We in this comer rather agree with the attitude of the Prime Minister towards the amendment. We feel that this board is an entirely different department. It will be a supply department to meet the needs of the Department of National Defence. What I cannot find logical in the attitude of the leader of the opposition is this. He criticized bitterly the closeness of certain contracts in the Department of National Defence. Well, here it is proposed to move these things as far as possible from the Department of National Defence, but now he seeks to bring in some liaison officer, thereby nullifying the attitude he has taken in the past.
Furthermore, the very fact that there would be someone from the defence council as a member of the proposed purchasing board would be detrimental to the board; for this very good reason, that as time goes on the board itself might very well become used to taking suggestions made by a member of the defence council; and inasmuch as a part of their duties would be to look into records and make certain that the requisitions of the Department of National Defence are what are really needed, the time might come when, instead of making inquiries as fully as they should do in the line of their duty, they might simply take the word of the representative of the defence council and let things slide in that way. If that connection were made it would be harmful to the board. They should have as much freedom of action as possible. If the amendment is proposed we will oppose it.
Subtopic: CREATION OP DEFENCE PURCHASING BOARD TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR MUNITIONS, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES