Hon. C. D. HOWE (for the Minister of Transport):

I wish to lay on the table the

financial budget of Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited for the calendar year 1942 and to move that the same be referred, to the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following annual reports for the year 1941 which were laid on the table of the house on March 19 last: Canadian National Railways, Canadian

National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways System; also the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1941, tabled March 23, 1942, together with the following items of the estimates for 1942-43:

400. Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways eastern lines;

401. Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National Railways;

410. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advances;

411. Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1942.

And that the resolution passed by the house on the 20th February, 1942, referring votes 400, 401, 410 and 411 to the committee of supply, be rescinded.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

A new and comprehensive extradition treaty between Canada and the United States was signed this morning in Washington. The signatories of the treaty were the Canadian minister in the United States, Mr. Leighton McCarthy, for Canada; and Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State for the United States.

The new treaty, which governs the arrangements between Canada and the United States for the extradition gf criminals who have fled from one country to another, replaces a series of treaties and conventions which began with the Ashburton-Webster treaty 1842, which was subsequently modified by conventions in 1889, 1900, 1905, 1922, and 1925. In 1931 a new treaty, similar to that now signed between Canada and the United States, was entered into between Great Britain and the United States. While the 1931 treaty replaced the Ashburton-Webster treaty and other conventions, it had no effect upon the position of Canada and the United States. Such modifications as have been made in the new treaty are designed to bring the regulations governing extradition into line with modern conditions.

The new treaty is subject to ratification. It will not be published until arrangements have been completed for its presentation to parliament and to the Senate of the United States.

1. On what goods and materials, domestic and imported, are subsidies now being paid?

2. What subsidy is paid on each kind of goods and materials?

3. How much has been paid to date on each kind of goods and materials?

4. What are the names and addresses of the persons or companies who have been paid subsidies and how much has each received?

Mr. ILSLEY:

I request that this be made an order for return, but with clause 4 dropped

Questions

for the reasons that I stated the other day in the remarks I made to the house with regard to subsidies.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I suppose this is not debatable, but there is a matter of principle involved, just as there is in regard to question No. 2, which has to do with the wheat acreage reduction bonus.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Yes.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I have been looking into this question and the principle involved. I believe the principle to be this: if the minister will state on his responsibility as a minister that it is not in the public interest to divulge names in answer to an inquiry of this kind, he takes the responsibility and the matter stands there. That of course does not relieve the ministry of the responsibility of giving the information if some other method is adopted of asking for it. For instance I think it would not apply on a motion for a return. Bgt I am bound to say that with some surprise I find the rule laid down in May and Bourinot could be such as I have stated.

With respect to the principle underlying question No. 2, the minister has never yet stated that it is not in the public interest to divulge these names; he has given another reason, a reason which no doubt commends itself to him, that it would not be desirable to divulge all the names to those who are seeking them for ulterior purposes. As to question No. 3, as I appreciate it the reason might be on an entirely different basis, namely, that these persons who are to be the recipients of subsidies have these subsidies more or less forced on them-I do not understand that they are applicants for subsidies, but by reason of government policy they are entitled to subsidies. I can well understand that individuals coming within the category of those who are to receive subsidies might get a good deal of undesirable publicity if their names were mentioned.

Mr. ILSLEY:

The subsidies are not forced on them.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

But by reason of government policy they are entitled to them and must receive them if they are to continue in business.

Mr. ILSLEY:

That is correct in most cases.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Therefore I can understand that it might prejudicially affect their business in the mind of the public. For instance a mortgage company might receive $10,000 for summer-fallowing and carrying on good husbandry. I am not

saying there is such a recipient of government largesse, but there might be, and I think the two things ought to be distinguishable. We ought to be able to work out some satisfactory method which will protect the public interest and at the same time leave to hon. members some of the rights of which I am sorry to think we are being deprived.

Mr. COLD WELL:

I am going to take up this matter as one concerning the privileges of the house. It seems to me that the privileges of the house are being infringed by the refusal of ministers to give information regarding the expenditure of public money. I have been looking up some authorities. I have before me Durell's "Parliamentary Grants". The case that has been made by the opposition for the presentation of accounts of the kind asked for in two of these questions is supported by the practice of the British parliament. I quote from page 2 of Durell:

The bed-rock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes. This can only be properly and intelligently discussed if the general principles of the whole system are understood. A preliminary consideration of the English financial system generally is therefore advisable, before dealing with the more restricted subject of control and accounting.

Then it goes on to quote the British practice regarding appropriation and accounting. Again I quote from page 4:

The power of appropriation drew with it the necessity for estimates being regularly laid before the House of Commons, and, by exposing the management of the public revenues, has given the house not only a real and effective control over an essential branch of the executive administration, but in some measure made parliament a partaker in it.

I would like to draw particular attention to these words:

Appropriation alone is, however, of little avail if no provision is made for securing compliance with it. The right of appropriation must be accompanied by the right of parliament to satisfy itself as to the expenditure of the money on the services for which it has been voted.

Then again we have this:

The supreme control of the Commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which those grants are spent.

I should like to quote what the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone said in this connection:

It is undoubtedly the business of the House of Commons to be responsible not only for the inception of all public expenditure, but also to follow the money raised by taxation until the last farthing is accounted for.

This authority also deals with the question of withholding information from the house. It

says:

Information in connection with the accounts may be required either for the purpose of testing the accuracy of the accounts-that is to say, for the verification of computation, appropriation, authorities, and regulation; or with a view to investigating the propriety of the expenditure;

or, finally, information may be required not directly connected with the accounts, but relating to the system. Information under the first head cannot be withheld by a department.

In other words it seems to me that the contention that it is the right of this house to demand an accounting of these expenditures "to the uttermost farthing" is perfectly sound and perfectly valid; for we can have no real accounting unless we know where the funds have been spent. I submit we are on sound ground in asking that these questions be answered.