Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:	[DOT]
Ottawa, 20th May, 1943.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Thursday the 20th of May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANGOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, as a private member of this honourable house I rise to a question of privilege. By virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act and of numerous orders in council, particularly P. C. 159 of January 31, 1928, members of parliament are entitled to an English and French copy of all official publications. I hold in my hand administrator's order, A-317, issued by Mr. A. H. Williamson, administrator of supplies, on July 30, 1942, approved by Mr. D. Gordon, chairman, wartime prices and trade board and concurred in by Mr. R. C. Berkinshaw, chairman, wartime industries control board. I am credibly informed that this document has never been translated into French because of orders that were issued not to translate it.
For some time I have been receiving copies of another publication issued by Mr. John Grierson entitled " Nouvelles Catholiques." This comes from the wartime information board, and I am informed that it has never been translated into English. I believe that some issues are made up largely of translations of material appearing in English publications, but the English text has not been sent to us. I exercise my right as a member of the House of Commons to ask for a French 
translation of order A-317 and an English translation or the English text, as the case may be, of all numbers of " Nouvelles Catholiques." I protest strongly against the propaganda contained in order A-317 for the English speaking population exclusively, and against the issuing of "Nouvelles Catholiques" for the French speaking population exclusively. One is for the English and the other is for the French, and they are contradictory.
mr. ross (st. Paul's)-reference to remarks

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I regret that I was not in the house last Monday when a question which I had on the order paper came up. When this question came up on Thursday last the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) asked that it be dropped. I find that the minister is reported on page 2619 of Hansard as follows:
I ask the hon. member to drop the third part of this question.
Then he went on further to say:
I would ask that the question be dropped. '
He said also:
There can be only one reason for that question, namely to draw some inference that these men are not doing their duty.
Further on he said:
That reason applies doubly or trebly to men overseas. I do not think it lies in the mouth of any of us to question what the men are doing there, whether they happen to be in Canada or in England.
The minister has no right to impute any motive to me or to any other member of the house. The thing farthest from my mind was that any of these men were not doing their duty. A soldier goes where he is sent and does what he has to do. My question deals with a matter of policy of the government and of the Department of National Defence. I have many reasons for asking the question, all of which I do not intend to give here but I might state one of them. My information is that there are in this category many officers and men of several years' experience who would like to get overseas in the fighting forces but who are now being held on this side of the water, various excuses being given, while junior inexperienced officers are sent overseas. There are also thousands of soldiers overseas-

Public Accounts
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: In speaking to a question of privilege the hon. member is entitled to make a statement but mot to enter into an argument.


Mr. GRAYDON:: He is explaining the basis for his question.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have given one reason, and there are many others. I have risen to a question of privilege because the Minister of National Defence has no right to impute motives to me.


Hon. C. G. POWER:: (Minister of National Defence for Air):	Mr. Speaker, on the
question of privilege, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is absent on important public duties. With respect to the point raised by my hon. friend, I was present in the house at the time and I was under the impression that my hon. friend said he would discuss the matter with the Minister of National Defence. I wish he would wait until the minister comes back instead of discussing the matter in his absence.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was going on to say that so far as giving the names is concerned, I do not want to have the names given. I think the minister might have suggested at that time that there was a reason for not giving the names. Unfortunately I did not hear him say that the third part of the question might be dropped.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of privilege but a matter for debate when the appropriation bill is before us and the minister is present.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on privileges and elections.-Mr. McCuaig.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)-That the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 6, be now concurred in, and on the amendment of Mr. Black (Yukon).
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand
that the next item on the order paper is the resumption of the debate we hadi yesterday, and I would crave the indulgence of the house for a moment to clear up a misconception which I think exists in the minds of my hon. friends opposite.
Yesterday in discussing the matter then under debate I did not think it was necessary to indicate to the house that the war expenditures committee-


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared, as I fancy every member of this side of the house was for some announcement by the acting leader of the government on behalf of the government at this time, but if the minister intends now to enter into the sphere of debate with reference to what took place yesterday, I think consent must be withheld.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I think my hon. friend who is leading the opposition will upon reflection agree that this courtesy is ordinarily extended to the Prime Minister or the member of the government who happens for the time being to be leading the house. I did not feel it necessary to make the statement yesterday that the matter would come under the review of the war expenditures committee, because the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) makes it quite clear that everything under the head of war expenditures may come under review.


Gordon Graydon: Again on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the minister to feel that anyone is trying to withhold the ordinary courtesies of debate so far as he is concerned, but he will have the privilege in the debate which is about to be resumed to make all the remarks he wishes to make now. I think, therefore, we must take the position that that is the time when his remarks should be made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say to my hon. friend that I have exhausted my right to speak on the motion.


Gordon Graydon: Then surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not the opportunity of which the minister should avail himself, if he has forgotten to mention something during the debate. That privilege is never accorded. The minister is craving an indulgence that I am sure upon reflection he will not ask us to grant at this time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I still do not agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
Public Accounts


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I have a ruling on the point of order?


Thomas Vien: It is the rule and practice that the leader of the government or whoever is acting on his behalf, if he wishes to make some explanation with regard to matters that are 'before the house, should be given the opportunity to do so. But it is not within the competence. of the acting leader of the government to enter into a new argument with regard to anything that may have occurred in the debate yesterday. I have been waiting to hear what the minister's explanation might be. I think the courtesy should be accorded to him to make a statement. I would like to know what the explanation is.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the debate on this motion has been adjourned on motion of an hon. member of this house, and surely the first thing that happens when the debate is resumed is for that hon. member to have the opportunity to complete his remarks. Surely no acting leader or leader of the government can break into a speech in this way.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order may I point out to the hon. member for Yale that motions have been called. Motions might include twenty or thirty different motions. This particular motion is on the order paper but other motions can be spoken to as well as the one specified1 here. This particular motion has not been called from the Chair. If the minister's statement referred to any controversial matter of debate, my hon. friend's point .might be well taken. But if he is simply giving an explanation which is not controversial I think it would be quite in order for him to do so before this particular order is called.
. Mr. STIRLING: May I again draw your attention, sir, to the fact that the acting leader of the government in his opening remarks referred to the fact that he was dealing with the debate which is about to be resumed.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Yale has stated what is the practice. It might not have been heard by the house, but I did say ''Resuming the adjourned debate," and it was then open to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to continue the debate. But the acting leader of the government !Mr. Crerar.]
rose and said, if I recall it, "By leave of the house I wish to make an explanation in regard to the debate yesterday." That courtesy is usually extended;, and if the minister has an explanation to make on something which the house ought to know about, he might be allowed to make that explanation,


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What I wish to make clear, to remove a misconception which is in the minds of some of my hon. friends opposite, is that the estimate for the wartime information board is in the war-time appropriation; it is included in the resolution that was under discussion the day before yesterday, and in the ordinary course will go to the committee.


Gordon Graydon: Once again on a point of order, I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Pensions and National Health; I believe on this particular occasion he has interpreted the rules correctly, and I am surprised at the acting leader of the government attempting, in view of the rules of the house, now to take part in a debate on a matter in which his position is very clear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite incorrect in that statement.


Gordon Graydon: He is attempting, to use his owin words, to clear up a misunderstanding with respect to a debate which is pending ,and in which he has no further right to speak. That is clear.


Mr. ROWE:: He is trying to clear up what he cluttered up yesterday.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The point which the. acting leader of the government is making now is one which he should make, if he wants to make it, when the debate resumes on this matter this afternoon; that is, as a point of order; but it is certainly not a point he should be allowed to bring up now to- influence the house as an argument in this debate. It is a point of order which he is raising.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not an argument.


Angus MacInnis: This is not the time to raise it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I repeat, it is not an argument.


Mr. NEILL:: On the point of order may I say a word? The acting leader of the government distinctly stated that his object in rising was to state something which he had omitted to state yesterday.

Public Accounts


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Those are the words he used. Hansard will show that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not correct.


Alan Webster Neill: I too have something I
omitted to say yesterday. Shall I be permitted to speak again?


Thomas Vien: The debate will now be continued by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser (Northumberland) that the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 6, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Black (Yukon).
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Last evening I was dealing with a few instances of expenditures under the wartime information board. To-day I intend, after making reference to a few further instances, to deal generally with the question of information and publicity, coming as it does within the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) and seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), wherein it is proposed that a recommendation be made

. . . that said committee have power to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity or in relation thereto by wartime information board and by various governmental departments and boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
I wonder whether I could get some order-


Thomas Vien: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -in accordance with the courtesy I always extend to other hon. members.
I was dealing with certain salaries paid to members of the wartime information board.
I refer now to Mr. McKenna, in charge of external news distribution, receiving a salary of $5,200 a year, and to Mr. L. L. Knott, receiving $4,800 and certain expenses-


Thomas Vien: Order. There is loud conversation through the whole of the chamber. I would ask for silence so that I can follow the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker;-and expenses amounting to $633.25. Another official, the chief of the research section, receives a salary of $6,000 a year and
travelling expenses. There is another executive officer, whose duties relate to publicity matters as they affect French Canada, who receives $5,000 a year, with $782 expenses. Another official, Mr. Andrew, in charge of the media analysis section, receives a salary of $4,500 a year.
The situation is this, that in the first year of the war the former war information board, the bureau of public information, expended $202.672; whereas this new body has expended, during a period of a little over six and a half months, the sum of $579,000.
One would think, having regard to the tremendous increase of expenditure on publicity under this board, there would not be expenditures for publicity in other departments of government. What do we find? Practically every department has its own publicity liaison officers or press agents. According to sessional paper 216, the reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), "How many press agents or liaison officers are there in the employ of the government or any commission or other authority connected, therewith under each separate minister?" a situation is revealed which in my opinion is totally unjustifiable. The only way in which it can be investigated and the proper savings effected is through submission of the accounts and the whole matter of publicity to the public accounts committee.
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned the reply given is that there are three such officials, receiving respectively $5,000-together with actual out-of-pocket living and travelling expenses-$3,600 and $2,600 a year. The Department of Labour has a director of information responsible for the preparation of press material and public information, and who receives $4,500. The Department of Munitions and Supply states that it has no officers whose work is solely liaison, but it names a number of officials who are charged with the preparation of press announcements, of material for radio and screen, compiling, writing and so on, and the number of these is nine. The Department of National Defence has forty-eight persons employed on publicity work, five of whom are civilians and forty-three officers. The five civilians receive salaries of from $3,500 to $6,000 per year. The Department of National Defence for Air has forty-one such officers and officials, of whom six are civilians; one of them, Mr. Clark, receiving $6,500 and actual out-of-pocket expenses while absent from Ottawa; another, Mr. Brown, receiving $5,830 and actual living expenses; another receiving $5,800 per annum; another $4,000; and there are two with salaries of
Public Accounts

$3,500. Then there is the Department of National Defence, with one director and nine liaison officers. The film commissioner has three production liaison officers receiving salaries from $280 per month to $325 per month. The wartime prices and trade board has nineteen press agents.
What does all this mean? It means that during the past few months not only have publicity costs in Canada increased by hundreds of thousands of dollars, but in addition to that there are press agents in all the departments I have mentioned-and I do not think I have covered them all-whose purpose is to assist the press in giving out information to the people of Canada. Having regard to the numbers of these officials, and that many of them must be engaged in the duplication of work, and the obvious possibility of reducing their numbers very greatly if there were any investigation, I submit that there is a sufficient excuse for the submission of this matter to the public accounts committee.
We have arrived at the position in Canada where information is controlled by the government, as it must be during a time of war by censorship regulations, so as to prevent information going out which would be of benefit to the enemy. But there is further control than that. We are controlled to-day until quite often, in the reports that go out, the prime qualification seems to be adulation of the government and everlasting praise of the ministers of the crown. From these departments emanate regularly articles and propaganda, and in my opinion they can be justified only on the ground that praise of the government is to be disseminated. I suggest that if there were a proper investigation of this matter we could save, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, at any rate a very substantial amount of money. A substantial reduction could take place in every department and the result would certainly be no detriment to the government while on the other hand it would be of great benefit to Canada's war effort.
The wartime information board and the other departments connected with publicity should have as their aim and purpose the enlightenment of the Canadian people on the progress of the war, and the desire to arouse determination among Canadians throughout the country, to kindle and to continue to rekindle the fires of patriotism.
I examine the pamphlets that come out from time to time from the various departments and hear some of the broadcasts that are made, and I wonder sometimes if the object is not to use publicity in Canada to-day as a vehicle for the government's own

personal purposes. My hon. friends on the government side will not agree with that. Go from one end of Canada to the other, however, and listen to the conversations that take place; if there is one criticism against the government it is that too often the publicity that is being disseminated is party propaganda.
I ask, what defence has ever been given by any minister of the crown to the allegations that are common in practically the entire press of Canada, that too great expenditures were being made by the wartime information board? It comes under the Prime Minister's department, and he has never offered any defence nor made any justification of the ampunt allowed and the tremendous salaries paid. No minister of the crown has ever defended them. No minister of the crown yesterday defended the expenditures that were being made. The only defence that has been offered at all was the defence by Mr. Grierson, the general manager, in a letter written to the press, in which he said that the salaries that were being paid were in the main defensible, and that there had been a few out-of-line salary expenses but that these had been adjusted. Those who should defend such over-expenditures as are revealed not only in the wartime information board but for publicity in other departments of government as well, should be brought before a committee of parliament and not be given an opportunity of providing thereto only an ex parte defence through the medium of the press of Canada.
I will read what Mr. Grierson said in the article in question. He pointed out that he had not been in the position long, and I am not criticizing him at the moment. What I do know is that these salaries are out of line, and one would have expected the Minister of Finance to be the fir$t to raise strenuous objections to such salaries being paid in war time.


Mr. ILSLEY:: By what standard does the hon. gentleman test the propriety of these salaries?


John George Diefenbaker: I test them by a comparison with the salaries paid men and women in the permanent civil service of Canada who are doing equivalent work. Their salaries do not compare with the salaries paid officials of this department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not a fair comparison.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will have his opportunity to say what a fair comparison is, and that is what we want to

Public Accounts
find out before the public accounts committee. We want to know just why these salaries are being paid and what justification there is for the multiplication of officials in these various publicity branches in the past few months. I was about to quote Mr. Grierson:
Information will be blamed for not solving the division between some people in Quebec and some people elsewhere. ... It will be blamed, for not bridging divisions which are sometimes geographical, racial and religious, but often political.
I suggest that it is the duty of the wartime information board to arouse the people of Canada. That is its responsibility just as it is the responsibility that rests upon all of us. How do pamphlets such as I have in my hand at the moment, issued by the information branch, entitled "Nouvelles Catholiques", in any way contribute to the war effort of the dominion? How can they in any way be considered as proper matters for distribution by the war information board? To whom shall this whole matter be submitted?
The leader of the government, yesterday, when he advocated submission of this matter to the war expenditures committee, in answer to the following pertinent question by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) at page 2816-
Will the minister undertake that if the investigation of matters connected with the operation of the wartime information board is referred to the war expenditures committee, such investigation will be in open and not in secret meetings?
Replied as follows:-
No, I can say at once to my hon. friend that I will' give no such undertaking.
And a little later on

and I wish to be fair-he said this:
And you will find out, in the proper way. But there may be expenditures in connection with the operation of the wartime information board, as there would be in connection with the operation of the defence board, which it would not be in the public interest to divulge at the present time.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the examination of the expenditures in connection with the administration of the board can, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as not in the public interest. "Not in the public interest", has been a term, a vehicle, a medium, dragged into this chamber on so many occasions, and used as a method through which information to which the public is entitled has been denied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was established in the mother of parliaments, as a basic .parliamentary practice.


John George Diefenbaker: True, as the minister has said, "in the public interest", when utilized in the mother of parliaments as an answer to a question asked, invariably suggests and demands the respect of those who receive the answer. They realize that it is not in the public interest. But to ask what justification there may be for these expenditures, and to inquire what savings could be effected, and what expenditures for publicity could be reduced after careful examination, cannot by any stretch of the imagination come within the purview of the defence that it is not in the public interest.
Again I ask the minister: Why deny members of parliament the right to examine these accounts? Why deny them the right which has been theirs for hundreds of years, namely the right to examine expenditures, the right to ask that they be scrutinized? We are offered the right to have these matters submitted to a committee not yet set up, and in any event, to a committee behind closed doors. We should have the right held by members of the British House of Commons, of having investigations in the open, where publicity has the effect of preventing those of like mind from carrying on in a similar fashion. I appeal to the acting leader of the government to-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the hon. member want an answer to the question he has asked?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister may answer later. I appeal to him to give to members of the house their right to have full information and the right to make examination of these expenditures. I demand it in the name of the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other who to-day are saying to us that we are not asserting our rights in failing to demand careful scrutiny of all expenditures.
Only yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that the responsibility for the setting up of the public accounts committee rested upon the opposition.


Mr. GARDINER:: I did not say that at all. I said nothing about setting up the committee. The government sets up the committee. I referred to the calling together of the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said the responsibility rested upon the opposition. Only the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gave a similar lecture to the opposition in regard to another matter. To-day, so that there will be no doubt about the question, on behalf of this official opposition, and speaking with the knowledge and consent of all members in it, I demand the right to which we are entitled-the right of examination, the right to assure the people of
Public Accounts

Canada that every dollar spent shall be fairly and properly spent. We may be told that the public accounts committee, as at present constituted, has not the power to examine into these accounts. Parliament can give it that power. All we are asking is that parliament do give to the committee the right to investigate expenditures which, in amount, have been shocking to many people throughout the dominion.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow rather closely the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has just taken his seat. But before doing so there is a general question which came to my mind when this barrage or attack opened yesterday afternoon. I ask the question on the floor of the house. All hon. members know that the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the one responsible for the wartime information board. We all know the Prime Minister is absent in Washington on very important duties, and I just wonder why the Tory strategists should choose this as the opportune time to launch a bitter and vicious attack upon the expenditures of the wartime information board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hughes Cleaver: Oh, just be patient. My memory went back to some months ago when, in the British House of Commons during the absence of Mr. Churchill, a dastardly attempt was made to stab him in the back. I remember too the welL-deserved rebuke the British House of Commons gave to that performance. And, Mr. Speaker, I prophesy the present performance will suffer the same deserved fate. I cannot, within the rules of this house, state that this is a deliberate attempt to stab the Prime Minister in the back; but I can say this, that I do not believe in Santa Claus, nor do I believe in coincidence. And before I forget, it will be recalled that yesterday the genial leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) offered gratuitously a great amount of advice to the government. May I tender a bit of advice to him, and it is this: I suggest that if he wishes to raise the esteem of the Progressive Conservative party in the minds of the Canadian people he should fire its present board of pin-pricking strategists and appoint a board of strategy whose sole and only purpose will be an honest-to-God effort to win this var.
Obviously the present amendment was purposely timed because it has nothing to do with the motion. The motion was only

the routine motion to permit the committee to have its proceedings printed, and to sit while the house is sitting. Then comes a substantive motion in the form of an amendment-and while the Prime Minister is absent. I do not think much of that kind of courage. In addition, for the benefit of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), w1k>
occasionally has much to say, I will add this: I do not think much of the personal courage-of a member who by innuendo and indirect methods attempts to undermine confidence in any war board at this time. We have not had one specific charge from one member of the opposition that John Doe is not fit for his job or is not doing his job well. We have not had one specific instance of waste. All we have had is a blanket charge that over half a million dollars is being spent in publicizing Canada's war effort and that therefore there must be waste and reckless expenditure of public money. Not one hon. member has had the personal courage to tell this house of one single specific item of waste.
Now I come to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). In his opening remarks, with the very solemn air that distinguishes him, he shook his head and in funereal and pontifical tones stated:
I suggest that this debate has illustrated a point which we in the opposition have been endeavouring to make for a very considerable time.
Then he shook his finger at me. And he went on:
It is that ive, the members of parliament, are denied the opportunity of looking into expenditures, and we are denied it time and again.
My answer to that is not by way of inference or innuendo. I say to the hon. member that in time of war, lip service and lip loyalty are not good enough. I am going to quote to this house from the official record to show the attendance of the Conservative members of the war expenditures committee, these gentlemen who to-day rise in their places and say they are denied the right to check public expenditures. I ask that they be judged by their performance, not by their lip service. I hold in my hand the official record obtained from the clerk of the war expenditures committee, of which both the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member who moved this amendment were members.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: If the hon. member is referring to me he is mistaken.


Hughes Cleaver: They were both members-of the committee in 1941.

Public Accounts


George Black: I was never a member of that committee.


Hughes Cleaver: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I was referring to the mover of the amendment which was ruled out of order. I was entirely wrong, and apologize for my error. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver *South (Mr. Green). Both hon. members were members of the war expenditures committee in 1941, these men who have been denied the right to check war expenditures. Let us look at their actual performance. Every member *of this house knows that we could not possibly cover our work in 1941 while the house was sitting. We had to spend many long, tiresome, hot days in midsummer and fall to complete [DOT]our work.


Mr. GREEN:: Did you get paid for it?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall come to that, too; perhaps that is why the hon. member stayed away, because he said he would not take the pay. Every hon. member knows that during the recess we have our only opportunity of looking after the work in our ridings and taking care of any personal business that requires attention. It is perfectly obvious therefore that an hon. member attends to committee work during the recess at rather serious personal sacrifice. In the light of those circumstances let us look at the record and forget about what they say. There were four Conservative members on the war expenditures committee of 1941. I am not going to mention any names, but two of those hon. members did not attend a single meeting of the committee during the recess.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I rise to a point of order. We are not talking about the attendance at meetings of the war expenditures committee. We are talking about the wartime information board. I submit that the hon. member is entirely out of order in quoting attendance figures in connection with a committee which is not under discussion at all.
, Mr. CLEAVER: I hope this is not being charged against my time, but on the point of order I should like to say this. As I view it, the sole issue before the house is whether we shall refer the question of the cost of operation of the wartime information board to the public accounts committee or the war expenditures committee. Is my hon. friend pressing for a ruling on his .point of order?


George Russell Boucher: Yes, I would like a ruling, because I suggest the matter does not concern the war expenditures committee at all.


Thomas Vien: The amendment reads:
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the public accounts committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that said committee have power to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity or in relation thereto by wartime information board and by various governmental departments and boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
The debate has broadened considerably, and I think the hon. member is within the terms of the amendment.


Hughes Cleaver: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, two of the four Conservative members of the war expenditures committee did not attend one meeting of that committee during the recess; one member was satisfied with a 50 per cent attendance and the fourth hon. member was a faithful attendant. It' is only fair that I should say the Conservative member who attended the meetings faithfully was the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). As to the other three, I shall let them share the honours between them.
Now, coming to the next argument advanced by the opposition against the expenditures of the wartime information board, the hon. member for Vancouver South urged very strongly that the formation of the board was totally unnecessary.


Howard Charles Green: I rise to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Howard Charles Green: Don't be in such- a hurry to shout "sit down." That is all some of you do. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard he will see exactly what I did say, and it was not what he mentioned just now.


Hughes Cleaver: My distinct memory of that-


Howard Charles Green: You have not a very good memory sometimes.


Hughes Cleaver: I am shocked that my hon. friend should contradict me, because it is my distinct memory, and I will leave it to the house-


William Earl Rowe: Leave it to Hansard.


Hughes Cleaver: My recollection is that the hon. member for Vancouver South said we had a very able and efficient press in this country which was quite capable of doing the job without any wartime information board.


Howard Charles Green: Just look up Hansard, and you will see that I did not say that at all.
Public Accounts


Hughes Cleaver: I take it that if I have made any misstatement my hon. friend will correct me, and at that time he may give the exact quotation.


William Earl Rowe: Hansard is more reliable than your memory.


Hughes Cleaver: I think my memory is reasonably good. In reply to that argument, have hon. members forgotten that their own leader and many of their party, times without number in the early years of the war complained that the war effort of this country was not being properly publicized, that it was not understood in other countries and particularly in the United States? After all this criticism and all these protests they were given what they asked for, but still they are not satisfied. I think, however, that one or two things rather indicate that this is just an excuse, not a reason. Not long ago I noticed in the press that the Conservative party, the party that promised to bury politics for the duration, the party that was not going to play politics with a war on, has appointed a party manager. I would like to know what salary is being paid to Mr. Richard Bell. In addition to that they have appointed a publicity manager, taking him from the Bank of Canada, and I understand he is being paid a salary of $10,000 a year.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: At the public expense?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall come to that in a minute. If this government has spent over half a million dollars to publicize the war effort of this country, to let the world know what the war effort of this country has been, to let our own people know what we are doing, the money has been well spent. Any business interest, whether large or small, seeks out the brightest men available to head its sales department and publicity department. It is generally ready to spend thousands of dollars yearly in publicizing its products in order to sell them. The Wrigley chewing gum company spends thousands of dollars annually on sales campaigns. Is the war effort of this country not of more account than the selling of chewing gum?
I thank my hon. friend for his interruption of a few minutes ago. I want to ask him now who is putting up this money for the publicity campaign the Conservative party are putting on in a time of war?


William Earl Rowe: Not the Minister of Finance.


Hughes Cleaver: Was it the barons of Bay street, Toronto, the men who chose the puppet leader they have now? I should like to know

whether the money being spent to publicize the Conservative party during a time of war is money that should be going into the coffers of this government as excess profits to help to win the war?
As I view the matter it settles down to a simple problem. Accusations of waste of public money by the wartime information board have been made. So far as I am concerned, and I think every member of the committee will agree with me, even my hon. friends of the opposition, I contend that since the accusation has been made, the matter should be thoroughly investigated and thoroughly sifted. If there is any extravagance, it should be stopped. The whole issue is whether this problem should be referred to the war expenditures committee or to the public accounts committee.
The argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Lake Centre that the matter should not be referred to the war expenditures committee, and: he gives two reasons which I should like to discuss. In the first place, he says that the meetings of the war expenditures committee are held in camera, whereas the meetings of the public accounts committee are held in public; therefore he believes that the matter should be investigated by the public accounts committee. The reason for this sharp divergence in viewpoint, is a simple one. It all depends on the results that you seek to achieve. If you wish a businesslike investigation along the lines of British practice; if you wish a committee that will sit down and seriously study the problem, search out any extravagance that is going on and curb it; if you wish a committee that will reach a unanimous conclusion, a committee that will do all this work without giving political kudos to anyone, then refer the matter to the war expenditures committee. It may be said that I am prejudiced because I am on the war expenditures committee, but I should like to remind the house of the manner in which this committee functions.
As one illustration I shall quote from one of our reports. When we investigated the operations of the British Commonwealth air training plan in 1941 we checked the efficiency and cost of operating the elementary flying training schools and the air observer schools. The meetings were held in camera, and I have no right to refer to any evidence that was given, but I have the fullest possible right to read from the report of the committee. The short extract from the report which I shall read will indicate clearly to the house the basis upon which the war expenditures committee faces

Public Accounts
any problem in regard to the waste of public money. I am reading from a report dated November 3, 1941, later tabled in the house, as follows:
The subcommitte has carefully considered the question of profits which will be earned by the operating companies.
This refers to the air observer schools.
Partly on account of highly efficient management and partly on account of the pupil intake as fixed by the contract being increased without proportionate increase in management costs it was found that substantial profits were being earned.
What did the committee do? Did they blazon across Canada in the press of this country that the air observer schools and the elementary flying training schools were being operated at a profit three or four times greater than they should receive? Of course we did not do that. What would that have done to the morale of the staffs of these schools which were doing such a wonderful job? We approached the problem in a businesslike manner.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it a fact that they were operating at a cost three or four times greater than they should have been?


Hughes Cleaver: I am coming to that. The report continues:
The subcommittee fully appreciates the fact that the air observer schools are being very efficiently managed and that these schools are performing an important war task and also appreciates the fact that measures of economy should not be permitted to slow up our war effort but as the actual circumstances have altered sharply since the contract was first entered into the subcommittee decided that a conference should be called of executive officers representing all of the schools, that the facts should be frankly placed before them and their cooperation invited. The conference was held on June 4 and as a result the operating companies have all voluntarily offered to agree to a reduction of what is described in the agreement as flying hour profits from $1 per flying hour to 35 cents per flying hour.
That was a reduction of approximately sixty-five per cent in the profits of the air observer schools. That was done without any publicity, without any detrimental effect upon the operation of the schools. It was done immediately, and in part the reduction was made voluntarily on a retroactive basis. That is the way the war expenditures committee functions, and that is the way I submit that it should function. It is not our job to do any mud slinging; it is not our job to slow up the war effort, but it is our job to search out any waste and to see that it is cured and cured as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member point out another example besides the air observer schools?


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friend made a speech, but I thank him for his interruption because it reminds me of something. I quote now from his remarks of yesterday, as reported on page 2823 of Hansard:
Expenditures of five or six billion dollars have been made, and to date the war expenditures committee has not investigated an amount in excess of ten million dollars.
I was positively shocked when I heard that statement. I could not believe my ears. From the inception of the committee I have been chairman of subcommittee No. 1 and I know something of the work of that committee. To make a statement that the whole committee in its two years of service has checked less than ten million dollars of expenditures is simply shocking. I should like to give a short account of what one subcommittee, one-third of the whole committee, has done.
This very last year, 1942, we carefully checked the aircraft programme in this country, a programme running into over 81,000 million. We called into the committee every contract for the production of aeroplanes that has been given in Canada since the outbreak of war. These contracts, totalling over SI,000 million, were divided among the members of the committee, who studied them carefully and reported individually on each contract to the committee. We were not content with that. We called in the director of aircraft production and the solicitors who helped to negotiate these contracts, also five accountants representing the three hundred odd accountants who are constantly busy in the Department of Munitions and Supply auditing, cost accounting and the like, and on top of that, Mr. Speaker, your subcommittee visited every plant manufacturing aeroplanes in Canada, except one. At the time of our visit we took evidence from the executive officers, the manager and secretary-treasurer of these plants. That whole production programme was carefully checked, and notwithstanding the fact that we had two Conservative members on the committee and one Social Credit member, all of whom made a real contribution to the work of the committee, we brought in a unanimous report.
In addition to that, we checked the work of wartime housing, -which at the time of our check ran into an expenditure of over forty million dollars, and we brought in a unanimous report on that.


George Russell Boucher: An interim report.


Hughes Cleaver: No, we brought in an interim report on shipbuilding. We went part way in checking the programme of building cargo ships.
Public Accounts


George Russell Boucher: Does the hon. member say that we did not bring in an interim report on wartime housing? Will he not admit that it was just an interim report?


Hughes Cleaver: I would refer hon. members to the report. Personally I think it was a complete one down to date. If my hon. friend has anything to add. I know he will not be too bashful to say it.
In spite of the fact that one-third of the membership of the committee last year checked over one thousand million dollars of expenditure, the hon. member had the temerity yesterday afternoon to rise in his place in this house and state that the reason why the present charges of extravagance should not be referred to the war expenditures committee was that we had so far checked less than ten million dollars of expenditure. I say to him in all sincerity that the temporary advantage which he obtained when making that statement yesterday afternoon is far out-weighed by the remorse he must now feel.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I said, and I repeat, that while there was a widespread taking of evidence, not over ten million dollars of contracts were investigated, and in that statement I believe I exaggerated on the side of liberalism.


Hughes Cleaver: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member was not present. I say that these contracts were checked. They are on record. They are filed as exhibits and can be seen at my office if the hon. member wishes to see them as a member of the house.
Right here I want to pay tribute to the member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), the member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), and the member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), the three opposition members on the committee. They all took their part in the checking. These contracts were handed out to different members of the committee and a lot of real hard work was done on them.
I have already outlined the other steps we took. I will also say this, and I challenge any member of the subcommittee to contradict it. The fullest possible information was obtained on every occasion. Every member of the committee was given the fullest latitude in asking questions. No information was denied us. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house, that we made the best check that we could of the different subjects that were referred to us, and we brought in a unanimous report. If there was anj'thing wrong with 
our report, why did not the Conservative members dissent and bring in a minority report? They did not dissent, because they agreed with everything that we did.
I suggest to you. sir, that the members of the house who now want to refer the checking of the expenditure of the wartime information board to the public accounts committee are not very much interested in economy. I do not think they are interested in anything but political advantage, and mighty temporary advantage at that.
For the reasons I have outlined, I intend to Vote against the amendment, and I would urge every member of the house to think seriously before he would send this matter to the public accounts committee in view of the record of the public accounts committee in the past. Just where did you get with your Bren gun inquiry? Just where did you get with the Thompson rug inquiry? Does it help Canada's war effort to put on a bear-garden performance? So far as I am concerned I am utterly opposed to a board which up to date has done a good job for Canada being kicked around as a political football.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). My contention is that the people of this country need much more information on this wartime information board. We should like to know the reason why some administrators' orders are not published as they should be. Everybody knows that all these orders constitute the law of the land, because it has been decided that they are just as binding as any order in council; and as nobody is supposed to ignore the law I contend that these orders should receive the utmost publicity so that the people will have a chance of knowing what is forbidden by law and what is not.
As regards the order A-317, passed on the 30th day of July, 1942, we should like to inquire from the wartime information board why it has not received the same publicity as the other orders. We should like to inquire why it has not been translated into French. We should also like to inquire from the board whether this order A-317 has not been given the same publicity as the others because it induces people to commit crimes-and I mean what I say.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Will the hon. member let us know what the order is?

Public Accounts


Frédéric Dorion: I am coming to that. This order deals with the manufacture, sale and distribution of condoms. Section 1 of the order reads in part as follows:
1. For the purposes of this order,
(d)	"primary importer" shall mean the importer or wholesaler who first takes delivery in Canada of any shipment of condoms imported from outside Canada;
(e)	"wholesaler" shall mean any person who buys, deals in, sells and distributes condoms to any retailer and who does not, in the ordinary course of business, sell such goods at retail;
(f)	"retailer" shall mean any person who, either from a retail store or as a hawker or pedlar, sells condoms otherwise than for the purpose of resale.
Section 7 of the same order reads as follows:
Nothing in this order shall be construed as prohibiting:
(a)	a manufacturer from continuing to sell any condoms which he had in stock as at the date hereof; and
(b)	a wholesaler from continuing to sell any condoms which he had in stock as at the date hereof.
(e) a retailer from continuing to sell any condoms which he had in stock as at the date hereof.
This word is known everywhere, and it has been defined as "a contraceptive shield." I have here a book written by Doctor Ryberg, of Toronto, and at page 112 he states:
The condom is not only for protection against disease, but as a precaution against pregnancy.
And, at page 155:
The condom. The word "contraceptive" may be applied to any preparation or appliance that can be used by either the man or the woman to prevent conception. The appliance perhaps most in use throughout the world is the "condom".
Finally. Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the criminal code, section 207:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse, . . .
(c)	offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means or instructions or any medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a means of preventing conception. . . .
That is a provision of the criminal code. This is why it would be important to know from the wartime information board if instructions have been given by somebody to hide this order No. A-317, because it is altogether contrary to the provisions of the criminal code.
Mr. .T. L. CHURCH (Broadview): In rising to take part in the debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), I wish to express my entire disagreement with what has just been said by the hon. member for Hal ton (Mr. Cleaver) regarding those who sit on this side of the house. Since the war started I have never known of any "politicians" in our group; we are trying to help the government so long as they conduct a total war effort.
I have known the hon. member for Halton a long time. I knew his father. I remember the hon. member as a young lawyer who practised after the war, I believe in Burlington. I think he was a reeve, and afterwards became mayor, in 1920. At the time, we were negotiating the so-called Hamilton highway from Toronto to Hamilton, and our city gave forty per cent of the money towards it. The hon. member represents a traditionally Conservative seat. I have had a great deal to do with the county council and municipalities of the county of Halton in connection with removing franchises affecting light, power and transportation, in Ontario as head of the municipalities, and so securing the people of that county some relief. It was a Conservative administration which gave his riding the privileges they enjoy to-day in regard to light, power and transportation.
The more I reflect on the question before the house, the more I am convinced that this whole problem of publicity and the wartime information bureau should not go to the public accounts committee at all. A royal commission should be appointed to investigate the waste of money which has gone on since the war began in respect of publicity and information bureaus.
The hon. member for Halton, in attacking those on this side, said that he has heard a Conservative publicity man is being paid $10,000 a year, and he asks, who is paying him? I ask him, if that is so, why does he not tell the house and the country who is paying him? Why not do something along those lines? Why does he not say something about the funds collected in connection with the Beauharnois scandal? I fought this deal for many years in the house, and, very largely owing to my opposition-at the start, alone-they later got me out of the house for two or three years.
I have opposed, consistently since this war started, the creation of boards such as this. The board is an utter waste of money. It is duplicating work which is being done by the press and radio of this country. In England the same trouble arose since the war in connection with the information bureau and the British broadcasting corporation. Complaints first arose when hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling were spent in dropping leaflets over Germany. Then the BBC had Mr. Peterson, who had said a few months before
Public Accounts

the war broke out that anyone who proposed rearmament should be committed to gaol for life and given bread and water. That is the kind of thing which was doled out to the British people, with the result that Britain threw away her defences and her friends and faced not only insult and invasion but almost extinction as a nation.
The amendment proposes to recommit the report to the public accounts committee and enable them to go into all moneys spent on publicity, not only by the board but by various government departments, including the military service departments. I have no quarrel with hon. gentlemen opposite; far from it. Many of them are among the best men who have attained public experience in municipal work, and came here from that fine service. My old friend the chairman of the standing orders committee was a splendid head of a municipality. The young member for Halton has come up along the same road. I am very much surprised at his remarks, because he must know that an acid test of dictatorship is the policy of muzzling the press by force and controlling the sources of information. The press is in a double sense, as I said before, an intermediary between the government and the people. It provides a channel by which ministers can keep the electors informed of their activities, and it also serves as a kind of barometer by which the government can gauge the feeling of the country. A press, subject to official pressure will give a wholly false impression of public opinion. The correspondence columns of a great newspaper reflect public opinion, or should do so; they should not refuse to publish letters which may be contrary to the editorial policy of the paper. Without a free press, dictatorships usurp power and we see the results in the axis countries to-day.
I might point out to the hon. member for Halton that his and many other county councils are complaining about the extravagance of governments, dominion, provincial and municipal. I have talked with some of the municipal authorities of that fine county, and I can tell you that the people of that county and others in Ontario are complaining about the action of parliament in these matters.
What is the public accounts committee for? Are only the majority to obtain a hearing? Where do the minority come in? The two old parties are on trial at the bar of public opinion; so indeed are hon. gentlemen to the left and every member of this house. The public hold us responsible when we hand over control to boards of all kinds which spend money like water. Much money has been spent.with no effort to stop it. The auditor general's hands are tied behind his back,

although he is an officer of parliament. Then another official, the comptroller of the treasury, is appointed, and likewise his hands are tied behind his back; these men can do nothing, they are just officials of the treasury department. People are beginning to lose confidence in us as members and in the way we do business here because we allow such conditions as this, permitting our rights and powers and privileges to be taken from us and handed over to public bodies which can raise the prices of coal and food and everything else, though not one dollar of their expenses can be accounted for to this house, which is supposed to vote and control the money.
The issue before the public accounts committee to-day is, are we getting value for our money, or are we spending money like water, much of it not for the war effort. What check have we over expenditures? If any municipal council spent money as we do it would go bankrupt in no time. The municipal governments have auditors to check every dollar that is spent. They are required by law to have such a check on expenditures. Moreover, the treasurer is sworn and so is the mayor. They are sworn to conduct the business of the municipality in a proper manner and to see that the people get value for the money they pay in taxation. I remember visiting the county of Halton at the time the people in that municipality voted on public ownership bylaws for light, power and transportation, and were relieved from the powers that be. The privately-owned utilities authorities had a strangle-hold on them and they got free.
I object to the information that is given by the wartime information board. We have got into an unseemly wrangle over this whole question, which could have been avoided if the government had gone about the matter in a sensible way and decided to refer it all to the public accounts committee. In England they have reduced their estimates for the work of disseminating information. There is a pile of literature two feet high in Canada collected by the wartime information board and it is distributed to the newspaper offices. It goes to the editorial rooms of the rural papers, and the irony of it is that some rural editors are being put out of business. The small newspaper man to-day has not a chance. The rural newspapers in former days represented the great body of wise, independent thought in the country, but they have been practically put out of business by government agencies. There are some excellent old, reputable newspapers, Liberal, . Conservative, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Social Credit, which have been driven to the wall by controls, so that a man

Public Accounts
cannot, from the commercial aspect, conduct an honest newspaper in an honest way for the good of the people. These newspapers have suffered in two wars and a long depression with increased costs, from the reflection cast upon them by the government through the appointment of an information bureau to fulfil the function that has been that of the newspaper from time immemorial.
I object to these expenditures. I fancy that most of the information that comes from the board goes into the waste-paper basket which is the most useful piece of furniture in any office I know of for a great deal of literature published by the board. I do not wish to reflect in any way upon the committee, because I have a great many friends on that committee, good members of parliament. They do the best they can, but I am bound to say that I found it necessary to resign because I did not believe that it would do the work for which it was intended. I was a member of the committee and I resigned.
Years ago I played my part in protecting an investment of $100,000,000 of public funds spent by the city of Toronto in connection with a great project there in light, power and transportation, and I can assure you that those of us who were charged with safeguarding the public at that time insisted upon a perfect audit and safeguard of all the moneys that were spent. It could not be shown that one dollar had been misspent, and we had inquiries conducted into the development of the harbour and other utilities in order to make sure that no money would be wasted and not a dollar misspent in an honest administration. The same is true of the work that was done in connection with the development of light, power and transportation facilities. I suggest that if we adopted the same principle here that the municipalities have it would bring satisfactory results.
Yesterday the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) made a reference to me. He mentioned something about the coalscuttle and suggested that I had brought up that question. I simply mentioned it to show that the farmers wanted value from their government for the money they paid in taxes. The coal-scuttle is also a useful thing. I know it has been useful to me as a receptacle for much of the information that comes from this board. The Minister of Pensions and National Health might also find it serviceable for some of the information that has been going around, such as, for instance, .the rumour that was heard about everyone paying 50 cents each for social
security and receiving in return food, clothing, everything that was needed, and at least one bottle of medicine for the week-end.
Take some of the information that this board hands out. About a week after the Dieppe raid we saw a long white sheet of paper from the bureau with a heading something like this, "The Yanks did it." That is a name that I would not use with reference to our great ally, but the information bureau used it. But the point is that the information the bureau gave was wrong, because Mr. Churchill made a statement in the British House of Commons on September 8 and again on September 11, on Armistice day, in which he showed what Canada had done, and who was responsible for the raid. So that the information given by the bureau did not represent the facts; it was false. I am sorry I have not the pamphlet here; if I had I would quote it.
There is another institution known to-day as the Gallup poll. It is all gallop and no poll. No one is taking any poll. In fact, the polls are all Liberal newspapers or government agencies within newspaper offices. I have a great deal of respect for a good Liberal and I have voted for some in municipal elections. I know many fine people who are Liberals. I believe, however, that they take their politics too seriously, especially in the public accounts committee. My hon. friend, the member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), made a good speech, but I may say that his father, whom I knew for a long time, had, when I knew him, a different view of these questions. I think it would be a good thing if the two main parties would revise these heavy public expenditures and protect the treasury. There are some wise public policies I believe in, namely, always tell the people the truth. Never be afraid of telling the public that you have made a mistake. The people do not expect their leaders to be gods. Trust the people and they will trust you, and never legislate against human nature.
In my opinion this debate will do a lot of good. None of us want to hang around here much longer, and. personally I should like to see the house close up in another month. It would certainly be a godsend to most of us because I think that most of us want to get away from this place, seeing that we have no power left with war being blamed for all these controls. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said yesterday, and I agree with him, that we might as well put a padlock on the door of the House of Commons for all the good we can do, with all our rights and privileges denied us.
Public Accounts

I have never read anything to compare with this return that has been brought down here, sessional paper 176, on this information bureau. Just think of it: 84,500 to a housemaster! I do not know of any school that could afford to pay him that salary. The principal of a large high school, with two or three thousand pupils under his supervision, would not get that sum. The main objection to this institution is that the publicity bureau does not give correct information and it duplicates the better done work of newspapers. The Gallup poll started about the same time as they did, but I do not know of any cabinet minister or any member of parliament who has a vote. I am glad to see the acting Prime Minister looking so well; I do not know whether he has a vote on the Gallup poll or not, or if he is on the voters' list. If he has it must keep him galloping around the [DOT] country to record his vote. The truth is that it is very largely a newspaper or information board or government invention, and most of those who take part in it have some affiliation with some newspapers supporting the government. The poll is under no government regulation.
Then there is the censorship board. I suggest that the sooner this useless censorship board' is abolished the better for everyone. Many of its employees are running to the newspaper offices and whenever anything is criticized here they try to prevent any word of it getting into the newspapers. Personally, I do not mind saying that I am past the stage of this game where it matters to me whether my name appears in the newspapers or not. It makes no difference whatever to me whether I am reported in the newspapers or not so long as I know that I have done my duty. When Mr. Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaks, he tells the people the plain truth; he does not mince his words and the people listen to him and trust him.
The other day Mr. Bracken announced that there would be a considerable reduction in the estimates of the British information bureau for this year. I might refer to a saying of Lord Salisbury in this connection. He said once of his colleague, the Duke of Devonshire, that, to show his impartiality, he could talk one way and vote another. That is what we have seen in the last session or two. Those who opposed the plebiscite rose in their places and voted for it.
Then we have these so-called information bureaus. They are established, and a lot of what they do is wrong. A good many have been sent to New York. Reference was made yesterday to Mr. Casey, or "Casey at the bat,"

who has now gone to parts unknown. I understand he has become the head of Republican publicity for a political party, but at one time he was on the payroll here at a salary of $13,320, with $2,836 living allowance and S800 travelling expenses. Another gentleman was Mr. Lash of the Canadian National Railways. I should say that gentleman has done more for disunity in Canada during the past two years than anyone else I know, since the figures he issued from the information bureau with respect to enlistments in military districts were proved to be wrong.
Then, there is another gentleman, a great favourite of the publicity bureau. I do not know why he was even sent out to Canada, but the information bureau, or that part of it having to do with publicity, has been issuing his speeches and paying for them out of public funds. This is the gentleman who was asked to take the salute the other day in England by two or three brigades, composed of men. some of whom came from Toronto, the city I represent, and from other parts of Canada. This gentleman is being boomed by the bureau, and more or less by the government in Canada, for what I do not know. I would say that what the information bureau should have said about him is that recently Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Britain's trade commissioner, whom this bureau supports, has been going around the United States and Canada, and making speeches in England about Canada. He has been taking salutes. This is the same gentleman who, after the war broke out-possibly a year after-went to see Lord Craigavon, the Prime Minister of Ulster, and said over there that he was quite willing to make military arrangements. Lord Craigavon was willing to make those arrangements, but Mr. de Valera would not agree to back Ulster up, so that Eire left Ulster in the British empire to fight alone, and Eire became neutral. Malcolm MacDonald went to Ireland and put pressure upon Ulster to agree to some such neutrality arrangement. When we think of the facts of the case, it is monstrous that a British cabinet minister and British newspapers could be found to urge this course on Ulster, when the mother country was being bombed'-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think the hon. member is in order, and certainly he is not using his customary good taste in making these references to an accredited representative of Great Britain in Canada.


Mr. CHURCH:: The acting Prime Minister need not jump to conclusions too quickly. I said the information bureau had been publishing speeches of this trade commissioner, and that the radio commission which is owned and

Public Accounts
controlled by the government had been making them available. These statements, as to Mr. MacDonald, were made in the Natiorial Review in August, 1940, a great newspaper, and a strong supporter of the Churchill government. Mr. Churchill, the great Prime Minister of a great country sent him to Canada and got rid of him. We have the published speeches of one who wanted to divide the empire in its darkest hour.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take exception to that. The hon. member has no right to make a reference in the way he has to the representative of Great Britain in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quote paragraph 305 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says, in part:
305. All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary.


Thomas Vien: I did not hear the hon. member clearly, but if he was referring to the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada, and making offensive remarks regarding him, I am sure he will withdraw such remarks.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I always
accept your rulings. I have no desire to reflect upon the gentleman, as British ambassador-and as a matter of fact he is not British ambassador; he is a trade commissioner.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Thomas Langton Church: The country to which I refer, namely Northern Ireland,- was part and parcel of Great Britain. What I was objecting to was the publishing by the bureau of information of certain information which was not correct. However I shall not dwell further upon that point.
So far as this country is concerned we have our own newspaper representatives going to the United States. I understood no references to race or religion were to. be made in parliament. I never have made them. And yet I find one document issued by the publicity bureau, in one language, and put out free by the wartime information board, from its distribution branch in Ottawa, April 24, 1943, a religious publication of only one religion. I know nothing about any similar pamphlets put out at government expense by the Baptist church, the Presbyterian church, the United church, or the Anglican church, or any other church; but certainly one particular church alone seems to be favoured
by this board. I believe if money is to be spent on church news, all should be given equal treatment.
One of the Canadian editors sent by the bureau went to the United States and at Washington, in lauding the war effort of that country, made the statement over the United States radio and was reported in the press to the effect that the improvement in Anglo-American relations could be attributed in part to the victories in North Africa by General Montgomery's eighth army. He said, in part:
I think Americans, and Canadians to a lesser extent, were prone to believe that British generals were a lot of brass hats and that the British Tommy had lost his fighting spirit.
What kind of information is that to give to the people in the United States at this time, and particularly when it is all wrong? Seventy-six per cent of General Montgomery's eighth army that marched 1,600 miles across Africa came from the British isles. Ninety per cent of General Alexander's army came from the British isles, and the other ten per cent from the dominions, particularly New Zealand, Australia, India and South Africa. So that it is not I who needs to be mor.e careful, but rather the people on the board. I never state anything but facts I believe to be true. I know all I have said to-day is true. I have the information to back up what I say.
Then, there are departmental bureaus, some of which have been travelling to Los Angeles and Great Britain. The Canadian people are assured of most prompt and expensive reports according to one of these gentlemen. Joseph Clark, a publicity expert for the three forces, is in England as chief of the information bureau, to build up a new news system. He is a fine young gentleman personally, but a mint of money is being spent like water. I think, however, that he goes too far.
What sums of money have been spent by this bureau since the start, I do not know, in payment for drawing-room accommodation, compartment accommodation, railway fares, hotel expenses, and expenditures for meals and refreshments, both within and without Canada. I believe also the government is making a great mistake. C-onsorship should have been abolished long ago. Why should friends of this country be misled? Are we to follow the dictatorships in that respect? Of what use is this censorship? Some hockey reporters who have never had any training in defence matters, or foreign affairs, are made censors. They are engaged to act as censors and to control the work of
Public Accounts

skilled newspapermen in our own press gallery. I can tell you this, that that is one thing that is going on.
Then, I hold, in my hand a pamphlet entitled "Dieppe", by Bob Bowman. The radio corporation is just as bad as the information bureau. We are told in this pamphlet that "our losses in Dieppe were not in vain". This was issued after the Dieppe raid and circulated throughout Canada. As opposed to that we have Mr. Churchill's speeches in the House of Commons on September 8 and on Armistice day, last November, in which he gave full information.
How long this will go on I do not know, but it is going on now. And1 I contended at the first meeting of the public accounts committee that the expenditures in connection with the victory loan campaigns should be before the committee. I believe that in war time certain principles are fundamental; namely, that the country should come first and that nothing should stand in the way of the public good and the public safety. I have always believed that the possession of private property is a vital factor at any time, and I suggest that all this talk about what is to come after the war is over is a waste of time, because it will never come true. Neither victory nor any amount of planning will ever bring about the millennium.
I believe the set-up of this information bureau is all wrong and that it should be changed immediately or abolished, along with the censorship regulations. We do not hear very much from these publicity and information bureaux or the radio commission about Empire day; there is hardly a word to be heard about this empire. Are we to allow it to go by the board so far as these publicity boards and radio commissions are concerned? I say no, and I believe the time has come when they must reform their ways or be abolished in the interests of the, country.
There are many other matters to which I might refer, but I think I should conclude because there are others who will want to take part in this debate. I believe there are matters in connection with these aeroplane plants which should be examined by the public accounts committee. If something is not done before the war comes to a close it will be found almost impossible to obtain reasonably speedy settlement of the accounts due business men in connection with these aeroplane and munition factories when the "cease work" comes. There should be a standard form of accounting, and all that sort of thing. So far as the soldiers 
are concerned, they are nowhere. They are working over there for $1.30 a day, including some very fine newspaper men, while we are carrying on this publicity and censorship here.


Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: anyone wishes to begin an investigation before the public accounts committee, a representation in the press can be taken as sufficient ground for the instituting of a public inquiry.
I happen to be a member of the public accounts committee. I was also a member of the steering committee. This question came before the steering committee at the conclusion of a sitting which lasted about an hour and a half. When the matter of investigating the wartime information board had been discussed for some time the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) raised the objection which I am' raising now. We were informed then that it was merely a recommendation and that the recommendation could be debated in the committee. I understood, and I believe the hon. member for Huron-Perth understood, that we would be at liberty to debate the question and bring forward our own views with regard to the advisability of asking the house for an extension of our authority. The matter did come before the committee as a recommendation to ask the House of Commons for authority to investigate the wartime information board, and on that occasion I moved in amendment that consideration of the recommendation of the steering committee be deferred until such time as the committee had made substantial progress in the examination of the auditor general's report, which had been referred to the committee by the House of Commons.
The position I took at that time was that our primary responsibility was to investigate and examine the public accounts and to make a report thereon. When we had accomplished the reference that had been made to us by the' House of Commons would be sufficient time for us to come back to the house to ask for further authority. The question was submitted and other members took part in the debate, some of them taking exactly the same position. It was thought that first things should be 'first, that having accepted the responsibility we should discharge that responsibility before, we sought other fields. The question was debated for an hour or an hour and1 a half, and then it was put to the committee and the. amendment was carried. That was the position taken by all members who voted for the amendment. Because we took that position we have been pilloried in the press. We have been accused by hon. members of this house of a desire to conceal or to cover up something. I do not care what the Toronto Globe and Mail may say about me in an editorial-that paper has become famous for I Mr. McNiven.]
its well known policy of looking after its own-but I do care when the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) reads this editorial into the pages of Hansard and thereby assumes personal responsibility for what is contained therein. I do care when the hon. member for Souris uses language such as this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Entirely out of order in an.y event.


Donald Alexander McNiven: After reading the edi-' torial, here is what the hon. member said:
I should not want it to be 'supposed across this country that I am regarded in the light of a rubber stamp on such a committee.
I protest against the implication contained in that statement, that members who supported the amendment should be regarded as rubber stamps. I likewise protest against this further statement:
If the argument of the leader of the government to-day is sound, that this is all to the good, why is there this concerted effort to prevent investigation of its accounts?
There is no concerted effort by any supporters of this government to prevent an investigation. The hon. member goes on, in the middle of the same page, to say:
I say that that is a deliberate effort on the part of these members, and it has been repeated, and when you get these reports they will speak for themselves and to some extent establish this fact.
I protest against an hon. member imputing' motives and attributing conduct not worthy of a member of the House of Commons to a large number of tbp members of the public accounts committee who supported the amendment. Their support of the amendment meant only this: First things first; when given a responsibility fulfil that responsibility; do your duty and do not go out chasing rainbows, will-o'-thS-wisps and something else that will get a lot of publicity for you in some papers throughout the country.
There is a duty on the public accounts committee, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) outlined that duty yesterday afternoon so far as the members of the opposition are concerned. I can verify what he said with regard to the attitude of oppositions during the time I was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature. Seldom, if ever, did the public accounts committee meet there, and when it did meet it invariably met at the request of some of us who were government, supporters. The Minister of Agriculture also told the house that during the five years he was leader of the opposition in the legislature the public. accounts committee met every year

Public Accounts
and examined1 the public accounts. I should have pointed out that there was a Tory government in power at that time. The public accounts committee met in each of the five years that government was in power.
But the Minister of Agriculture did not tell the whole story. Because of the result of its investigations, because of the leadership of the opposition at that time, when that government went to the country on the 19th day of June not a single supporter of the government was returned to power, not a single candidate of the government was elected. From those remarks the opposition here may get some hope. If they examine into the public accounts as carefully as they can, they might get some results. I am quite confident, however, that the results will never be as they were in Saskatchewan, that no effort on their part will be able to duplicate the accomplishment in Saskatchewan.
I do not know very much about the wartime information board, but I do know this, that right from the inception of the war the critics of the government were very industrious in pointing out that Canada's war effort was not being properly portrayed, not being understood, not being given sufficient publicity. Speaker after speaker in 1939, 1940 and 1941, and even last year, pointed out that our war effort was not understood in Great Britain, not understood in the United States. The government made many efforts to meet what was a difficult situation, and finally the wartime information board was set up under Mr. Vining, whom I do not know, but who I understand is a distinguished newspaper man in Canada with a more than national reputation. Mr. Vining headed the board until he had to retire on account of ill health. He was later succeeded by Mr. John Grierson.
Statements have been read into Hansard with regard to expenditures and also with regard to salaries of the wartime information board. Some of these salaries may be out of line; I do not know whether they are or not. The one that was held up to us for criticism was that of Mr. Casey, who I understand is a national, if not an international publicist. He managed the publicity for the New York World's Fair and also for Mr. Wendell Willkie in the 1940 presidential campaign. His occupation with the wartime information board in New York was only of a few months' duration, and he resigned, I understand, to take the responsible position of chief publicity agent for the Grand Old Party in the United States. The Grand Old Party is the nearest counterpart in the United States to the Conservative party in Canada, or the Progressive Conservative party, if they so desire.
Mr. Grierson made a statement indicating that some adjustments were necessaiy and that he had made those adjustments. But he has not had sufficient time to outline and put into effect any changed programme he may have in mind. Be that as it may, the opposition have a course of action open to them. If they think the matter is of sufficient importance and they have the knowledge which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie -King) said was a prerequisite, they can move a substantive motion for the appointment of a special committee to examine into the matter. Second, they can support the motion to appoint the war expenditures committee and have this item referred to it. Third, they can join with other members of the house in relieving the public accounts committee of its responsibility to examine into the public accounts and the auditor general's report, but until such time as that is done I for one intend to vote for the motion and to get along with our work as rapidly as possible and put ourselves in a position to carry out that reference, namely, to examine and investigate the public accounts and the auditor general's report, and make a report thereon.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had been in the house yesterday I think he would have accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) because, speaking in the house on March 8, as reported at page 1037 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:	[DOT]
I have already said that the public accounts committee has the full right to inquire into anything which its members may ask to have investigated. On that committee are hon. members representing all parties in this house. It is true that it contains a majority of government supporters, but the people of this country are going to take account of whether the majority does or does not do v'hat is right.
I think the interpretation placed on the Prime Minister's remarks as to a member knowing of something being wrong is farfetched. I would remind the house that the people of this country have just subscribed over one and a quarter billion dollars. Like other members of the house I offered my services to the war finance committee in my constituency, and during the Easter recess I was introduced in the various communities by citizens who did not share my political views. In each community I tried as well as I could to impress upon the people the importance of cooperating in the victory loan. I answered some questions in the minds of the people as to whether we have any extrava-

Public Accounts

gance in Canada, whether any public funds are being wasted. I told them that it was hardly possible with an expenditure of five and a half billion dollars in the present year that there would not ibe some extravagances, some moneys wasted, but I said that I did not know of a single member of the cabinet who would not welcome information from members of parliament or people in the country as to specific cases of waste.
I think it is disturbing to see this debate continue for two afternoons now, with supporters of the government stubbornly refusing to have this particular question referred to the public accounts committee. I have personally a great deal of respect for the work which has been done by the wartime information board. I believe this debate does a great injustice to the board. While the points of procedure which are raised are understood by members of this house, the people of Canada find it difficult to understand why an expenditure of half a million dollars is not referred to a properly constituted committee of the house for full consideration. I believe that some of the men who are trying to bring to the attention of the people of Canada, the United States and Great Britain the problems of Canada and its part in this conflict are doing an essential job.
A return was brought down on March 29 containing the names of some of the dollar-a-year men who are giving their services. I do not propose to discuss these men; but the salaries which are being paid to them by their companies, would, I imagine, make some of the salaries paid to employees of the wartime information board look like chicken-feed. Those who are making a contribution by the use of the pen are doing an important and essential job. The wartime information board could very well come before a parliamentary commission, give in public the story of what they are doing, and answer satisfactorily many of the questions which hon. members might feel like asking. But the refusal to have this information given in public, the determination to have the investigation referred to a committee which will sit in camera, while the people are kept in suspense for six months or a year in regard to this particular question, is very bad, coming just at the conclusion of the magnificent response which was made by the people of this country to the war loan.
I appeal to ministers to accept, even at this stage, the amendment of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black), let us get on with the business of the house, and take a chance on the conduct of the wartime information board being above board and that the money which has been spent can be accounted for in a satisfactory manner.


Vincent Dupuis: Listening to the arguments of hon. members opposite, one would be inclined to conclude, if one listened only to them, that the government is refusing investigation of public-expenditures and is trying, as someone said, to-hide extravagance from the eyes of the public. It seems to me that most of this long debate has been outside the question altogether as I understand it. In my humble opinion this matter of public expenditure can be divided, as the acting Prime Minister explained yesterday, into two grounds, which cover the whole matter of public expenditure. First, there is the public accounts committee, which is a committee of the house ready to sit during the session and to which is referred and can be referred any expenditure contained in the auditor general's report. Second, there is the war expenditures committee, which was formed, if I remember well, upon the suggestion of the then leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). These two committees can investigate to the last dollar any expenditure which the government is making in this country. Consequently all this long debate about this thing not being done and this other thing being evaded by the government seems to me wholly useless, because ail the expenditures of the government can be investigated by these two committees. Why, -then, so long a discussion?
One argument which has been advanced is that the committee on war expenditures sits in camera. I am not sure, but perhaps, if the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) were carried, the first ones to regret it would be the members of the-Conservative party. Since the beginning of the war we members of the Liberal party have been advised and notified officially that during the war there shall be no political interference-in war expenditures, war appointments or military promotions. We have followed that instruction strictly and faithfully since the beginning. What has happened? Due to our obedience to the order of the government all these boards, the civil service, and the commissions, are flooded with Conservatives, and with many citizens adhering to the other opposition parties. Therefore, if the public accounts committee is authorized, as the amendment requests, to make investigation of expenditures, it will be of expenditures and extravagances by Tories in these commissions and filling these other appointments. I repeat that the first to regret it will be those who are trying so strenuously to obtain it.


Gordon Graydon: You cannot complain that we are not fair, then, on that.


Vincent Dupuis: I am, as we all are, in favour of public investigation. If there is one member

Public Accounts
who is anxious that there shall be no abuses, whatever the regime, it is the member for Chambly-Rouville. I have fought all my life for that principle. All hon. members are anxious that the public moneys shall be spent properly. But this is altogether outside the question. Nobody is refusing to investigate; nobody is trying to evade questions of possible extravagance in public expenditures. Everyone on this side is anxious that these matters shall be investigated. But it is better that an investigaton relating directly or indirectly to the war should be carried on by the war expenditures committee, which sits in camera.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) has discovered a marvellous reason in favour of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). He says that there is one order in council which was not published or printed in French by the wartime information board and th&t this order in council sets out the method by which conception can be prevented, and he is particularly anxious that the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon should carry because, then, this method would be given publicity, as was done by himself on the floor of the house, through the public accounts committee, which is public. The hon. member reminds me of the minister of a church who, in the pulpit, might point his finger at someone as the owner of a disorderly house. The next week the house is full of new customers because it has been given a free advertisement. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is to-day giving a free advertisement to that process whereby it is possible to control birth, and he is a Catholic. I never thought that the hon. member, who is a lawyer and is therefore conversant with the arts of polemics and logic, would advance such ideas in this house.


Frédéric Dorion: What do you do with the criminal code?


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member has published, through the house, the fact that a certain class of people in this country, notwithstanding the criminal code, are able to buy these devices, and he is informing the public that what has been done by a certain class can be done by the rest.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member, I would point out, is far outside the scope of the amendment.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish to abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I respect your good judgment. With all due respect to Your Honour, however, I was just referring to an argument advanced by a member of this
72537-180}
house, and I was contending that if there is only one reason why we should refer all expenditures, directly or indirectly concerned with the war, to the war expenditures committee, we have the reason just advanced by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.
But there is another consideration that we must not lose sight of, namely, comfort to the enemy. I have listened very carefully, whenever it has been possible for me to be in the house, to discussions relating to the war, and it seems to me that we take too many liberties with regard to many facts concerning the war, facts that are freely stated on the floor of the house. If we want to help to win the war. I do not think we should allow anything related to the war, even abuses that may have been committed by a single official, even if he is a Tory, or by a single board, to go to the public by referring such matters to the public accounts committee. As regards anything related to the war, there is a place for its discussion, namely, the war expenditures committee. For that reason I cannot see why there has been this long debate. It has been "much ado about nothing." We have spent two days in discussing the question of referring certain matters to the public accounts committee. I do not see why we cannot come to an agreement on this question.
Let me say this to hon. members opposite. I do not know of any one of them for whom I have not the greatest respect. Hon. gentlemen here are all good citizens, and their aim, so far as the war is concerned, is the same as ours. We all wish from the bottom of our hearts to win this war, and the sooner the' better. Hon. members opposite have the same-ambition, the same aim and the same desire as we have on this point. They wish to attain the same objective. They may travel along their road as we do along ours. We may make mistakes. I am not a Liberal so blind as to believe that my party never makes mistakes. It is within the possibility of human fading for anyone to make mistakes. But in the long run, when I compare what this party has done in the present war, with the performance of the other party who conducted the last war, I am proud of the party which is leading the country to-day to 'victory, and which has induced the greatest statesman of the world, Churchill, to express his pride in Canada. Consequently, in conclusion, I would ask my hon. friend opposite to withdraw his amendment and let us get on with the work of the session and vote all the moneys necessary to the limit of the capacity of the Canadian people, to the end that we may carry the war to a successful conclusion.
Public Accounts


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) said that it would not be proper for the opposition to raise this question when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was away. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was necessary for the chairman of the public accounts committee to move concurrence before this issue could have been raised, and he might have *done so at any time after April 7, 1943, but he did not choose to do so until yesterday. He waited from April 7 until yesterday, May 19, to move concurrence. As chairman of the committee he is naturally a supporter of this government, and it was for him to choose the date on which to move concurrence.
Much has been said about the wartime information board. Going back through the records, I believe that probably I was the first member in the house to refer in debate to that return. That reference was made on March 26, and the return was brought down on March 2. Speaking on in/terim supply on March 26, I expressed my opinion as to what was waste, in an expenditure of money for the wartime information board. Anyone can find what I said by referring to page 1607 of Hansard. Then the hon. member for Halton referred to the courage of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). .And, speaking at considerable Length in the house, he went on to say that lip-service :?in a time of war is not good enough.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member ipermit a question?


James Arthur Ross: After all, I have only a few minutes to speak. The hon. member made his speech this afternoon. Is he rising to a point of order?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Halton is asking permission, to put a question.


James Arthur Ross: No, not just now, not after my past experience with the hon. .member.	.


Hughes Cleaver: I rose to ask a question; if the hen. member is not ready to answer, I still do not like his courage.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member said that I, the member for Souris, am lacking in courage. I would point out to him that if he will confer with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), or with military headquarters of military district No. 10, my home district, he will find it is not entirely my fault that I am here to-day giving lip-service.	He will find out the
*reason which prevented my being overseas -with the armed) services to-day. The hon. member served in the last war, as I did,
(Mr. Dupuis.]
but I do not take a back seat to him so far as courage is concerned. I consider it my duty to speak of what I believe to be in the interests of this country, and the people whom I represent.


Hughes Cleaver: I had not the slightest intention of saying anything-


James Arthur Ross: The people of Souris, whom I represent, do not take second place, so far as patriotism is concerned, or in respect of the .numbers they have sent to the armed forces, or the contribution they have made in the recent victory loan campaign. I am proud to have the opportunity to represent them, and to bespeak their minds in the house. I am proud to state, what I believe to be their interests, and the interests of Canada as a whole.
True enough, the hon. member was a lawyer. He has had legal training and experience, while I have not had that training and experience. I have not had the advantages he has had in that respect.
An hon.. MEMBER: That is to your benefit.


James Arthur Ross: I am not going into that matter now. I made reference to a member who, I thought had gone out of his way to prevent our getting certain information, at times, in this house. I did not mention the hon. member's name or constituency. But that 'member was the hon. member for Halton, who attended the meeting of the public accounts committee the day before yesterday, took a front seat at the committee table, and arose without the decency of asking the permission of the chair to appear either as a witness or as anything else, and challenged the statements of other committee members who suggested that certain documents and information should be produced before the committee. The hon. member was not even a member of the committee.
He went into some detail this afternoon in connection with the record of attendance of some of my colleagues before the war expenditures committee. In that respect I might say that I have not missed one meeting of the public accounts committee, since I have been a member. But, during that time, irrespective of what was said to-day by the hon. member for Regina'City (Mr. McNiven), about putting first things first, let me say that while I was present, not one member of that committee who supported him suggested one item we should investigate.	*
I had no intention of putting all these details before the house, until the hon. member spoke this afternoon. He continued at considerable

The Royal Assent
length -with respect to the war expenditures committee. It was pointed out by the minister who has been leading the house for the last two days, that this matter should be referred to the war expenditures committee. Other hon. members have supported him in arguing that that certainly is the place to make investigations. I think it is fairly generally realized by the public that at other sessions the war expenditures committee was composed of eighteen government supporters, four members from this party, one from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party and one from the Social Credit group.
As to what we might investigate in that committee, I believe I have before me the last report of the war expenditures committee, dated January 27, il&43. This afternoon one hon. member asked the hon. member for Halton to say something about the Gimli air field, and as to why that should be investigated in secret. I have never been able to learn why it was not in the public interest to investigate at a public sitting the purchase of property for an airport.


Hughes Cleaver: Would the hon. member like an answer now?


James Arthur Ross: I know something about Manitoba, and I know in detail some of its rural areas. I know something of the land which was purchased for that airport. This last report will give hon. members some idea of how far we could get before the war expenditures committee, which, as I pointed out yesterday, has not sat in over six months. At this session the committee has not yet been constituted. The Prime Minister pointed out a few days ago that there were many more important things before the house than the setting up of the war expenditures committee.
This report states:
In regard to the Gimli air field controversy raised by the Winnipeg Tribune, their solicitor has indicated that in the opinion of his principals a public inquiry should be held to accurately determine the value of the land acquired at Gimli; that expert witnesses should be called for and against the correctness of the actual purchase price paid for the land, in fact, that nothing short of an inquiry in the nature of a trial in public to determine the actual value of the land purchased would satisfactorily dispose of the matter. The subcommittee has fully considered the scope of its authority and its reference by parliament. The Canadian war expenditures committee is patterned after the British Avar expenditures committee, and Avhile its powers are in part someAvhat Avider than the powers conferred upon the British war expenditures committee, yet in the main its duty is to check Canada's war expenditures for the purpose of ensuring that all proper safeguards are set up in regard to the expenditure of public money. It is not
the duty of this subcommittee to supplant the responsibility either of the public accounts committee or the civil courts. This subcommittee does not express any opinion as to the need for further inquiry. In the light of the request made by the solicitor for the Winnipeg Tribune the subcommittee believes that such an inquiry, if deemed necessary, could be more satisfactorily made as above indicated.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An act to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for the purpose of making available Canadian war supplies to the united nations.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
* At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner recess I was referring to the January 27 report of the war expenditures committee and to the implication in it that a certain matter which had been under investigation by it might more properly be investigated by the public accounts committee. I shall have a great deal more to say about that on a more appropriate occasion in this house.
The point I wish to make now is that we had the implication in that report of the war expenditures committee-I believe the chairman of the committee at that time was the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver)

that this matter might more properly be investigated by the public accounts committee, but yesterday we had the minister who was leading the house pointing out on two occasions that the wartime information board and all the publicity work of the government might far
Public Accounts

better be investigated by the war expenditures committee. To use the language of the man on the street, I do not know where you could find any better example of passing the buck by responsible members of this government.
When the public accounts committee was given its terms of reference on March 8 I stated that I was very sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had said that the government could not accept the amendment proposed at that time by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I said that because from past experience I had an idea of what would happen in the future. I went on to cite certain debates that had taken place in the house and to point out that the Minister of Munitions and Supply had said that that particular matter should be investigated by the war expenditures committee. But when that question was raised in the war expenditures committee, the chairman said that the terms of reference would not permit of the matter being investigated. I pointed out that such procedure amounted to locking the door after the horse was stolen.. In other words, when we saw waste taking place we had no opportunity to investigate and prevent that waste until after a properly audited report had been tabled in this house. The Prime Minister interjected to say, "That is not correct." I then went on to point out exactly what he had said when the war expenditures committee was under discussion on previous occasions, and I indicated what I thought would happen in the future, which is precisely what is now happening in this debate.
I do not wish to take further time, but 1 hope that the government will see fit to accept the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). It is the least the public expect at a time like this. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been so ably presented in concrete form by my colleagues, but before sitting down I would plead again with the members of the house to support the amendment in fairness to the taxpayers of this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had an amendment moved to the motion for concurrence in the second report of the public accounts committee. The discussion on that motion took up considerable time, and after the amendment was declared out of order we had another proposed by the member for Yukon (Mr. Black). I should like to call to the attention of the house the wording of that second amendment. It reads:
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the public accounts committee with instruction that they
fMr. J. A. Ross.]
have power to amend the same so as to recommend that said committee have power to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity or in relation thereto by wartime information board and by various governmental departments and boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
I have read that in order to call the attention of the house to the fact that there is no question about the power which the public accounts committee has to deal with matters of this kind, nor is there any question about the authority which the public accounts committee has to recommend different matters to this house. The public accounts committee has already exercised in the committee itself any authority or power which it had to deal with the very question which has been before this house during the last two days, and the position which the committee reached in that matter was given to the house just before the dinner recess by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) when he stated that the public accounts had been referred to the public accounts committee and it was their first duty to examine into those accounts and to report back to the house their findings with regard to them. But while the committee were in the midst of considering the .public accounts which had been referred to them, there was a reference made to this house from the committee to the effect that another matter should be referred to the public accounts committee. That matter was referred to the public accounts committee. Upon that occasion a discussion took place in the house in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and others clearly pointed out what the powers of the public accounts committee are, the way in which those powers could be exercised and the extent to which matters could be referred to that committee. But after that particular matter was referred to the committee and was under consideration by them, some experiences were gained which were hinted at by the Prime Minister at the time the matter was referred to that committee. He said, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Regina City a few hours ago, that that reference to the committee was not to be taken as a precedent for referring to that committee everything about which complaint might be made in the press. As a result of that reference at that time we have had some experiences which I think it is well for us to keep in mind now.
I have had the privilege of travelling over a part of Canada since the committee considered the evidence of Mr. Thompson, and I was very much surprised to find that many of those things which were nothing more than rumours in connection with particular matters under consideration by the public accounts committee were looked upon by the public in

Public Accounts
certain parts of Canada as being truths. For example, I had the privilege of visiting an airport in a certain part of Canada, where a story which I had never heard even in Ottawa was circulating. One of the officers said to me, "I must take you into my office to show you my 31,500 rug". I said, "Have you got a $1,500 rug?" and he replied, "Come in and have a look at it. That is the story which is circulating around this community, and it is being talked about continually as a result of some of your investigations in Ottawa." I went in and found two little rugs, I imagine about 9 by 11J, which is one of the commercial sizes, lying side by side on the floor. The cost of those rugs, Mr. Speaker, was $37.50. Yet the story was circulating, growing out of the committee's investigation, that this rug had cost $1,500.
I should like to suggest to the house the method by which that kind of story got out. I picked up the morning paper in Ottawa during the committee's investigation-I had not been present in the committee-and I read a story which at first led me to believe that someone had purchased rugs at a cost of four or five hundred dollars apiece. That was in the newspaper headlines. But when I read the story carefully, the questions and answers being printed on the front page of the paper, I found that a member of the opposition who was questioning a witness before that committee had merely asked Colonel Thompson whether he had heard the story about the four and five hundred dollar rugs, and Colonel Thompson said, yes. The question was not followed farther than that, but by the asking of that question and by the manner in which the evidence was allowed to go out from that committee to the country the impression was given that four and five hundred dollar rugs had been purchased for office purposes. Of course when the facts were examined into, it was established that that was not the situation at all.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in peace time there is perhaps no great harm done by that kind of thing because the truth finally catches .up with the story, but in time of war, when we are putting on as we were putting on at that time a campaign to raise an enormous sum of money to equip our armed forces fighting overseas, it is a much more serious matter to have investigations of that kind going on and inquiries of that kind being made and statements of that kind going out to the public throughout the length and breadth of this country, particularly when they are not true.
I recite that only to say this, that we must be more or less careful in these times as to how inquiries are carried on.
An attempt has been made, since this discussion began, to leave the impression in this country that someone on the government benches, or some group on the government benches, or all the government, are opposed to an inquiry being made into charges which have been made with regard to overexpenditures of money or with regard to salaries being too high. Nothing has been said by any member of the government or by anyone speaking on this side of the house to indicate that there is any objection to proper inquiry being made into all expenditures in connection with all activities of the government, whether they have to do with the war or otherwise; and I think it should be made perfectly clear that all members on this side- and I think I can speak in this regard for members on the other side as well'-desire to have proper inquiry made into any expenditures of money about which, there is criticism or as to which there is any chance of there having been graft or something of that kind. I think I can say that everyone in the house, irrespective of party, is desirous of having that result. But we do take exception to items such as have appeared since yesterday in the press. I do not hold hon. members responsible for all that appears in the press by way of propaganda. When an hon. member, speaking yesterday to the other resolution, referred to his not being in favour of propaganda, I suggest to him that there is no more vile propaganda circulated in this country at any time than the kind of propaganda which appeared in the press this morning to the effect that members of the house, on the government side in particular, were obj acting to inquiries into expenditures made by the government or any of its officials. '
Well, the public accounts committee has power to examine into different matters. This house has the power to refer almost any kind of expenditure to the public accounts committee. The question was raised yesterday whether it was the best kind of procedure to take in making investigation into the kind of expenditure which we have under consideration. Some hon. members- I would think, members on both sides-may be of opinion that the expenditure might be properly inquired into in the public accounts committee; and a great many-I hope, some on both sides of the house- would have the opinion that it might be inquired into more properly and to better advantage in the war expenditures committee. I happen to be one of those in the latter group, who think that the best results
Public Accounts

could be obtained, with any inquiries which might be made, through a reference to the latter committee. When that suggestion is made the. question is raised as- to when that committee is to be appointed; and this afternoon, when the acting leader of the government was attempting to give some opinions with regard to that matter to the house, objection was taken to his doing so on a technical point, and probably the technical objection was quite properly taken. But I suggest that it has been the custom in this house, when any hon, member has been addressing the house, if it happens to be a member on this side and the leader of the op,position rises in his place and desires to make a correction regarding anything that he has said, or make an explanation regarding anything he has said, for hon. members to take their seats and allow him to do so. On the other hand, when at any time the Prime Minister has found it advisable ,t-o rise in his place and ask for the privilege of making an explanation with regard to any matter of that kind, it has always been customary for hon. members on the other side to take their seats for the moment and allow that explanation to be made. I submit that it would have been only proper for that to have been done this afternoon when the acting leader of the house was attempting to make that explanation. But, Mr. Speaker, that was not permitted at that time; and because it was not permitted, there are a few questions which I think might be dealt with in the few moments I intend to speak.
One of them has to do with the question as to when a committee of this kind-that is, a war expenditures committee-could be appointed. It has been appointed on two previous occasions, I believe, and appointed as a result of representations made in the press across Canada, by hon. members from the other side of the house, and representations which were concurred in by hon. members on this side. This year there has been on the order paper for a considerable time-the date on the order paper is February 24-a motion in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King):
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent 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.
The point I wish to make is that there is a motion on the order paper, standing under

the name of the Prime Minister, placed there on February 24, which provides for the very thing which has been diseussed here during the last two days. It provides for a select committee "to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war." In other words, the committee is to be set up for the purpose of doing exactly the thing which we are being asked on this occasion to submit to the public accounts committee. I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of hon. members on the opposition side of the house, when notice was given of this motion, that any matter such as that which we are discussing now ought to be brought to the attention of that committee when the proper time came. The Prime Minister, when he was discussing this matter in the house earlier, stated, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, what the position of himself and the government was with regard to that matter. On May 10, 1943, as reported in Hansard, at page 2508, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put this question to the Prime Minister:
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.
The answer given by the Prime Minister was:
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 could not be anything much clearer than that. Members have known for some time that just as soon as these two discussions are out of the way it has been the intention of the government and of the Prime Minister to have this committee named and have it constituted so that those matters which should be referred to it might be submitted. Members of the house know, too, that during this week the Prime Minister has been in Washington attending one of the most important meetings associated with the war which has been called

Public Accounts
since the beginning of the war, and being at that meeting he must of course give his entire time and attention to what is taking place there. Hon. members know also that last evening the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was called to the same conference and along with him some of the important officials who know a great deal about matters having to do with defence. I am sure the house will agree with me that this is not the time to be discussing the matter which has been before us yesterday and again the whole of to-day to the present moment. This matter can be discussed to much greater advantage when the Prime Minister returns and when we have an opportunity of giving consideration to those questions which hon. members have been discussing during the past few days.
It is within the knowledge of the house that this committee is to be set up for the purpose of doing the very thing which hon. members have been saying ought to be done by somebody, and doing it in what the government considers to be the proper manner and, I am sure, in the manner in which most of the people of Canada would regard as proper by the war expenditures committee, operating in such a way as will be satisfactory to members of the house generally.
During the discussion to-day some other statements have been made to which I think some reference should be made. For instance, it has been stated that the wartime information board has been spending a great deal of money and that, because it has been doing so, some investigation should be made into its activities. While no one on this side of the house has raised any objection to the expenditures made by this board being examined into, it is well that when information is going out from the house as to expenditures, correct information should be placed on the record; and in order that we might establish what the relationship is of expenditures in connection with this board to the expenditures of similar boards set up elsewhere, I think I should place on the record the amount which has been expended by this board during the time it has been in office, and during the rest of the year by the bureau of public information

the amount that was spent during the twelvemonth period. In order to do so I should like to indicate the total expenditure in Canada under the two organizations during the fiscal year, and to state also what the expenditures have been in the United States and in Great Britain.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that no minister of the crown has defended the expenditures of the
board, and he went on to say that the only person who had defended them was the chairman of the board, in a press report which he made. Well, if no minister has defended the expenditures of the board up to the moment, I intend to do so now. In the first place, I wish to remind the house again that this board was demanded by the press. It was demanded by members of the opposition over the months of the war prior to the time it was set up, and in making those demands the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) expressed himself quite clearly on July 22, 1942, as reported at page 4517 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Vining occupies an important position in the industrial and commercial life of Canada. He was appointed, as I understood it, to survey the situation with relation to our publicity in the United States-a very important subject, and one which has not received the attention it should have received in the long months that this country has been at war. He was sent down there, as I understand it, for a definite purpose. He has made a report. It must be of a constructive character, and unless there is something highly confidential in it, it should be tabled.
There are two things of importance in that statement. The first is the extent to which the then leader of the opposition praised the man who made the report, and the second is the anxiety which he showed that that report should be acted upon at the earliest possible moment and that something should be done to improve, as he thought, the matter of handing information not only to this nation but to the great country to the south of us. And he had confidence that any finding which was made by Mr. Vining would be helpful to the government of the day. That might be looked upon as something of an official stand taken by the then leader of the opposition in this house, and I think it expresses, in as few words as it can be expressed, the attitude which had been taken by members of the apposition from different groups as well as the attitude which had been taken by a considerable part of the press throughout Canada down to the time the board was appointed.
When the board was appointed with Mr. Vining as chairman it proceeded to make appointments. I have noticed criticisms of those appointments in the press, and I am not in a position to answer them. I doubt if members in this house on either side are in a position to answer those criticisms, and I doubt if the members who do not know whether those criticisms are justified or not, and are only looking for information, -would want these matters discussed in public until there was some further information as to whether the salaries were justified or not. It is not sufficient for

Public Accounts

me or for a newspaper to say that we have a certain man employed whom they paid only $2,500 and that, therefore, when the government hire him and pay him $5,000 they are paying him too much. I have known of people who were drawing $2,500 who were worth $5,000, and I have known of people who were drawing $5,000 who were not worth $2,500. The situation is that some people have to find their groove before they show their real worth. I have not any doubt that some of the men who are occupying these positions to-day, and drawing the salaries which were placed before the house this afternoon, are earning their money; and I have not any reason for believing that they are not all earning it. I might have some reason for wanting to find out whether they are all earning it or not, and I would want to find that out by justifiable means, and by means which were likely to get the best results.
But usually when we are looking for trouble in the matter of expending money we try to find out some place where an enormous amount of money is being spent, an amount which is out of all proportion to that which somebody else is spending for the same job. Therefore I should like to make the comparison I spoke about a few minutes ago. The expenditure of the wartime information board, plus the expenditures of the bureau of public information for the last fiscal year amounted to approximately $1,600,000. Well, that is even a greater sum of money than has been discussed in this house. Hon. members have been talking about an expenditure of half a million dollars. But the expenditure for this purpose during the financial year-and the accounts are not quite all in-by the wartime information board and the bureau of public information was approximately $1,600,000.
Let us look at the expenditures in Great Britain for the same purpose. British Hansard of July 7, 1942, records that the estimated expenditure in Great Britain for this purpose was $38,270,000, as against our $1,600,000. The United States office of war information spent $35,847,000, and the inter-American set-up spent an additional $14,000,000, making a total of $49,847,000. The British, with a population less than four times that of Canada, spent twenty-four times as much money. And the United States, with a population twelve or thirteen times our population, spent thirty-one times as much money as we do, on a similar activity.
And- then someone has said in this house that Great Britain investigated all such matters, when asked to do so. I submit to the house that on a very considerable part of

these expenditures, if not all of them, Great Britain has never permitted-and particularly during war time-an investigation such as has been1 discussed in the house during the last two days.
I might say that Canada might still be charged with neglecting war information, as she was during the first two years of the war, if the matter of expenditures of money alone, as compared with expenditures in other countries for similar purposes, is to be the basis upon which we are to arrive at a conclusion. If it was a proper thing to have said two years ago that it was not good for Canada to be spending so much less money than they were spending in Great Britain; and if it was not a good thing for Canada to be spending so much less than they were spending in the United States, then it still must be a bad thing for Canada to be spending only $1,600,000 when Great Britain is spending $38,270,000 and the United States, $49,847,000.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Will the minister
permit a question? I wonder if, instead of giving us a comparison in populations, he will give us a comparison of the national budgets of each country. That will be a fairer comparison.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think we
would be very far out, if we did that. The Minister of Finance is here, and he knows that part of the subject better than I do.


Mr. REID:: I think it would be more
favourable.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some one says to me
that in that event they could spend a hundred thousand dollars for a rug.


William Earl Rowe: And most likely would, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point is this: Comparisons have been made in the house in recent weeks, and1 I imagine they will be made in the days ahead of us, showing up Canada's expenditures for war purposes, in relation to the expenditures of other countries. I believe it has been agreed long ago that our expenditures compare most favourably with those of any other country in the world, either within or outside the allied countries.


Joseph William Noseworthy: My purpose in rising was to obtain a comparison between our expenditures on publicity, and our total war expenditures. I was not suggesting an expenditure as interpreted by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will work out much the same way. The comparison we have always made of our total expenditures with those of Great Britain has been a comparison

Public Accounts
of our expenditures on a per capita basis with the total expenditures of Britain on a per capita basis. And if, on a per capita basis, we are spending such a small amount for information, as compared with Great Britain, then I think that answers the question the hon. member has put as to the relationship between those expenditures and the total budget. It will be about the same relationship as that I have indicated to the house as between Canadian, British and United States expenditures on publicity.
I should like to deal with just one other matter in this connection, and that has to do with some of the remarks of some speakers, referring largely to what I said yesterday in another debate. I shall refer to what they said to-day in this debate. In making reference to that matter the same word was used to-day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) as was used last night by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) in introducing his amendment. It was suggested I had said to the house yesterday that the public accounts committee is set up as a result of action on the part of the opposition. That, of course, is evidently not the situation. All the committees in the house are set up upon motion by [DOT] the government, and the public accounts committee is set up in exactly the same way. But it has been a new experience in my thirty years of public life to have an opposition, or groups in the opposition, deny interest in the most effective instrument placed in the hands of those in opposition to the government to examine into expenditures made by the government. Anyone who denies that the public accounts committee is of greater interest, in so far as membership in the house is concerned, to the members who sit in opposition than to those who sit on the government side of the house is denying, let me say, the effectiveness of the best instrument that has been placed in the hands of oppositions with which to check the financial activities of the government itself.
It is all very well to say that the public accounts committee is set up for the benefit of the public. It is. But if the opposition of the day refuse to use that public accounts committee in the manner in which it was intended to be used, and turns it into a fishing expedition, to see if they can find out something about something else, then all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that they do not realize what, has been placed in their hands.
This was brought out effectively this afternoon by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven). He said that I told only part of the story yesterday. I referred to the fact that we always had public accounts committees meeting when we were sitting in opposition in another house-and we had. Then he
72537-18H
went on to say that as a result of those-examinations none of the government party was elected in the next election. But he neglected just one thing. The hon. gentleman who has been most insistent in raising matters of this kind in this house was the leader of the opposition in that province for a period of time between that election and the next one. He ran an election, and he did not elect anyone, either. There was a very good reason-for it. We had investigations by the public accounts committee. Not only that, but during the five years we were, out of office the government had a commission which inquired into all the activities of the previous government during the twenty-four years we had been in power; and the worst they were able to report with regard to the period during which I had something to do with the government was that when we did not employ a policeman, I did not tell his wife all the reasons why we did not employ him.
I would submit that investigations of that kind do not get us very far. The people of the country eventually take the measure of persons who carry on such investigations. When they have an opportunity to express themselves through the ballot they usually are not very far wrong in their expressions of opinion. I say to my hon. friend that it does not help the cause of Canada to have stories going' round the country with regard to $400 or $500 or $1,500 rugs. It does not help this country to have stories going round with regard to expenditures in connection with information. If we do not spend enough, we are criticized; if it is thought we spend too much, we are criticized, with no effort made to place all the facts before the people but only an attempt to disorganize any activities which are being carried on or to create discontent among our people at a time when we are attempting to raise enormous sums of money in order to carry on the war effort.
May I make the same appeal to this house that was made by an hon. member on the opposition side just before the dinner recess, and that has been made by hon. members on this side of the house. I think we have been spending altogether too much time in this house this session in discussing matters of this kind. I believe hon. members opposite will find it possible at any time to approach the Prime Minister or any minister having to do *with any expenditure as to which they have any doubts, and to have proper provision made for an examination into the expenditures of any department of government. I am certain, too, that if after that examination is made hon. members still feel that expenditures have
Public Accounts

occurred which ought to be examined further, every opportunity will be accorded to have those investigations conducted in a proper manner. And if, after those investigations have been conducted, it is found that there are things which ought to be made known to the public, there is not an hon. member sitting on the government benches, either in the cabinet or out of it, who would deny the right of publicity in connection with matters of that sort. I note that my hon. friend across the .way smiles; he does not understand that kind of thing, though, most people would *understand what I am talking about.


William Earl Rowe: No one in the house understands it better than the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not a horse race, .Mr. Speaker; this is a place where men meet face to face to discuss the problems of the nation. I am sure there is not an hon. member opposite who believes in his heart that if he could show one dollar wrongly expended, the government of the day-just as they would, if they were the government of the day- would not place every bit of information in regard to the matter before the people of this country so that they might see the thing as it was and, in addition, take appropriate action against those who had committed the wrong. That is particularly true when we are in the midst of a war, when life counts for more than money.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, for two days now the government have been resorting to almost every kind of technicality and sophistry imaginable to avoid a very simple matter, namely, an investigation into expenses for publicity. I think the country will be amazed that there should have been so many straw men built up only to be eloquently knocked down, merely for the purpose of allowing the government to avoid a simple investigation that could have been carried on almost in the amount of time that has been taken up in this debate.
Two main reasons have been advanced, if they may be called reasons. The first was that this did not come within the purview of the public accounts committee. Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) undertook to instruct my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) when he quoted from a speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Yesterday, by the way, was a day for instruction by ministers of the crown; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) undertook to instruct us On the Cooperative. Commonwealth Federation programme as contained in a book called
Social Planning in Canada. As his interpretation demonstrated, his memory may not be good, but his imagination is still very active. The Minister of Mines and Resources quoted the first part of the speech by the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1036 of Hansard, as follows:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the amendment is out of order because, in the first place, it asks to refer to the public accounts committee accounts which have not yet been tabled.
But the Prime Minister went on, and after quoting the clause wThich requires the tabling of the public accounts, he said:
That does not mean, and it does not imply, that an important matter of a public nature which hon. members may wish to have inquired into, something concerning w'hieh they have grounds to believe there has been an irregularity, may not be made the subject of a motion in this house, a motion to have such matters referred to the public accounts committee, and that such motion cannot be debated and discussed like any other motion. The section of the act certainly relates to public accounts generally.
It seems to me there is nothing at all in that speech by the Prime Minister which would indicate that after the report of the auditor general had been referred to the public accounts committee he was not prepared and his government was not prepared to take cognizance of any matter referred to them and to have that matter properly investigated. At the bottom of page 1037 he is reported to have said:
May I say further, so that my position wrill be perfectly clear, that if any hon. member of any party knows of anything which is wrong, any expenditures which should not be permitted, any waste or extravagance, if he wishes to bring that matter before the public accounts committee I for one will back him to the full in endeavouring to see that an investigation is made.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Keep on reading, at the top of the next page.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall be very glad to keep on reading:
I am anxious, the government is anxious, as indeed we all are, to see that every possible brake is put upon extravagance and waste and that wrongdoing is prevented and punished. But that does not mean that we should lend ourselves and the time of this house to try to run down all the suspicions, newspaper allegations and the like which may be raised.
We are not dealing here with newspaper allegations; we are dealing here with requests of members of the House of Commons, of the house itself, that certain matters be referred to the public accounts committee.
The second objection is the one raised tonight by the Minister of Agriculture, who
[Mr Gardiner.]

Public Accounts
says that this matter should more properly be referred to the war expenditures committee. He referred to the motion which appears on the order paper and which was placed there on February 24 by the Prime Minister. The minister said that the opposition knew it was the intention of the Prime Minister to move this motion. We knew it was his intention, but we did not know when he intended to carry out his intention. A few days ago my colleague, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldiwell), asked him when he intended to move this motion, and he replied that he would do so after the present matter introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), namely, the war appropriation bill, had been disposed of. The minister knows perfectly well that may take three or four weeks. It will be three months next Monday since this motion was placed on the order paper, and it may be four months before the motion will be moved and the committee set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a reason for that.	[DOT]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only
reason is that the government has hesitated again and again to appoint this committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: The names of the members of the committee are on the record.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The names are there, but the Prime Minister *has refrained: from moving the adoption of this motion to set up the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have delayed it for two days with this discussion. .


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister has said already that he does not intend to move this until after the war appropriation bill is disposed of. The Prime Minister could have moved this motion any day during the last three months. It has been called again and again, and the Prime Minister kept saying "stand" day after day. This thing has been stalled for three months and now we are told that this other matter should be referred to the war expenditures committee. If hon. members will look at Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, January 27, they will find reference to a matter that was referred to the war expenditures committee,, where we are told this matter should be referred. Here is what is reported at the top of page 756:
The subcommittee has fully considered the scope of its authority and its reference by parliament. The Canadian war expenditures committee is patterned after the British war expenditures committee, and while its powers
are in part somewhat wider than the powers conferred upon the British war expenditures committee, yet in the main its duty is to check Canada's war expenditures for the purpose of ensuring that all proper safeguards are set up in regard to the expenditure of public money. It is not the duty of this subcommittee to supplant the responsibility either of the public accounts committee or the civil courts. This subcommittee does not express any opinion as to the need for further inquiry. In the light of the request made by the solicitor for the Winnipeg Tribune the subcommittee believes that such an inquiry, if demed necessary, could be more satisfactorily made as above indicated.
This had reference to the Gimli airport, and if there was anything that ought to have been discussed by the war expenditures committee, it was that. However, they say in their report that they have only a limited ambit within which they can investigate, that they do not wish to supplant the responsibilities of the public accounts committee in this regard. Take the matter to the war expenditures committee; then take it to the public accounts committee. Now you take it to the public-accounts committee; now you send it back to-the war expenditures committee. You cannot get in; you cannot get out.
I think it should be made clear, certainly so far as the group with which I am associated are concerned-, that in supporting this motion and the one which was ruled out of order we do not wish at any time that our support should be taken as expressing our disapproval either of the existence of the wartime information board or the work which it has done; not at all. The amendment now before us does not refer only to the wartime information board;: it deals with the whole question of publicity.. We feel that the wartime information board' has done some useful work, but we feel also-that this question of publicity, having grown: up as it has in a mushroom-like fashion, ia-something that this house would do well to examine very closely. The mere fact that the Minister of Agriculture said that he was not in a position to state whether these salaries were too high or too low, that he was not in position to answer some of the allegations that have been made in the press, makes it all the more necessary that the committee of this house which is charged with the examination of the public accounts should take this matter into consideration.
The Minister of Agriculture has given a comparison of the money spent for publicity in this country with that spent in Great Britain and the United States. Surely every hon. member of this house must know that it is not what you spend; it is what you get for what you spend that is important, and whether it is spent to get the best possible return or spent carelessly and extravagantly. It is quite pos-
Public Accounts

sible to spend SI ,600,000 and get only half value, as it is to spend something over $30,000,000, as the British have done, and get the full value which they have received.
Instead of resorting to technicalities; instead of trying to throw it off oh this or that committee; instead of quoting rules ad infinitum, the government would be farther ahead if they did what the opposition has asked for, if they did what the public press has asked for and waived the rules, waived the technicalities and made this possible. Instead of resorting to *eloquence and1 saying, "Let us get on with the war and forget all these matters of chasing down extravagance," this house ought to recognize that the people who are fighting the war and the people who are paying for the war expect us and expect the government to do everything possible to see that the money which has been raised at such great sacrifice and inconvenience and, in some instances, hardship, is spent to the best possible advantage.
I submit that this house ought to pass this amendment and allow the public accounts committee not only to investigate these amounts with a view to seeing whether we are getting value for the money spent, but also to make sure that the publicity branches which are growing up in some departments of the government are not being established with '.a view to perpetuating bureaucracy in this *country and glorifying some of the individuals who may have been the fathers of them.


Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, in order to give your ears relief from listening to my miserable English, I know you will be glad to hear that I intend to address the Chair in my mother tongue.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have heard with much interest the speeches delivered this afternoon by hon. members from both sides of the house on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). All those speeches were undoubtedly most interesting, but, the one which especially held my attention until the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke a few minutes ago, was the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Before commenting on that speech, I wish to refer to the challenge directed by the Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago to those who criticize the extravagant expenditures of the government information board. The Minister of Agriculture seemed to dare the opposition to prove to the satisfaction of the government that a single dollar was improperly spent by the information board. This afternoon, on the same topic, the hon. member for

Halton stated that not one member had made a definite and positive charge against that government information board. The hon. member also rebuked opposition members who criticize the government and demand that a committee be appointed to inquire into public accounts and especially into the administration of the information board. He took the Conservative party to task for spending huge sums all over the country for advertising purposes; he claimed moreover that such sums would have been incomparably more useful to Canada and the allied nations if they had been put into the government's treasury to support our war effort. That may be all very well, and I have not the slightest intention to rise in defence of the Conservative party; far from it. Neither is it necessary for me to say that I have no longer any interest in that party.
The reason why I refer to that part of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Halton is that if it were shown, through an inquiry into public accounts, that the Liberal party uses the public funds for its own propaganda across Canada and especially in the province of Quebec, that party would be in a much worse situation than the Conservative party could be, for the latter, at least, uses its own funds.
I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a copy of . the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir, dated Tuesday, May 18, 1943, and I notice therein under the signature of Omer Heroux an article entitled "II est temps de crier halte-la!" -the time has come to call a halt! The caption goes on as follows:
An account showing that the dominion wartime information board is using for propaganda purposes in favour of Mr. Godbout funds earmarked for war purposes-an action that is neither conceivable nor even quite clever- an appeal to the staunchest supporters of the provincial Prime Minister.
As the article is somewhat lengthy I shall give a summary of it. According to Mr. Omer Heroux, the French-language newspapers in Montreal received1 on May 13, in an envelope bearing the words "On His Majesty's Service-Information Board" the French translation of two articles, one of which was published in the Ottawa Evening Journal and the other a letter written from the Times correspondent. The letter from the Times correspondent and the article from the Ottawa Evening Journal were translated by the information board and sent to the French-language newspapers of the province of Quebec. And Le Canada of the day before yesterday, that is to say Monday, reproduced

Public Accounts
the Ottawa Evening Journal's letter. One of these articles, translated into French, had the following titles:
Two states within the Canadian state

Quebec, a loyal province within the dominion -safeguarding of the French heritage.
This article deals, I believe, with the act recently introduced by the government of the province of Quebec, on compulsory education. Here is what it says:
Shrewd and honest, Mr. Godbout seems to have thoroughly understood the seriousness of the situation.
Then, in the letter to the Times'.
While giving proper consideration to wartime government problems, Mr. Godbout has done much to remedy political and economic uneasiness. He has crossed swords with those who advocate a kind of sectionalism in favour among Canadians, and at the risk of endangering his political career, he sought to establish that a Canadian confederation still presents the best solution for Quebec problems.
Political opinions are divided on the success of such an attitude; but everyone agrees that retaining Mr. Godbout in his position would be a major contribution to national unity.
Articles of that type are nothing more than electoral and party propaganda translated at government expense, that is at the expense of the national exchequer, by the wartime information board, and sent to Le Canada and other newspapers to be circulated through the province in the interests of a political party, as I said, a moment ago. If that is not a waste of public moneys, I wonder what could be called waste and what would constitute sufficient justification for voicing protests in this house.
Moreover, every morning, at eight o'clock, I listen to a CBC programme which, I think is entitled "Matutinal Elevations" on the French network. On that broadcast several times a week a certain gentleman from Quebec, who is a journalist, comments on current events, on the war and Catholic wartime problems. It so happens that most of his comments are in praise of the dominion and Quebec governments. I am deeply interested in listening to that gentleman's comments, but he has no right to carry on propaganda in favour of this or that party out of the public funds. We are told! that this programme broadcast every morning at eight o'clock on the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is also paid by the information board. It is this same service that translated the letter eulogizing Mr. Godbout, and all this is being carried on in the province of Quebec at our expense.
Hon. members demanding that a committee be formed to investigate public accounts
find, as this session progresses, not only that they are within their rights but that they are also discharging a duty in doing so. If only the government afforded members an opportunity to investigate public accounts and the manner in which public moneys are spent, we might be able to prove to the minister of Agriculture and to the public-spirited member for Halton that more than one dollar is wrongly spent by the wartime information board. From all parts, and when I say from, all parts of the house I mean from every province, and from all parts of the country, is steadily heard the complaint that the information service is being used for electoral propaganda.
If the government had any regard for dignity and honour, and did not forever seek shelter under pretence of war conditions, with the constant claim that it is inadvisable to dwell upon this or that matter or to criticize the government, the resulting impression would not be so bad throughout the country. I submit that such a pure and unsullied government should agree to this inquiry in order to justify its policy. I want to do them a favour when I suggest that they scotch all those rumours which, it is said, are proving so detrimental and harmful to the best interests of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon and shall vote accordingly.


Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as I have had1 but scant opportunity to address the house, I beg your indulgence while I do so to-night, even without preparation, for it is not without some gratification that I take this occasion to reply to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy).
The house is now considering the advisability of affording its members, either from the government side or from the opposition, to inquire into the government expenditures with regard to wartime information. It might be claimed in certain quarters that the government have been niggardly in this connection, while others may claim that the government have been extravagant. For my part, as a French Canadian, speaking as a representative of the province of Quebec, I feel no hesitation in stating that the government have not been guilty of extravagance in this regard and that, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, much more could have been spent for the purpose of enlightening the people and of explaining to them why we are at war, and why we should do our best to win the war. And when I hear speeches of the type just
Public Accounts

made by the hon. member for Gaspe, speeches such as have been delivered since the beginning of the session by a handful of Quebec members who seem to think that we are going too far in our war effort, I realize that theirs are the only discordant voices heard in this house. Indeed they are ever criticizing the war effort, opposing war measures, war propaganda in favour of our allies and the defence of Canada, and any measure in sup. port of those who are striving to regain their freedom. Indeed, the only voices so heard are unfortunately those of six of seven members from the province of Quebec. The government propaganda will never be too intensive, Mr. Speaker, if everyone in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec, is to be convinced that he should1 do his share as the majority of our citizens are doing. I realize how irksome it must be for certain members of this house when the only voices heard against the war effort in this parliament, nearly every day, are those of six or seven Quebec members, while more than fifty of the representatives of that province staunchly support the government, who want us to carry our share of the burden, to save our country, to save England, the fountain-head of the freedoms enjoyed in the province of Quebec and at the same time to save France, which we have not forgotten and which, if our hopes are realized, will be free again in the near future.
Last year we held a secret session. The country was upset by the news of a secret session to investigate the defence of the St. Lawrence river. Mr. Speaker, I state without any hesitation that this secret session was nothing but propaganda, but not of the helpful kind, not of the kind that promotes the interests of the united nations, but the interests of the hon. member for Gaspe. We have met in secret session to hear this hon. member who stated he had witnessed a few engagements from his home and who wished to inform the house that ships had been sunk in the St. Lawrence. Did he suppose that the hon. Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the hon. Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) were aware of this and took no interest in the defence of Canada and needed the hon. member for Gaspe to defend the country and the St. Lawrence? Mr. Speaker, I am not the member for Gaspe, but I represent the constituency of Montreal-Ste. Marie, bounded on 
the south by the river St. Lawrence. We have not yet seen any submarines; however, our sentiments for our great river are as deep as those of the hon. member for Gaspe and all the hon. members sharing his views who attempt to sabotage the earnest endeavours of the Liberal government, who with the help of the broad-minded hon. members from the other side of the house are making a real effort to beat the axis powers, Germany, Italy or Japan.
Speaking of propaganda, Mr. Speaker, Le Devoir has been quoted a short time ago. Would you allow me, regarding this newspaper, to express the views of well-thinking French Canadians in Quebec. Had the government done everything possible and discharged their responsibilities in full, this newspaper would have been shut down long since and its distribution in the province of Quebec suspended.
They say the government is spending too much money on propaganda. Not more than a year ago this Notre Dame street newspaper, Le Devoir, was distributed in Montreal by its friends, the members of the Bloc Populaire, those people who claim for their province a greater love than the Liberal members for Quebec, in Montreal and elsewhere, in order to carry out their sabotaging attempts more easily, dn order to' be in a better position to belittle the people who, accepting their responsibilities, wished to assist the government, it was said, over and over again, that young curly-haired Englishmen, fugitives from the British Isles with the connivance of the government, were taking refuge in Montreal and were being sheltered at the Viger hotel. And while Le Devoir, while pseudo-patriots of the Bloc Populaire were victimizing the Liberal members who were faithful to their duty, we were called " sheep," as they said, attempting to protect these curly-haired Englishmen who had run away from the British Isles to seek refuge in Montreal. An investigation was held. What were its findings? These young curly-haired Englishmen that we, supporters of the government, were protecting, turned out to be sailors of the merchant fleet, Mr. Speaker. Their ships had been sunk on the Atlantic; they had been rescued and brought to Montreal to find shelter, food and clothing while awaiting to be assigned new berths on ships that would take them back to the Atlantic ocean where the Germans were still lurking to blast their ships to the bottom, possibly with their crews.
Friends of Le Devoir on the other side of this house would have these people as English youths who had fled from their country, whilst

Public Accounts
we looked upon them as patriots for whom we could provide shelter in the Viger hotel. Had we been provided with information such as could have been made available, had more money been spent for that purpose, it would not have been possible to poison the minds of the people as did or attempted to do some hon. members, and as they are still attempting to do, not for the security of the country nor of the province nor of the St. Lawrence, sir, but in order to save their own party.
This newspaper, Le Devoir, has been quoted as criticizing the Liberal government for their use of the information service in favour of Mr. Godbout. Mr. Ggdbout has no need of the information board. He is quite able to take care of himself. It is propaganda on the part of the government to quote Mr. Godbout, they say. The government, Canadians as a whole, be they Conservative, Liberal, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or Social Credit followers, every one with an allied victory to heart, can never quote Mr. Godbout too often, Mr. Speaker, as one who has fearlessly shouldered his responsibilities, spoken to the province of Quebec, taken a bold stand in the legislature and elsewhere and given his full and wholehearted support to our war effort. He did that for Canada, for Great Britain and for France. Moreover, had Le Devoir gone farther, it might have said that the government were using their propaganda office not only to extol the virtues of the Quebec prime minister but also to extol those of the spiritual leader of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole. If I have risen here to-night it is because I am proud of my province, I am proud of my leaders. It is also for the purpose of showing to people of this country and to the English-speaking members of this house, whatever their political affiliations may be, that the feelings of the province of Quebec are not voiced by the members who sit on the other side of this house, but by the members who have supported the government and the country's war effort. The true voice of Quebec is that of its spiritual leader, Cardinal Villeneuve, and also of its temporal leader, who heads the provincial government, the honourable Mr. Godbout. Thanks to these two distinguished men, we from the province of Quebec, as well as other French-Canadian members from other provinces, are able to sit here, Mr. Speaker, and hold our heads high among our English-' speaking fellow members.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to recall a memory which is still vividly impressed on my mind. A short while ago, in this province of Quebec of which so much is said, where one wonders whether the mentality of the people is the
same as in the rest of Canada, a by-election was held in Outremont. The government candidate, who was later elected, was the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche). At one of his first meetings, in a district where the campaign against him had been most strenuous, fanatical partisans had been brought in from outside the constituency, from suburban Montreal1 districts, to pack the hall. These people had been brought into the hall to embarrass the candidate and the speakers. On the eve of this meeting, newspapers and the radio had broadcast the news of the fall of Toulon. These publicity mediums had feelingly recounted to the world the commendable behaviour of these French sailors who had chosen to scuttle their ships and risked going down with them rather than turn their navy over to the enemy, Germany. The people of this constituency, like everybody else, were greatly impressed by the happenings at Toulon. However, at this meeting, those of our citizens who enjoy equally catcalls and applause, seemed inclined to annoy the government candidate. There was trouble until a speaker, former conservative candidate in this same constituency and an outstanding member of the Montreal bar, took the floor. Veteran of the last war, a native of Brittany, his emotions probably reaching deeper because of his French birth, he related to the audience the events enacted at Toulon, emphasizing the self-denial of these Frenchmen who put their lives in jeopardy when scuttling their ships. Mr. Speaker, if I recall these happenings, it is because I am still greatly impressed, and because this illustrates well French-Canadian sentiment. The whole audience, whether opponent or friends, forgot their differences and, bound by their feelings and their thoughts to the speaker who had so vividly described this deed of valour to them, of a common accord sang "La Marseillaise".. Mr. Speaker, if I took the floor to-night, as, I am convinced the majority of the members for Quebec would like to do, it is because I hope that, when the bells of Quebec ring victory for the British, French and other allied armies, I wish that my children, my compatriots of Quebec, may also hail victory, for the success of the allied forces will mean victory for Canada, victory for Quebec.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the length of time which has been occupied in this debate, there are very few observations I wish to make at this stage, because the debate seems to me to have covered such an enormous amount of territory-not all of it directly connected with
Public Accounts

the matter before the house-that I wish to draw the attention of the house back again to what I consider to be one or two of the salient points.
This evening I listened with close attention to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He appeared to me to devote so much care and so much vigour to the statements he made that it was evident his effort was necessary for the bolstering of the government's position. Unquestionably the object of the speech by the minister was to strengthen the position occupied by the government.
It may well be that the only difference between the government and the opposition in this matter is the question of the appropriateness of one committee or the other to which these expenditures should be sent for discussion. The government takes the view that the war expenditures committee is the proper one to discuss and delve into these questions. The opposition is of opinion that the public accounts committee would be more competent for the purpose. It is sitting to-day; it sat in this building this morning. On the other hand, the war expenditures committee has not sat for six months. The notice bringing it into being is on the order paper, and has been there for three months. In the last official reference to it there appeared to us to be no indication whatsoever that it was shortly coming into being. We prefer the public accounts committee for the purpose of this investigation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the hon. member
say that that should apply equally to an inquiry into the expenditures, say, of the defence departments, or of the Department of Munitions and Supply?


Grote Stirling: I think in the course
of my remarks I shall be able to indicate that the public accounts committee is capable of the investigation of anything committed to it. I disagreed with the acting leader of the government when yesterday he advanced the view that the public accounts committee was not the correct body to which to send an investigation of this sort, because in the many years in which we have had public accounts committees it has dealt with routine matters. He pointed out that it has looked into questions brought before it through the report of the auditor general.
I was surprised to hear that statement, because it was not my conception of the public accounts committee. I remember that on more than one occasion, during my time in the house, matters which certainly did not

come under the auditor general's report were directed, by reference of the house, to the public accounts committee for investigation.
I turn to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and find the following paragraph:
593. There shall be a standing committee, to be designated "the committee of public accounts" for the examination of the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by parliament to meet the public expenditure.
There is no reference at all to the auditor general's report. The only reference made is to expenditures made at the direction of the house.
When I read the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) it appears to me that the matters mentioned therein are those very matters which might properly, and should be directed to the public accounts committee. I regret very much that the government has seen fit to oppose the amendment. I gather from the length of the debate it has allowed to take place that there is no intention on its part of acceding to the request of the opposition that the public accounts committee be given this task.
The amendment of the hon. member for Yukon refers not only to the wartime information board, which has cropped up so many times in this debate, but to certain other governmental and departmental expenditures as well. I think it is clear that expenditures which must be defrayed by moneys voted in this house might properly be considered by the committee on public accounts. And there is a question in my mind as to whether they might properly be considered by the committee on war expenditures.	,
To show that this amendment is in order, and is not likely to be ruled out of order, as was its predecessor, I would draw attention to paragraph 661 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, because I believe the amendment fully meets what is set forth in this paragraph:
When the motion is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend the same in any respect. It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, hut if the house resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
That is exactly what has occurred in regard to this matter so far as it refers to the expenditures of the wartime information board. The steering committee advised the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee did not accept the advice of the steering committee, but decided, by a majority vote, that

Public Accounts
this matter should not be investigated. Therefore it cannot, for any reasons advanced in this house or elsewhere, change the decision at which it arrived. But the remedy lies with this house, and it is for that reason that the opposition has seen fit to bring this forward in the form of an amendment, for it is this house alone that can instruct the public accounts committee to make the investigation. As I say, I fear the government has no intention of accepting this advice. If it does not; if it votes it down with the weight of its majority, it will win, but it may well be that the victory so gained will be dearly bought.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take but a very short time at this stage of the debate, and my only reason for rising is that during the debate on the previous amendment a point of order was raised, and I felt that I should confine myself as far as possible to the terms of Your Honour's ruling. I want to make one or two observations, however, based upon some of the statements that have been made during the course of this debate. One hon. member on the government side made a statement which I think has been successfully dealt with_ already, but with which perhaps I should deal for a moment, namely, that the opposition has chosen an opportune time to stage this debate, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is in Washington. Perhaps hon. members know the situation well enough not to accept a statement of that kind, bearing in mind the procedure under which this motion was presented. The motion on which this amendment is founded has been standing on the order paper for a considerable time; as a matter of fact, some three or four weeks ago, before this motion actually came before the house, I had occasion to ask the chairman of the committee and the government to lay on the table a transcript of the evidence that had been taken up to the time of the presenting of the report. So that the matter has been standing for a considerable time; and if the mover, who was the chairman of the public accounts committee, chose to bring that motion before the house while the Prime Minister was absent, I do not think the opposition can be blamed. It was the time of his choosing, the time he picked himself; and if, as one hon. member said, there was any suggestion that the Prime Minister had been stabbed in the back, then he must have been stabbed in the back by his own friends, which is not an unusual thing in public life.
I had intended to say a few words in reply to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); I jotted down the points he made, one by one;
but on looking them over, I think they generated more heat than light, and perhaps I will leave them as they are. However, with great honesty I wish to say that the government have asked us to understand their position, and I ask that the government understand ours. Had I been able to do so yesterday before the point of order was raised, I would have mentioned what I think is the most important point in the whole discussion. It has been said by many hon. members, particularly on the government side, that this is a question of whether the investigation of these expenditures should be conducted by one committee or the other. I recall that the hon. member for Chambly - Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) said, " hear, hear," when that statement was made from this side of the house. In other words, I think we are all agreed, or at least I am assuming we are agreed, that it is a question of whether the expenditures mentioned in the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) should go to the war expenditures committee on the one hand or to the public accounts committee on the other. This is the point in connection with which I want the government to understand our position; this is-why I asked the government to withdraw their opposition and to change their stand. I said in the house yesterday that the public would misunderstand the position of the government; to-day the Minister of Agriculture complains that according to the press this morning the public does misunderstand the position of the government. I warned the government yesterday on that very score.
Let me give the reason-it is a very simple one-why we ask that this matter should go to the public accounts committee? It is because the war expenditures committee cannot legally deal with it. If that is not a sufficient reason, I should like to be told a better one. Here is the situation, on a straight question of legality. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) is looking at me with great interest just now. I wish to be very careful in stating my grounds, for he may have to answer this point when I am through and I should like to give him every opportunity to do so if he can. Let us be clear about this, because it is the kernel of the whole discussion.
The amendment states:
. . . that said committee have power to investigate expenditures incurred for publicity or in relation thereto by wartime information board-
The argument of the government would be good if the amendment stopped there, but it is more comprehensive and asks for something else:
-and by various governmental departments and boards, subsequent to March 31, 1942.
Public Accounts

In other words, this amendment covers the wartime information board; it covers other wartime expenditures, but it covers expenditures in connection with peace-time matters as well. Any government expenditure on publicity is covered by this amendment. Let us see what would happen the very moment that broad order came before the war expenditures committee, to which the government suggests it should go. If my hon. friend will look at the order paper, at government notices of motion, he will see over what the war expenditures committee is to have jurisdiction, and he will find that the committee is confined to this:
... to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war.
It stops there. I suggest to my hon. friend that if he will look over the departments of government contained in the civil estimates, he will find a list of twenty-eight. I ask him by what stretch of the imagination that reference could apply to all of the civil departments of government? The government itself does not attempt it. Not one member of the government would rise in his place and say that every department was a wartime portfolio.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Graydon: If my hon. friend over there who was just about to interrupt me before I stopped him before he started will just wait a moment. If that had been the case, there would be nineteen parliamentary assistants instead of ten. Surely no one will argue that every department of the government is a war-time department. If they are not, then expenditures with respect to publicity in some departments cannot be dealt with toy the war expenditures committee.
I am making the point as simple as I can to-night. I want the government to understand our position. They have asked that I try to understand their position and I want them to understand my position as leader of this party. The reason why we want these matters to go to the public accounts committee is that it is the only committee that has a legal right to deal with the subjects covered by the amendment. That is why I ask the government to understand our position. I think the government have placed themselves in a wholly impossible position. If the subjects dealt with in the amendment are to be investigated, the government will find that they are barred legally from having certain parts of the expenditures dealt with by the

public accounts committee. What a hodgepodge! What a terrible position for the government to find themselves in! They would be legally barred from investigating the very things they have said should be referred to the war expenditures committee. Before my hon. friend puts himself in another impossible position, I suggest to him that he take advantage of this opportunity. I will not object if he rises in his place and asks the special privilege of withdrawing from this wholly involved position.


Thomas Vien: The question is-


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if he is going to withdraw.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might say to my hon. friend that we have not the slightest intention of withdrawing.


George Black: Mr. Speaker, having moved the amendment I should like to say a few words. I do not mind admitting that I did not expect that this amendment would be productive of such a prolonged debate. First, I wish to assure the house that nothing was further from my mind when moving this amendment than to be unfair to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I offered my amendment to the motion to adopt the report of the public accounts committee on the day in which the chairman of that committee moved the adoption of the report. I had no option as to when my amendment would be moved. I moved it only because another amendment had been ruled out of order.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the cleverly worded political speech which he delivered to the house this evening. I enjoyed it. To my mind we do not have enough such speeches in this house. It reminded me of old times, and I am sure the Minister of Mines and Resources '(Mr. Crerar) will agree with me when I say that if we had more such speeches this would be a better house. The Minister of Agriculture quoted the government notice of motion which stands on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister. I shall quote only part of it, as follows:
That a select committee he 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.	.
Note the words, "services directly connected with the war." The power of the committee as to what expenditures can be examined by it is limited by those words. If the expenditures of the wartime information board were exclusively for the defence services and for other

Public Accounts
services directly connected with the war, the argument of the Minister of Mines and Resources, now leading the house, and of the Minister of Agriculture, that the expenditures of this board should be more properly examined by the war expenditures committee might be sound. But the expenditures of the wartime information board are not limited to expenditures for the defence services and for other services directly connected with the war.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Every dollar expended by the wartime information board is voted under the war appropriation bill and arises directly out of the war, and consequently it would be included in the motion that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.


George Black: It may be voted as a war item, but it is not expended by the wartime information board for the defence services and for other services directly connected with the war. The minister and members of the house may ask me why I make that statement and upon what it is founded. If the house will bear with me for a few moments, I shall give it information about the policy of the wartime information board which to me is positively astounding. I desire to quote from the first issue I have ever seen of a magazine called The Gospel Witness.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Black: Hon. members may not laugh so loudly when I am finished. I ask them to reserve their levity until I have completed my remarks. I think all members of this house, no matter what their religious beliefs may be or what their political adherence may be, will agree with me when I am through. I quote:
Last week a subscriber of The Gospel Witness forwarded to this office a four-page pamphlet entitled "Nouvelles Catlioliques"-


Thomas Vien: I have allowed the hon. gentleman to continue but I should like him to quote to me the rule under which he feels he is entitled to reply and speak a second time when he has already moved the amendment.


George Black: I understood that a member moving an amendment, which amounts to a resolution, has a right to close the debate.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 43
provides:
(1) No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
(2) A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion, but not to the mover of an amendment.
I am afraid, therefore, the hon. member has not the right to speak a second time in reply.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Grote Stirling: I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Fraser, Northumberland, Ont.) agreed to on division.



ABASAND OILS LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Thomas Alexander Crerar: On April 14 the Minister of Munitions and Supply furnished the house with information regarding the exploration and development of the tar sands in northern Alberta. He mentioned that the government had entered into an agreement with Abasand Oils Limited1. Since the supervision of the operations to be earned on will be a responsibility of the Department of Mines and Resources, I am now tabling a copy of the agreement.
(Mr. Speaker.]



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of bill No. 67 (from the senate) respecting the Canada North-West Land Company Limited.
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the hon. member to explain this bill?


Mr. McILRAITH:: The purpose of the bill is to reduce the qualifications required for directors of the Canada North-West Land Company Limited. The company was incorporated by chapter 88 of the statutes of 1893. The provision dealing with the qualifications of directors is to be found in section 8 of that act. and reads as follows:
The qualification of a member of the board shall be the holding in his own right of shares in the company of the nominal value of at least five thousand dollars.
By an amending act of 1903 provision was made for the liquidation in certain circumstances of the assets of the company, the distribution of the assets and the redemption of the stock. There has been since that date a substantial liquidation of the assets and distribution of the assets, with the result that it is now very difficult to have shareholders holding a sufficient capital stock qualification to become directors. Consequently the present bill is brought forward with the purpose of reducing the qualification to one hundred shares of the capital stock of the company.


Mr. JACKMAN:: What is the par value?


George James McIlraith: There are two classes
of stock. I will have more details on that in committee. The present requirement for qualification as a director is the holding of shares of a value of 85,000. I believe there are only about 59,000 shares outstanding, and the proposed qualification is 100 shares for each director.


Thomas Langton Church: Why was this bill not
introduced in this house first?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I am unable to answer the hon. member's question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Maitland Richardson Silvester.-Mr. Claxton.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Agnes May Jack Jackson.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Marie Fernande Broca Taisne.-(Mr. Ross, St. Paul's).

Questions
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Samuel William Simon.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Vera Venning Prestt.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Katherine Scott Thacher.-Mr. Diefenbaker.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Elias Shapiro. -Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Fannie Rubin Segal.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Doris Mae Sangster Webster.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Charles Joseph Wilfrid Rousseau.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).

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

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What is the total subsidy paid to date on gasoline and other petroleum products for each of the following years: 1940, 1941, and 1942?
2.	What is the amount of the monthly subsidies paid on the same products for the year 1943?
3.	To what firms has this subsidy been paid, and what is the total payment to each firm during each of the above mentioned years? [DOT]


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	1940, None; 1941, None; 1942, $12265,654.03.
2.	1943: January, $6,186,067.73; February, $2,135,229.28; March, $3,441,486.08; April (net credit in respect of rebates due on subsidy payments) $4,296,351.24. Total, January to April, 1943 inclusive, $7,466,431.85.
3.	The subsidy on petroleum, products was paid beginning April 1, 1942. A statement of the government's policy regarding the disclosure of names of recipients of subsidies paid after March 31, 1942, appears on page 2672 of Hansard.


INCOME TAX-CARGO VESSELS-DEPRECIATION
Frédéric Dorion: What depreciation is allowed to owners of cargo vessels of all classes in connection with income tax?


Mr. GIBSON:: Depreciation allowance is dependent upon the type of construction of the vessel and the maximum allowance ranges from three to six per cent on cost.


AIR FORCE FUEL CONTROLLER
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is Mr. C. Jerow, fuel controller, and/or adviser, to the Royal Air Force?
2.	Is he employed full time?
3.	How long has he been employed in this position?
4.	How much is he paid by way of salary, living allowance, or travelling expenses, during the term, or terms, of his employment?
5.	Was he general sales manager of the Dominion Coal Company, and is he still employed in that same capacity?
6.	If not, in what capacity was be employed by the Dominion Coal Company, and in what capacity is he now employed by the Dominion Coal Company?
7.	Has he been employed formerly in any other capacity by the dominion government?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes, fuel adviser.
2.	Part time.
3.	1st June, 1941.
4.	Actual travelling expenses during absences from Toronto at R.C.A.F. headquarters, Ottawa, or other points supported by detailed travelling claim.
5.	No.
6.	District manager, coal sales for Ontario -still employed in same capacity.
7.	No.


BONDS AND WAR SAVINGS CAMPAIGNS-CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS .
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Are the national war finance committee and similar organizations permitted to hold dinners, luncheons, etc., in order to help promote the organizing for and sale of victory bonds, war savings certificates, and war savings stamps?
2.	Are the churches in Canada prohibited by the rationing division of the wartime prices and trade board from obtaining tea, coffee, sugar, butter, etc., for the purpose of holding church suppers?
3.	If the answers to the foregoing are in the affirmative, what steps is the Minister of Finance taking towards, (a) cancelling all such functions in connection with public financing; or (b) instructing the rationing division to permit bona fide church organizations to have sufficient rations to carry on their church affairs as in the past?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes. The national war finance committee has held luncheons and dinners for organizing its victory loan campaigns. These organization meetings were held in public hotels and restaurants. Supplies of rationed commodities for restaurants, hotels and catering services are subject to quotas set by the wartime prices and trade board.
Questions

2.	Rationed commodities are not issued to churches for the purpose of holding church suppers. A few churches operate restaurants under licence issued by the wartime prices and trade board, in which case rationed commodities are supplied to them the same as to any other restaurant.
3.	Answered by No. 1 and No. 2.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What liaison is there between the national research council of Canada and the following:
(a)	the national research council of the United States; (b) the United States Department of Agriculture regional research laboratories; (c) the national farm chemurgic council of the United States; (d) any private industries in the United States engaged in large-scale research [DOT]on the industrial uses of farm products?
2.	Has the national research council information in connection with the following: (a) research in the United States on the production of butylene glycol from grain; (b) the production of synthetic rubber from grain by commercial plants in the United States; (e) the production of rubber tires in the United States from latex obtained from kok-saghys (sometimes known as "Russian rubber dandelion") ?
3.	Is the national research council in possession of the following: (a) information from the soviet authorities on kok-saghys; (b) a monograph on the same prepared by the Seagram Company of the United States?
4.	Is the national research council a subscribing member of the national farm chemurgic council of the United States?
5.	How many members of the staff of the national research council have attended the conventions of the national farm chemurgic council, since the outbreak of the present war, on what dates, and were written reports made by such members?
6.	How many members of the staff of the national research council are engaged in work related to the production of rubber from grain, and other industrial uses of farm products?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	(a) There is a long standing arrangement between the national research council of Canada and the national research council of the United States for the exchange of information. (ib) Close liaison has been established between the national research council of Canada and the United States department of agriculture regional research laboratories by correspondence, exchange of visits on the part of personnel, and an exchange of reports. In addition the national research council is a member of the report pool on butylene gylcol and the United States wheat-alcohol research committee. (c) None, (d) The national research council has established liaison with the following firms and institutions through the butylene-glycol report pool: Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc., Heyden Chemical Corpora-
[Mr. Ilsley.l
tion, Lucidol Corporation, Columbia Brewing Company, Merck & Company, Commercial Solvents Corporation, Pennsylvania Sugar Company, Schenley Research Institute, Northern Regional Research Laboratory, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, University of Wisconsin. Contact has also been established with some of these firms related to the industrial utilization of farm products.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) No. The national research council of Canada is acquainted with experimental work in this field proceeding at the regional laboratories.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) The national research council has pamphlets on kok-saghys prepared by the staff of the Seagram company.
4.	No.
5.	None.
6.	Twenty-five.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-WHARFINGER DEPARTMENT, MONTREAL
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	What are the different classifications in the wharfinger department of the national harbour board at Montreal?
2.	What are the salaries paid to each classification?
3.	How many employees are there in the wharfinger department of the said board, in Montreal, in each classification?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Assistant wharfinger; wharfage clerk; checker; stenographer; supervisor of wharfages; cashier; clerks; checker.
2.	Per
annum
Assistant wharfinger	 83,240
Wharfage clerk	 2,100
Checker	 1,920
Stenographer	 1,680
Supervisor of wharfages	 4,380
Cashier	 2,220

Clerks	 1,920
2,010
2,040
Checker	 1,800
3.	Assistant wharfinger, one; wharfage clerk, one; checker, one; stenographer, one; supervisor of wharfages, one; cashier, one; clerks, five; checker, one.


SUBSIDIES ON SOAP AND SHORTENING
Mr. CARDIFF:: What was the amount of money outstanding and claimed as subsidies on soap and shortening sales for the calendar year 1942, as at December 31, 1942, by (a) soap manufacturers; (b) shortening manufacturers?

Questions


James Lorimer Ilsley: (a) the amount of money claimed' as subsidies and approved for payment as at December 31, 1942, was 8497,357. Claims in respect of sales to December 31, 1942, outstanding at that date and subsequently approved for payment up to March 31, 1943, amounted to $289,753, a total of $787,110 in respect of sales of soap in the calendar year 1942. Of this total approximately ninety per cent has been paid as an accountable advance subject to repayment to the extent that the profits of the applicant companies may prove to be within the 100 per cent excess profits bracket, (b) None.


SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	How many soldier settlers acquired titles to their farms during the periods March 31, 1941, to March 31, 1942; and March 31, 1942, to March 31, 1943?
2.	During the same periods, how many settlers vacated their farms, (a) of their own free will;
(b)	under pressure from the soldier settlement board?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	March 31, 1941, to March 31, 1942-291; March 31, 1942 to March 31, 1943-400.
2.	April 1, 1941, to March 31, 1942 (a) 235;
(b)	20.
By reason of abandonment, extended absenteeism, death of settler, non-payment, etc., rescission of contract was effected in 255 cases. Of this number 177 executed quit claim deeds and 78 were served with thirty-day notice of repossession. Out of the 78 only 20 settlers were in occupation of the farms.
April 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943 (a) 71; (b) 5.
For the reasons stated above contracts were rescinded in 76 cases. Of this number 46 executed quit claim deeds and 30 were served with thirty-day notice of repossession. Out of the 30 only five settlers were in occupation of the farms.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-CONCILIATION OFFICERS
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the conciliation officers of the Department of Labour?
2.	What are their respective salaries?
3.	What were their occupations before entering the service of the department?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 
NATIONAL WAR FINANCE COMMITTEE-ADVERTISING IN FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Did the national war finance committee place an advertisement in the Canadian edition of Time magazine of May 10, 1943?
2.	Ts this magazine published in Canada?
3.	If so. what is its circulation in Canada?
4.	What is its circulation outside of Canada?
5.	AVhat is the cost of such advertisement?
6.	Is the cost payable in United States or Canadian funds?
7.	If in United States funds, has the foreign exchange control board authorized release of American dollars for payment of this account?
8.	Does the national war finance committee advertise in foreign publications in order to reach the Canadian people?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No information.
4.	No information.
5.	$540.
6.	Canadian funds.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	Yes, but only in Canadian editions.
2S6S
Questions

WAR veterans' allowances-widows in


NECESSITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any authority been given the war veterans' allowance board to pay an allowance to those widows, in necessitous circumstances, whose husbands saw service in a theatre of actual war or were penisoners during their lifetime?
2.	What action will be taken this session in the matter?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	No.
2.	If and when vote 205 in the 1943-44 estimates of the Department of Pensions and National Health is passed by parliament, the circumstances in which, and terms upon which, payment may be made will be prescribed by the governor in council.


PENSIONS-1885 NORTHWEST FIELD FORCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What consideration has been given to the application made by the veterans of the 1885, northwest field force, to grant them, (a) an annual pension; (b) any other special allowance or federal assistance?
2.	What action, if any, has been taken in the matter since March 11, last?
3.	Will an opportunity be afforded the house to discuss this question and, if so, when?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	(a) The Pension Act provides that a pension for disability granted by the governor in council to a veteran of the northwest rebellion at a rate lower than that which would have been paid had the disability been incurred during the great war of 1914-18 shall be increased during the pensioner's residence in Canada to the great war rate, (b) A pensioner is entitled to treatment with compensation by the Department of Pensions and National Health for his pensionable disability. Consideration has been given to the granting of any other allowance or federal assistance, but no such allowance or assistance has been authorized.
2.	None.
3.	The question can be discussed during consideration of vote No. 239 in the departmental estimates.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-LABOUR SUPPLY BRANCH


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Are there any statistics on labour turnover in war plants?
2.	If so, what is the percentage on turnover per month in all plants for which statistics are available?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1942	Percentage
July	  6-5
August	 8-3
September	 5-9
October	 5-0
November	 5-0
December	 4-4
January	 4-2
February	 4'8


CANADIAN ARMY-REINFORCEMENTS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Is there at present a number of trained army divisions destined to be sent overseas as reinforcements for the troops already there?
2.	If so, (a) what is the actual number; (b) to what army corps do they belong; (c) do they consist only of volunteers, or are conscripts included ?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) advised me to drop this question. I do not see him in the \ouse at the moment.


Thomas Vien: Dropped.


Gordon Graydon: I do not see how, even with the wide powers of an unsworn parliamentary assistant, a question which has been put on the order paper by another member can possibly be dropped without his consent.


Thomas Vien: I must accept the hon. gentleman's word that the hon. member for Gaspe has consented to its being dropped.


Frédéric Dorion: I think it should stand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let it stand.


Thomas Vien: Stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will a civilian inquest be held into the recent disorders at Sussex, New Brunswick, military camp?
2.	Has the government asked the Attorney General of New Brunswick, or the municipal authorities there, to hold a civilian inquest?
3.	Have these civilian authorities been asked not to hold one, or prevented from holding one?
4.	Have the provincial authorities asked to be allowed to conduct one in the public interest, instead of a closed military one?
5.	Does a soldier lose his civilian status and rights on enlisting?
6.	How many civilian inquests have been held in Canada, since this war started, into the deaths of members of His Majesty's forces while in training in Canada?
7.	Will a coroner's inquest be held into the death of the soldier at Sussex aforesaid; did a coroner view the remains, and what action did he or any other civilian authority take in the matter?


William Chisholm Macdonald: Return
tabled.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-CATEGORIES OF TOBACCO DEALERS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Was an order issued by the wartime prices and trade board forbidding the Tobacco and Cigarette Manufacturers' Association, of the province of Quebec, to change the categories, made in 1934 or 1935, of their dealers (wholesalers, wholesalers and retailers, and retailers only) ?
2.	If so, what is such order?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Return tabled.


OTTAWA-WASHINGTON TELETYPE SERVICE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Does any department of the federal government operate a teletype service between Washington and Ottawa, and/or Washington and New York?
2.	If so, what is the cost of said service for, (a) installation; (b) all operations to date?

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	By what departments of the government is this service used?
4.	Has the wartime information board the right to use this teletype service with or without priorities ?
5.	What officials or staff are employed in the operation or handling of this service?
6.	Is the operation of such teletype service computed on a line mileage or hourly basis?
7. If so, what is the total cost of such operation on, (a) line mileage; (b) hourly basis?


GRAIN ALCOHOL
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By years, how much grain alcohol -was produced in Canada during 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942?
2.	During each of the above-mentioned years, how much grain alcohol was imported into Canada, and how much was exported from Canada?



ALUMINIUM LIMITED-ALUMINUM COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNOWLES;
1.	Is Aluminium Limited incorporated under the laws of the Dominion of Canada? If so, when was it incorporated?
2.	Has the above corporation any other functions than that of a holding company? If so. what are they?
3.	What companies, plants, etc., in Canada, are owned by or are subsidiary to Aluminium Limited ?
4.	What companies, plants, etc., outside of Canada, are owned by, or are subsidiary to Aluminium Limited?
5.	What is the relation between the Aluminum Company of America and Aluminium Limited, and between the Aluminum Company of America and the Aluminum Company of Canada?
6.	Who are the officers and directors of Aluminium Limited, and what are their addresses?
7.	Who are the officers and directors of the Aluminum Company of Canada?

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has any consideration been given by the government, or by any department or branch thereof, to the question of rerouting the Souris branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in order to permit a northward extension of Stevenson field at Winnipeg?
2.	Have any representations in the above matter been made to the government, or to any department or branch thereof, and if so, by whom ?



MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1. Are any of the members of the cabinet, or any parliamentary assistants to the ministers, directors of any companies, corporations, etc.?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
2.	If so, what ministers or assistants are such, and of what companies or corporations?
3.	Have any of the above ministers resigned from any directorates, as above, since being sworn in, and if so, which ministers, on what dates, and from what companies or corporations?
4.	Have any of the above parliamentary assistants resigned from any directorates, as above, since their appointment, and if so, which assistants, on what dates, and from what companies or corporations?



FOURTH VICTORY LOAN-OBJECTIVES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS IN LARGER CENTRES

Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the thirty towns or cities in Canada which have the largest populations, and what is the population of each?
2.	What objective was set for each in the fourth victory loan?
3.	How much was subscribed in each of these municipalities?
4.	What was the percentage of subscriptions to these objectives?



CANADIAN ARMY-HOSPITALS

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Is Christie street hospital. Toronto, used exclusively for men of the armed forces?
2.	What hospitals are used for women of the armed forces?



SPECIAL COMMODITY FREIGHT RATES

Mr. HATFIELD:: Do the Department of Munitions and Supply, the agricultural supply board, and the war products board, pay the special commodity freight rates or the class rates in making shipments of munitions and other war supplies?



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have one or two questions to ask the acting leader of the government. One relates to the war appropriation bill. The Minister of Finance some weeks ago, in response to an inquiry I made, and again later in the house, gave an undertaking that there would be furnished for the use of those taking part in the debate some comparative statements with respect to a schedule placed on Hansard on March 3, so that we should have a comparison between the expenditures in these various groups from the beginning of the war until to-day. I was wondering whether he had made any headway.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance)
A great deal of work was done on that, and' I can place on Hansard to-morrow or Monday

Parliamentary Assistants
a comparative statement showing expenditures in the last fiscal year. The request was for comparative expenditures in each of the two preceding years. Something, has been prepared on that, but the categories are nob comparable and it would simply lead to con-* fusion if they were placed on Hansard. I do not think it would be desirable. The best thing would be to place on Hansard a comparison of the year before with the present year. The leader of the opposition may perhaps give some consideration to the question whether that would be satisfactory. Personally I think it is the best way.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister is prepared to give us immediately a comparative statement showing expenditures in the last fiscal year, perhaps we can consider the question as to how valuable the other information will be and how essential it is to discussion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.



WASHINGTON CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the leader of the
government whether it is the intention of any other ministers to go to Washington in addition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston)? .


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I fear I cannot give my
hon. friend any useful information on that at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have another question and I hope it will not be misunderstood; we have heard so much to-day about misunderstandings. I was wondering whether the government could say whether we are to sit on May 24? I presume we are, but I should like to know for the information of our party.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The intention is to sit on
May 24.


Gordon Graydon: I think we should in
war time.


Thomas Langton Church: I
asked the Prime Minister the same question about Empire day or Victoria day last year. He made the statement he would give consideration to it. We are the senior dominion of the empire, and surely we have time enough to pause and pay tribute to the empire's soldiers. The office of provincial mayors of municipalities has declared a public holiday in Ontario. Are public offices in Toronto to be closed? The municipalities of Ontario have reversed the decision of the government with respect to Victoria day.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Perhaps I should answer the question of the hon. member for Broadview. The dominion government has passed two orders in council dealing with the matter of public holidays. One, passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), deals with the question as between the employer and employee. The other, passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), deals with holidays under the Bills of Exchange Act.
Subject to that, any proper authority which has the right to declare holidays, provided they do not interfere with either of those orders in council which deal, as I say, between employer and employee, has the right so to do, so far as this parliament is concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: The Department of Justice was right and the government was wrong.



PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have one more question. I think the government has taken too lightly the question of swearing in parliamentary assistants.
Mr. MacNlCOL: Swear them, out would be better.


Gordon Graydon: I ask this question seriously. The Minister of Justice the other day was asked whether or not there had been a reference to the Department of Justice, as indicated by the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, as to the necessity of swearing in parliamentary assistants. I now ask the Minister of Justice, first of all, whether he has had this matter referred to him by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and I would also ask him to give the house some information
Man-Power

as to the position, of those hon. gentlemen who are now qualified or have been appointed as parliamentary assistants. Actually there is something to be explained with respect to their position in the house.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): This morning I received a memorandum from the Minister of National Defence asking me to have that question examined by the law officers of the department. Since I received the memorandum I have not had an opportunity of returning to the department to discuss the matter with the deputy minister. I shall do so the first thing to-morrow morning.



FARMERS' CREDITORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice how soon the new Fanners' Creditors Arrangement Act will be introduced into the house?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I can only repeat what I said the other day. An act has been drafted. It is still under consideration, and will be ready for introduction into the house just as soon as the house has disposed- of the matters to which it is now giving consideration. I cam assure my hon. friend that no delay will be occasioned by the consideration now being given to the drafting.



MAN-POWER REGISTRATION OF EMPLOYEES IN SPECIFIED OCCUPATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is the Minister of Labour now in a position to give a report in reference to the result of the order made on May 4, whereby men in certain specified occupations were required to register with the selective service authorities by May 17, with a view to transfer to certain preferred industries?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, compulsory labour transfer order No. 1 was up to and including May 19-not May 17. I believe I was in error when I said it was May 17. May 19 was only yesterday, and I think the hon. member will agree with me it would hardly be possible at this early date to make the kind of statement I know the hon. member wishes to have. But he can rest assured that as soon as I get it I shall be glad to give it to the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health supplementary to the inquiry I made two days ago. I ask this question because I take it from his remarks of Tuesday that some study has been given to matters relating to the paying of special allowances to certain widows of veterans of the last war. Has the government decided to make these payments retroactive to April 1 of this year, after item 205 of the estimates has been sanctioned by the house.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): No decision has yet been arrived at as to what date these payments will be payable from.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker in reply to a question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) which appeared on page 2756 of Hansard I wish to make the following statement:
Specifically the questions raised refer to a statement that-
. . . more than a score of Wallaceburg workers have been drawing unemployment insurance for eight weeks while local industries are obtaining outside workers from selective service.
In respect of this phase of the question there are ten men in the Wallaceburg district who are being paid unemployment insurance benefits. These men will be placed in employment just as quickly as can be arranged. Selective service is not bringing men into Wallaceburg. There has been one outsider placed since March 1, 1943.
The telegram referred to in the question states, " One local industry has asked for two hundred housewives to work in plant." It is a fact that the Wallaceburg employment office has an order for 200 women for an industry in that community, but the office has not been able to fill the order.
The general situation in Wallaceburg is that there are very few men out of work and those that are unemployed are being placed quite rapidly.

Supply-Agriculture



COLLINS AND AIKMAN PLANT AT FAKNHAM, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: 

UNITED STATES NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the. Minister of Justice with reference to a document he tabled yesterday respecting jurisdiction over United States nationals in Canada. The document tabled by the minister had connection with a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Supreme Court Act. In the event of a decision being given, the factum stating that1 the provinces are summoned to appear, will there be an appeal to the privy council overseas from the judgment of the supreme court?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I would not even attempt to answer that question, so far as the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the supreme court is concerned. I trust the decision of the supreme court will, through the terms in which it is rendered, impress us with the fact that it is well founded, and that there will be no necessity of taking the matter farther.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service.
1. Departmental administration, $130,406.


Mr. SENN:: I understand a parliamentary secretary is to be appointed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know if the government have fully considered this matter, if they have reached a decision and, if so, who is to be the assistant.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but I am not in a position to answer any part of the question. That matter is dealt with by the Prime Minister.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to say a few words on the matter of farm wages and the farm labour situation in Canada at the present time. The other day the Minister of National Defence stated that the situation in regard to man-power was tight. I should say that the situation in regard to man-power on the farms of Canada has been tight for some time, and if we are to get the increased production that will be necessary to fill the orders we have received from abroad for foodstuffs, I think some attention must be paid to this matter. The minister stated that approximately 177,000 men would be required for the armed forces during the coming year, and we all know that if our soldiers go into action soon, we shall have to supply reinforcements at a much greater rate than has been the situation to date. There is also the matter of our war production in Canada. We have been told by the government that something like $800,000,000 has been expended on plant and equipment in Canada, all of which must be manned. Then we have a large shipbuilding programme which requires a great many men, not only for the building of the ships but to man them after they are launched.
It seems to me that this man-power question in Canada has been perhaps the greatest muddle we have had to face. We had a man appointed last year to head the selective service who, I believe, would have solved this problem if he had been allowed to carry on. He was dismissed, however, although since his dismissal the government have had to adopt at least some of the measures he proposed, and I believe they will have to adopt more of them before this problem is finally solved. The government now propose, under selective service, to take many men out of non-essential industries and make them available where
2S74
Supply-Agriculture

labour is needed in essential industries. According to one statement, some two hundred thousand of these people will be transferred, and many of them will be placed in agriculture. The Minister of National Defence said there would be still available a considerable number of men who might undertake more active service if they could be replaced by women, and I would suggest that the government go farther in the matter of taking women out of non-essential industries. I hold in my hand a copy of The Rural Co-operator, published in Toronto by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It commends the government for the stand they have taken in transferring men from non-essential industry, and goes on to say:
Another source of man-power and woman-power would be among those employed for personal service so that their employers can spend their time playing bridge or doing something equally unimportant to the national welfare. All the people we know who are doing big jobs do not seem to require staffs of private chauffeurs or parlour maids. But simply because certain people happened to have acquired much money the following ad appears in a Toronto paper, even in our fourth year of war.
"Parlour maid wanted for May 1, four in family, three maids kept. Apply employment and selective service, 832 Bay street."
It appears to me that if our selective service cannot find more to do than look for third maids for families of four, we have not solved our problem of man-power and womampower in this country, and I would suggest that the government look into this point.
With regard to these people it is proposed to transfer from non-essential industries to agriculture, the wages paid by agriculture during the past three years have increased very greatly. I have in my hand some statistics from the dominion bureau giving the wage scales by provinces from 1941 to 1943, and also giving the average for Canada as a whole. In 1941 the average wage paid for farm help per day, as at January 15, was $1.24 with board. In 1943 this had risen to $2.02. In August, 1941, the average wage paid farm help in Canada was $1.52; in 1942 it was $2.50, and I may add that there has been another increase in 1943. As a matter of fact; just before I boarded the train to return to Ottawa after the Easter recess I had a visit from a farmer who seemed to be rather peeved. He wanted to know what the blankety-blank we were doing here in Ottawa in regard to farm wages. I asked what was the trouble and he said, "Well, a month ago I hired a man to work on my farm for the summer at $75 a month. Last week, when I was ready to start seeding,
	. ,u
he told me he wanted $85. I agreed to give him $85 a month, but this morning he said he wanted $100. I told him to pack his bag, and I brought him to town with me. Now I do not know how I am going to get in my crop." That may not be general, but I know it has occurred in western Canada as a result of the scarcity of labour; and these increased wages are not the only additional costs the farmer has to meet.
If you transfer men from non-essential industries to the farms, many of these men will know nothing about farming but they will ask the same wages as those paid to experienced help. Any farmer knows that inexperienced help costs at least twice as much as experienced help, even though the wages may be the same. That was what we found last fall, when large harvest excursions were run to the west from eastern Canada. I would say that 50 per cent of those who went west on those excursions had no farm experience, yet they asked the same wages, $5 and $6 a day, as those that were being paid to experienced help.
If we are to get the necessary production in this country; if we are to supply the food1 being asked for by Great Britain., we shall have to do something about this labour situation. There is a food shortage in Canada, whether we are ready to admit it or not. In this evening's Ottawa Journal we find a1 statement that housewives are having to pay five cents apiece for potatoes. The article reads:
"I wouldn't be surprised if they were," commented L. F. Burrows, secretary of the Canadian fruit wholesalers' association, to-day when informed of reports that Ottawa housewives were paying up to five cents each for potatoes. [DOT] *
"There is an acute shortage of potatoes all over Canada and the United States," Mr. Burrows said. "Everything possible is being done by the prices board to ensure a fair distribution of what potatoes are available."


Humphrey Mitchell: Did he say how heavy the potatoes were?


Percy Ellis Wright: No; but I imagine it
would have to be a large potato to be worth1 five cents. We have price, ceilings in Canada, and there is a ceiling on wages in every industry with the exception of agriculture. I suggest fhat the government should give serious consideration to setting minimum and maximum farm wages so that farmers may have some idea of what their labour will cost. We should be fair with the men who are to go from non-essential industries into agriculture. Many of these men have families which

Supply-A g riculture
will have to be maintained in the cities, and I doubt if they will be able to maintain them with the wages they will earn in agriculture.
The government should consider paying a subsidy to these men so that they will be able to keep their families and so that agriculture may have their services at prices the farmer is able to pay. Ceiling prices apply to many products, and if there is no ceiling on agricultural costs there will be a reduction in production. A farmer is only going to go through one experience of hiring inexperienced help, because with inexperienced help it is more trouble to produce than it is under ordinary circumstances. The result will be that he will cut his production. The government should give serious consideration to this matter of farm wages and the effect that any increase in wages will have upon the production of this country.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to support what the hon. member has said. I raised this question with the Minister of Finance during a debate this winter, and he said he could not give me any answer. I pointed out that in settling the steel strike last fall the government had, by order in council guaranteed the workers a base of fifty-five cents an hour, plus cost-of-living bonus. I went on to point out to the house, as the hon. member has done this evening, the wages that are being paid on farms this spring. In my opinion, farm help are entitled to the same consideration given to labour in industry and to steel workers. I placed on Hansard figures to show what it would cost a farmer for his help if he paid fifty-five cents an hour, plus a living bonus. It was considerably more than the $75 and $85 a month that is now being paid.
During the last session I had1 many discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour, and I bring up .the matter again to-night because both these ministers are in their places. If we are to maintain the price ceiling, the government will have to face this problem. I trust that these ministers will bring pressure to bear on their colleagues in the government and have this matter taken care of. I am not urging that the farm worker should work for a lower wage than is paid to labour in industry, and therefore it will be necessary for the government to bonus farm labour or adopt some other means of solving this problem.. As has been pointed out, inefficient farm labour is very costly. I would rather pay a good man who I knew would take care of my power equipment twice what I might have to pay inexperienced help, because I know I would be farther ahead in the long run. I trust the government will be able to give us some assurance in this regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just clear what the hon. member is advocating. Is he advocating that there should be a ceiling on wages or that the government should pay a subsidy?


James Arthur Ross: I am not so sure just which should be done. When I spoke before, I advocated the payment of a bonus. If we are to maintain ceiling prices throughout this country, we must realize that farm labour is entitled to the same remuneration as is paid to labour in other industries.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the other industries the cost of living bonus is not paid by the government; it is paid by the employer.


James Arthur Ross: In many instances the government purchase the product, and in that way they are really paying the cost of living bonus. We have been given the details of the great cost of subsidizing these different productions in order to keep down the cost of living. I aim not so much concerned about how you bring this about, but you must either let agricultural prices rise or you must bonus labour in order that our farmer's can produce and receive some degree of parity.


Humphrey Mitchell: If there is no rise in the cost of living index, -there is no rise in the cost of living bonus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A moment ago the Minister of Agriculture said that the government did not pay the cost of living bonus, but as a matter of fact many of the war materials are produced on a cost-plus basis and the government does pay the cost of living bonus. While the manufacturer pays it in the first place, the government pays it when it buys the product.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government does the same thing with farm products. We pay an advance on wheat and we take delivery of bacon and pay delivery costs at the port. The same is true of cheese and many other farm products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But they are not on a cost-plus basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt if there is a farmer in Canada who would say that he, is not getting a little -more than his cost of production for his cheese.

War Labour Board


Mr. PERLEY:: It is nearing eleven o'clock, and it is a very important matter that has been brought up. I suggest to the minister that when we take up his estimates again-I do not suppose it will be to-morrow-he should make a statement with respect to our farm labour programme and also a general statement with regard to his department. This should be done in order to clear up the farm labour situation, wages and bonuses and so on. I notice in this item that cost of living bonuses are paid to officials in the department, and I think the minister should make a general statement as to how he proposes to handle the farm labour situation.


Mr. WOOD:: Would it be possible to have the number of men who have left our farms since the war commenced, giving the percentage that are in the army and the percentage that have gone into industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to ask you to come to my rescue, because the items referred to- do not come in my estimates or in my department at all, but are in the Department of Labour, and the hon. members will have to content themselves until the Minister of Labour has his estimates before the committee.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 21, 1943