrued by some member of the press. He was not in there to give information, unless it was on the understanding that the meeting would be in camera. I did not see any reason in the world why we should not hold that meeting in camera. Certainly no information was going to develop which would be of comfort to the enemy, but that was not the point. We wanted to get information, and the only way in which we could get it was to guarantee to that gentleman that the meeting would be held in camera. That was done; we secured the information, and I think some good came of it.
Some hon. members, including the leader of the opposition, have complained because the government brought in a motion like this on a Saturday afternoon, when everyone had gone home. I ask, why have they gone home, with the house still in session; why are they not here? That is what we have to contend with all the time with these "T-to-T" members -Tuesday to Thursday; those of us who come from the maritimes or from the west are here from the middle of January until the
middle of August, while these other hon. members slip out on Thursday and do not come back until the following Tuesday. Now they have the audacity to complain in this house because something is brought up on a Saturday afternoon and they are not here. Well, they should be here. I maintain that it is absolutely wrong to blame the government for bringing in this motion at this time. I may be a little dumb, but I do not see how the government could have done anything else, because on the very statement of the leader of the opposition it would seem that this matter would be opposed no matter when it was brought in.
Something has been said about publicity. In my constituency I have not heard one person, whether he belonged to the Liberal party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party or the Progressive Conservative party, say anything that would lead me to believe he was suspicious that this committee was trying to cover up something. I never heard any such suggestion. Publicity, you know, at times is very much abused by all political parties, and sometimes it seems to me that we make too much use of it. I was at a League of Nations' meeting not very long ago at which one speaker said the public men of this country were destroying the confidence of the people in them. That speaker was a university professor, and he said one of the things that was undermining the confidence of the young men and young women of this country in our government was that the Progressive Conservative party had made too good a job of tearing down the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). That is the kind of stuff that is going on in the country; that is the sort of thing that is making the people believe there is something wrong in our government institutions. I have not seen anything of a crooked nature since I have been here. There are many things about the government of the country that seem wrong to me, but I have seen nothing absolutely crooked1. Yet there is a great deal of talk in this house, coming from all political parties, trying to make out that there is something wrong with those who belong to the opposing parties.
There is not very much else I wish to say in connection with this motion. I was not on the war expenditures committee last year, though I was on it the year before last and I saw nothing wrong at that time. So far as I am aware no graft was proved, and I have no knowledge of what was done in connection
War Expenditures Committee

with the report last year, whether or not it was acted upon. However, I am sorry that this committee was not set up long ago, for there is no doubt that people are going to wonder why that was not done, and why the committee must sit while the house is not in session. Personally I feel that there is so much business for that committee to attend to that it should sit all year, whether or not the house is in session, and we should not have to wait until the house meets again, to have the committee reconstituted. It should go right to work and keep on working, and even then it would not be able to look after all the business.
There is another complaint that is often made, in connection with the attendance of hon. members in this house, which I think might be answered at this time. We have had five or six special committees,' in addition to the regular committees of the house, and very often when you come into this chamber you find only from twenty-five to forty members in their places. I have had visitors sitting in the galleries who have asked me where all the members are. Well, the members are attending these various committees, and I suggest that if this committee had been set up as well, with twenty-four or twenty-five members, wre would have had a hard time to get a quorum There is a limit to the number of committees that can be set up with only 245 members, and there is a limit to the efficient work that can be done by those committees. Personally I am very sorry the committee was not set up sooner, but certainly I am going to support the motion, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that, if it can be arranged in any way, the committee be set up again as soon as we meet next session, or that the present committee be continued, so that it may go right on with its work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the members who have served on war expenditures committees how deepfy the government appreciates the services they have rendered in connection 'with the committee's work. I was reserving what I wished to say on that point until the conclusion of the debate. I believe there are very few tasks more important or more onerous than the task which is assigned to hon. members who sit on the war expenditures committee, particularly when that committee is obliged to hold its meetings not only while parliament is in session but practically throughout the year. As some hon. members

have mentioned this afternoon, this means a very great sacrifice not only of time but of personal means and in relation to their own business affairs. I believe this service merits the thanks of all members of the House of Commons. In the name of the government I should like to express very sincere thanks to the members of the committee for the efficient and helpful service they have rendered.
I am at a loss to understand the attitude of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) in saying that he does not propose to support this motion, for the reason, as alleged by him, that he wishes to make a protest in the matter on behalf of his party. Well, in listening to him, I thought he was protesting a good deal. If that is the real purpose behind my hon. friend's decision not to support the motion, I should certainly feel that purpose had been adequately served by what he has said. However, I would point out to the leader of the opposition that he like myself is a salaried officer of this house. He has his duties as leader of the opposition and I have my duties as Prime Minister. One of his duties as leader of the opposition is to see that the house is informed at any and all times when there is reason to believe that the government is not doing its duty. I ask hon. members to look through the proceedings of parliament of this session and see if they can find at any time in any place where the leader of the opposition asked that the committee on war expenditures should be immediately appointed. He may have done so in some general statement with respect to the calling of committees generally, but he has seen this motion on the order paper; he has heard it called from time to time, and never once has he risen in his place to say that it was in the public interest that the war expenditures committee should be appointed, that its setting up should not be delayed and that he would ask the government to set apart a time when the committee could be set up. I say that if he had done that there might have been some reason to believe that his intention not to support the setting up of the committee was based upon the reason that the government had not done its full duty in the matter.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, did not rise in his seat to express the hope that the committee would soon be establshed. The reason I gave him at the time for its not having been established was that an agreement had been reached between the leaders of the different parties in this house that certain other business would be proceeded with first. As leader of

War Expenditures Committee
this house I feel myself to be bound by agreements reached in matters of procedure of business of the house as in all else between the different leaders in the house. As hon. members know, there was a distinct understanding between the leaders that the financial measures would be disposed of as rapidly as possible and that the order of procedure would be as set forth in the agreement which had been reached between us.
If I had been asked to waive that agreement; if I had been told that there were special reasons why it was desirable that it should be waived, I would have been the first to have met the request. I was anxious to get the committee appointed. I made that perfectly clear in statements which were made when the house was about to adjourn for Easter. I said that I was very anxious to get the remaining two committees established before we adjourned, the one on radio broadcasting and the other on war-time expenditures. The radio committee was appointed, as I recall it within a certain length of time, but I was told by some hon. member opposite -I think I am right in saying that it was my hon. friend the leader of the opposition among others who told me-that there were certain gentlemen on his side of the house who wished to debate this matter and that he hoped I would not take it up before the Easter recess.


Gordon Graydon: I know the Prime Minister would not want to put words in my mouth. I cannot recall having said that and I am quite sure that I did not. It may have been someone else who made mention of that, but so far as I am concerned any intimation with respect to hon. members having something to say applied as much to the radio broadcasting committee as it did to this one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were drawing rapidly to the moment of adjournment at Easter, and I repeated a previous suggestion that it should not take any time at all to set up the committee and that if hon. members wished to discuss matters relevant thereto later on, it could be done on a report of the committee or when the committee was making its report. But I know-I am not sufficiently clear in my mind to say positively that it was from the leader of the opposition'-I certainly received an intimation from some hon. gentleman opposite in the clearest manner possible that there were hon. members on the other side who wished to speak on this motion and that the debate would take a considerable time. It was that reason and that reason alone which prevented me from bringing forward this motion before the Easter recess. As I say, it was the duty of the leader of the
opposition, if he regarded the setting up of this committee as of national importance, to have risen- in his seat and asked me as leader of the government to see that the motion was placed before the house before the session got along too far.


Gordon Graydon: Another leader did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just said that I gave an answer to him and it was accepted by him and by my hon. friend. I have thought all the time since that the leader of the opposition was accepting the answer which I had given to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and for that reason was not making any special request because he knew-he was a party to it-that there was an arrangement a's to the procedure of business, as to the order in which the several measures were to be taken up, and that I was following out that order.


Gordon Graydon: There has been a great deal of talk about the order of business. The Prime Minister knows as well as I that the order of business with respect to the budget and the war appropriation bill was not a question of interfering with the present situation in connection with the war expenditures committee. Actually we could have taken a Wednesday night, or a Friday night, or a Saturday if necessary, without interfering in any way with the sequence of business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We could not have done anything of the kind. If my understanding was correct, there was likely to be a long debate on the question.
Mr. GRAYDON I do not know where my right hon. friend got that idea. It may have been, as he says, that someone intimated that some hon. members wished to speak, but I never knew that there was going to be a long debate. There has not been a long debate at this stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same conditions are not existing at this time. I am telling the house quite frankly and honestly that that is what governed me in the matter. I felt that hon. gentlemen opposite understood, along with myself, a certain procedure was to be followed and I was adhering to that procedure. I sought to find a way to get the committee set up by saying that I saw no reason why we could not appoint the committee in a very few minutes and then if hon. members wished to have a discussion later, it could take place on the report.


Gordon Graydon: If that was in the back
of my right hon. friend's mind why did he
War Expenditures Committee

not put this committee first on the list? He put reconstruction first; then social security, and then radio broadcasting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
order of committees was established by the way requested names for memberships were received from the different parties in the house. I cannot tell the house why, but there was special difficulty in certain quarters opposite in obtaining the names of members for the war expenditures committee. The desire of the government was to get all these committees set up as rapidly as possible. As I said this afternoon, the committees for the most part were set up at an earlier date this year than has been the case for many years past in this parliament. I come back to the position that if the committee was not set up earlier the leader of the opposition is responsible more than anyone else for not having asked the government that it should be set up at an earlier time. I repeat the challenge I have made, to look at the records of Hansard to see whether my hon. friend at any time asked that this committee because of its importance should be appointed without further delay.
In regard to the points that have been raised in the course of the debate this afternoon I should like to say this. With the exception of the changing of a word or two, the reasons for which I mentioned when the matter was being discussed before, the resolution before the house to-day is in the identical terms of the resolution which has been passed by the House of Commons at Westminster every year since this war began, and which was adopted in the first instance in the third year of the last war. The British parliament has had experience in dealing with public expenditures unequalled by any other free parliament in the world. The war expenditures at Westminster are colossal compared with the war expenditures made by this parliament. I personally have felt that the reasons which have governed the powers and procedure of the committee at Westminster must be very strong indeed, or the government at Westminster would never have consented to having the powers given, limited in some respects as they are, and the particular procedure adopted which exists in respect to the war expenditures committee of the United Kingdom. Everything that has been done with regard to the war expenditures committee at Westminster has been done for the best and soundest of reasons. I make that statement the more emphatically because there are many hon. gentlemen opposite me who, when Sir John Wardlaw Milne was here, who is chairman of the war

expenditures committee and a leading Conservative in the British parliament, had conversations with him on this very matter. They asked about the procedure in the British house and the powers of its war expenditures committee and received from him direct the reasons which governed at Westminster in having, not some sessions of the war expenditures committee held in camera, but all its sessions. There have been no sessions of the war expenditures committee in Great Britain held in public. The British parliament, which is most zealous in its supervision of expenditures and is the custodian of the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, has not reached that decision without the very best of reasons, and I am convinced that they are the very soundest reasons in time of war.
There is one thing I have tried to do in the discharge of my responsibility here, and that is to have nothing done in this parliament which was merely to embarrass the British parliament or the British war effort or the war effort of the United States or that of any of our allies or our own war effort. I have had to ask myself time and again: Will I remain misunderstood in regard to a particular attitude I am taking because I do not come out and say something that would' be very popular and meet with general acclaim, or shall I remain silent, and follow the procedure that I know to be wisest, though it may not be generally understood to the degree one would wish among the people?
This is a case in point. I should like to see all these inquiries made in the open. I am just as anxious to have publicity on these matters as anybody could be, more anxious indeed than any other member in the house, because I have more to lose than an}' other man if scandals should develop in our war effort; or anything improper take place as a result of inadequate supervision on the part of the government. I want to see this war expenditures committee carry on its duties. I want to see it go into all matters of war expenditure just as fully as it possibly can. I want to see the opposition join with members of the government in seeing that the investigations of that committee are made just as thorough as they can possibly be made. But I do not want to make a departure here which is going possibly to result in something happening in Canada whic-h is the very thing which the British parliament has sought to avoid having happen as a result of investigations in time of war. I take my stand on the experience and wisdom of the parlia-

Criminal Code-Betting
ment at Westminster in dealing with expenditures in time of war, and I am prepared to say to this house and to the country: any right, any privilege, any opportunity that is given to the committee on war expenditures at Westminster I would like our committee to have and I will support in this house. Surely that is going as far as any committee could wish to go. I am ready to have any power given to this committee or to any of its subcommittees that is given to the war expenditures committee in the United Kingdom. I not only would be willing to give it to our committee but I wish them to have it.
I could go at some length into the reasons why meetings are held in camera and as to the other points raised, but in a previous debate I discussed, I think, every one of them and I do not wish to detain the house by a discussion at length this afternoon.
I shall speak therefore only on one other matter that has been mentioned here this afternoon, namely the composition of the committee. The composition of this House of Commons is determined by the country, and the composition of committees of this house is based upon the composition of its membership.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not this an extraordinary committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, and if it were, are hon. gentlemen opposite any more honest than hon. members on this side? Why were the members on this side of the house sent to this house in the numbers in which they were? It was because the people of this country had more confidence in them than in hon. gentlemen opposite who were returned in the minority in which they are at the present time. I will not for a moment admit that any hon. gentleman sitting on the opposition benches in a minority is more honourable or more honest or more concerned for his country's well-being and its good name than are the men on this side who have been returned to represent the people of this country in the numbers they have. Such an argument as is being suggested reflects on every member.


Gordon Graydon: Nobody put up the argument in the first place, and that is why I wonder at the Prime Minister answering it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been put forward time and again, and I think it has now been sufficiently answered.
I shall not take up more time. But I say to the leader of the opposition I would hope that on second thoughts he would realize that
there can be no duty more important at the present time than the careful supervision of public expenditures, and that he would reconsider whether he is really doing something in the national interest in saying that he is not prepared to support the reconstitution of a committee as all-important as is the committee on war expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of bill No. 107, to amend the criminal code-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is considering section 7. There is a subamendment and an amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Before the subamendment and the amendment are put to the committee, I would ask leave to substitute for my amendment an amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Mercier.


Mr. JEAN:: I move to withdraw the amendment and substitute therefor the following:
To strike out the fii'st portion of line 35 and substitute therefor the following words:
"opened, kept 'or used or outfitted or equipped in such manner as to be likely to be"
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That eliminates the words "intended to be used", and I do not think it would in fact make any difference in the application of the provision, but it removes all possibility of there being any conviction on an intention without an overt act, which was one of the objections raised earlier in the day when the paragraph was being considered. I do not think there could have been any possibility of a conviction without an overt act, because the condition of the premises still had to be proved, and it was the possession or control of these premises which would constitute the offence. But the elimination of the words "intended to be used" would not affect the purpose we seek to achieve by the provision, and it does avoid the objection made by some hon. members, that it provided a possibility of conviction on intention without any overt act.
Criminal Code-Betting


Thomas Reid: But you have left in the words "likely to be", and so leave it to the imagination or the interpretation of whoever is prosecuting or laying the charge. Is there any other act in which the words "likely to" occur?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that there are any statutory provisions which have the words "likely to be used", but there are statutory provisions which make it a crime to have a thing which is likely to cause damage. It is for that reason that the carrying of arms is forbidden. It is for that reason that it is forbidden to have explosives in certain places. It is because the possession or control of the thing which is likely to be harmful is forbidden.


Alan Webster Neill: In view of the fact that I moved the amendment to the minister's amendment, I might be allowed to say a few words. The amendment as he now proposes it does away with practically all the objection which I had, and which was shared by other members, which was to the idea of convicting a man because he might have had an intention in his mind without, to use the legal expression employed by the minister, committing an overt act. I think in view of that, and of the desire of some hon. members that some more restrictive regulations should be put in, I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment I moved.
Subamendment withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Jean) agreed to.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Section as amended carried.


Thomas Reid: On division.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
On section 8-Betting, pool-selling and book making.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should like to suggest that there be added to section 8 the following words, after the word "place", in line 13:
Provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the publication of news or records in relation to any race, fight, game or sport or to the contestants therein in the ordinary course of publishing a bona fide newspaper.
Mr. MULOCIv: I so move.


Grote Stirling: Has not the word "or" got to go in somewhere, either before or after?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the word "or" should remain. This amendment should go in between the words "place" and "or" in line 13.


Grote Stirling: The amendment should
finish up with the word "or", should it not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes, and it does in,
the form in which I moved it.


Grote Stirling: It was not so read by
the Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Betting, et cetera.
Joseph Jean: I move to strike out the whole clause and renumber the following' clauses accordingly.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think I was in the chamber at the time when section 9 first came up. Perhaps the minister would explain.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Hon. members will see on the right-hand page in the explanatory notes a provision which is already there:
(i) wilfully and knowingly sends, transmits, delivers or receives any message. . . .
Section 9 was to replace that by the clause as redrawn. It had been pointed out that as it existed it made the situation rather difficult for telephone and telegraph companies required by law to transmit messages handed to them by the public, and it was felt that by redrawing it in this form we would be easing the situation for these utility companies which are required by law to transmit messages given to them by the public. But the telephone and telegraph companies, after reconsidering it, have said that they would rather not have it in this form; that, even in the form in which we have suggested it, we would be imposing additional burdens of supervision upon them at a time when they have not a sufficient number of employees.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, they are willing to take a chance?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are willing to take a chance on the old text rather than take the new one.
Motion (Mr. Jean) agreed to.
Section withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Bodily injuries and acts and omissions causing danger to the person.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the purpose of that section?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The purpose of the section is to meet a difficulty which arose in the province of Ontario, where a magistrate held that the Windsor tunnel was not a
rMr St. Laurent.]

Criminal Code-Betting
highway, and that things happening there were not governed by provisions with respect to happenings on highways.


John George Diefenbaker: That widens the ambit very considerably. "For the purposes of this section 'highway' shall include any road to which the public has access..." That really covers a private road-[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -where the public
may have temporary right of access.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, "right of access" -yes; but that would not be a private road, if there were right of access.


John George Diefenbaker: The right of access might be gained by agreement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To the public?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it were an agreement with the public, it would then cease to be a private right of way.


Gordon Graydon: I have in mind at the
moment a road which is used by the public practically every day in the year except for one day in every year, when the company which I happen to know of closes the gateway into their particular grounds. There is no doubt in the world that the public has access to that road. They use it at all times. I cannot see the distinction the minister makes, from what the hon. member for Lake Centre says. What is the difference between having right of access and access? It is straining a point, I submit. In one case you have a right of access, and in the other you use the right of access. In the case of a road such as I have described, where the public undoubtedly has access, through the permission of the owners, if you like, of the property, the road in question connecting two streets and being very handy for persons with motor vehicles and bicycles as well as pedestrians, the use of that road cuts off a considerable distance for people in the town I have in mind. In making a claim for liability under an insurance policy, I am doubtful whether the word "highway" could be applied to that road. If an accident were to take place on that road, I do not believe that the terms of an insurance policy, which would cover only the owner of a vehicle on a highway, would enable the claimant to recover, because while in one sense it is a private road, the public certainly has had access to it. I suggest that this section might make it possible for this road to be regarded as a highway, and I am not so sure that
the rights and obligations flowing from such a change might not have perhaps some disadvantageous effect upon the people using it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I call my hon. friend's attention to what section 285 covers. Section 285 provides:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, having the charge of any carriage or motor vehicle, automobile, or other vehicle, by wanton or furious driving, or racing or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, does or causes to be done any bodily harm to any person.
"Highway" is not mentioned in that subsection, but it does appear in the second subsection, which provides:
Whenever, owing to the presence of a motor car on the highway, an accident has occurred to any person or to any horse or vehicle in charge of any person, any person driving the motor car shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and costs or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days if he fails to stop his car and, with intent to escape liability either civil or criminal, drives on w'ithout tendering assistance and giving his name and address.
It also appears in subsection 6, which deals with driving a motor vehicle recklessly on a street, road, highway or other public place.
Those are the only subsections with respect to which this amendment would have any effect. The word "highway" also occurs in the third subsection but only in the enumeration, which ends with: "street, road, highway or other place." So that with respect to the third subsection this amendment would have no effect. The amendment is suggested at the instance of the deputy attorney-general of Ontario because of a decision there in which it was held that the Windsor tunnel was not a street, road, or highway within the meaning of subsections 2 and 6 of section 285. I do not think it could have any effect as to civil liability. It is a matter of rather restricted application.	,


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister sure it is of restricted application? Has he given thought to what might perhaps be covered by this extension of the purview of the word "highway"? True, the attorney-general of Ontario may have in mind the curing of one particular defect, but what this legislative body has to bear in mind is that in effecting one cure where a difficulty has arisen, care must be taken as to how far we are opening up the whole question of highways to which the public has access.


Roy Theodore Graham: Would the hon. member not admit that it is wise to have the same principle recognized in that section of the code applied to such a road as he has described,
Criminal Code-Betting

even if it were a private road? Surely a person commiting an offence, such as that which we are guarding against, on such a road as the leader of the opposition described would be properly punishable as upon an open highway. Would the hon. member not agree with that?


Gordon Graydon: I am not so sure that I would agree with .that under the circumstances. I do not want to go into the case, but I do not think my hon. friend has clearly in mind the geographical situation I have described, or perhaps I was not very clear myself in the description I gave. Under the circumstances, however, I would not be able to agree with the hon. member that it would be necessary or proper to make the change suggested.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit that this widens the section far too much. Take, for instance, a situation such as this, where there is not a fence around a property and there is a trail or road across a person's property. That trail is used, even though the users are in reality trespassing. In that case the public would have access. I suggest that the minister consider amending the section to read, "shall include any road to which the public has the right of access." The public might have access, even if they were trespassing, but they would not have the right of access. I suggest that the addition of these words would cover the situation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will so move, I have no objection to accepting such an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I move that after the words, "public has" in line twenty-five the words "right of" shall be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-Definitions in part VII.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In checking this with other departments it was found that the words inserted were not sufficient to cover all cases. It will be noted that the words underscored are the words we have inserted. There is in part II of the Trade Mark and Design Act, a provision which must be taken care of. So that I suggest adding in line 33 after the figures "1932" the words, "or part II of the Trade Mark and Design Act". It is only one part of the Trade Mark and Design Act that is replaced by the Unfair Competition Act, 1932. The departments have checked, and they agree that with this change it will be sufficiently covered.
Grote Stirling: I suggest that the word "act" must be changed to the plural in line 34.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The "said act" there is the United Kingdom act, known as the Patents and Designs Act, 1907.


Gordon Graydon: This does not seem very clear. It states:
"Trade mark" means a trade mark or industrial design registered in accordance with the Unfair Competition Act, 1932.
Then we have added, "the Trade Mark and Design Act". Then the paragraph continues:
And the registration whereof is in force under the provisions of the said act.
The "said act" normally would not refer back to the third preceding act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I stand corrected.


Gordon Graydon: Registration is, I think, completed in either of the acts. So that the plural form should be used.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How does the amendment read? Does it simply change the word "act" to "acts"? It seems to me it should be "either of the said acts".
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	That would be
preferable.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister is going to do that I suggest the words "either or both of the said acts". .


Joseph Jean: I move:
That section 12 be amended by adding after the figures "1932" in line 33, the words "or part II of the Trade Mark and Design Act", and that in line 34 the wTords "of the said act" he replaced by the words "either of the said acts".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-False pretences.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give an example of a case which would fall within the amendment. It is rather difficult to think of an advertisement arranged or worded so as to be deceptive or misleading.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This was asked for by the Better Business Bureau, and we were told that there were signs being published with the word "no", in small type, and the words "fire sale here" in larger type. Such a sign would have in large type the words "fire sale here", but if one looked at it closely he would see that it read "no fire sale here".


John George Diefenbaker: Who asked for it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Better Business Bureau of Toronto.

Criminal Code-Betting


Howard Charles Green: Does this apply to political advertising?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Political advertising, from my experience, is never deceptive.


Grote Stirling: Always pure.


Gordon Graydon: I think we can rely upon the public to see to that, without any amendments to the criminal code. I presume the minister does get many representations from organizations such as the Better Business Bureau. But nearly all these amendments have been suggested by somebody else. I was wondering whether the suggestion from the Better Business Bureau was based on some case in connection with which they had had some difficulty in obtaining a conviction. Or is it just one of those cases where, for their own purposes, and for the protection of the public, they would like to tighten up the provisions of the existing law?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think there was any prosecution, because the section, as it appears on the right side of the page, is left exactly as it was. The only new words are those underscored, namely, "or which advertisement is intentionally so worded or arranged as to be deceptive or misleading". Without that, whatever the form of the type, if the statement were true it would not come within the section. The representations made were that with the section as it was there were deliberate attempts being made to stay within its terms, and still create a deceptive impression.
The hon. member has said that these amendments are the result of suggestions made to the government. It must be remembered that it is not the federal Department of Justice which administers the criminal code. That is done by attorneys general in the provinces. It is when representations come from those who have to do with the application of the law that we must consider whether or not a plausible case has been made out. There would have been no bill brought before the house for the purpose of making only this change. But because a bill was to be introduced making several changes, and representations having been made that there had been resort to this misleading form so as to avoid the consequences of the statute, we thought it proper to insert the additional words. It then becomes a question of fact for the magistrate to decide whether or not it was intentionally worded to deceive. To convict, the magistrate would have to find that it was intentionally worded or arranged to cause deception.


Gordon Graydon: "Worded or arranged."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, or arranged.


Roy Theodore Graham: Would the section not be improved by leaving out the word "intentionally"? Mens rea must be an ingredient, anyway. I am very much in favour of this section; I think it is quite proper and advisable, but I was wondering whether it might not be strengthened and improved if it read, "or which advertisement is so worded or arranged as to be deceptive or misleading."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should be afraid it might be held that if in fact it happened to be worded or arranged in a manner that did not convey the correct information, 'the very fact that it was so worded or arranged, without mens rea, might be held to constitute an offence. I think the hon. member will agree that there should not be a conviction unless there is mens rea, and I do not know that there is any harm here in making it apparent that the intent to deceive must be found as a fact by the magistrate.


Gordon Graydon: I can think of a case, for instance, in which a printer might make a typographical error of some description. In the absence of the word "intentionally," it might be possible that some innocent person would be brought before the court without the proper protection being given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Trial without consent of person charged.
John George Diefenbaker: In connection with sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, I would suggest for the consideration of the minister that during the coming year something be done by way of recasting sections 773 to 777 of the code. They have been productive of much doubt, of much divergence in interpretation, and there is always great difficulty in understanding clearly the jurisdiction of the various courts under these sections. They have been built up by amendments from year to year until to-day it is almost impossible to achieve any unity of decision in the various courts throughout the country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member refers to sections 773 to 777 inclusive?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be glad to see that they are considered by the law officers of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Criminal Code-Betting
[Stage Direction]
On section 21-Trial without consent.
Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I quite agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that sections 773 to 777 should be examined. If you try to read them together you have to keep going from one to the other. I take it that section 21 of this bill is to correct the anomaly we find now in section 774 of the code, in which New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were left out; that is, in connection with certain offences where the procedure had to be by summary trial. I take that to be the purpose of section 21, to bring Nova Scotia in with the other provinces in reference to consent in certain offences?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Trial without consent.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This change is merely to leave Nova Scotia out it having been dealt with under the previous section.
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Procedure in cases of corporations in summary trials of indictable offences.
John George Diefenbaker: There has always been a great deal of difficulty in connection with corporations brought before the courts, and I would ask the minister to explain just how these amendments will deal with the difficulties that have arisen since the last amendments were introduced. I have read the explanatory note, but I am not able to follow exactly the situation that is contemplated in the explanation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 782 deals with the case where a corporation is charged:
When a corporation is to be charged the summons may be served on the mayor or chief officer of such corporation, or upon the clerk or secretary or the like officer thereof, and may be in the same form as if the defendant were a natural person.
2.	The corporation in such case shall appear by attorney, who shall on its behalf, where the charge cannot be tried summarily without the consent of the accused, elect, as in the next preceding section provided in respect of a natural person, and thereupon the case shall proceed as if the defendant were a natural person.
That is, if the election is made.
3.	If the defendant does not so appear, or, so appearing does not, where consent is required as aforesaid, by its attorney elect to be tried in

the ordinary way by the court having criminal jurisdiction, the magistrate may proceed in the absence of the defendant, or upon its not so electing to be tried as aforesaid, as upon a preliminary investigation.
It is that third subsection that is proposed to be replaced by the new provision.
3. If the corporation

This word is used instead of "defendant" as heretofore.
-does not so appear, or, so appearing, does not, where consent is required as aforesaid, by its attorney elect to be tried summarily the magistrate may
(a)	where the charge is one that can be tried summarily without the consent of the accused, proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused. . . .
I think the hon. member would agree that this is proper.
(b)	where the charge is one that requires consent as aforesaid, proceed, in the absence of the accused or upon its attorney not so electing to be tried as aforesaid, as upon, a preliminary investigation.
That is to say, if it is a case in which consent to be tried summarily is required, if there is no appearance or if there is an appearance by attorney and the attorney does not elect that the corporation be proceeded against summarily, the magistrate must proceed in the ordinary way, as upon a preliminary investigation. I think this is merely to clarify what was intended by the section as it stood before, but as it stood it did not clearly distinguish between cases in which the magistrate could proceed without the consent of the accused and cases in which he could not proceed summarily unless he had consent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
On section 27-Speedy trials of indictable offences.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am going to ask that this section be struck out and replaced by another section.
Joseph Jean: I move:
Strike out all the words and substitute therefor the following:
"26. Subsections 3 and 4 of section eight hundred and twenty-seven of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(3) In such ease or if the prisoner has been brought before the judge and consents to be tried by him without a jury, the prosecuting officer shall prefer a formal statement in rvriting setting forth as separate counts therein the charge or charges against him for which he has been committed for trial and any charge or charges founded on the facts or evidence

Criminal Code-Betting
disclosed in the depositions and any charge or charges preferred against him pursuant to the provisions of section eight hundred and thirty-four.
'(4) No charge for an offence for which a greater punishment may be inflicted by reason of a previous conviction or convictions shall contain any references to such previous conviction or convictions.
'(5) If upon being arraigned the prisoner pleads guilty to any count, the prosecuting officer shall draw up a record as nearly as may be in form 60, and such plea shall be entered on the record, and the judge shall pass the sentence of the law on such prisoner, which shall have the same force and effect as if passed by a court having jurisdiction to try the offence in the ordinary way'."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is to achieve the purpose we were seeking to achieve by section 29. It has been held by the supreme court that on proceedings of this kind there had to be separate counts and a separate trial on each count. In rendering the decision the supreme court expressed its regrets that it had to decide in that way and said that the only way in which the inconvenience of having to have a separate trial on each count could be overcome would be by an amendment to the code. Section 29 was drawn up to bring this about. The crown prosecutors in Montreal and Toronto and other counsel gave it their consideration and came to the conclusion that the proper way to achieve this object would be in the manner provided by this amendment, and that it should be an amendment to section 827 instead of to section 835. It was felt that the amendment suggested in section 29 of the bill would not be the proper way to achieve the object in view. The purpose of the amendment is to require that in proceedings before a judge without a jury there shall be a charge sheet made up indicating separately the several charges, but that they may all be tried together, that there may be one trial dealing with several charges as can be done in trials upon indictment.
John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned section 835. Is that section intended to apply only to trials before a judge, or does it apply to trials before a judge and jury?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Trials before a judge and jury are already covered by provisions of the code. It was held by the supreme court that a judge proceeding without a jury could not try more than one charge in one trial and that the provision in the code which states that the provisions relating to jury trials mutatis mutandis shall apply to speedy trials were not sufficient to bring in the special provision that more than one count could be
included in the indictment and the trial proceeded with on more than one charge at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 29 contains the words, "try together any number of charges against an accused." Why should that not be "counts" instead of "charges"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The word "count" has technically been appropriated to charges under indictment, and it might be improper to call a charge on a charge sheet, a count.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
On section 29-Charges tried together.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 29 as it appears here is no longer necessary because provision has been made for this in section 29. But I am suggesting that this section be struck out and a new section substituted.
Joseph Jean: I move:
Strike out all the words and substitute therefor the following:
"Section eight hundred and thirty-nine of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor.
'839. The provisions of part XIX in so far as they are relevant and not inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall apply mutatis mutandis to a formal statement in writing and to a trial under this part'."
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	This procedure was
indicated to us as being necessary by the crown prosecutors in Toronto and Montreal in order to make the procedure in speedy trials before a judge without a jury similar to that already provided in the code, under part XIX, for trials by jury.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 30-Procedure by indictment.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the nature of the change brought about by this section?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Sections 30, 31 and 32 restore in Manitoba, at the request of the authorities of that province, juries of twelve men instead of six in criminal cases. In Saskatchewan a jury of six is still substituted for one of twelve. Manitoba now wants to go back to twelve, and this provision is to take Manitoba out of the clause which provides for six jurors instead of twelve.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the circumstances under which this change took place. In the year 1935, conditions were rather
Criminal Code-Betting

difficult in Saskatchewan and every endeavour was made to save costs and expenses. To that end it was desired by the attorney-general of Saskatchewan that the jury be reduced from the normal number of twelve to six. Having practised under both systems-and I know that my view is shared by a great many lawyers in Saskatchewan-I think it is felt that the restoration to the twelve-man system should be considered in that province. The six-man system has resulted in a considerable saving. On the other hand, if one can expect the same degree of justice from a six-man jury as from a twelve-man jury what reason is there why the jury should not be reduced to three or an even lesser number.


Thomas Reid: Is it as fair a trial as with a
twelve-man jury?
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:	Speaking for myself and for other counsel-I know there is a divergence of opinion as between the six-man and the twelve-man jury-I should like to see our province restored to an equality with the other provinces in the matter of the number of jurors. In saying that, I do not want to be considered as saying that a six-man jury arrives at a different verdict from what a twelve-man jury would, but the effect of the judge's charge on a six-man jury is necessarily greater than it would be on a larger jury. While I understand the reason for the change that was made, personally I should like to see restored in our province the jury system as it has been in British countries since time immemorial, and I ask the minister to give consideration to that before the next session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you have a six-man
jury on capital cases in Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Roy Theodore Graham: Just to show that there is a difference of opinion in the province on the point touched upon by my learned and hon. friend, I must say that my experience has led me to the other conclusion, that no real value of the jury as an institution has been lost by the reduction in number. In addition, as my hon. friend has pointed out, the change has made for a considerable saving not only in the cost of jury trials but in the time that the local citizens who are called for jury service have to spend on an important duty. As a matter of fact, there has been widespread discussion as to the efficacy of juries in criminal trials. I rather think the attitude taken by my hon. friend is owing to the fact that as a rule he acts for the defence. I have had considerable experience for the crown. While you may get an occasional verdict from a

jury that might appear not quite in keeping with a lawyer's technical sense of justice, I am very much in favour of the jury system because it humanizes justice and brings it down to a close and reasonable relationship with the community in which the offence and the trial take place. I do not object to the Minister of Justice taking cognizance of my hon. friend's request, that the restoration of a twelve-man jury be considered, but in order that the minister may not think my hon. friend is speaking for the whole province I submit that the jury of six has considerable value. A jury of twelve citizens is a fairly large group of men to decide questions of fact, and my conclusion-I admit that it is a matter of opinion and I may change mine later-is the opposite of my hon. friend's.


Major James William Coldwell: I have listened to the two lawyers from Saskatchewan with a great deal of interest, and to my mind the hon. member for Swift Current has given the best argument why the jury should consist of twelve persons. He says that the hon. member for Lake Centre likes a twelve-man jury because he usually acts for the defence, and the hon. member for Swift Current likes the six-man jury because he frequently acts for the prosecution. That seems to me a conclusive argument in favour of a twelve-man jury. After all, when one examines the basis of the system of trial by jury, it was originally established so that a man might be judged by his peers; in other words, it was to give a man a fair trial and an opportunity of real defence. It seems to me that the argument between the two learned counsel is all in favour of the hon. member for Lake Centre, and as one who is not a lawyer but represents perhaps a very large group of people who from time to time fall into the clutches of lawyers-I have yet to have my first experience-I suggest to the minister that consideration be given to the plea made by the hon. member for Lake Centre.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can assure the three hon. members who have spoken that consideration will be given to the matter, and that in doing so the attorney general for the province will be requested to express his views and be asked to endeavour to obtain for us the views of the profession and also of the public. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says that he finds in the argument of the hon. member for Swift Current much to support the view of the hon. member for Lake Centre. There probably is something also in the fact that in these days, to get a jury of twelve men, you have to summon a fairly large panel, and in an agricultural province, particularly

Criminal Code-Betting
at this time when agricultural man-power is needed as it is in Saskatchewan, that is a consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: 
John George Diefenbaker: They are not qualified in Saskatchewan under our jury act.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, but that is on account of the provincial legislation of Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
On section 33-Evidence on the trial.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to point out to the committee that here is the same thing we were speaking of earlier. It is made prima facie evidence that a house, room or place is a common gaming house if it has any means or contrivance for "announcing or displaying the results of any horse race". A radio does that. Can you convict a man of having a gaming house because he has a radio on his premises? The radio may be in a cigar store or a club. Why are the makers of this legislation so deadly down upon these people who "display" or "announce"? Every time I go to bed at night I hear the radio tell us what the baseball results are and so on. Should it be a criminal offence to have a radio?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is easier for me to answer the next to the last question of my hon. friend than to deal with his first objection: why have these provisions been inserted 72537-317
in the bill? It is on account of the situation which was described earlier in the day by the hon. member for Vancouver South. There are cities in Canada where, according to information which comes to us from reliable sources, rackets are being exploited, and the reason for tightening up was to comply with suggestions from the attorneys general of the provinces in which those cities are located that there was a growing evil to be curbed. I certainly would not like to be responsible for introducing into this house any legislation which would make any premises where there is a radio a gaming house or susceptible of being declared a gaming house, even prima facie. It shifts the onus, and it is confined to horse races taking place in Canada or elsewhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It goes after publication. That is the intent of this.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; it was intended to deal with these places where they have boards and teletypes to display at once the entries of the contestants into races, the odds that are being quoted on them, the past performances, the selections of those who claim to have some knowledge of horseflesh, and the tips which have been given for the purpose of placing bets. That is what it is intended to aim at.


Thomas Reid: They are not forecasting races; they are just announcing results, and yet they come under the section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister misunderstand me if I suggest that he is very well informed on the matter?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have received many representations, and my information is really second-hand. I am not boasting about it. It is quite possible that, with what was done in section 7, this would not be necessary, and I fear it might be open to the objection that it is drawn in language which goes too far. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has rather frightened me off the text as it appears here. There might be in many innocent places apparatus that could be used for announcing or displaying the result of a horse race, and I would not want to make the section so drastic as not to be susceptible of proper application. I would be disposed to ask the committee for leave to withdraw this section and reconsider it, and draw it up for another session in language which will not be open to the criticism made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
Section withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.

Criminal Code-Betting

On section. 35-Procedure on appeals. Shorthand notes of proceedings and evidence.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister what was the recommendation which was made by the attorney general of Saskatchewan in this regard. I cannot understand how a judge without having a transcript of the evidence would be able to determine whether the court should have the transcript of evidence before it at the hearing of the appeal. As a matter of fact it is not a costly proceeding to have a transcript of the evidence.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is in some localities.


John George Diefenbaker: That is, in so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. The court reporters are available. Provision is made for transcription, under another section, at, I believe, five cents a folio. I point out this, too, that in the western provinces, in fact in all the provinces, it would be necessary for counsel for an accused to be present on the occasion when the question was decided whether a transcript would or would not be necessary, and to be present again at the hearing of the appeal- which is adding materially to the costs of appeal. Personally I feel that consideration should be given to an automatic appeal, particularly against sentence where the sentence is over two years in the penitentiary, in order to assure of appeal poor persons who to-day are often denied the opportunity for appeal. Of course they have an opportunity of doing so by themselves signing a notice, but a case which is argued without the presence of counsel does not fully place before the court the points in issue in the case, and anything which can be done to keep the cost down as far as an appellant is concerned should be done.
On the one ground alone, namely, that it will mean that counsel for the accused will have to be present on two occasions, that is either by himself or by his agent, I am opposed to this amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This was designed to diminish costs of appeal and to facilitate appeals to convicted persons. I do not know what the situation is in Saskatchewan. In my own province of Quebec, the accused, unless he gets an order from the court to have the transcription made at the cost of the crown because of his indigency, is required to pay for the transcription of the evidence, and it sometimes happens that the appeal is based upon questions of law which do not require for their decision the evidence taken at the trial.

In the province of Quebec hearings of appeals are frequently delayed a considerable time to have the notes transcribed, and after they are transcribed the appeal turns upon matters with respect to which the transcript is of no assistance. At the present time, if the appeal is by the convicted person, he either has to pay for the transcription or get an order from the court, upon cause being shown, that the evidence be transcribed at the cost of the government because he is unable to pay for it. The suggestion was that if it appear to the judge of the court appealed to, on the papers submitted, that the case could probably be decided without having to refer to the evidence, he might dispense with the necessity of having the notes transcribed. They are not automatically transcribed, at least in our province, and I know from having been present in court that frequently applications are made to the court for an order that the transcription be made at the cost of the government on account of the indigent circumstances of the convicted person. I think appeals will be facilitated. When the crown appeals the crown is not prevented from going on because of the cost of having the notes transcribed, so that it is designed to be helpful to the convicted person in making it easier for him to get before an appeal court if he has a point of law upon which he relies and which does not require the consideration of evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
On section 38-Coming into force of certain sections.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move that this section be amended by striking out the words "thirty, thirty-one and thirty-two" and substituting therefor "seventeen, twenty, twenty-nine, thirty and thirty-one." Seventeen and twenty are with respect to Nova Scotia and Manitoba, and the attorneys-general of those two provinces have asked that the date of coming into force be the first of August.
Grote Stirling: Is the minister right in saying "seventeen"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Seventeen renumbered. It was eighteen in the printed bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Unemployment Insurance Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of bill No. 136, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Designated officers may administer oaths.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I promised yesterday that I would give the committee some information which I was not able to give then. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked how the figure of $93,871,960.55, representing employer and employee contributions, was divided. It is divided as follows: employer contributions, $44,861,409.95; employee contributions, $49,010,550.60.


Percy Chapman Black: Are there any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act applicable to the lumber industry in Nova Scotia? When this legislation was first enacted there was an understanding that it would not apply to the lumber industry in eastern Canada. It did- apply to all or part of the industry on the Pacific coast, inasmuch as the industry there was on a year-round basis. I have received a number of complaints, some quite recently, that the unemployment insurance commission are gradually extending their scope, and to some extent involving the lumber industry of eastern Canada in Nova Scotia. For instance, lumber mills doing custom sawing are being brought under this act, while lumber mills employing the same class of labour, which changes a great deal in my part of the country, do not come under the act if the operator is sawung only his own lumber. But if he saws custom lumber he comes under the act. As I understand it, those operators were exempted when this bill was enacted and first administered.
There has also been an enlargement of the scope of the act, as it applies to the operating of motor trucks in eastern Canada. In some cases lumber operators who had trucks of their own are being compelled to come under the act, against their understanding and their wishes, and against the wishes of operators of the trucks. In other cases trucks which are hauling lumber, but which are not employed directly by the operator, do not come under the act. What is the ruling of the department with respect to these two 72537-3171
complaints? Are there any changes in the act affecting its application to the lumber industry in eastern Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the act the commission has power to bring other industries in when, in its judgment, it is practicable to do so. The lumber industiy, generally, does not come within the jurisdiction of the act; that is, the cutting of the logs in the woods. But the sawmills and planing mills do, because it is considered their operations are more or less continuous. The regulations laid down state that if they operate seven out of twelve months they come within the jurisdiction of the act. I believe the formula which has been laid down is seven months out of the twelve.


Percy Chapman Black: Is that the arbitrary decision of the commission, or was the industry consulted? Has the commission obtained the approval of the operators? It certainly was understood that they would not come under the act, and this means an arbitrary discrimination between one operation and another. A man might be working right alongside another man, and it is creating an adverse feeling against the administration of the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: This decision was taken after consultation with employees and employers in the industry. The cure is to take them all in. Speaking personally, I would say that if they all came in, it would be to the advantage of the industry, and of the employees concerned. These decisions are not made until after consultation with the industry.


Percy Chapman Black: A great many of these workmen are transients. Quite a number are men who operate farms, and who go into the lumber woods for only a few months in the fall and winter. Many of them cut their own lumber off their own property or their own woodlots. It is making a discrimination between one operator and another. I doubt very much whether the lumbermen's association in the maritime provinces have given their approval to this. The minister states that they have been consulted, and that they have given their consent or approval. However, that is not the information I have, up to now.


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand that if the section carries it will include the acceptance of section 11A? What is the underlying reason for this change in connection with the administration of the department? I see nothing in the original act dealing with this matter. I presume this is in addition to section 11, where the cost of administration
Unemployment Insurance Act

is set out. I would understand that this is just a matter of facilitating the work of the department.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is to save the money of the applicants. The same type of section appears in the Excise Act, where affidavits can be taken.


Gordon Graydon: It is within the scope of the work of the department?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Contributions for periods other than weeks.
Gordon Graydon: What is the reason for this amendment?


Humphrey Mitchell: The present section permits the commission to prescribe contribution rates for periods greater than a week, but for administrative convenience it is desired to have the power to prescribe contribution rates for periods less than a week, the rates to be substantially equivalent to those set out in the first schedule to the act. By this means the difficulty of dealing with fractions of cents will be to a large measure obviated. This will be of assistance in publishing, for the use of employers, contribution tables which will show clearly the proper amounts of contributions and deductions and will greatly assist the employer in his bookkeeping records.


Gordon Graydon: It is a matter of administration. Has it been asked for by employers?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Does this meet the wishes of employees?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Person in control of employees an employer.
Gordon Graydon: What is the explanation of this?


Humphrey Mitchell: The idea behind this is that the main contractor is responsible for the subcontractors. He is responsible for contributions by employers under the act. For instance, in the building trades we find main contractors and a number of subcontractors. Also in factory work we would find a main contractor and a number of subcontractors. This makes the main contractor responsible for the contribution.


Gordon Graydon: Prior to this, I suppose
a subcontractor might, to use a vulgar expression, go broke, without a contribution having

been made. In those circumstances a workman would find himself unable to collect, or at least in a position where the contribution would not be paid. No one having made the contribution, of course, he would not be entitled to any benefits. This, then, places the responsibility upon the main contractor as well as the subcontractor, I take it, because they are both concerned with the transaction.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Does it apply to other than a contractor and subcontractor? It seems to me the wording is much broader than that, and I wondered to what other cases it might apply. If it applies only to contractors and subcontractors, why were not those words used, instead of the language in the section?


Humphrey Mitchell: It would also take in a
branch of a chain store, for instance, or one of a chain of banks, or anything like that. It makes the main organization responsible for the contribution.


Gordon Graydon: That was not a very
happy illustration, because the headquarters of a chain of stores is'always responsible. I fancy the minister really had in mind a sort of combination of independent stores joined together in some way. Perhaps one of these independent stores might not be able to make the contribution, and now the liability is assessed also against the main organization.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like
some further explanation from the minister as to how this act applies to the transportation of lumber by motor truck. Would that come under this or some other section? As I said a few moments ago, I understand the scope of the act has been enlarged, so that it now applies to a lumber operator who has trucks of his own, but that it does not apply to an independent truckman, say an individual with one or two trucks, though they are doing the same class of work and each is in competition with the other.


Humphrey Mitchell: From the bush to the
mill the act does not apply, but it does apply from the mill to the railway.


Percy Chapman Black: Would it
apply to every truck that hauls lumber, or would there be any differentiation between a truck operated by an individual and a track operated by a lumberman?

Unemployment Insurance Act


Humphrey Mitchell: If the truck is operated by the owner, it does not apply. If the truck is operated by employees, it does apply.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Insurance officer may declare claimant disqualified from benefit.
Angus MacInnis: Will the minister explain the effect of this amendment, and have the regulations under which the commission may disqualify a person from benefits been drawn up and published? I think this is giving too much power to the commission, or to an officer pursuant to the regulations of the commission,, unless there are general safeguards through appeals from such rulings.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are appeals to the referees.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The procedure covered by the proposed amendment is based pretty much upon the English practice. The proviso to the present section 56 definitely limits the power of an insurance officer to disallow a claim for benefit or to disqualify a claimant.. This results in a rather cumbersome and slow procedure, and the amendment proposed is designed to give the commission power by regulation to extend the power of the insurance officer to disallow and disqualify. This disallowance or disqualification by the insurance officer will be subject to the provisions of section 57 of the act, which gives the claimant the right of appeal to a court of referees. The amendment does not therefore cut down the right of the claimant but should expedite the adjudication of his claim. If the circumstances so require, the insurance officer may disallow the claim or disqualify the claimant, notifying him at once as to his right of appeal. There are many cases where it is amply evident to the insurance officer that the claimant is not qualified, as for example where his state of health makes it evident that he is not capable of taking employment. Under the present provisions the insurance officer may not disqualify a claimant under such circumstances, though it may be perfectly plain that the claim will without doubt be disallowed by the court of referees.
The suggested amendment would assist the claimant in knowing at the earliest date possible, and not fooling him, as sometimes happens, what disposition is to be made of his claim, and if he wishes he may appeal that decision to the court of referees. The situation now is that an applicant because the officer has no power to deal with the matter, may be led
to believe that he may qualify, when in many instances it is obvious that he cannot. From the point of view my hon. friend has suggested, however, there is the right of appeal; the man is notified of that right, and his appeal goes to the referees.


Angus MacInnis: I am sorry we have not this act before us in printed form, so that we might compare it with these amendments. We are placed at a disadvantage in trying to give careful consideration to these sections. I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister will understand that any regulations which disqualify a beneficiary from insurance put that much more burden of proof on the individual, who is not accustomed to going through all this procedure in order to find out his position. He has made contributions and he feels that he is entitled to benefits if he becomes unemployed. My only concern is that this amendment shall not increase the number of hurdles the claimant has to surmount before he can get his insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This really simplifies it. I realize that my hon. friend is handicapped in this matter, and I should have provided him with full information, but the fact is that this really helps the man he has in mind. Formerly he might be led to believe that he would qualify, and he might have to wait a long time before ascertaining the true position. Now he is told by an officer, and he does not lose any of his rights at all. I think my hon. friend may feel that this is intended to simplify and help rather than hinder.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Insurability decided by commission.
Gordon Graydon: Could the minister give us some information as to why this addition is being made. It reads:
If any question arises as to whether a person was or was not employed in an accepted employment, that question shall be decided by the commission under the provisions of section forty-six of this act.


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the original act there was some doubt as to the coverage. The commission is to have exclusive jurisdiction over coverage.


Douglas King Hazen: Is there an appeal from the
commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to the board of referees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Penalty for contravention or non-compliance.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Gordon Graydon: Could we have some
explanation of this section?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, under the criminal code, an information must be laid with regard to each charge. An employer may be guilty-I have one case-of eighty minor offences in connection with the operation of the law, and that would require the serving of eighty separate processes. This particular amendment will permit the consolidation into one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Additional investigations.
Howard Charles Green: Is this the section which will give the governor in council power to include the British Columbia logging industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are some words being deleted from the first section. These words were a mistake in the drafting of the original legislation. If my hon. friend wishes to talk about logging under this section, I shall be glad to have him do so.


Howard Charles Green: Yesterday as reported on page 4936 of Hansard, I asked the parliamentary assistant whether or not the logging industry in British Columbia was to be placed under the act, and he replied that there would be a section in the bill which would give the governor in council the power to include this industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is the section.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement about that?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can only say that the matter is under investigation by the commission, in consultation with the interested parties. No decision has been arrived at by the commission with respect to the inclusion of the logging industry in British Columbia. The view taken by the commission is that as soon as it becomes administratively possible to bring them within the provisions of the act, it will be done.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant said:
An interim report-It is more than an interim report, but that is the best way to describe it- has been received. Just as soon as it becomes administratively possible they will be included.
Was the parliamentary assistant correct?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is absolutely
correct.


Howard Charles Green: They are to be included?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.
TMr. Martin.]


Angus MacInnis: Has any employment
which was excepted from the provisions of the act in 1940 since been taken in under the act?


Humphrey Mitchell: No excepted employments have been included.


Gordon Graydon: I can recall that when the act was being considered in 1940 many interesting suggestions were made to the government in connection with excepted employments, and the reply was that consideration would be given by the commission to their inclusion. If my memory is correct, when that legislation was before the committee the commission was given power to review certain excepted employments and I believe the list of excepted employments was fairly lengthy. I am surprised to hear that none of these excepted employments has been included. I am inclined to think that on that occasion the bill went through the committee perhaps more quickly because an undertaking was given- perhaps it was not expressed, but it came very close to being implied-that some of these excepted employments would be included later on. It is quite true that the government may say that this is a question entirely for the commission, but I am still surprised to learn that none of these employments has been included. Can the minister tell us how many have been reviewed by the commission?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the original act the commission had no power to include them, although they had power to review.


Gordon Graydon: Somebody had the power.


Humphrey Mitchell: They did not. That is the strange thing. This amendment is to give the commission, not only the power to review and investigate, but to extend the coverage of the act.


Gordon Graydon: It may be that the commission did not have power to include them, but they did have power to review and recommend. I should like to know how many have been reviewed by the commission and how many have been recommended for inclusion in the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: They may have investigated some, but since I have been minister they have not recommended any to me. Subsection 2 gives the commission power to extend the coverage of the act to those employments of which my hon. friend speaks.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, this amendment actually gives the governor in council legislative power with respect to this particular

Unemployment Insurance Act
matter, but of course under the War Measures Act the governor in council could do it anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Travelling expenses.
Humphrey Mitchell: This is to provide for the travelling expenses of the local committees. At the present time the act merely provides for the payment of the expenses of the national committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On secton 15-Regulations.
Gordon Graydon: These amendments are rather important from the point of view of the employee and the employer, and I wonder if the minister could give an explanation of the change in these regulations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The explanatory note is fairly complete, but I can add to it. The act does not at present provide for a means of determining the contribution payable where a worker is paid on a basis other than straight salary, wages or commission. For example, where an employer is paying wages and board and room there is no method of determining the contribution payable. This will authorize a method of determining the amount payable under those circumstances.


Gordon Graydon: You determine a certain amount for board and room?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Special order may be varied or revoked.
Humphrey Mitchell: Under the act the commission has power to make orders or give directions, but has no power to revoke them. This gives them the necessary power.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Annual report by commission.
Humphrey Mitchell: This extends for one further month the time in which the annual report may be made. The financial year ends in March.


Gordon Graydon: Is this in line with general governmental policy with regard to making annual reports?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Failure to keep records or make returns an offence.
Humphrey Mitchell: This section is to take care of the delinquent employer who does not keep proper books. It gives the commission power to go in and institute a bookkeeping system so that the employer may comply with the act.


Gordon Graydon: Section 97 of the 1940 act provides:
The commission may require any person to make written returns of information deemed by the commission to be necessary for the purposes of this act.
Then it goes on to provide penalties for failure to comply. Has the commission found in its administration of the act that this power is required?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. They have found that some employers are not keeping timesheets and proper books. This section is taken from the Excise Act and gives the commission power to see that the necessary books and records are kept to comply with the law.


Gordon Graydon: I think that legislators will have some large degree of sympathy with people in business to-day. Most of us who have friends in business realize that a large part of their time to-day is taken up with keeping records for the government, and this, I suppose, is just an extension of the privilege, if I may call it so, accorded to employers generally to take some further share in carrying the burdens of the country. There are a great many people, particularly working people, who rightly or wrongly regard the unemployment insurance contribution as an extra tax, and in a sense I suppose that is true. If the minister, w'ho has been fairly close to labour, talks to the average working man, he will know that is how he feels. He sees deductions from his pay envelope for instalments on victory bonds, war saving certificates, income tax, unemployment insurance and perhaps other deductions, and he lumps them all together and says: Look here, I am getting less than I did before. That brings to my mind the situation from the point of view of the employer, who has to keep all these books and records and accounts. It seems obvious that more attention will have to be paid in our educational system to the study of bookkeeping because, if a man does not know how to keep a set of books-I confess that is one of my own weaknesses-he is in danger to-day not only of losing his business but of being consigned to gaol. I point that out as one of the risks people in business are running to-day.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Humphrey Mitchell: If I might answer in the same vein, once the platform adopted by my hon. friend's friends at Winnipeg is implemented there will be a great deal more bookkeeping to do. I agree in a way with what my hon. friend says. There are three great fears in the life of the average working man and working woman-the fear of destitution in old age, the fear of destitution through sickness, and the fear of destitution through unemployment.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why confine it to the working man?


Gordon Graydon: And the fear of being appointed to the senate!


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps when the
Minister of Finance is through with us we shall all be in the same category. It is a question of organization to provide protection against these three great fears of the working man. I am a comparatively young man and I hope to live to see the day when this will be accomplished. Of course, it implies bookkeeping. This amendment is to regularize the bookkeeping of the employer. What my hon. friend says about the employer is true so long as he is on the paying end, but he does not complain when he is on the receiving end. Proper records must be kept to ensure that the benefits are due in conformity with the law.


Mr. ISNOR:: I am not quite sure what the minister meant by saying it is just a question of organization. The unemployment insurance machinery must be pretty well set up to-day. The system is fairly simple. The employee has a check against the employer, and the commission has a check against the books in which the stamps are placed. What further books is it necessary for an employer to keep? If the minister has any particular type of book in mind or a certain form to be looked after by the employer, I wish he would outline it. But I would point out that the book in which the stamps are pasted is a check in itself. The employer is obliged to put the employee's book before the employee at least once a month. There you have a check by the employee against the employer. The employee can see the value of the stamps that are going in his book, and that also furnishes a check for the unemployment insurance commission on the employer. In view of that, I am wondering if there is any need of putting a further burden on the employer by compelling him to keep another set of books.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend who is an employer keeps, I take it, fairly accurate 
books, but many other employers do not. Some carry their office records in their inside pocket.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You still have your own check.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says that the book is a check. That is not a check. Our inspectors come along and find that an employee has left a certain employer, gone to another employer and taken his book with him. We want a record of how long he worked for his previous employer and whether he made the necessary contributions to the fund.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is absolutely necessary for the employer to keep a correct record of his employment of every individual, because it is necessary for him to make a return to the income tax office.


Mr. EDWARDS:: This section states:
The commission may require any person to keep such books, records and accounts as the commission may direct and may require any person to make written returns of information. . . .
To whom?


Humphrey Mitchell: To the commission.


Manley Justin Edwards: If it is rendered only to
the commission, how about the employee? I had a communication only two or three weeks ago from the father of an employee who, as I recall it, was unable to obtain from the employer how much or on what basis the deduction was made from the employee's pay envelope at the end of each fortnight, in this connection, and upon requesting the information he was told by the employer that he did not have the time to be bothered. That puts this employee in an embarrassing position. Presumably, if she did not care to carry on without getting the information which every honest employer should have been ready, able and willing to have given, she could just quit. It seems to me that no employee should be put in that position. If the employer is under this act authorized and required to make deductions, there should be some obligation on the part of the employer to provide that employee with a statement if necessary, or make his books available to the employees, so that he or she will know as a matter of right how much has been deducted from the pay envelope or cheque, and the basis of it. It is for that reason I think the section might very well be amplified so as to provide that the employee will be entitled to receive that information at reasonable times-once every month or two months, or as the period of employment may be. I for one am sorry the section is not amplified in that way. I do not think any employee should be put in the invidious

Unemployment Insurance Act
position of having to go and beg to obtain information which ought to be his or hers as a matter of right.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was going to give an
extemporaneous reply in a couple of words to my hon. friend, but perhaps I had better read the section of the regulation dealing with the question raised:
22. (1) Every employer shall from time to time upon request give each insured person in his employ an opportunity of inspecting his insurance book or contribution record as long as it is in the custody of the employer, but no insured person shall be entitled to inspect his insurance book or contribution record more than twice in any month, nor except at such reasonable times, either within or before or after the insured person's working hours, as may be fixed by his employer for the purpose.
That answers, I think, my hon, friend's question.


Manley Justin Edwards: What is the penalty?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am coming to that:
(2) Every employer who fails to give any insured person in his employ such an opportunity of inspecting his insurance book or contribution record shall be guilty of a contravention of these regulations.
I will get the penalty looked up for my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: What I am going to say
now is prompted by a remark made by the leader of the opposition. He said that a contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Act is looked upon by many workers as another tax. Probably that is so, but I think anybody who has anything to do with this matter should avoid giving a worker the impression that he is paying another tax. As a matter of fact, he is paying insurance in the same way as he would pay fire insurance on his house, insurance on his automobile, sickness insurance, or any other insurance he takes out. It should be pointed out to him, too, that every cent which goes into the insurance -his contribution, the employer's contribution and the government's contribution-goes in benefits to the insured.
The worker will get, generally speaking, whatever impression of this act that people from the sources from which he gets his information are going to give him, and it is of the utmost importance that he should have a proper understanding of the social value of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
When I returned to Vancouver following the session of 1940 I found many members of trades unions were objecting to the act. I was asked on several occasions to meet with the unions and go over the provisions of the act, with them, and in every case after I had
done that there was general satisfaction with the act. I believe that all hon. members-and I am not saying that the leader of the opposition is not doing this-should take every opportunity of explaining the act in its proper aspect to those whom it concerns.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Amendment of first schedule.
Humphrey Mitchell: We have been advised
by the Department of Justice that we have not the power . under the act to insure employees of the British government and other governments in Canada. My hon. friend probably knows that they run into some thousands. This gives the power to the British and other governments to place within the jurisdiction of the act their employees in the dominion. I have in mind more particularly what I think is called the United Kingdom inspection board, which has over
10,000	employees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Part II of first schedule, substituted paragraph (1).
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister be
good enough to explain exactly what is meant by this section? In particular, does it, as the information on the right-hand side of the page would seem to indicate, mean that the civil service of Canada is now to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; this section provides that public utilities shall come within the provisions of the act. Let me give an example:	In the city of Winnipeg, where
there is a private power company and a publicly owned power company, the private power company comes within the provisions of the act and the public company does not. This regularizes it; it places all public utilities within the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, with the exception, which still exists, of provincial and municipal employees, such as

these come to my mind at the moment-employees of water works, sewerage works and that sort of thing.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The question comes up
then as to what is a public utility. Would the minister throw some light on the situation in the city of Toronto, for instance, where there is a municipally-owned hydro electric system? Would the employees of that system now come under the Unemployment Insurance Act? And what of the employees of the hydro electric system, which

Unemployment Insurance Act

is the supplier of wholesale power to the various municipalities; do those employees now come under the Unemployment Insurance Act? Furthermore, has the Department of Labour received an opinion from the Department of Justice as to whether it has the constitutional right to tax them?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the best definition occurs in the section itself, on page 8 of the bill:
(i)	"public utility" includes any gas, electric, heat, light, or power works, telephone lines, transportation system, and works for the transmission of gas or electrical power or energy and such other works, lines or systems as may be declared by special order of the commission to be public utilities for the purposes of this paragraph.
(ii)	employment in connection with a public utility includes the employment of all employees whose employment is considered by the commission to be reasonably necessary or incidental to the operation thereof.
So that it places the power within the jurisdiction of the commission, as I read it from that amendment, to decide whether the undertakings to which my hon. friend has referred come within the jurisdiction of the act.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What I am asking for is an interpretation of the words, which, if I may suggest, I can also read for myself. I cannot interpret them, however, unless 1 know exactly what is in the minister's mind. All that the minister has said to me is that the committee which will have to interpret it will be able to interpret it as it likes. But there are other matters to be considered: for example, the question whether there is the constitutional power to do it. I do not understand this small paragraph under section 21 in the explanatory notes:
(i) In the public service of Canada under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
Subparagraph (i), according to the explanatory notes, making employment in the public service of Canada under the provisions of the Civil Service Act an excepted employment, is repealed and is not reenacted. It might be taken from that that the civil service will now come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think we should have something more definite than that.


Humphrey Mitchell: The important part of the act is on the other side.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The left-hand side?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is the enacting side. The other is explanatory.


Grote Stirling: It includes the Civil
Service Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That should not be underlined. It is obviously a mistake.


Grote Stirling: That is what it says here. Reading from subsection 1, and deleting the proviso "other than" we have:
Employment ... in the public service of Canada . . . upon certification satisfactory to the commission that the employment is . . .
And so on.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the old act.


Grote Stirling: It is the new act.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; the new act is on page S.


Grote Stirling: But I am reading from page 8, section 21, referring to subsection 1. I was leaving out the words beginning "other than," which are a proviso. With that omission it reads:
Employment ... in the public service . . . upon certification satisfactory to the commission.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member
wants an interpretation, I will give it as it is drafted in my notes, and I will stay with that.
I	do not care about that; I am staying with my notes.


Douglas King Hazen: We have to get back to paragraph 2 of the first schedule and see what it says, and then read from there down. That may explain it.


Angus MacInnis: The words, "in the public service of Canada under the provisions of the Civil Service Act," have been repealed or deleted-


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Angus MacInnis: -and the following is substituted:
Employment other than employment in connection with a public utility, in the public service of Canada or of a province or by a municipal authority, upon certification satisfactory to the commission that the employment is, having regard to the normal practice of the employment, permanent in character.
In paragraph (i), on the right-hand page, under section 21, the Civil Service Act is mentioned, but "in the public service of Canada" is included.


Douglas King Hazen: I have here schedule 1, part
II	and that is headed "excepted employments" and it gives a list of such employments. You get down to paragraph (1) and the amendment is to paragraph (1).


Humphrey Mitchell: Exactly.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Grote Stirling: Is the civil service of Canada within this?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Grote Stirling: It says it is here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister did not say whether or not an opinion of the Department of Justice had been obtained.


Humphrey Mitchell: You need not take an opinion of the Department of Justice; I am telling you it is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Yale has not the act before him. I will put this on the record. Look at page 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a copy of which I will see that he gets. Under part II there are certain excepted employments, and when it comes to paragraph (1) among the excepted employments you find the words "in the public service of Canada". The reason for the difficulty is that the preceding excepted employments are not listed in the explanatory notes. That causes confusion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Proviso.
John James Kinley: This is an important section.


Humphrey Mitchell: This raises the maximum from $2,000 to $2,400.


John James Kinley: How do you arrive at the figure?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the recommendation of the advisory committee. I gave a long explanation when the resolution was before the house. If my hon. friend wishes me to repeat it I will.


John James Kinley: Does the minister think it covers the conditions? I do not think it does.


Angus MacInnis: I am under the impression that this increase from $2,000 to $2,400 is not enough. I say that from conversations I have had with workers. They would like to have the amount raised above $2,400. Has the minister sought the opinion of the workers engaged in the industries and ascertained that this is generally satisfactory?


Humphrey Mitchell: I expressed the same opinion as my hon. friend does when the question was in the resolution stage. After public hearings by the advisory committee, composed of employers and employees

and I think it may be fairly stated that those who gave evidence before that committee were about as good a cross-section of organized employers and employees as one could find in the dominion-it was agreed by the com-
72537-318*
mittee that the ceiling should be raised from $2,000 to $2,400. This, of course, covers only what one might call the white-collar class. There is no ceiling on the weekly-paid employees and piece-paid employees. While at some later date it may be necessary to raise the ceiling to $3,000, my hon. friend can rest assured that if a recommendation in those terms should come from the committee, it would certainly receive the favourable consideration of the government.


John James Kinley: That is the point. The ceiling for labour is not $2,400. It is for what the minister calls the white-collar class. Why should there be that difference?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is easily explained. Under war conditions, with overtime and cost of living bonus, the original calculations have been more or less thrown out of balance, and unless an amendment of this kind is made it is fair to assume that there will be thousands of workers who, when the act was originally passed, were under its jurisdiction, who would be forced out of its provisions. An amendment of this kind is therefore necessary. It may be in the course of the next year we may have to fall in line with the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East. We cannot tell. But I think that it is absolutely necessary, that it is in the best interests of the working people themselves and also that it is good government policy that as many as possible should be brought within the jurisdiction of this legislation. Where we have what might be described as a wage structure on the upgrade, every effort should be made not only to maintain but possibly to increase the coverage, so that when war is concluded there will be at least one cushion to take care of any possible dislocation which may take place in the industrial or commercial set-up of our country.


John James Kinley: The minister has said he thinks as many as possible should be brought under the coverage of the act. I quite agree, but I have two men working in my plant, one holding a clerical position and the other running a machine. The man who runs the machine at an hourly rate does not come under any ceiling. The man who works in the clerical position has a ceiling of $2,400. I do not see why there should be that difference. They should all come under it, and the coverage should be on all employees. Then, as the minister has said, that coverage should be as large as possible.


Angus MacInnis: My memory is that in 1940 when we were discussing the act I had
Unemployment Insurance Act

communications from the typographical unions in Vancouver and Victoria stating that they wanted the maximum to be declared at 32,500. I believe the Victoria communication set the figure at $3,000. The higher paid workers in the typographical union have been excluded, because of the ceiling.


Humphrey Mitchell: This was the most contentious point which came before the committee. After considerable discussion among the parties this was the figure agreed upon. When the workers and employers are in agreement, as they were in this instance, I am always loath to go counter to their advice. If my memory serves me correctly, I received representations stating that the maximum should be $4,800 a year, and I am inclined to agree with that. I do not know why I should not be included within the provisions of the act, or why all other hon. members should not -looking forward to the next general election. But, be that as it may, I followed out what I thought was sound advice given to me by this committee, after mature consideration of all the factors involved in the briefs submitted by employee and employer organizations.


John James Kinley: There is only one good reason I can see why a clerk, for instance, should have a ceiling, namely, that perhaps he has better continuity of employment than the man in the workshop. But there are many people in Canada .employed in big organizations, such as banks, who never want to come under it at all. They are what might be described as white-collar men, and they are getting clear. It seems to me that this is leaving out a class. People who say they have no hazards do not want to come in at all. One pays insurance, and hopes he will never benefit from it. That is the state of mind in which insurance is paid. If interests are to be pooled, then people who do not have hazards should be pooled with those who do have hazards, because the people who have the hazards are necessary to the community. I cannot understand this difference, and I do not think it should be there.


Thomas Reid: What classes have been taken in under the unemployment insurance scheme since the measure passed the house? Have any classes been taken in which were exempt at the time the bill was passed?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, none.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Daily rate.
Mr. KNOWLES:: I should like to ask two questions, the first of which has reference to line 7 in the tables on page 10 of the bill. That line reads, "earning $26 or more in a week." I understand that in the table as it stood before the amendment was proposed it read, " earning $26, but less than $38.50 per week." I 'believe $38.50 represents the former $2,000 ceiling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The ceiling has been raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the ceiling has been raised, why is it not still necessary to give that ceiling in this line, in terms of so much per week? Line 7 as it now reads implies that there is no ceiling. It might suit our purposes fine, but I believe it does not leave the proper impression.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The ceiling is provided for in section 22 of the act for a certain definite classification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The previous ceiling of $2,000 was then provided in the act. Yet it was thought necessary to interpret that ceiling in line 7 as $38.50 a week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no ceiling in respect of the hourly rate.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Did it state that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; that was stated in the act. As a matter of fact, $38.50 was $2,002 a year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It cannot very well be put in when there is no ceiling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is a ceiling of $2,400.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For one group; and they are covered in section 22.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But previously it read "$26, but less than $3S.50 in a week."


Humphrey Mitchell: Then $38.50 was the ceiling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ceiling is now $2,400.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is for certain groups. For hourly labour groups there was no ceiling. For the so-called white-collar class there is a ceiling of $2,400. Perhaps the hon. member has not borne in mind those two classifications.


Angus MacInnis: Does the Unemployment Insurance Act differentiate between the white-collar class and others?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; possibly I should not have used that expression.


Angus MacInnis: Why does the minister say there is a white-collar class?

Unemployment Insurance Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: One is on salary and the other is on piecework or on a mileage basis. In line 7, "earning $26 or more in a week", sets out the ceiling. That includes the man earning $2,400 for assessment, as well as the hourly or mileage worker, or the piecework rate worker, who at present has no ceiling. That is, line 7 is from that point up. It is from $26 up.


John James Kinley: It means that the white-collar man who earns over $2,400 does not come under it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct, provided he is on salary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was consideration given to establishing another bracket in this list? As it now stands, we find spreads within these brackets of S3, S4, $5 or $6 a week. Then there is a spread of $20 a week, paying the same insurance and, if unemployed, drawing the same benefits. I wondered if consideration had been given to creating a new bracket in which there would be a slightly higher rate of contribution and a corresponding higher rate of benefit.


Humphrey Mitchell: Consideration was given to that, but we did not want to upset the actuarial status of the act. We were advised by our actuaries against creating another class, and it was not undertaken, but we did give consideration to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall I report the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before that is done, I want to make one correction. Yesterday the senior hon. member for Halifax asked me if the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada had registered an objection, and in error I stated that they had not. I now wish to correct that statement. The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada did object because of the effect on their members; they argued that workers in retail trade receiving over $2,000 should not have to assist in insuring workers in war industries unless all exceptions were abolished.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I believe there were a
few questions asked yesterday which the parliamentary assistant said he would undertake to answer to-day. One was: what is the ceiling in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand; and the other was: which of the associations that put in briefs were for and which were against the extension of the ceiling from $2,000 to $2,400? Would the minister be good enough to give that information to the committee now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Which of the various
organizations putting in briefs were for and which were against the extension of the ceiling?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In favour of no limit there was the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You mean even above the $2,400?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then are there to be
three categories, those who would hold to the $2,000, those who would go to $2,400 and those for whom the sky would be the limit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member
would let me complete my reply to the question.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I just want to know what I have to bear in mind when listening to the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Trades and Labour Congress, Canadian Congress of Labour, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees argued for no limit. Those arguing for or proposing a higher limit were: the Confederation of Catholic Workers, $2,500; the Windsor chamber of commerce, $3,000 with insurability for earnings between $2,500 and $3,000 being optional; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, $3,600. The latter, however, would regard complete abolition of the ceiling as acceptable. Then the following were opposed, because of the effect they alleged on their members: the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Order of Railroad Conductors; the Retail Merchants' Association, w'hich I mentioned a moment ago. The following objected because of the fundamental nature of the change: Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association, Canadian Bankers' Association, Dominion Mortgage and Investments' Association, Canadian
Unemployment Insurance Act

Chamber of Commerce, Calgary board of trade and the Hamilton chamber of commerce. These associations considered a slight increase in the ceiling would be permissible to meet the war situation, on the understanding that the $2,000 limit would be restored after the war. In this connection the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association suggested a temporary ceiling of 52,200. The Toronto board of trade and the Montreal board of trade made recommendations which dealt only with the war situation, but which implied opposition to permanent raising of the ceiling.
I think that completely answers the question * which my hon. friend put to me yesterday and which I said I would answer to-day.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In other words, there were a great many more objecting to a change than were in favour of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there were not.


John James Kinley: I think that bears out my suggestion about the reason for the ceiling on the office workers.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 135, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1943, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for capital expenditures.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: I recall that in the railway committee it was stated that some twelve or thirteen million dollars was set aside for deferred maintenance, an item which would not be allowed to any private company but which was set up by the Canadian National because it made no difference to their statement, inasmuch as they were not subject to taxation. What would become of that money, and why would it not be available to the company to finance these capital expenditures, instead of asking the government for authority to issue $6,000,000 odd in securities?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The deferred maintenance reserve is for deferred maintenance rather

than for capital additions and betterments. I may add that the $17,000,000 is available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization, but nothing is taken from the deferred maintenance reserve, because the purpose of this expenditure is not maintenance.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I appreciate that the purpose is capital, but inasmuch as the railway company must lean on the government for all of its capital expenditures, nevertheless there is this amount for deferred maintenance which is an extraordinary amount and one not allowed to private companies. I am suggesting that unless it is absolutely necessary for its working capital account-and I do not think that it is because it has ample working capital-it is hard to understand why this money is being made available to the railway company for its capital expenditure instead of borrowing more through the government authorization.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the section carry?


Gordon Graydon: The minister has not
answered the hon. member's question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be an exact repetition I gave to the previous question. The amount carried to deferred maintenance reserve is for deferred maintenance, not for capital additions and betterments. This expenditure the house is being asked to authorize is for capital additions and betterments. It is proper to take money out of reserves for depreciation and discount amortization, but not proper to take it out of reserve for maintenance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.	,
Monday, July 19, 1943