Mr. McNEYIN:

My hon. friend referred to the desire to have the matter dealt with on a fair basis. Does he think it would be fair to a witness, who was properly before the committee and informed that he was giving his information in camera, later to divulge that information to the public?

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

That was exactly why we wanted this turned over to the public accounts committee. Talk about evidence being given before that committee! Let us not confuse the matter. That was not evidence in the ordinary accepted sense of that term. It was not evidence as given in a court of law. These men could get up and give opinions, and on many occasions something would be stated one day as a fact and another day it would be changed. I know that this was not the kind of evidence that is given before a court of justice. I know, and members who were on the committee know, that statements were made as so-called evidence and were taken back to the offices and revised before they were put on the official record. I repeat, it was not evidence as taken in a court of law. I was informed when I was on the committee that there was a distinct difference between meetings in camera and meetings in secret. It is certainly true that

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker

when you have a report tabled in the house it is based on evidence. They were violating the oath of secrecy if that is what it was. We have heard here on all sides that parts of the evidence were given from the committee's report and the rest of us did not know whether it was right or wrong.

I must say again that we shall have to vote for the amendment and against the motion, and then we will move to have the matter turned over to the public accounts committee.

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

Personally I intend to support the amendment. In my opinion no more important debate has taken place in the house, in this or in any previous session of this parliament, than the one in which we are engaged at the present time. My reason for that statement is 'that the trend during the last few years in this parliament is towards a gradual diminution of the rights of the membership of the house. While not entering into any controversy at the moment as to what the evidence may have been, or whether it supports or does not support the contention of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I suggest that we as members have the right *to know the evidence upon which statements made by any member of this house, as a responsible member, have been found not to have been in accordance with the facts.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not intend to support any committee that will come before the house and submit findings so general and sweeping as were made in reference to committee No. 3. The words used were these:

For the reasons set out in the foregoing report your subcommittee finds that none of the allegations is substantiated by the facts.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday said that this was the practice in Westminster, that the committee there mat in camera. That is true. But there is a difference between the committee at Westminster and what this committee is endeavouring to do. The committee at Westminster does not move concurrence, nor does any member of that committee do so.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The moving of concurrence was to oblige hon. gentlemen opposite, so that they might have this opportunity of discussion. The government would not have moved concurrence but for that reason.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

They were very anxious to move concurrence so far as No. 3 report was concerned. The only question that was raised by the opposition was this, that in moving concurrence in No. 3 report

there should at the same time be brought in the other reports so as to enable hon. members to discuss them.

Even that was at the request-

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

I never interrupted the hon. member except to ask a couple of very simple questions. I wish he would be quiet until I get through with my argument and then he can make any speech he pleases.

Here we as members of the house are asked to find that a member made statements that were false, and we are so asked by a committee which does not bring before us the evidence that was taken before it. Instead it brings before us, and I ask hon. members to read the evidence of that committee, only such portions of the evidence as have been extracted and which point conclusively to the conclusions arrived at by the committee. Subject to the circumscription that is necessary by reason of public safety, we have the right to the evidence unexpurgated by any committee. For if we do not demand it in this case-and I am entering into no controversy as to the rights or wrongs of the matter-there is not a member of this house, making a statement in the house, who might not, if the government saw fit to submit the matter to a favourable committee, be found not to have stated tire truth, or to have made false allegations. The independence of members of this House of Commons is at stake. We have lost many of our rights in recent years. There has been a diminution of those rights all along the line, and I know that when I take this stand the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as was the case yesterday, may suggest the possibility of an election unless we are servile and support what the government places before the country and the house, whether it meets with or without our approval. But, Mr. Speaker, we as members of this house, regardless of political considerations, must uphold the rights of other members no matter whether agreeing with those other members politically or not.

It is in that spirit that I approach the discussion of this matter to-day. I was one who believed in the constitution of this committee. I was one who supported this committee at its inception, and I was one to whom the former chairman, now a distinguished judge of the exchequer court, paid a tribute for the contribution I endeavoured to make.

I believed, Mr. Speaker, that economies could be effected, that economies could be maintained by continual watchfulness of expenditures. I believe, as was mentioned yesterday, that the committee should forget

War Expenditures-Mr. Diefenbaker

political considerations, should look, criticize and recommend. Now we find ourselves in this position. The chairman of the committee moves concurrence in the report. He says the report is based upon certain evidence. The committee quotes certain evidence-or at least a summary of it-and it asks me as a member of the house to find, with that committee, that statements made by a member of the house are not in accordance with the facts.

Much is made of the fact that the meetings of the committee were in camera. That is no excuse for the non-production of the evidences Three years ago in the house the then chairman pointed out the difference between "in camera" and "in secret"-and there is a very great difference, one which has been pointed out on more than one occasion. "In camera" simply means not in open court; in a private room. "In secret" means-and this was not a secret committee; it was a committee in camera-"private, unrevealed, not to be known or exposed to view."

A moment ago the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) mentioned that there were certain witnesses who would not have given evidence if they had not been assured that their evidence would not be used. Committees of parliament, Mr. Speaker, have the power to subpoena witnesses and to enforce the giving of testimony. Just because in these particular cases certain witnesses were called without being subpoenaed is no justification for the stand taken by the hon. member that they would not have given evidence had they not received that protection.

Mr. GOLDING; Just speak for yourself; that is your opinion. It is not mine.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

I am supported by the rules in that connection. The committees set up in Great Britain in this as in the last war report, but their reports are merely laid on the table of the house; they are not debated. No member of the House of Commons in Great Britain can be convicted of a falsehood or fault found with him, without a trial, but that will result from this motion being passed, although the evidence is not before us, and without our being able to see for ourselves whether or not there was evidence upon which the conclusions in question could be made.

As a matter of fact it is impossible for us in this house to come to any conclusion without the evidence. Unless we have it we are dependent upon the conclusions arrived at by a committee of parliament. I am supported in that view by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), now the chairman of 100-47

the committee, who when he spoke in this house in July of 1943, as reported at page 4990 of Hansard, used these words:

It is obvious that the committee cannot intelligently debate a committee report founded on evidence taken in camera-evidence which is not before the house.

This is a statement made in the debate on a report by the hon. member who now, as chairman of the committee, asks the house to do what he said he could not have done less than eight months ago.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Purely as a matter of courtesy to the opposition to permit discussion of the report.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

I am merely calling as a witness in support of my contention the hon. member who is now chairman of the committee, and who has moved concurrence in the report.

In addition to that, I asked him yesterday to say whether there was any reason why he might have changed his opinion, or whether there had been any change in recent months In regard to reports to be made by the committee. At page 696 of Hansard we find his reply in these words:

Mr. Cleaver: Well, my hon. friend can read the order of reference as well as I can, but on several occasions I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicate that if the war expenditures committee found any wrongdoing we were at liberty, and it was our duty, to report the matter either to the House of Commons or to the public accounts committee. Last year we were given the further right to make confidential reports to the Prime Minister if any wrongdoing should be discovered which in the public interest should not be disclosed.

Mr. Diefenbaker: Has there been any change in the powers of the committee since it was first set up?

Mr. Cleaver: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this time will not be charged against me, but I believe I can find the reference for my hon. friend. The only change of which I am aware was the change requested in the report tabled on July 19, 1943, paragraph 5 of -which reads as follows:

"In cases where consideration of national security precludes the publishing of certain recommendations and of the arguments upon which they are based, to address a memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the war cabinet, providing that the committee shall, -whenever it has exercised such powers, report the fact as soon as possible to the house."

So that there has not been any change. Today conditions are the same as they were in July, 1943, when the hon. member gave us the benefit of his views on the subject.

I pass now to a more serious objection, namely, that the committee has no power to report wrongdoing to the house or to the people of Canada. That is a very serious matter. To-day we have a high level of

War Expenditures-Mr. Diejenbaker

taxation, by which tremendous amounts are being raised, and we have a responsibility to assure the people that full value is being received for expenditures made in the conduct of our war effort. The people have a right to demand that wasteful and extravagant expenditures shall be investigated, and what is more important, reported upon. To-day, in the fifth year of the -war, the committee has had four years of operation. There is no power in the war expenditures committee as yet to report wrongdoing or to report examples of extravagance, either to the people or to the house. What we did in the house in 1940 was to appoint a watchdog to guard the treasury and then muzzle him for the period of the war. That is exactly the position of the war expenditures committee. It is set up, leading the people to believe that extravagance and wrongdoing can be reported; then it is muzzled, and it is denied the right to report such wrongdoing as it may find.

This statement might appear to be contrary to the facts, but again I call as my witness the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halton, who, following me in the debate on June 10, 1941, as reported at page 3753 of Hansard, said this:

The next point covered by the hon. member for Lake Centre was that the committee had no power to report as to wrongdoing. Possibly that is right, but whether we had the right to do it or not I wish to inform the house that their subcommittee No. 1 headed into every complaint of wrongdoing of which we as a committee had notice.

It might have headed in, but the people of Canada demand more than heading in; they demand the revelation of wrongdoing if it is present, and the punishment of those who are guilty.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Does my hon. friend suggest that any subcommittee of the war expenditures committee found any wrongdoing anywhere without reporting it promptly?

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. CLEAVER:

Because if he does, he is entirely in error.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

My hon. friend, being a lawyer, first asks a question and then answers it.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Exactly what you were doing.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

But I was corroborated by the rules and regulations of this house. I remember well that in 1941 I ascertained a situation in regard to certain civilian flying schools and disclosed the fact that full value was not being received by the people of Canada from the operation of these schools.

Mr. CLEAVER:

These remarks refer to our committee work in 1941. So long as I am in order in replying, I am quite content that my hon. friend should refer to it.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

I cannot hear my hon. friend; I do not know what he is saying. I do know that as a result of the facts I had obtained I personally brought before the House of Commons certain evidence on which I had secured corroboration. In the middle of May, 1942, during the debate on the air estimates, I brought out the fact that these civilian schools were making profits on their investment, as I remember now, of from 41 to 100 per cent. At that time the minister for air castigaied me for having brought out that evidence; he could not believe it was possible; but the next day he got up in the house and said that things were going to change. The minister for air promised a change; he acted and the thing ended. But this action was not attained because of the activities of my hon. friend over there, who all through the piece endeavoured to convince the people of this country that all was well in connection with civilian schools and their operation.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Mr. Speaker-

Sit down.