Mr. DUPUIS:

It is not running red, anyway.

Mr. JACKMAN:

The next point indicating whether or not the whole committee or merely one member of it was ridiculous, is in regard to cost figures. When the statement was put in evidence by Price Waterhouse & Company as to the cost of producing a pound of aluminum, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if my vision was any clear indication of what was going on, was taken aback by the figures which he thought, I believe, would be much more nearly in line with those he suggested, and which he stated without any qualification whatsoever-in fact he stated it with great emphasis in this house-were very much lower, or somewhere about six cents. When he found they were very much higher he was really in a state of consternation. What did he do? Although he may have been oblivious to his own actions, he alternately raised his hand up and down on the desk and said, "But they can't be right. They are not in accordance with the information I have.'' Naturally the rest of the committee felt-

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Last night the objection was raised to my referring to the evidence. The hon. member is drawing upon his imagination. Not only is he speaking of evidence, but he is describing what he alleges to be certain actions on my part, after a period of four or five months. I submit that that kind of thing is neither evidence nor debatable, and transgresses the rules of order of the house.

Mr. ROWE:

It has been going on here for twenty years.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would point out to the hon. member that he is coming very close to the position I took last night with regard to the amendment before the house. No hon. member has the right to criticize the conduct of other members of the committee. In this instance reference is being made to the evidence, and it is not before the house. I

wish hon. members who speak to-day would realize that the amendment is under discussion, and that they should address themselves to it only. Any reference to the evidence given . before the committee would be irrelevant.

. Mr. JACKMAN: May I rise to a question of privilege? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said that members of the committee succeeded in making it ridiculous. Surely an hon. member in the house has a right to bring forth evidence to show whether or not that is correct.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has made certain statements with regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The hon. member now denies that he was a party to the whitewashing of the committee in connection with the matter under discussion in the report.

Mr. JACKMAN:

I am not concerned with the whitewashing aspect of it. That stands on its own feet. But I am concerned with whether or not the committee acted ridiculously, and I should like to have Your Honour's ruling on that point.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar outside the house, which the hon. member has now quoted and which he repudiates is, I think, sufficient justification for the hon. member.

Go ahead.

Mr. JACKMAN:

I left off by saying that according to my humble judgment of the proceedings the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was rather in a state of consternation that the published costs should be as high as they were shown to be in the certified statement of Price Waterhouse & Company.

Then, as I said, the rest of the committee felt that there was perhaps something in the nature of amusement in the wray in which he took this statement, because there was a certain amount of mild laughter. The hon. member then said to the chairman that if there was any joke he wished to be let in on it. One of the members said, "What you say is the joke,"-whereupon the hon. member said, "If the committee thinks I am not asking intelligent questions" he had no further place there. And although the committee had been sitting only a short time that afternoon he picked up his books and hied himself away to his office-and the rest of the committee were left sitting there, like the chorus with the prima donna gone.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman

Mr. COLDAVELL:

That is quite a compliment.

Mr. JACKMAN:

I wonder what would happen to the ship of state if every time it ran into a squall the skipper sought the seclusion of the cabin grand? However, next morning the prima donna was not nearly so highfalutin' and he came down and the work of the committee was proceeded with.

Mr. BURTON:

I should like to raise a

point of order. Are we to have the evidence tabled, or are we to have individual members giving a minority report?

Mr. SPEAKER:

That is not a point of

order.

Mr. JACKMAN:

The matter of the cost

of producing a pound of aluminum was raised on numerous occasions during the proceedings of the committee. With many other members of the committee, I was concerned as to the real cost of producing a pound of aluminum. I think it was last June that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar stated that the cost was quite low, that he had information from firsthand sources. I shall read his words so that I shall not be accused of drawing upon my imagination. He said:

These are the facts as I have accumulated them. I have got them first hand from firsthand sources. I have no doubt that there are certain people who know the people I visited when I was in Washington

Mr. SPEAKER:

May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? Is he reading from something which was given in evidence?

Mr. JACKMAN:

I am reading from Hansard, or rather from a pamphlet printed under the imprimatur of the House of Commons. It is entitled "Aluminum" and contains speeches on the Shipshaw power development and the Arvida expansion of the Aluminum Company of Canada by M. J. Coldwell, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Stanley H. Knowles, hon. member for AVinnipeg North Centre, and J. W. Noseworthy, hon. member for York South, delivered in the House of Commons on June 14, 15 and 17, 1943. I take it that this is an official publication, and it is in handy form for my purposes as well as for those of other people

Mr. COLDAArELL: And paid for by ourselves.

Mr. JACKMAN:

The hon. member for

Rosetown-Biggar says "paid for by ourselves." I purchased this in the lobby of the AVindsor hotel in Montreal some time during the summer for the sum of five cents, which price is marked on it. I suspect the document did not cost more than two cents at the government

printing bureau, in which case the profit would be 150 per cent.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already directed

the hon. member's attention to the fact that we have a motion and an amendment before the house. The amendment is with regard to the production of evidence, to the effect that until the evidence is .produced the report should not be dealt with. Last evening I confined the speeches of hon. members to the terms of the amendment. If I allow the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) to continue I shall have to allow every hon. member who follow's him to deal with matters which may be pertinent only to the motion. I presume that the hon. gentleman is laying a foundation for his contention that the evidence should be produced, but I ask him not to trespass too much in laying that foundation.

Mr. JACKMAN:

It would grieve me to

offend against the rules of the house, and particularly, sir, against your ruling, but I was only endeavouring to answer your question. I mentioned an official or. semi-official document; Your Honour asked me if I was reading from the evidence of the committee, and I had to explain what I was reading from.

As I say, the matter of the cost of producing a pound of aluminum came up at various times. The members of the committee wanted to get the whole picture. We had heard in the house the original charges, and that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had firsthand information from first-hand sources. I began to get considerably worried about information being in the hands of one hon. member which was not available to all members of the committee; therefore I again asked the chairman if he would not insist on witnesses being called in order that we might have evidence which one member had and which was not available to the other members. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar then asked whom he could call. I am not quoting him exactly, but it is in my mind quite clearly. He suggested that he could not call the government, because his allegations were against the government. He said he could not call the officials of the Aluminum Company, because they were a party to it. He said he could not subpoena the officials of the United States government who might know something about aluminum matters. I suggested that if he wanted any witnesses he could get any number of the executives of the Reynolds Aluminum Company in the IJnited States, who were known to be bitter enemies of the Aluminum Company of America and I suppose of the Canadian company. However, no witness was. forthcoming.

War Expenditures-Mr. Jackman

Finally, after we had sat for several months -this will be in the record-and the other subcommittees were ready to depart for home -we ourselves had made transportation arrangements in advance, as we had to-the hon. member suggested to the chairman that he would be able to get a witness from the United States, a Mr. Irving Lipkowitz, who was formerly economic adviser to Mr. Thurman Arnold, who is now I believe a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and who was at that time attorney general. Mr. Arnold had conducted the suit against the Aluminum Company of America, to which the Canadian company was a party. Mr. Lipkowitz is now labour relations adviser-this is rather important-to the office of war production in Washington.

I certainly am no supporter of the Liberal government of this country, although like all my colleagues I participate heartily in cooperating with them in furthering the war effort. I looked with suspicion, not to say chagrin, at the calling of an employee of a friendly power to come to our country to testify against our government. Of course he came in his unofficial capacity. This gentleman gave certain evidence which will be found on the typewritten pages numbered F-l, F-2 and F-3 of the evidence of November 9, 1943. I should read from that if I did not feel I might be transgressing the rules. So I turn to the original source, which is Business Week, a publication I suppose of some hundreds of thousands of circulation every week. We find there the type of evidence which this young man gave. He was saying what a great future there was for aluminum, the amount that would be used in motor cars, and so forth. I shall not take up the time of the house by reading it. I also have the original document in front of me, and on a subsequent page I find information which the witness did not give. It was to this effect. Steel, for example, has shown a tendency to counterattack in markets previously blitzed by the light metals. Steel streamliners were being sold before the war in direct competition with the shining new aluminum models, which first rolled out in 1933.

I would go on with this but I see you are doubting, Mr. Speaker, whether it is relevant to the question before the house. But the point I bring out is this, sir, that the evidence which we have, not only from this particular witness but from all the witnesses who appeared before the committee, was of such a nature that it was no more confidential, I think, than is the evidence that appeared in Business Week. However, this young man

was a little bit loquacious, and, apropos of nothing at all, certainly of no leading question on our part, he put new ideas in our minds, when he quoted, for instance, from editorials in dailies in northern New York state that there was a feeling down there that the United States government had made possible the development of this great Ship-shaw power enterprise in the Saguenay district when there were still undeveloped power resources in northern New York, and this was made a matter of political consequence. But even more important was the fact that on no less than three or four pages of evidence, F-l, B-7 and C-l, 2, 3 and 4-