Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):

Mr. Speaker, the press of June 3 recorded the contracts awarded up until April 30, and the total moneys were given. I would ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) when these contracts will be available to members of the house.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I tabled a list of the contracts let up to the first of April, and those I think have been distributed. It is usual to publish the lists every two months, but if my hon. friend will signify that he wishes the distribution to be made monthly for a time, I shall endeavour to do it. It will mean a great deal of work, but I think we could do it.

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):

The information has been given to the press; surely we can have it.

Mr. HOWE:

It has been the custom to issue weekly statements to the press and a summary of totals. However, there is some discrepancy between the summary of totals and the actual orders, because the totals refer only to contracts that have been duly authorized, whereas the statement covers orders placed.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

This is a very simple bill. It is to make clearer the disposition of an amendment which was made in 193S by chapter 4 of the statutes of that year. Section 2 of that chapter provides:

Where by any statute of Canada or regulation thereunder provision is made for sending by mail any request for information, notice or demand by a department or other branch of the public service, an affidavit of an officer of the department or other branch of the public service sworn before any commissioner or other person authorized to take affidavits setting out that he has charge of the appropriate records, that lie lias a knowledge of the facts in the particular case, that such a request, notice or demand was sent by registered letter ...

Then the certificate of the post office that such letter has been registered is pri-ma facie evidence that the request, notice or demand has been made.

This amendment has been requested more particularly by the statistics branch, which is frequently sending out notices or requests for information. If a prosecution follows because the parties have not acted as the law requires, it involves a great deal of expense to have officers of the department travel about the country to appear as witnesses. This was corrected by the statute of 1938. It was found advisable to add the present amendment, so that the official character of the person who makes the affidavit, let us say the head of the statistics branch, if it is stated in the affidavit that he is the head of the statistics branch, will be sufficient as prima facie evidence. The statute of 1938 would be valueless if it were necessary to bring that officer to prove in person that he was the head of the statistics branch. It is clear that this amendment is merely for the purpose of completing the amendment of 1938.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Of course this amendment carries one step further the departure from the common law principle permitting evidence to be given by affidavit. If it is merely for the purpose of omitting proof of the official character of the person making the affidavit it can do no great harm. On general principles I am rather wary of legislation of this kind, but if it is limited to the specific purpose to which the minister has made reference, I cannot see any great objection to it.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

It is just to avoid costs.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Yes.

Mr. GREEN:

Does it apply only to certain officials, or has it a general application?

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

A general application to all the public service of Canada; because it may be that other departments, apart from the statistics branch, will send notices of this kind and have to prove them before a court of law. The amendment is intended not only to avoid travelling by the officers in question in order to appear anywhere in Canada, but to save costs to the person who is prosecuted, because in the long run the accused or the convicted person will have to pay those costs.

Mr. GREEN:

What will be the effect on the criminal code ?

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

It does

not affect the criminal code at all.

Penitentiary Act

Mr. GRAYTDON:

Does this amendment arise in virtue of some difficulty which has come up in any case before a court?

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Well, we were advised, without having had a judgment on the point, that some doubts had been expressed in the courts.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

This is the same thing, and it is to amend another section of the same statute applying to banks. I think I had better read the section as it is:

(b) Where a cheque has been drawn on any bank or branch thereof by any person, an affidavit of the manager or accountant of such bank or branch, sworn before any commissioner or other person authorized to take affidavits, setting out that he is such manager or accountant, that he has made a careful examination and search of the books and records for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not such person has an account with the bank or branch, and that he has been unable to find such an account, shall be received as prima facie evidence that such person has no account in such bank or branch.

This amendment was enacted in 1938 at the request of the Canadian Bankers' Association and other people connected with banks, because they had to appear in hundreds of cases of prosecution for no-funds cheques. Under the law the branch manager of a bank on which the cheque had been drawn had to go personally and give his evidence. This amendment is for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of the attendance of the witness, in the same way as in the matter of public documents. Again, if the officer had to come to court to prove his official character this amendment of 1938 would be worthless. The present amendment provides that an affidavit given by the bank manager in which it is stated that he is a banker and the manager of that branch, will be prima facie evidence that he is.