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

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the 4th instant I read to the house copies of telegrams which I had dispatched earlier in the day to the Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and to Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America. To these messages I have received the following replies:

From Mr. Churchill, a message dated London, March 6, 1943, as follows:

I am deeply touched by your very generous message and I send to you and to all members of the parliament of Canada my heartfelt thanks. I recall with gratitude the warmth of the reception which you all gave me when I visited Canada in December, 1941. In the darkest days Canada, under your leadership, remained confident and true. Now the days are brighter, and when victory is won, you will be able to look back with just pride upon a record surpassed by none.

I might add that this message was read over the radio last night and has appeared in the press of to-day. I have ascertained that it was given out in London on Saturday night, and that the Associated Press received the message from there. It was not given out from my office. Had I had control of the situation I should have held the message and given it to parliament in the first instance.

From Mr. Roosevelt I received this morning a message dated Washington, March 8, 1943, as follows:

The greetings of old friends have always been especially welcome to me, and so please accept my warmest thanks for your message on my tenth anniversary as president. My good neighbours, the Canadians, are kind indeed to have remembered me on this occasion; and I hope you will convey to them, especially to your colleagues in parliament and the government, my cordial appreciation.

The emphasis in your message on the success of our arms and the growing power of our offensive, strikes a prophetic note. Our people, like yours, and those of all the united nations, 72537-65

are determined that there shall be no faltering in our march towards victory whatever the obstacles. In this year, above all, we shall support to the limit our troops of land, sea and air in the grim fighting which lies ahead. All Americans are proud to know of the great sacrifices which their Canadian comrades have made so that Canadian men and materials could contribute so vitally to the struggle.

With cordial good wishes to you, as always, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I indicated on Friday that I would refer the report of the auditor general to the public accounts committee to-day. I now move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar):

That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words with regard to this motion. First I would draw attention to the fact that the motion will deal only with the report of the auditor general as it affects public accounts up to March 31, 1942. Since this motion will be the terms of reference to the committee, it will, as I understand the situation, limit the investigation of that committee to accounts up to that time.

I have a motion on the order paper which, I note, has been relegated to the graveyard of motions by private members and therefore is not likely to be discussed by the house. I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that his motion be made to extend the terms of reference so that the committee may be allowed to investigate not only accounts up to the end of the fiscal year, 1942, but also accounts up to the present time, and particularly with reference to the work being done by the office of economy control set up by the government.

The house is already familiar with the statement made or alleged to have been made

Public Accounts

the other day to the press by the director of economy control, Colonel Thompson. Those statements are pretty serious. When a paper with the position of the Ottawa Journal proceeds to quote the director's statements, putting them in quotation marks, it seems to me the house and the public accounts committee should take serious cognizance of the fact. The press statement says:

Colonel John Thompson, the government's uncompromising economy director, to-day had just about reached the end of his tether.

He had found it increasingly impossible, he told the Journal, "To cope with all the crazy waste and extravagance which some eight months ago he was assigned to control if not eliminate".

Then in quotation marks:

"Evasion, subterfuge and outright trickery" are being used to nullify the work of the office of government economy control.

Thousands of dollars have been spent on office supplies, furniture and equipment, he charged, without the requisitions ever having been submitted to him for examination and approval or rejection.

Piled on his desk this morning were many of these requisitions which had reached him only after the orders had been placed and filled, and the bills for them accrued.

With these requisitions were the "accounts payable" for supplies which had been purchased without his authorization.

One of those accounts was for $2,500, covering but one printing job.

Colonel Thompson has kept a file of such records of "subterfuge, evasion and trickery", to prove, if necessary, how the office of government economy control has been short-circuited.

Each time the colonel has received these "accounts due" for office supplies, which have been purchased without his approval, he has marked them, in red ink, "payment refused".

Some of the accounts have been accrued with private business houses and with printing shops other than the government's publishing establishment.

"1 don't know who will pay them, or how", declared the colonel, "but certain it is that I will not approve payment."

I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that those statements have been made by an official. I know nothing about his qualifications, but I assume the government must have been satisfied with them when they appointed him to this office. He has made what amounts to a very serious charge with reference to waste and extravagance in the conduct of government business.

It seems to me that this is not a matter merely for the executive or for the government; it is a matter for the entire House of Commons, something which ought to be gone into thoroughly by a standing committee. It is true that there is a war expenditures committee, but that committee recognized that there were certain limitations to their work. I should like to quote from page 92 of

the minutes of proceedings No. 3 of that committee, which contains the following in regard to the acquisition of the air field at Gimli:

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.

I quote that for the purpose of pointing out that the war expenditures committee recognized that matters of this sort, dealing with money already spent or with the manner of the spending of such money, is a matter for discussion by the standing committee on public accounts. This is a matter to which the house ought to give serious consideration. It has often been stated that many of our functions have been usurped, but there are two great functions which this house still has. One is the duty of voting supply, and the other is the duty of scrutinizing all accounts paid or payable.

If we allow a situation of this kind to go unchallenged and without investigation, then we private members of the house are derelict in our duty. I want to make this appeal to the government and to the house. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has told us that during the next year the people of Canada are going to be asked to lend to the government the sum of $2,750,000,000. That is a tremendous figure. It will be lent to the government only as a result of considerable sacrifice on the part of the people of Canada. The members of this house will be asked, to urge upon the people of Canada that they make this contribution, and they will gladly do so. But if the people of Canada ever come to feel that this money is not being spent to the best possible advantage; if we ever allow the people to feel that there is waste, extravagance, or, as this report says, subterfuge and outright trickery, then we shall weaken in every fibre our war effort. This house can strengthen the morale of the Canadian people by asking the public accounts committee to examine the public accounts not only up to March 31,

1942, but all accounts up to the present time, and to have Colonel Thompson appear as a witness to discuss these questions which have been raised in the public press. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):

That the motion be amended by adding the following words:

"and that the committee be empowered to examine accounts up to the end of February,

1943, and to investigate the work being done by the office of the government economy control."

Public Accounts

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

addressed to me by Colonel John Thompson, director of government office economies control, which I should like to read:

Apropos of an item I saw in the press, either last night or the night before, I wish to say that at no time has there been any interference by the government, or yourself, or any member of parliament, with this office in the performance of the duties allotted to it by order in council.

The word "no" in the memorandum is underlined, and the letter is signed by John Thompson, whose full title is Colonel John Thompson, director of government office economies control.

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

Is that all that there is in the memorandum, may I ask?

Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, and may I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I have brought to the house all that I have from Colonel Thompson as yet.

Mr. GRAYDON:

If I may ask the minister a question, is that the only memorandum that has come to him from Colonel Thompson?

Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes, that is the only

memorandum that I can find touching upon the question under discussion in this house.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Had the minister seen

the item in the Ottawa Journal and brought it to the attention of Colonel Thompson prior to his sending that memorandum?

Mr. LaFLECHE: On Friday last I made

it very clear that as soon as I saw that article I instituted inquiries, and of course I wrote to the director.

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

Has the minister seen the list of specific charges in Saturday's Toronto Telegram and to-day's Ottawa Journal?

Mr. LaFLECHE: May I say that with the best of will or the worst I cannot take it for granted that these charges have been made by Colonel Thompson. I know him as an honourable gentleman, and I would remind the house of what I said in that connection last Friday, that particularly in the case of such a very old servant of the country as Colonel Thompson is-for years he was head of the pension, commission

I would expect that had he any complaints to make he would make them to his minister direct. In their absence I am not in a position to add one word to what I have already said. I have already given to the house all the information that I have.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I ask the minister

one other question? Has Colonel Thompson denied to the minister the charges that were made in the Ottawa Journal?

Mr. LaFLECHE: I can only repeat-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I would point out that there is a motion and an amendment before the chair. We are not in committee and questioning cannot be permitted.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Personally I think the only manner in which this matter can be cleared up is to have the committee sit and have Colonel Thompson appear before it to substantiate or deny that he ever gave such an interview. The statements that appeared in the press quoted Colonel Thompson, and my experience with the newspaper reporters, particularly those in the gallery of this house, is that when they quote someone they endeavour to quote accurately. I have not known them to do otherwise deliberately. I suggest that the men in our gallery at Ottawa are reliable when they give statements within quotation marks. Moreover, I cannot quite understand the situation, because Colonel Thompson said in his quoted statement that he had made repeated representations to the minister, and the minister has just said, as I understand it, that he has no representations of this sort on file from Colonel Thompson.

I think that the amendment should carry and that the matter should be dealt with under the procedure laid down by parliament. The committee has the power to call witnesses and question them under oath and to go to the bottom of the whole matter in a proper manner. I believe we would be derelict in our duty if we did not follow that procedure, because the charges which are said to have been made are of a serious nature, and ought to be gone into very carefully indeed by a committee of this house. The proper committee is the public accounts committee.

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

May I say first of all that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me last week if I would see that the auditor general's report was referred to the public accounts committee and I said that I would. I have gone him one better by moving that the public accounts be referred as well. I made a mistake in replying to my hon. friend when I said that I thought the auditor general's report had in previous years been referred automatically to the public accounts committee. I agree with the leader of the opposition that it would be desirable that the auditor general's report and the public

JMr. LaFleche.l

Public Accounts

accounts should be referred to the public accounts committee as soon as tabled and the public accounts committee set up. I think that should be done every year. It has not always been done; it has sometimes been done; when it has not been done, it is because the opposition no less than the government were content to have matters as they were.

In regard to the amendment which has just been proposed, may I say first of all that I think it is out of order. I think it is out of order for the reason that it is a substantive motion in itself and therefore cannot be moved as an amendment. His Honour the Speaker has already given a decision to that effect in this session.

But I do not wish to allow the matter to rest there. I am in complete accord with the leader of the opposition and with all hon. members of the house in their desire to see that every possible restraint is placed upon possible unnecessary expenditures and, certainly as far as it is humanly possible so to do, to prevent wasteful expenditure of any kind. The more we can apply safeguards in that direction, the better it is going to be for all concerned. At the same time I do think it is necessary that in these matters we should adopt a procedure which at least carries with it a sense of the responsibility of a great assembly such as this House of Commons with respect to matters that are to be made a subject of public inquiry. Newspaper articles have been read. They contain certain allegations and representations. Some of these allegations have already been discussed on the floor of this house as if they were charges. They have been spoken of as charges and the word goes out from the press gallery that the government has been charged with this and that, that there has been a charge that such and such has taken place, that there has been a charge also ' of such and such waste. When the matter is truly stated, it is seen to be only a report in a newspaper. Whether it is within quotation marks or not does not matter. If this House of Commons is going to begin to assume as evidence of bona fides everything that appears in the public press in the nature of representations or allegations against some officer of or matters connected with the government, and take that source as the one from which investigations are to be made, it must be apparent that we shall be making a farce of our whole procedure.

I have just as much respect for the gentlemen in the press gallery as my hon. friend has; but he has no guarantee that the particular report which he says is in quotations was from any journalist in the gallery. It may have been from some reporter who is

not in the gallery. I cannot say. At any rate, I hope my remarks will not be taken as reflecting at all on any journalist, one way or the other. What I say is this. The press has its responsibility, and the House of Commons and its members have their responsibility; and if there is to be an investigation of any matter I submit that at least before an inquiry starts before a committee of this parliament, some member of the House of Commons should himself take responsibility for asking that the matter in question be investigated. I think we should have something more to go upon before a public inquiry starts than simply an item in a newspaper.

It is free to any member of this house to ask that the public accounts committee be convened at any time it is desirable to have it so convened, and when the public accounts committee meets it is open to the members of that committee, which contains representatives from all sides of the house, to make what requests they wish with respect to the parties who are to appear. So far as I am concerned, and I am certain my colleagues would join me in this, if when the public accounts committee is called together hon. members wish Colonel Thompson to appear before it, we will not have the slightest objection to having Colonel Thompson so appear. If it is going to serve a helpful purpose to have the statements that have thus far appeared in the press made the subject of inquiry and Colonel Thompson called as a witness, the government will be only too ready to meet the wishes of the committee if that particular request is made. But I wish to make this perfectly clear, that in so doing it should not be assumed that we are establishing a precedent, so that any time anyone wishes to begin an investigation before the public accounts committee, a representation in tire press may be taken as sufficient ground for the instituting of a public inquiry.

There is one other point. It is in reference * to the public accounts. I understand that the auditor general goes through the public accounts and audits the public accounts before they are made public by tabling in the house. I cannot say how soon the accounts of the current year can be made available to parliament and tabled; that is a matter upon which I would have to get further information. I mention this because I believe the motion I have made goes as far as any similar motion has gone in any previous year, -as far as at this particular moment I feel it is possible to go.

Public Accounts