Explain.

The purpose of this

bill is to submit for the consideration of parliament an amendment following a recommendation of the commissioners on uniform legislation of the Canadian Bar Association. It would add a section to the Canada Evidence Act to make admissible as evidence photographic copies of entries in the books of banks or of the dominion government or of any of its departments, and incidentally permit the destruction of voluminous old records, thereby saving considerable storage space. A similar bill has already been adopted by five of the provincial legislatures and is being considered by the others.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

1. What are the names and addresses of the persons to whom cheques were issued (a) for over $10,000, (b) for $5,000 to $10,000 on wheat acreage reduction bonus?

2. How were the amounts made up?

3. How much did each receive?

Mr. GARDINER:

This question has been given further consideration and I would still suggest to the house that it be dropped, on the grounds stated a few days ago. I have no objection at all to the names being given to any member of the house who desires to have them, but I hesitate to set a precedent by bringing down a list of names out of a group of 186,000. It would require a great deal of work by the staff, and, if given with respect to this legislation, similar information might be asked for in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and other measures of the kind. It would entail an enormous amount of work if the house were to take the position that all these names must be given, together with the amounts received.

Only seven names are involved in this particular list. Three of them are names of companies, and four I think are names of individuals. I do not know any of the individuals except one in Saskatchewan; the others are in Alberta. There is no personal reason, involving the individuals themselves or the companies or the government, why these figures should not be given, and as I have said, I have no objection to giving them to any individual member who desires to have them. But companies have asked us for lists of these names for the purpose of using them in making collections. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that. It is not a question of the individual, but they want these lists of names in groups in order that they may send out their collectors to make collections. We have not thought it proper to turn over to them lists which might be used in that way. They could be got indirectly through people asking for certain names in certain areas and by giving certain dates. But we hesitate to have that done, and for that reason I suggest that the question be dropped.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Speaker, before the question is dropped I would point out that a matter of principle is involved. If the government feels that it is not in the public interest to give certain information to the house, the government may withhold that information; or if giving it would entail too great an amount of work, the information may 'be withheld. But in this particular case there are only seven names, and regardless of everything else I think as a matter of principle we

should insist upon this information being given to the house. I have asked from my place for the amounts paid to certain persons in the lower categories, and no objection was ever made to giving me that information publicly in the house. As to giving such information to companies which ask for lists of names, that is a different matter. But when members of the house ask for details of the expenditure of public moneys, for the information of parliament, I think the principle is sound that we should be given the information, and on that ground I hope the question will not be dropped.

Mr. GARDINER:

Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I do not recall ever having brought down in the house any list of names or any figures applying to individuals. The question has been asked a number of times and the same position has always been taken with regard to it as is being taken now. It is true that when we have been discussing a matter in committee back and forth across the floor some information has been given, as also when hon. members have written with regard to individual cases, but I do not recall any list ever having been given.

Mr. COLDWELL:

No. I asked what an individual had received, and I received the information in answer to the question.

Mr. HAZEN:

I put this question on the order paper, and I object to its being dropped. If you will examine the question you will notice that it asks not only for the names and addresses of the people who have received these large amounts, but also for further information; it asks how were the amounts made up. Under this wheat bonusing act, as I understand it, $4 an acre was allowed for land which was put in summer-fallow and $2 an acre was allowed for land which was put into coarse grain. This is public money, and we as the trustees and representatives of the people are entitled to know how that money was spent. Surely we are entitled to information of this kind. If we are not, I really do not know what good we are here so far as the public treasury and finances of the country are concerned.

Mr. STIRLING:

If I may, I would like to suggest that the question be not dropped to-day, that at least it stand over until the Minister of Finance has made the statement on subsidies which he proposes to make. It may easily link up with what is divulged on that occasion. I should like it to stand.

Question stands.

Questions

1. In view of the scarcity of gasoline, has the attention of the government been called to the widespread use in Australia of what is called producer gas units, whereby charcoal is used to produce gas, and over 13,000 have been fitted to motor vehicles?

2. Would the government have the matter investigated as to the possibility of its introduction in Canada?

1. Yes.

2. The government has had this -matter under active investigation since midsummer of 1941.