Mr. BOUCHER:

Last year I was privileged to sit as a member of the war expenditures committee, subcommittee No. 1. I do not hesitate to say that an industrious time was spent by all members of that subcommittee. Some sixty-nine sittings were held, some forty-seven witnesses heard, and many plants were visited. All the sittings were held in camera, even those dealing with housing for the people of Canada. The members could not even get a copy of the evidence which was taken, the day after it was taken, for their own perusal or to assist them in coming to their conclusions, except that they could go to the clerk of the committee's room, look at the report there, read it there, or return it within a short time. Members were served from the department of government and the corporations that were investigated with prepared briefs, handed to us members of the committee to read, and then picked up, after they told us what was in the brief, before we had a chance to read it. I say also that in most, though not all of the meetings of the subcommittee to which I belonged in 1943, representatives of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and at times, representatives from companies we were investigating sat in at our committee to tell witnesses what they could say and what they could not say; and on one or two occasions we had difficulty in proceeding with our investigation by virtue of the solicitor of one of the companies we were investigating objecting to witnesses answering questions.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Mr. Speaker, just how long are we going to be subject to a breach of the rules of the house?

Mr. BOUCHER:

We have had the hon. member for Halton attempting to make about fifty-two and one-half speeches this afternoon.

Mr. CLEAVER:

This is a breach of the rules of the house, Your Honour.

Mr. BOUCHER:

The hon. member does not want to hear the rest of it, but I should like to give him a little more, if he will kindly remain in his seat. I do not want any questions or any speeches or any interruptions from the hon. member for Halton.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Am I not entitled to raise a point of order?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has raised a point of

order. The hon. member who is now speaking should confine his remarks to the report itself. That has been the contention all evening. I will ask the hon. member to abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. BOUCHER:

Perhaps I misunderstood the conditions under which we are discussing the motion, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it, the motion for concurrence in this report was introduced by the Prime Minister.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No, it was not.

Mr. BOUCHER:

It was introduced by the chairman' of the committee. The Prime Minister stated that it would be followed by a motion to set up the war expenditures committee for another year, and that great latitude would be granted the house. In making .my remarks to-night I am not stating anything that happened in the way of evidence in the committee of last year, because I was not a member of it. I am stating circumstances wffiich by analogy, I should say, have a direct bearing upon whether or not we concur in this report. I do not feel that we can decide whether or not to concur in the report without the evidence on which it is based, without the facts upon which the reports were formulated and unless we know the nature of the sittings, the type of sittings that were held, and the investigations that were carried on. I say that is very apropos so far as the members of this committee are concerned when they are asked to concur in or reject the committee's report.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has made a statement. I think his remarks would be more appropriate when the resolution for the appointment of the committee is before the house. We shall then be dealing with the committee and his experience on it. At the moment we are dealing with the report, and all hon. members have been confined within the four walls of the report this evening. I should like to ask the hon. member to confine his remarks within the limits of that report.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say a word in regard to what Your Honour has just said? Perhaps at the same time I may be able to clear up a certain amount of confusion; that is, by way of explanation, not to enter into debate. From what my hon. friend has just said I gather he is assuming that the government proposes to insist on hon. members voting on this question of concurring in the report. Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house this afternoon when the mover of the resolution (Mr. Cleaver) indicated that he was quite prepared to withdraw his motion once hon. members had concluded their discussion. The government does not intend to

War Expenditures-Mr. Boucher

insist upon having the resolution put to a vote. The purpose of this discussion-and now, Mr. Speaker, I refer more particularly to the remarks Your Honour has just made-has been not merely to discuss the report and the question of the approval of the report. There was an understanding that a certain latitude would be allowed to discuss war expenditure matters generally as the house would were its members discussing the appointment of the war expenditures committee. By allowing that latitude it is assumed that when this present discussion is concluded the motion constituting the committee will be voted upon without further discussion. For that reason it has, I believe, been generally and rightly assumed that a certain latitude would be allowed in debate in order that once the discussion on the present motion was concluded, we would be in a position to have the committee appointed in the quickest possible time, I hope this evening.

Mr. BOUCHER:

I thank the Prime Minister for the words he has just spoken. I do not feel I should have to ask the government whether they intend at a future date to withdraw the motion now before the house in order to decide whether I should speak on it. The fact of the matter is that the motion is now before the house, and whether the Prime Minister sees fit to withdraw it or is willing to withdraw it matters not, until such time as he exercises his prerogative to withdraw it. Meanwhile, it is in debate. That being the case, may I proceed?

The members, as I said before, were dealing with matters of a very intricate nature, dealing with some things that undoubtedly would give assistance to the enemy if they were publicized. The main committee consisted of twenty-four members. It was divided into three subcommittees. I think the subcommittee on which I served had eight members. I had the privilege of recommending to the main committee that the members of the subcommittee be granted the assistance of cost accountants and counsel to help them carry on their investigations. In 1943 our subcommittee formulated certain reports which were brought before the house that year. I do not wish to read them in detail, but I should like to indicate to the members of the house that some pointed suggestions were made to the department and to this house, matters such as accelerated depreciation, shortage of accountants in the Department of Munitions and Supply, increasing costs, absenteeism, labour conditions and so on. All of these things require intensive research.

I do not think it is proper for a member of the subcommittee to say that when the committee

has brought in a report its work is done. That is not true, until the work is thoroughly done. I ask the hon. members of this house to realize that there have been terrific expenditures made by this government for temporary buildings for private concerns as well as for public concerns. Many of' these buildings are for war purposes only. When the war is over or a short time thereafter they must be disposed of. There are millions of Canadian dollars invested in them. The assets are there, and according to present arrangements they must be salvaged in some way before this war is over. Millions of dollars have been spent on private enterprise in the enlargement of plant and production facilities necessary for war production. This has all been paid for out of the taxpayer's money, put up by the government of Canada. That must be all salvaged in some way in post-war disposition of such assets. The question is whether it shall be returned to private industry or carried on as a government enterprise. I do not feel that information with regard to these matters should be denied members of parliament, when one considers that they have been entrusted by their constituents with, the job of looking after their interests in the parliament of Canada. I do not feel we can shirk our responsibility by saying we can sit in camera. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) this afternoon agreed1 with the definition of "in camera" as laid down by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon, member for Lake Centre said that "in camera" meant leaving the membership of the committee the privilege to use their own judgment as to what evidence should be disclosed.

I see rank confusion in the minds of the hon. members of this House of Commons with regard to the functions of this committee. I think I am corroborated in that by the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). When we consider that millions of dollars have been spent, investigations have been authorized and held by the members of this house in the war expenditures committee, and when we consider that the government has had protection in this committee by reason of the large number of government members on it, so amply illustrated this afternoon by the hon. member for Halton, the chairman of the committee, showing rabid partisanship, I say there is nothing to inspire confidence in the people of Canada in the war expenditures committee, and that it is time the government cleaned1 house and stepped in and looked upon the matter as a businessman would look upon a business proposition.

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I wish to

War Expenditures-Mr. Hansell.

make one or two slight observations. We seem to be in the same embarrassing position now as we were in when the debate started yesterday afternoon, the position of having to vote upon a report based upon evidence which we have not been able to peruse. This would be quite all right if the report had been a unanimous report; but it was not a unanimous report. There was one hon. member who dissented. His dissension was in the form of a speech, and it is tantamount to a minority report in substantiation of charges which he made last year. I do believe that the government should, if possible, provide some way or another by which the charges that were made by the hon. membe.r for Rosetown-Biggar can once again be reviewed. The position that we are in is simply this. We have to satisfy our own minds in voting on this question. I should like to vote concurrence in the report because, when we set up a committee to undertake a work of this kind, to investigate war expenditures, I like to have confidence in that committee. Evidently all the groups in this house except one have been more or less satisfied with the report, apart from one or two things brought out in the debate. As I say, 1 should like to vote concurrence, but I must confess that I cannot see in the process of the present debate that the charges of the member for Rosetown-Biggar have been entirely and satisfactorily refuted. On more than one occasion he has made the statement that the report is a whitewash. That was brought out, when the report was first submitted, by going into the press, and it was said two or three times when he spoke yesterday. He is perfectly convinced, it see-ms, that the report is a whitewash. What I have to satisfy myself of is whether the report is in fact a whitewash or whether his charges are eyewash. It must be one or the other, and I cannot entirely satisfy myself on this matter.

Here is another thing I want to say, and in saying it I do not want the member for Rosetown-Biggar to carry away any inference from my remarks. I do not direct this to him; I am speaking of the matter in general. The position we are placed in is this-and perhaps I should not refer to the hon. member in this connection. I am doing so only by way of illustration. He could go out and say that his charges were not refuted and he could say that the government refused to produce the evidence because they were afraid to do so. He could say that he urged the production of the evidence. Furthermore, speaking in general terms now and not referring to him, a member could take

the position that he urged the production of the evidence, as a sort of bluff to hide behind, knowing very well that the evidence would not be produced.

I have been told that the evidence submitted on behalf of my hon. friend fell completely flat. I am not prepared to accept that on the basis of his speech of yesterday, and yet what can I do? I cannot do anything in the matter for the reason that I have not access to the evidence; and so long as I have not access to the evidence I am afraid I shall have to vote against concurrence, much as I should like to vote concurrence. I urge upon the government, if at all possible, in order to allay any suspicion, that the charges made by the hon. member fof Rosetown-Biggar should be refuted in some way or another, and -that can be done perhaps by having the matter reviewed again by the war expenditures committee that is to be i set- up for this session. I do urge something of that kind. I believe it would be protection for them besides having all the cards laid on the table in order that all members might be satisfied.

Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):

Even at this late hour of the debate, since I was a member of the subcommittee of the war expenditures committee I think I would not be doing my duty if I kept silent and did not give the reasons why I am in favour of the motion, because in normal times I am so absorbed in the spirit of freedom that I would not allow anything to be hidden not only from this House of Commons but from the public in general.

The spirit of liberty, as we all know, is so strongly entrenched in our minds that we consider it as an inalienable right. As a matter of fact, we can trace the origin of our mentality on freedom as far back as the sources of our culture. But we are engaged in a struggle against the most dreadful enemy of all times; and if on the one hand it is repugnant to our love of freedom to follow his despotic attitude, on the other hand, should we not at least refuse to give him unwittingly all the information which he no doubt is so anxious to get from us?

This should not be an occasion where opportunists should try to derive political benefits out of such decisive questions. The lives of our sons and our national security as well are at stake; nay, the civilization o{ the world is more than ever in the scale. The result of this gigantic upheaval depends not only upon the success of our armed forces but upon victory, and especially upon the fruits of victory. A peace based on Christian principles will be

War Expenditures-Mr. Dupuis

obtained by our common effort, by the collective sacrifices of our personal interests, and by the obliteration for the time being of our political ambitions.

For fifteen years I have had the advantage of following the deliberations of this house. It has enabled me to get acquainted with most hon. members, irrespective of political affiliations, and it is indeed a great pleasure for me to say that I do not know of anyone who would not in the bottom of his heart be ready to help his neighbour. I do not know of anyone whose nature would be so low as voluntarily to hurt even an opponent in such a way as to do him personal harm. I am convinced that everyone of us is anxious to do his share according to the means given him by Providence, to foster the great future which is the destiny of our own country. In fact I know of many of the people's representatives, irrespective of race or religion, who for many years have sacrificed their personal ambitions and legitimate family interests for the public weal. More than that, I am in duty bound to declare, in justice to many of my colleagues, that I know of not a few who are so imbued with Christian principles that these words of the poet might rightly be applied to them:

He doeth well, who doeth good To those of his own brotherhood;

He doeth better who doth bless The stranger in his wretchedness;

Yet best, oh, best of all, doth he Who helps a fallen enemy.

It is true that sometimes we witness in this house exhibitions by word of mouth which are foreign to the lofty sentiments of the soul. Generally, however, these expressions are uttered in the course of a hot debate, and I am sure that if we could look within the conscience of the one who did it, we would soon discover that he is the first to regret his action. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can say without fear of contradiction that each and every one of us is big enough in these critical circumstances to put on the altar of his country his personal ambitions, his legitimate pride and his political advantages for the sake of the national exigencies of the hour.

If I dare speak for the party to which I belong, at any rate if I can speak for myself, I may tell you, sir, that the publicity of the deliberations of the war expenditures committee would undoubtedly turn to the advantage of the Liberal party. I contend that the publicity of the report would show that, notwithstanding the strenuous, not to say the laborious effort of some of our opponents to discover scandal, they absolutely failed to do so. Far from my mind is the intention of 100-49

proving that everything was perfect. After all, those who are engaged in war production are only human beings; as a matter of fact, most of them were lacking in experience in the production of war implements. In some industries, it took more time to acquire the proper skill, and so the cost of production was higher. But in no case is there to be found any wilful intention to defraud the crown.

As a further argument I should like to remind hon. members of this important fact, that when the motion was put before the house to institute the war expenditures committee, it was agreed by a large majority, if not unanimously, and after a long debate, that the deliberations of this committee would be in camera. So that if according to the rules of our democratic system the committee was constituted with that very condition of secrecy, how can we go back on our decision and ask, now that it is done, to demolish what we have so cautiously built? We would not be fair with ourselves. We cannot logically change our minds. Among the many reasons given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech last night, as to why the deliberations of this war expenditures committee should be kept in camera, the most conspicuous one is that we should not give comfort to the enemy. If it is permissible for me to express my opinion concerning our conduct in the house about this question of secrecy since the outbreak of the war, I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have always been astounded by the imprudent manner with which all sorts of details have been freely given about our war effort.

Listening to the innumerable questions and answers about this subject, I very often fancy what would happen if Adolf Hitler had been allowed to sit within the precincts of the house, and the following question had been put to him: "Which would be the most agreeable to you, that the details of our war effort be rendered public, that the deliberations of our committees dealing with our war production be handed to you, or that all this information be kept under cover and the deliberations of our committee dealt with in camera?" Where is the hon. member in this house who has not already the answer in his mind? Where is he who would not say, for Hitler, "Most decidedly, please give me these details." Surely at this psychological time, when Hitler is confronted with ultimate defeat, if he could speak to his secret agents who, no doubt, are still to be found in our midst, surely he would tell them, "Do the utmost to obtain from the House of Commons of

War Expenditures-Mr. Lockhart

Canada any details about their endeavours, so that even in my desperate situation I may do my best to overcome their deadly production."

In conclusion, may I be permitted to entreat each and every hon. member in this house, imbued as we all are with the spirit of patriotism, to examine the present state of our war aims, to put aside our political quarrels and to show that we are big enough to take a wise decision, even if we are bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the present administration, and to decide once and for all until the ultimate victory that no detail, no matter how small it may appear to us, be rendered public, lest, through unknown and mysterious channels, such information might contribute to help our enemies.

At any rate, speaking for myself, if my attitude, if the humble share I have taken in our war effort, if the very imperfect contribution I have taken in this debate could have the result of saving the life of one of our soldiers or even of protecting him against the slightest wound, I should consider this as the greatest gift granted me by Providence in reward for the whole of my public life.

Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the house for more than a few minutes.

Hear, hear.

Mr. LOCKHART:

Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time because I understand it is the wish of the house to dispose on this matter this evening. I have been a member of this committee since it was organized three years ago. While I have not agreed with all the decisions of the committee I have endeavoured to work with them and be of some service. The report being discussed to-night is a majority report. We were not allowed to submit a minority report, but I wish to say that I am not in agreement with all that is contained in the report. Matters which I think could have been

War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)

incorporated in the report have been excluded, but it is the report of the committee as a whole.

As I have stated in the house, in meetings of the main committee and of the subcommittee, I am opposed as a general rule to sitting in camera. Such sittings should be the exception. The members of that committee should be trusted to see that no information was made public which might prove detrimental to our war effort or bring comfort to the enemy. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) has referred to the investigation into wartime housing. When that matter was referred to the committee a year ago I took a definite stand that the meetings should be held in the open and that the evidence should be available to other members of the house and the public. I made a motion to that effect, but I was overruled. The choice then rested with me of deciding whether 1 would continue to sit on the committee or whether I would retire and I decided that I would sit in with the committee and serve the best I could.

The same might be said with regard to the inquiry into cargo shipbuilding. There was hardly a bit of evidence which came before the committee in connection with this subject which could not have been made available to the members of the house and the people of Canada, the taxpayers. They certainly paid a high price in some of the yards compared with what was paid in other yards. It may have been that certain matters in connection with the cargo ship investigation should have been withheld, but again I say that the members of the committee should have been trusted to see that no evidence was divulged to the public which should not be divulged.

I was not a member of the subcommittee which carried out the aluminum inquiry, but from the information submitted to the house by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) and other members of that committee, I cannot see that any information disclosed before that committee could not be made available to this house and the public. If there were contracts or undertakings which the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) had entered into with other governments and which he wished withheld, there was not a single member of that committee who would not have approved his request. I think it is in the interest of the minister, of the government and of the people of Canada that all the information with respect to the alu-100-49i

minum industry should be made available. At least it should be made available to hon. members of this house, even if in a secret sitting. They are entitled to full information in connection with these large expenditures.

I was a member of subcommittee No. 1 last year which inquired into naval and cargo shipbuilding. I am ready to admit that there were certain matters with respect to naval shipbuilding which should be withheld from the public, but I would like every hon. member to have the same information with respect to that matter that I had myself. Most of the information, even in connection with naval shipbuilding, could have been made available to members of the house and the public.

I was surprised when the Minister of Munitions and Supply refused to support a motion submitted by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asking for comparative prices on the 10,350-ton ships and 4,700-ton ships as between private yards and government yards. I think the house is entitled to that information. If the costs are higher in some yards an explanation should be given, as the minister did to-night. I am disappointed that the minister did not agree to that motion.

The chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), has made the statement which appeared in the report of our committee, although I did not favour having it put in, that there was a saving of from thirty to forty million dollars through the reduction in prices paid for cargo ships. I do not think that is a fair statement. Conr-tracts for the first cargo ships were at a very high price1 placed with inexperienced yards. I go farther and say that if the lower costs due to greater competency and efficiency in private yards were compared with that in government-operated yards, even after the stated reduction of from thirty to forty million dollars, there would be a real and additional saving of from thirty to forty million dollars by having the cargo ships built in private yards.

Information has been submitted on behalf of the war expenditures committee-and this also is contained in the report-regarding the cost of the 10,350-ton ships. The average cost was given at $1,632,000. The cost of the first six ships built in private yards was $210,000 below this average price I have just mentioned. The private yards did excellent work and credit must go to the workmen and the management.

I wish also to pay my respects and express my appreciation to H. R. MacMillan, who was president of Wartime Shipbuilding and to his

772 COMMONS

War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)

assistant, Mr. C. F. Dewar, now president of the crown company. I.believe on the whole they have done a good job.

Our committee carried on under the greatest handicaps. Very few of us were lawyers. Some hon. members keep repeating that members of the opposition were looking for scandals and that we did not find any. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) has just made such a statement. So far as my colleagues and I were concerned, we had no such thoughts. All we were concerned about was to get information and point out where savings could be made and greater efficiency 'obtained. As I said, we were handicapped in our investigations. We were without a solicitor, without an accountant, and with no secretariat to assist the members of the committee in assembling evidence. The witnesses who came before our committee were usually supported by outstanding counsel representing the Department of Munitons and Supply. We had not been in session for ten months when tve started the 1943 sessions, and we have not been in session now for the purpose of taking evidence for about three months. We did the best we could, but we were able to touch only the mere fringe of war expenditures. If the members and public expect that we were checking up on all war expenditures in order to safeguard the country's interests, any claim of the kind is merely to beguile the public, for no complete study could be made of any single .branch of war expenditure.

Our committee, No. 1, was assigned certain specific lines of investigation. We investigated naval and cargo shipbuilding and spent most of our time on that. We also had assigned to us "R.C.A.F. services and aircraft production"; "contracts with civilian flying clubs, associations or companies"; "airport, aerodrome and air force buildings construction, specifications and designs for such projects, and inspection thereof during construction." We had only one day's evidence under all of these three heads. Mr. R. P. Bell, Director General of Aircraft Production, who I believe has done excellent work, appeared before us one day only and gave merely a general resume. The appropriation for "air services" for the fiscal year 1943-44 totalled the enormous sum of $1,129,421,414. The responsibility of checking this huge expenditure of over $1,000,000,000 was assigned to our committee, and we had only one day's hearing to deal with this huge expenditure. For the next fiscal year, 1944-45, the appropriation for air services is the enormous sum of $1,090,000,000. We have a responsibility to this house and to the public to investigate this to

see that there is reasonable efficiency and no waste in its expenditure, but as I say we were barely able to touch on this huge expenditure of over one billion dollars for last year for air services. I say again that if the public or the members of this house think we are safeguarding their interests, to suggest it is simply beguiling the public, for no matter how determined we might be, we simply were not capable of making the investigation in the time at our disposal.

I wish to point out some other things. At a meeting of the general committee on war expenditures on October 14, I made the following suggestion, as reported by the committee to the house:

Mr. Black suggested that the disposition of war products and the allocation of the billion dollar mutual aid appropriation be inquired into by the committee.

In order to proceed with the subcommittee meetings called for htis day, the chairman suggested that the committee meet again tomorrow to consider the question raised by Mr. Black and any other matters to be brought before the committee.

On the following day it was reported as follows:

. . . it was agreed that subcommittee No. 2 had the power under the terms of its reference dated July 22, to inquire into the disposition of war products. The question of inquiring into the allocation of the billion dollar mutual aid appropriation was referred to the agenda subcommittee.

Mr. McGregor submitted that the committee should inquire into the salvage of government-owned construction equipment not in use. This was also referred to the agenda subcommittee.

Again I say it is my opinion that the war expenditures committee, having the responsibility of checking the expenditure of one billion dollars for mutual aid, should at least have examined into it, but we were not permitted or were not able to do so. In any event, no information under this heading was placed before us, and yet it was one of the major expenditures.

Tremendous quantities of war materials were being piled up along railway sidings and in storage, but no inquiry was made into their disposition or to ascertain whether any economies could be effected. Yet that was the responsibility assigned to this committee. Again I say we were unable to do it, and if the members of this house or the public think we did it, I say that they are just being beguiled.

In our 1943 report submitted to this house on January 27, 1943, this is one of the recommendations that was made:

That as soon as company financial statements are available for the year 1942 a special study should be made of profits, accelerated

War Expenditures-Mr. Black (Cumberland)

depreciation and corporate taxation. The question of excess profits and accelerated depreciation has caused the subcommittee considerable "onceni.

That is a recommendation to the house and to our committee, I presume, that we should look into accelerated depreciation. We had some evidence of accelerated depreciation. I think there must be accelerated depreciation, but I feel that this committee should have this information placed before it. We had references by some of the witnesses to certain of the shipbuilding companies. Notwithstanding that I asked for this information and other members of the committee wanted it, it was never placed before us, although it was recommended the previous year that it should be inquired into. Again I point out the futility of this house or the public expecting our committee to discharge all that was expected of us.

We inquired to a limited extent into taxation on workers in shipyards. Dissatisfaction with respect to taxation on the "cost of living bonus," excessive taxation on overtime and full time, and no receipt when deductions were made of refundable taxation, were the main causes of absenteeism. We made some recommendations with respect to that in our report now before this house. I think that is a very important matter, to keep up the morale of our workers not only in shipbuilding yards but in mining industries and wherever war work and other work are being carried on. That situation has not been satisfactory, and we were not able to go into that to the extent that we should have liked.

I should say a word with respect to the programme of building the 4,700-ton Gray type ships. As the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) pointed out, there is great necessity for a larger number of ships of this type; ships drawing 20 ft. 10J inches of water, fully loaded. While the larger, 10,350-ton ships have a twenty-seven foot draught and can use only the larger national ports and the St. Lawrence, the 4,700-ton Gray type ships can use the outports, many of which are in the maritime provinces.

I am pleased to learn to-night from the minister that the programme of producing a larger number of these ships is being proceeded with.

Our report submitted to the house with respect to the 4,700-ton ships is as follows:

There is also variation in prices of the 4,700-ton ships from a low of $1,063,000 to a high of $1,854,693. In the yard, however, where the highest price obtained it was found this was the price of the first ship and the actual price of its eighth ship was $1,422,440 with an estimated price in the same yard of $1,235,279 for the tenth ship. The attention of your committee was arrested by the higher cost prevailing at Pictou, Nova Scotia, for the 4,700-tonners and made strong representations in that regard and during the course of our inquiry we were pleased to note that the cost had been reduced. The costs given above do not include capital expenditures or special depreciation.

We found there was a spread of eighty per cent in the cost of building this one type of ship in different yards. That information was placed before the house to-night by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), and as I interpret the remarks of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the hon. member was severely criticized because he pointed out the excessive costs in the government yard at Pictou. If there is a spread of $800,000 in the cost of a ship that in private yard costs $1,063,000; if this committee is going to be of any service to the taxpayers of this country why should we not point that out? Why should we not have misgivings with respect to that?

But that does not tell the whole story. There was a capital expenditure at Pictou-I do not know whether I am permitted to give these figures, but I will give them only in round figures-of nearly $3,000,000. There was an expenditure on building a wharf there, the contract being, I think, for $156,000. I do not get those figures through our committee's report, but from other sources. That contract was awarded to the Fundy Construction Company. When the money was pretty well expended the wharf slid into the harbour; the contractors were paid off, and the work was completed on a cost-plus basis at an estimated cost, I believe, of $383,000 at the time of our investigation, although less than that sum has been expended. That is all added to the cost of building ships in these government yards. Again I say, if the members of our committee are going to consider seriously our responsibility, why should we not give attention to these terrific costs in government yards such as the one at Pictou?

I might also refer to the information which came before us at the Montreal government yard. The costs there were staggering in comparison with the cost in some private yards; and I say it was our simple duty to make recommendations with respect to these excessive costs. We endeavoured to do so, and I believe that the representations we made, and indeed the mere fact that we were making these inquiries, induced the government, the minister, and those who were responsible in these yards to give better value, better service, better efficiency, so that our inquiries resulted to a very considerable extent in a reduction of the cost in these government yards.

The hon. member for York East gave certain figures to-night with respect to the cost of

War Expenditures-Mr. Graydon

naval ships in Toronto in comparison with the cost in other yards. I believe that the figures are set out in our report, otherwise I would not mention this. The cost in the Toronto yard, as I remember, was almost half a million dollars, nearly fifty per cent higher than the cost in other yards. If we are going to function at all, why should we not take those figures seriously, and have some apprehension as to these excessive costs in what was a government yard, in comparison with other private yards?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not follow this any further. There is much more that I might say. As I remarked earlier, I was reluctant to go on this committee. I disapproved the procedure of having most of the inquiries in camera. I was outvoted; I subscribed to the wishes of the majority of the committee. I endeavoured to work with them as individuals; I endeavoured to be of service to the committee and to the taxpayers. I find that my name again appears on the list of members of the committee which is to be set up by this house when this debate is over. I am not anxious, as I said, to go on the committee; I should like to be relieved. On the other hand, if the membership of this house feels that I can be of service, I believe it is my duty to place myself at the disposal of the committee and I will again endeavour to work with my associates. But again I make an appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government and members of this house that investigations of matters which are not injurious to the war interests of this country and our allies, and which cannot be of comfort to the enemy, be held in the open and not in camera, not in secret, because the members of this house and the taxpayers of this country should have the benefit of the information which is placed before the committee.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I rise to make one

observation only, and that is to put our party on record. I understand that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is about to withdraw his motion, as was arranged. In view of the fact that there will be no vote and in order to place our party on record, may I say that if there were a vote our party would have voted unanimously against concurrence in the report for the reasons which have been given by the members of our group.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I now ask that the motion for concurrence in the report be withdrawn, for reasons I have already given.

Motion (Mr. Cleaver) withdrawn.

(Mr. P. C. Black.]