1. How many dams constructed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have^ been washed out or otherwise destroyed in 'whole or in part in each of the years, 1936 to 1941, inclusive?

2. What was the location of each of the dams in question?

3. What was the cost of putting in each of said dams?

4. What was the cost of reconstruction and repair of each of the said dams?

1. 1936, 1; 1937, 1; 1938, 5; 1939, 2; 1940,

2; 1941, 2.

Location of Cost of Cost ofProject Construction Repairs24-2-21-1 $ 2,978.91 $ 355.3023-2-3-4 17,990.00 6,379.7823-2-3-4 17,990.00 Not yet repaired3-25-11-4 24,385.00 10,118588-4-11-2 14,615.98 5.985.0015-1-8-2 8,701.46 2,960.0023-7-5-3 930.00 736.724-8-29-2 10.805.14 2,500.0016-2-14-2 3,187.23 1,220.004-8-29-2 10.805.14 Not yet repaired23-17-11-3 1,620.41 736.0020-8-14-2 25,950.25 7,000.00(estimated)2-9-5-3 2,525.48 900.00

Questions

orders in council suspending provisions

1. Have any orders in council purporting to change or suspend the operation of the provisions of any dominion statute either in whole or in part been passed since the outbreak of war?

2. If so, what are the particulars of such orders in council, the dates and the operative effects of the respective orders in council so passed?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I might reply

orally to this question. To the first part the answer is, yes. As to the second, I am informed by the clerk of the council that there is no separate index of orders in council which amend statutes, and that it would require a great deal of research to discover the different orders which might have that effect and also to reply to the question as to the operative effect of the respective orders so passed.

What I should like to suggest is that the hon. member who has asked the question confer with the clerk of the council, and perhaps he could indicate specifically the particular orders he may wish to see. He would get a general impression of the position as a whole. I think that would be the simplest way of obtaining the information desired.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The hon. member who asked the question is absent this afternoon. I shall call his attention to the remarks of the Prime Minister. It occurs to me, however, that each minister knows of the orders in council promoted from his department which have the effect of changing the statutes of Canada under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and that in that way this information, which is wholly desirable-I think the public should know; certainly we who are in parliament should know how many orders in council, have been passed, and when, and what they are, and the dates of their operative effect -should be made available. It is a very serious thing to alter a statute of parliament by order in council. I ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to have the question followed up a little further and perhaps we can get the information. It is not a controversial matter, but it is one of extreme importance from the point of view of liberty.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am informed that 13,807 orders in council have been passed since September, 1939, and that to obtain the particulars asked for would involve an examination of each one of those orders. I

shall be glad to draw the attention of my colleagues to the remarks of my hon. friend to see whether further information can be obtained in that way.

french LEGATION IN OTTAWA-PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF GENERAL DE GAULLE

1. Has the attention of the government been called to the following dispatch in the Toronto Telegram, night edition, page one, on Wednesday, May 14, as follows:-

Vichy approves deal with nazis to halt

United States entry into the war.

The effect of this deal with the hun soon

will be felt and will be an accomplished fact

of European cooperation designed to halt

America's entry into the war.

2. Will the government give further consideration to the immediate closing of the Vichy embassy here?

3. On what date did the government of Great Britain recognize the provisional government of General de Gaulle as an ally in this war, and was Canada so notified?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think I should answer these questions orally. Replying to No. 1, I can say that the attention of the government has not been called to the dispatch in the Toronto Telegram referred to.

As to No. 2, there is no "Vichy embassy" in Canada. There is a French legation; I suppose that is the institution to which reference is made.

As to No. 3, I am not aware that the British government has recognized any provisional government of General de Gaulle or that there is any such body. That, I think, will answer the question so far as I can do so immediately.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Except as to No. 2.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

But may I

say, in regard to these questions which relate to some of the developments in Europe at the present time and which concern discussions that have been and are taking place between the government at Vichy and Germany, that there are no matters which are causing the government of the United Kingdom, and, I imagine, the governments of all free countries more concern than those very matters. I do not think it would be in the interests of freedom itself that any statement which might be premature should be made, or action which might be precipitate should be taken by any government of the British commonwealth of nations at this time. For that reason I hope hon. members will not expect any statement to be made by myself on this very delicate subject until the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself has spoken in reference to it.

Questions

While I am touching on this subject I would say that I noticed a question asked by my hon. friend the leader of the CoOperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) in regard to the position of the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

As my hon. friend is aware, all islands in the northern half of the western hemisphere have been the subject of careful consideration by the permanent joint board of defence, in relation to both military and naval security; and the government of Canada has been watching the situation closely with respect to such of these islands as are off our coasts. I can assure the house that we have every reason to feel that there is no occasion for concern on the part of the people of Canada in reference to either St. Pierre or Miquelon. I would add that the government is being kept informed of conditions in these islands, also that the government is in constant touch with the government of the United Kingdom in respect to the larger question of the relations between the Vichy government and Germany.

1. Has the minister refused passports to the members of the Canadian Red Cross transport service, Toronto detachment, who recently applied for them in order to go overseas to do duty as drivers in the British Motor Transport Corps?

2. If so, will the minister reconsider his decision and authorize the granting of these passports?

1. The files of the department do not appear to contain applications for passports from the members of the Toronto detachment, Canadian Red Cross transport service, for permission to go overseas to do duty as drivers in the British transport corps. The names of the applicants and the dates on which applications were made would be necessary in order to make a complete search.

2. Answered by No. 1.

1. Who were the government or departmental counsels in the Bren gun probe?

2. Referring to the statement of commissioner Davis, at page 3948 of the evidence: "I do not know yet, from the evidence, who was the solicitor really acting for the government, the Department of National Defence," did the counsels mentioned in No. 1 not inform the commissioner?

3. If not, why?

4. Who was such solicitor?

Mr. RALSTON:

I can give a verbal

answer to this question. Counsel appointed to represent the government and to assist the commission in connection with the Bren gun probe were Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C., Mr. Jacques Dumoulin, K.C., and another gentleman named J. L. Ralston, K.C.

With reference to the second question, my hon. friend is evidently under a misapprehension. He quotes the commissioner as having said:

I do not know yet, from the evidence, who was the solicitor really acting for the government, the Department of National Defence.

As I think my hon. friend will see from the context, that statement refers to counsel who were representing the government and the department in connection with the making of the contract, not the counsel who were representing the government at the inquiry.

Mr. POULIOT:

This is what I meant: Orde. There is no answer about Orde.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Answered.

Mr. POULIOT:

No, Mr. Speaker; there is a misunderstanding. I quoted what the commissioner said, and it did not refer to any one of the three counsel but to the departmental judge advocate general, who never knew anything, and it scandalized the commissioner when he saw he was the one who drafted it. It was then that the commissioner changed his mind. The minister knows that; he was the one who defended Orde here in the house.