Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that I have received the following communication:

I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely. p,. P. Duff,

Government House, Administrator.

Ottawa.

Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Would he have the report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year 1938-39 tabled at the next sitting of the house, or as soon thereafter as possible?

I should like to ask another question. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, provision is made for a weekly report from the board to the minister. Would the minister consider having these weekly reports tabled, covering the period since August 1, 1939?

Hon. JAMES A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) was good enough to intimate to me that he intended asking these questions this afternoon, and I took occasion to discuss the points raised with the advisers of the department and officials of the wheat board who are in the city at the present time.

The report of the wheat board to which the hon. member refers was tabled in this house on the 17th day of this month, immediately after the opening of parliament.

Regarding the weekly audit reports, this is a matter which has been up for discussion before with this department. I think all I can say is that this report exhibits the exact position of the board from week to week, and it is not considered in the best interests of the country that the figures contained therein should be made available to the public. I am sure the hon. member will fully appreciate that. The figures would be of special value to the people to whom we look to sell wheat, and the publication of them would put us in an unfair position. The regularly published statistics containing the figures of Canada's whole wheat position are available through the bureau of statistics, and the report of the board of grain commissioners, and with respect to a monthly report I think these same remarks would apply.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Has the attention of the government and of the minister been drawn to the voluntary offering to the government of various kinds of mechanized equipment by municipalities, corporations and

Munitions and Supply

private individuals, as a contribution to Canada's war effort? Will the government lay down a policy and rules and regulations on this matter and let the Canadian people know that such contributions will be welcomed as they were in the last war?

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance):

My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply intimated to me that the hon. member was going to ask this question, and it was thought that I might reply because of the fact that the offers to which the hon. member refers generally come in the form of offers of money to be used for a particular purpose. Members well understand that it is extremely difficult in practice to earmark a particular sum of money for a particular piece of equipment; it would mean the maintaining of a special fund for each particular purpose. Therefore we are indicating to the donors that it would be preferable if they would permit that money to be put into the consolidated revenue fund, and we have pointed out to them that the consolidated revenue fund will be devoted, among other things, to the purchase of equipment of the kind.

I should like to add, however, that if there are offers of special pieces of equipment for particular purposes the government will be very glad to give consideration to them, having regard to what fits best into our requirements. The government welcomes and appreciates, on behalf of the people of Canada, the offers which have been made of funds for particular purposes which afterwards have been permitted to be put into the consolidated revenue fund under the conditions I have mentioned, and the offers of equipment as well.

Mr. CHURCH:

I thank the minister. During the great war Sir John Eaton at his own expense equipped a battery, and I should think help of that kind would be very acceptable.

Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):

I should like to address a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing in the Hamilton Spectator of Wednesday, May 29, wherein it is alleged that certain charges of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) are borne out by the statement of an official of the Sawyer-Massey firm of that city, in these words:

His firm, said the Spectator informant, was prepared, in the event of being awarded a

contract, to start production on a form of tank known as the Bren gun carrier, without delay.

I should like to ask the minister whether tanks or Bren gun carriers were involved in the matter.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

It never occurred to me that a Bren gun carrier and a tank were near relations. I suppose if anyone suggests that the Bren gun earner is a form of tank the opinion is in the eye of the beholder; but they are of very different construction. Several hundred Bren gun carriers are in the process of construction in Canada. It occurs to me that this may explain statements which I thought were preposterous in connection with the manufacture of tanks. Perhaps those speaking had in mind Bren gun or universal carriers, which are capable of being produced entirely in Canada, but the tank is a much more difficult matter. Instead of carrying Bren guns or ammunition it carries men and the machinery of war, and in my mind there is no relation between the two except that they may look alike.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

What about the whippet tanks?

Mr. HOWE:

Well, there is a vast difference between a whippet tank and a Bren gun carrier. They may look somewhat alike but they are very different.