1941-04-02

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	What ministers of the crown are members of the treasury board?
2.	Who is the secretary of the treasury board?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Minister of Finance, Chairman; Minister of Justice; Minister of Mines and Resources; Minister of Agriculture; Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of National Revenue.
2.	W. C. Clark, Deputy Minister of Finance.


PURCHASE OF VESSEL &quot;WINCHESTER&quot;
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government purchased, directly or indirectly, a vessel named Winchester?
2.	If so, (a) from whom; (b) upon whose recommendation; (c) at what price; (d) where was delivery made?


Mr. HOWE:: The vessel Winchester is one of the fifteen ships referred to by the minister, page 1621, Hansard. It is not in the public interest to give details of this purchase.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS VIA HUDSON BAY ROUTE .
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat have been shipped by the port of Churchill in each year since the completion of the Hudson bay railway?
2.	What is the total tonnage shipped via the port of Churchill in each year since the completion of the Hudson bay railway?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.
Period August
to October	Bushels
1931			 544,770
1932 			 2,735,939
1933 			 2,707,879
1934 			 4,049,871
1935 			 2,407,000
1936 			 4,293,501
1937 			 603,982
193S 					 916,913
1939 			 1,772,460
o
Period August
to October				Long tons
1931 .. ..				nil
1932 					81,566
1933 .. ..				72,825
1934 					132,876
1935 					72,220
1936 					114,998
1937 					16,177
1938 					245,560
1939 					47,474
TAX COLLECTIONS BY PROVINCES				
Mr. RAYMOND				
1.	What is the total sum collected during 1939 in each of the provinces from the following sources, (a) income tax; (ib) sales tax; (c) customs; (d) special excise tax on importations? 2.	How many persons in each province paid income tax in 1940 for the year 1939? 3.	What is the total sum collected in each province from July 1, 1940, to February 1, 1941, from the national defence tax?				
Mr. GIBSON.
1. Provinces	(a) Income tax	
Nova Scotia 	....$ 3,517,357	48Prince Edward Island ...	.... 822,577	57New Brunswick	.... 2,116,658	15Quebec	.... 52.880.914	67Ontario 	
102,652.438	01Manitoba	
6,415,407	87Saskatchewan	
1,156,187	91Alberta	
4,325,720	92British Columbia 	.... 15.287,893	77Yukon	.... 189,385	82Head Office	.... 3,386	00Totals 	... .$189,367,928	17
[Mr. Pottier.)
		(d) Special
	(c) Customs	excise tax on
(b) Sales tax	import duty	importations
Calendar	year 1940	
$ 2,912,329 97	$ 3,408,135 92	$ 42,014 84101,131 57	111,198 36	301 082,019,817 42	3,345,936 57	19.108 7255,921,970 92	36,583,762 04	390,365 9393,432,819 61	75,708.039 22	437,491 255,521,538 96	4,924,379 64	30,223 261,351,550 86	1,494,638 71	3,716 322,763.342 24	2,268,841 83	8,796 597,817,572 00	11,193,563 13	99,447 2437,383 05	70,919 85	22 00
$171,879,456 60	$139,109,415 27	$1,031,487 23

	Individ-	Corpora-
2. Provinces	uals	tions TotalNova Scotia	. 9.864	401 10,265Prince Edward Island	. 895	216 1,111New Brunswick..	. 5.808	377 6,185Quebec 	. 76.278	5,125 81,403Ontario 	. 127,353	7,053 134,406Manitoba	. 16,012	966 16,978Saskatchewan ....	. 8,049	380 8,429Alberta 	. 13,768	754 14,522British Columbia.	. 33.728	2,338 36,066Yukon 	. 1,342	8 1,350Totals	.293.097	17,618 310,7153. Provinces	National defence taxNova Scotia	$ 582,076 66Prince Edward Island	
22,757 26New Brunswick..	
385,953 43Quebec	
4,688,995 51Ontario 	
10,274,808 22Manitoba 	
1,062,273 74Saskatchewan ...	
346,180 26Alberta 	British Columbia	
1,969,274	85Yukon	
34,054	68Total	$20,097,442	24
Note-The deductions of national defence tax made by public debtors during one month are not remitted until on or before the 15th of the following month. Consequently these figures, which indicate the collections received up to, and including, the month of January, 1941, represent the deductions made by public debtors in the months of July, August, September, October, November and December, 1940, i.e. six months.


SALES TAX
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	When was the sales tax first imposed?
2.	What was the amount of the tax imposed at that time?
3.	On what dates have changes been made in the amount of the sales tax, and to what amount was the tax changed in each instance?
4.	What revenue has been produced by the sales tax in each fiscal year since it" was imposed?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	May 19, 1920.
2.	One per cent.
3 and 4. Statement attached:
Rates of Sales Tax from 1920 to Date
May 19, 1920, to June 16, 1920-1 per cent on sales by manufacturers, on sales by wholesalers, and on imports.
Questions
June 17, 1920, to May 9, 1921-Domestic Sales: 1 per cent on sales by manufacturers to wholesalers, and on sales by wholesalers;
2	per cent on sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers. Imports: 1 per cent on imports by manufacturers and wholesalers;
2	per cent on imports by retailers or consumers. Tax payable by purchaser to manufacturer or wholesaler.
May 10, 1921, to May 23, 1922-Domestic
Sales: 14 per cent on sales by manufacturers to wholesalers, and on sales by wholesalers;
3 per cent on sales by manufacturers to retailers and consumers. Imports: 24 per cent on imports by manufacturers and by wholesalers; 4 per cent on imports by retailers and consumers. Lumber: 2 per cent on domestic sales and 3 per cent on importations. Tax payable by purchaser to manufacturer or wholesaler.
May 24, 1922, to December 31, 1923-Domestic Sales: 21 per cent on sales by manufacturers to wholesalers, and on sales by wholesalers; 4| per cent on sales by manufacturers to retailers and consumers. Imports: 3| per cent on importations by manufacturers and by wholesalers; 6 per cent on importations by retailers and consumers. Lumber: 3 per cent on domestic sales and 44 per cent on importations.
January 1, 1924, to April 10, 1924-6 per cent on sales by manufacturers or producers and 6 per cent on importations; 3 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations.
April 11, 1924, to February 17, 1927-5 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 24 per cent on a restricted list of commodities, both on domestic sales and importations.
February 18, 1927, to February 16, 1928-
4	per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 2 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations.
February 17, 1928, to March 1, 1929-3 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 14 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations.
March 2, 1929, to May 1, 1930-2 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 1 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations.
May 2, 1930, to June 1, 1931-1 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; i of 1 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations.
June 2, 1931, to April 6, 1932-4 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 2 per cent on a restricted list, both on
Questions

domestic sales and on importations; 2 per cent on a restricted list when produced or manufactured in Canada.
April 7, 1932 to March 21, 1933-6 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 3 per cent on a restricted list, both on domestic sales and on importations; 3 per cent on a restricted list when produced or manufactured in Canada.
March 22, 1933 to March 22, 1935-6 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 3 per cent on articles manufactured by the labour of the blind in institutions in Canada.
March 23, 1935 to May 1, 1936-6 per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 3 per cent on articles manufactured by the labour of the blind, or the deaf and dumb, in institutions in Canada.
May 2, 1936 to date-S per cent on sales by manufacturers and on importations; 4 per cent on articles manufactured by the labour of the blind, or the deaf and dumb, in institutions in Canada.
The yield from the sales tax by fiscal years since its inception, May 19, 1920, is as follows:
1920- 21	 $ 38,126,063 94
1921-	22	
61,518,751	131922-	23	
91,262,254	131923-	24	
100,990,076	901924-	25	
66,707,369	961925-	26	
74,025,093	311926-	27	
82,305,670	601927-	28	
72,100,224	121928-	29	
63,646,671	221929-	30	
44,858,701	201930-	31	
20,783,944	151931-	32	
42,392,610	311932-	33	
57,977,571	001933-	34	
63,223,607	401934-	35	
74,443,904	091935-	36	
81,178,184	441936-	37	
116,138,801	441937-	38	
141,863,248	241938-	39	
125,926,430	901939-	40	
141,121,363	91


NATIONAL REVENUE-WAR EXCHANGE TAX
Mr. BENCE:: What revenue has been produced by the war exchange tax since its imposition?


Mr. GIBSON:: The revenue produced by
the war exchange tax since its imposition to the end of February, 1941, amounts to $53,307,503.03. The returns for March are not in yet.


WAR EXCHANGE CONSERVATION ACT-SPECIAL TAX CREDITS AND ALLOWANCES FOR DEPRECIATION
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have any agreements been entered into under the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940, by the governor in council, with individuals, partnerships or corporations granting assistance by way of special tax credits and/or special allowances for depreciation or depletion under the Income War Tax Act and the Excise Profits Tax Act?
2.	If so, what are the names of such individuals, partnerships or corporations?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	None to date. Several agreements are now in various stages of negotiation. The War Exchange Conservation Act, Chapter 2 of the statutes of 1940-41, section 8 (2), provides for the tabling of all agreements in parliament within fifteen days of entering into such agreements, or, if parliament is not sitting, within fifteen days after the opening of the next session of parliament.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Who has the contract for supplying bacon to Trenton airport?
2.	Has the contractor to date supplied only Canadian bacon? If not, why not?


SALISBURY, N.B., AIRPORT SITES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What property or properties have been purchased in the parish of Salisbury, Westmorland county, New Brunswick, for airport sites?
2.	What is the acreage of each such property so purchased?
3.	From what person or persons was each such property purchased?
4.	What amount was paid by the government for each such property?
5.	What development has been made on each such property and to what use is such property now being devoted?


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many persons receiving $1,650 or more per annum has the dominion government employed since the outbreak of war who were not domiciled in the Dominion of Canada at least one year before September 1, 1939?
2.	What is the position of each?
3.	What special qualification in each case justified his employment in preference to a Canadian?
4.	What income is paid to each, whether as salary, living allowance, expenses or other form of payment?
5.	What are the names of all employees in Canada on the government payroll who receive in excess of $6,500 per annum?

Wheat-Coarse Grains
6.	What is the amount each receives, the duties he performs, the qualifications he possesses and the length of service he has rendered?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: For a copy of the letters patent, instructions and commissions issued to each governor general appointed since January 1, 1931.



CANADIAN NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

George Ernest Lawson MacKinnon: For a copy of the order in council of May 7, 1924, appointing the Canadian national advisory committee, together with any subsequent orders in council relating to such committee.



CANADIAN TEMPORARY GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE COMMITTEE

Mr. CARDIFF:: For a copy of the order in council appointing the Canadian temporary Great Lakes-St. Lawrence committee, together with any subsequent orders in council relating to such committee and any instructions issued to the members of such committee.
ACREAGE BONUS CLAIM OF \V. S. HAWKES


Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, letters, telegrams .and other documents, dated during the year 1940 with respect to the acreage bonus claim of Mr. W. S. Hawkes, S.E. J section 1-52-6-4.


Robert Fair: I should like to have this
motion amended by inserting the words "and 1941 to date" after the figures "1940" in the third line.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried as amended.



DARTMOUTH, N.S., AIRPORT INQUIRY AS TO TILLEY REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I express the pleasure we all have in seeing the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) safely back in his seat after his tour of eastern Canada. As he has no doubt seen the Dartmouth airport, may I ask him if he has received the Tilley report thereon, and if so when we may expect to have it?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I have not yet received the report. The only answer I can make to the second part of the question is, I hope soon.



STATUS OF FLAX IN CONNECTION WITH POLICY RESPECTING COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: On Monday I asked about the status of flax under the agricultural proposals presented to the house the other day. The Minister of Agriculture replied that he hoped to have the regulations before council the next day. I should like to know whether an understanding has been reached, and, if the regulations have been approved, whether they can be tabled so that we may have an opportunity of looking them over.
Hon, J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) : The regulations have been before council and are in form to be brought before the house. I hope to be able to table them before the house closes this afternoon, and in order that the information may be available to hon. members I am arranging to have mimeographed copies placed in the post office boxes this afternoon.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE LEGISLATION RESPECTING POLICY FOR 1941

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he propose to introduce any new or amending legislation to implement the announced wheat policy for 1941? If so, when may we expect it?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not just sure whether any new legislation will be necessary at the present time or not. The question is under consideration.



SHELL INSPECTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I wish to make a very brief statement in connection with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that I had been somewhat discourteous in not supplying him with information. I should like to advise of the circumstances that gave rise to the hon. gentleman's complaint.
Last evening the hon. member for Cape Breton stated that no answer had been given with regard to the situation of certain inspectors trained in the National Steel Car Corporation at Hamilton.

Shell Inspectors

I had thought, Mr. Speaker, that the answer given in the course of debate completely covered the questions raised and had no indication from the hon. member that a further statement was required from me.
Reference to Hansard of March 19 last will show that after the hon. member had spoken the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) explained the reasons for setting up the intergovernmental inspection board and he said that while he was not familiar with the facts mentioned, and that the board conducts its own operations, he would bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the board.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) was familiar with the situation and dealt with it on page 1698 of Hansard, pointing out that the inspection board required to use more numerous inspectors and for this reason had opened a training school at the National Steel Car Corporation plant. It was understood that these men would not necessarily be employed in that plant and they had given an undertaking, on completion of their training, that they would go to any plant in the United States or Canada, to which they might be directed.
The question of jurisdiction was also raised but I considered that an answer had been given in connection with the question of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) as reported on page 1699 of Hansard.
Any statement I can make would be almost entirely repetition. However, any additional facts might be briefly these:
1.	Twenty-one of those trained refused to leave Hamilton and rather than do so decided to be released.
2.	Positions were offered them in a plant situated near Montreal and the board agreed to pay transportation expenses and allowance, both for the inspector and for his family and effects.
3.	Later on an offer was made to transfer some of the inspectors to Lindsay but these refused to leave Hamilton, preferring to take chances of securing employment there.
4.	No female help is called on to replace male inspectors. Women employed by the inspection board are not employed as inspectors but as examiners, whose duties are of a routine character.
I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to this statement.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 1, consideration in committee of bill No. 25, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: We are considering
clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. MacNIOOL:: I should like to add a little to the question of shipbuilding, which took up the time of the committee for some time last evening. Four types of ships were mentioned during the debate, but I got rather mixed up on account of the way in which the debate jumped from one type of ship to another and some of the evidence that came out.
The first of the four types mentioned was the Fairmile. I will no-t discuss that type except to say that, as most people know, it is a fast motor boat, developed, I believe, mostly on the Muskoka lakes, on Georgian bay and perhaps along the east and west coasts. It is not a large boat. As the minister said, teak and mahogany enter into their construction. I am not going to discuss that type of boat, but I do wish to say something about the other three types mentioned-the corvettes, the mine-sweepers and the cargo ships. Corvettes are now built, I believe, on both coasts and principally on the great lakes. I know they are at Toronto. I have seen them at Fort William, Midland, Collingwood and Kingston.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: On the river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At Kingston, at the foot of lake Ontario. The question was raised as to whether they could be made in Nova Scotia. In my judgment, they can be. As to whether the steel can be purchased down there, I am not sure, and it is about the production of steel, having in view a long range shipbuilding policy, that I wish to say a few words to-day.
There is at New Glasgow a mill that rolled steel. I have not been able to find out the thickness of the steel rolled there. I have been told it is a quarter of an inch, but that might not be thick enough for either corvettes or mine-sweepers. There is no reason, however, why the capacity of the mill cannot be increased in order to roll heavier steel if the government so desires. I have been informed that they roll only up to 50-inch plates, and that would not be wide enough even if it were thick enough for corvette

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
hulls. The plate rolled there will do for various parts of the ships-stays, keel base, and so on. The hull plates themselves used in corvettes are made out of 54-inch plates reduced to 51-inches. I believe that largely 60-inch plates are used in the construction of mine-sweepers; and, as regards the cargo boats, anything in smaller size would be used for stays, and all the other inside steel work. But the plate itself on the outside of the ship is usually anywhere up to 84 inches. I endorse what my leader, the minister and others have said in this matter. If it is possible to establish a long-range plan of operation in Nova Scotia for the construction of cargo boats, I would be in accord with that plan one hundred per cent.
For the next few minutes I shall confine what I have to say to Nova Scotia. I know there is a large steel plant at Sydney in that province. I used to know its capacity in earlier days, but I have forgotten what it was. I believe that at the time of the first great war the mill was satisfactory for the production of steel plate. It is my understanding that plate is not now being made at the Sydney mill. I have never heard of any reason why it could not be manufactured there. Of course we realize that climatic conditions enter into the construction of steel plate. Whether steel plate is not being made at Sydney because of climatic conditions I do not know, but if the government could further a long-range plan to reequip the mills at Sydney and New Glasgow to build plate of the size required for corvettes and minesweepers, and particularly for cargo boats, I am sure the house would be in accord.
Why is this not being done? Although I am not familiar with the set-up I do know the company making steel at Sydney either controls or is able to get all the iron it requires from Bell island, not far from St. Johns, Newfoundland. I have been there, and I know the situation. The iron available at that point is good, and the deposits are among the largest in the world. I believe they have in sight about three and one-half billion tons of iron ore. That ore can be easily taken out and shipped.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: All under water.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, all under water, but easily taken out and easily shipped. The facilities are excellent for loading the iron into cargo boats. The distance from Bell island to Sydney is not far, and it is a water route.
Then around Sydney I presume there are ample supplies of limestone, a factor essential to the production of steel. There are ample supplies of coal-again among the largest in the world. Nova Scotia, therefore, with its 14873-132}
coal, its limestone easily obtainable and its iron ore easily transported, would be a natural place for the production of steel. So that if we are compelled, as we may be, to go into the building of cargo boats in a large way, it would seem that Nova Scotia would be a proper place in which to do it. Cargo ships can be built only on either coast and along the lower St. Lawrence in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Thousands of these ships will be required after the war, if indeed they are not required before that time. When we see our enemies scuttling their ships in the United States harbours we are led to the conclusion that they have at last determined that the only way they can beat the British empire is to prevent ships from arriving at the ports of the United Kingdom. It is for this reason no doubt that they are so anxious to destroy the ships of their own nationals in United States harbours.
It would' seem therefore that the government must meet this problem and must decide with respect to a long-range production of shipping. In the event of its deciding on such a programme Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be excellent places in which to build those ships. We know that in the Glasgow area the ships are all constructed along the river Clyde. There must be many equally excellent berths in the maritime provinces for the building of ships, and plants could be erected near those berths for the fabrication of necessary parts.
Then the question of equipment arises. In the constituency of St. John-Albert there is one of the finest brass manufacturing plants in Canada. I refer to the McAvity plant, one I have known for twenty-five or thirty years, and one which within my knowledge makes first-class equipment. So that in the mari-times they have at least one great plant, and there may be more, capable of supplying large quantities of the valve and fitting materials necessary to complete the building of the ships.
Of course Ontario is the great manufacturing province of Canada-and likely always will be, in spite of what anybody else may say. It is a province of which I am very proud. I am proud, too, of the business men in Ontario, and I am certain they would be able and willing to supply large quantities of the necessary equipment. They do now, in fact. They will be in a position to supply steel too when it is necessary to have it fabricated in sizes thicker and wider than those turned out in Nova Scotia. We ship steel from Ontario to all parts of Canada.
Then, in Ontario we build marine engines. I am not sure whether engines of the desired
2092	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
size are made in Nova Scotia. Cargo ships are equipped with low-speed engines, capable of developing a propelling force of about ten to fourteen knots an hour, the speed of the ordinary convoy. Because of the comparatively low speeds required, the engines are not as large as they otherwise would be. No doubt they could be made in Nova Scotia. In any event they are now made in Montreal and Toronto. In my younger days the plant of the John Inglis company was not only a boiler plant but was known for its production of marine engines. I am told they are now manufacturing steamship engines again in that plant. If they are doing so I am certain the engines will be of good quality. It would seem therefore that there would be no difficulty in securing engines for the ships either in Toronto, or at points on the coast.
In my discussion of this long-range plan I now turn to the west coast. Within a hundred miles of Vancouver are iron deposits. I am told that limestone and coal are to be found in close proximity. I am told that they are not rolling plate on the west coast. If that is so, then I do not know why they are not, because it is being rolled farther down the Pacific coast, at Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The same could be done on the Canadian Pacific coast. I would suggest that in a long-range plan for the west coast there should be equipment to roll plate for themselves. What they cannot roll we in Ontario could supply.
I was happy to learn that yesterday the new steel plant at Hamilton of the Steel company of Canada, capable of rolling up to 100-inch plate, began operations. How much they rolled, or whether only a test was made, I do not know, but if it was only a test it would seem that they have reached the point of production. That is an important development in Canada. In addition to this plant there is the other great steel plant in Hamilton, Dominion Foundries & Steel Limited, which has been rolling plate for years. I am not thoroughly familiar with all their output, but I do know that they roll up to 78 inches. That would be plate of sufficient size for cargo ships.
We have in Canada, therefore, ample production capacity for everything entering into the building of a ship. Greatly increased demand may necessitate the production of steel plate in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, where the cargo ships will have to be built. The great lakes lend themselves particularly to the construction of the two smaller types, mine-sweepers and corvettes. There is ample capacity there to build anything required of these types. These ships are of a size that 
would go through the St. Lawrence canal. I believe that canal will take ships up to 250 feet, depending upon the construction of the bow and stem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Fourteen foot draught.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A corvette draws no
more than that light. The canal will take ships up to a width of forty-three feet, and the corvettes are under 200 feet long.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: One hundred and ninety feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the mine-sweepers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A
little less.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are from 700 to 750 tons displacement.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The canal would take those.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They would not draw
more than fourteen feet, provided they were sent through light. Of course, when they are fully loaded and equipped, they would draw more, but it is not necessary to load them on the lakes for the sea. I suggest that the government should have a long-range plan with a view to building the cargo ships which will be required after the war to replace those which will have been destroyed. This plan should extend across Canada from the east to the west. The amount of steel that is required is enormous. I am not familiar with the set-up for blasting in Nova Scotia, but I do know something of the Bessemer production and ships must have Bessemer steel. It is amazing how the demand for this type of steel has grown. I believe it was in 1854 when this process was invented by Mr. Bessemer, who later became Sir Henry. At that time England produced only 50,000 tons per annum, but now the United States alone produces anywhere from 50,000,000 to
75,000,000 tons per annum. Canada has a great opportunity. We have the coal; we have the iron ore, and where coal is not available, we have electrical energy. We are well equipped to build these ships. If I have said anything to encourage the government and the departments to set up a long-range shipbuilding plan across Canada, apart altogether from our war production, then I shall feel that I have done my duty.


Mr. CHURCH:: This supplementary war
appropriation bill is to provide $135,000,000 in addition to the $700,000,000 which was charged against the consolidated revenue fund on March 31, 1941. Nearly all these appropriations are handled by order in council without any additional legislation. Fifty-two

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
boards have been appointed by the government of the day to control man-power, food, munitions and the actual conduct of the war. In addition to this cumbersome list of boards, we have parliament with all its powers and privileges, and added to that we have eighteen public departments, each with its minister and deputy minister. Every day new boards are being appointed by order in council to spend more money. We have the advisory economic board which is supposed to be the brain trust, and in addition we have boards to deal with coal, fish, dairy produce, bacon and so on. Last but not least, of blessed memory, we have the rags, bones and bottle board.
This is the occasion when members of the house are able to ventilate their war grievances before this money bill is passed. This is a money bill, and it is when such a bill is being discussed that we are permitted to air any grievance regarding the conduct of the war. I am sorry we have not the same rule as they have in the British house. I have before me the British Hansard for December 3 last. Instead of a prolonged debate on questions like this, they have a question and answer period on matters of great national importance, almost every day, from a quarter to three until a quarter to four o'clock. During that time members may ask questions about the war, and supplementary questions also, cross-examining the ministry. In this particular Hansard eight pages are taken up in a discussion on the orders of the day, about the non-delivery of parcels. Such a procedure eliminates prolonging the debate from day to day. It is charged thalf parcels do not reach prisoners of war in Germany, and that a private agency fails to distribute them.
There are two or three grievances which I wish to mention while this bill is under discussion. The first has to do with a matter relating to the department of the Minister of National Defence. I have great admiration and respect for the three defence ministers and anything I say will be in the form of constructive criticism. We seem to have learned nothing from the great war. Take the record office for instance. The militia department cannot tell us how many soldiers enlisted from Hamilton or from Toronto. Toronto seems to have been the stamping ground for recruiting officers from the Pacific coast to Halifax. That is all right and I am not objecting to it, but we should be able to get information. Last July the city of Toronto was requested by the head of No. 2 district to allow an appropriation for three or four clerks for four weeks to go over the records to find out how many soldiers came from Toronto.
The record office should be up to date like any other department of government. The Canadian Pacific railway and other large corporations work on the unit system, but here we are in the second war and we are using the same old system. The municipality should be able to get this information because it is necessary to prepare for the time when the troops come home. The same thing applies to all the civilian departments. It took me three or four days to find out something about the federal revenue collections from the city of Toronto. I was not able to get it from the minister's department, but last evening the Toronto Telegram contained a report from the customs head of Toronto that over $93,000,000 had been collected in customs, about ten per cent of this being from a subsidiary port which is now tacked on to that city for seme unknown reason. This is no way to conduct a public utility. It is high time there was a change in business methods. These departments should be conducted from the commercial aspect just the same as the railways and other large public corporations are conducted, and the amount of business done recorded on a unit basis.
Some of this money is to be used for the purpose of aiding the erection of munitions plants, but Toronto is not getting its fair share. The only plants we have are the Anaconda Brass, Massey-Harris, John Inglis, Dunlop Tire, Goodyear Tire, Hepburn, Dominion Bridge and a few others. Toronto is the logical site for munitions plants because it has a ready supply of raw materials, labour and power. The government is trying to conduct its business with old-fashioned methods. In the first years that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, this country spent only $36,000,000 on maintenance and capital expenditures, but to-day we provide, by two bills, for almost a billion dollars to be spent by order in council. Yet we have the same old system which was used forty or fifty years ago.
We should have the unit system which is used by private corporations like the Bell Telephone and the railroad companies. That is how they conduct their business. The government has spent nearly $9,000,000 on public buildings in the city of Ottawa. I am not objecting to this expenditure, but this city is not of sufficient size to handle the volume of business in peace time, let alone in war time. In order that economy may be effected, some of these public departments should be removed to nearby cities. Then the ministers would be able to effect considerable economy which they cannot under the present system.
2094	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
There has been an agitation in the other house to take some of the work off the shoulders of members of the Commons, and that is the proper thing to do. The other chamber could deal, for instance, with some of the soldier problems and have a committee sitting from day to day. Ini Great Britain they are doing a great deal of war work in the House of Lords, and the same is true of the senate at Washington. In Great Britain they have reformed their whole parliamentary procedure to divide the work up between the two houses, but we have learned nothing in that line since the great war. I am of opinion that the business of parliament should be reorganized in such a way that the other chamber will be given more work to do. We need real parliamentary cabinet and law reform here in war time.
I wish to refer to one or two soldier matters because this is probably the last opportunity we shall have to bring them to the attention of the house. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has told us that since the passing of the lease-lend bill this government has not had time to do anything in the matter of bringing about parity between the Canadian and the United States dollar. Washington-minded as we are in Ottawa, the government have not even attempted to garner any of the fruits that should flow from the work which Canada has done for the north American continent as a pioneer in its defence. We all have a great respect for that great country to the south, but some of the people over there forget that for two hundred years the mother country protected their shores, enabling them to become the great industrial nation they are to-day-something everybody is happy about.
Last week we sent down to Washington a number of financiers. But what do these clerks, office boys and stenographers know about high finance, or peace and war, economic and international affairs in dealing with Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the United States treasury? The time has come for us to take up with Washington in a serious way this question of parity or near parity of the dollar, because to-day we are importing $40,000,000 worth more of United States goods than we did last year on which exchange has to be met. As I said last night, one can go into any of the large departmental stores of this country and see, on the counters, piles of United States goods, almost all of which could be manufactured in Canada, thus saving exchange. True, we have a treaty, a trade one, which expired last year but is kept on. I hope that something will be done about that, because, after all is said and done, the lease-lend bill applies to Canada as well as to our allies, China and other countries. This matter should
be taken up in a big way and certainly be referred to in the coming budget, and a wartime agreement made and entered into as an economic necessity for stability.
I have a letter here from the personal services officer of the Canadian Legion war services, stating that a soldier of the Ontario Regiment at Camp Borden is apparently about to lose some property which represents his life savings. The soldier is expecting to leave shortly for overseas and is much concerned as to the outcome of an action which is pending to dispossess him of this property. If he loses it, the writer says, his chances of rehabilitating himself on his return to civil life are very doubtful. The writer enclosed twenty-six papers, which I have transmitted to the Minister of Pensions. I should like to see a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures declared in respect of the property of all members of his majesty's forces, to continue in force until eighteen months after the war, during which period there should be no foreclosures of soldiers' property, and where necessary the government should pay interest, charging it against the soldier's mortgage at a low rate, when he returns. I hope something will be done about the matter.
There is another question to which I referred the other day in the hope of securing some measure of redress for this soldier grievance. I refer to the charges for meals on trains. Our military training camps are far-flung from Vancouver to Halifax, and I should like some of the members of this house to come ind see what Camp Borden is like with the water, rain, mud and all that kind of thing at this time of the year. The same conditions can be seen at Petawawa and other camps. We have spent between $9,000,000 and $10,000,000 on the camps, and I maintain that the soldiers should have been encamped near a city where sewerage, water supply, good roads, transportation and other conveniences which are a charge on the overburdened taxpayers would be available. What was the need of establishing camps at Newmarket, for instance, and Long Branch? Why do we need camps there when the Toronto exhibition buildings are available? Toronto has spent $24,000,000 on those buildings, grounds and permanent exhibits, and the soldiers could have been trained there and used the buildings in inclement weather. That would have permitted training to go on all during the winter without interruption. I do not blame the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) because I know he is a man of wisdom and great capacity, and he was not in charge of the department when all this was started, but I object to some of these expenditures as being secondary, not primary. The

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
battle of Britain is the vital thing. If that is lost and the battle of the Atlantic and the battle of the Mediterranean are lost, freedom and liberty are gone so far as the north American continent is concerned, and life will not be worth living unless we win the war.
With regard to the price of meals, we have in this building a cafeteria where one can get a big dinner for thirty-five cents, but a poor soldier travelling across Canada in inclement weather has to pay from $1 to SI .25 for a meal on the train. That is what they are charged by our two great railway corporations.
I wish hon. members could see some of the boys on the public ownership road. I have complained in this house before with regard to these conditions. I complained also because the rules of the house were broken when a committee was appointed, without notice first being given on the order paper, to consider the annual budget of the national railways and merchant marine. The soldiers are fighting the battles of this country, and they may never come back, and they should have free fares from the railways, for all the federal aid they have had.
I have a return here showing what the Canadian Pacific Railway has received month by month for transporting soldiers, and in my opinion it is this corporation or the two railways which are the real authors of the hitch-hiking orders which have been issued. I know something of that matter from the returns which have been brought down and from what I have read.
This return also shows what was paid to the Canadian National Railways, which my former leader called a dead-head railway, and that is what it is. Everybody seems to have a pass over the road if he has pull. Lindbergh got a life pass, not just a pass from Camp Borden home. The return shows that the Canadian Pacific Railway received for the transportation of navy, army and air personnel in September, 1939, $78,000, in round figures; in April, 1940, $323,000; in September, 1940, $289,000; in October, 1940, $373,000. Altogether, from September 1, 1939, to February 28,	1941, that railway company received

The Canadian National Railways received for the same period a total of $2,573,226.28.
The Canadian Pacific Railway, no matter what government is in power, always has the biggest pull of any corporation in this country. One only needs to be a member of parliament and attend the committees of this house to learn something about that railway. There is no doubt that they have done a great deal for Canada, and their services in war time could not be surpassed by any great corporation in the world, but I do ask that
railway to give some consideration to six poor soldiers who stole five or six tickets costing about $18.90, especially when it is remembered that the railway got from the government $2,628,000 for transporting troops to camps all over this country, since the war started.
Turning to another matter, I challenge the right of any commanding officer of a camp, without the authority of parliament, to issue orders on the camp notice board making certain actions within the law taken by soldiers a military offence. Let me read these four paragraphs:
Railway tickets and bus tickets must be purchased and handed into company office before 1200 hours Fridays. These tickets must be attached to the passes and given out at 1600 hours.
Personnel proceeding by privately-owned motor cars must inform the C.S.M. of the name of the owner of the car, also the car licence number, before 1200 hours on Fridays.
Do not get the idea that you must go on pass every two weeks.
If you have not enough money-do not go. Save your money.
I have a letter protesting against these instructions. They are illegal and without authority. The Fairbanks branch of the Canadian legion writes me:
Hitch-hiking is not the proper way a man in the king's uniform should travel, and we think the government ought to be big enough to provide a decent means of doing so.
Every effort must be made to allow these men to visit their homes and loved ones while they are in Canada, because some will be a long time gone after they leave these shores.
Too much cannot be done for the boys who are willing to go over there for their country, and we have faith in the government that it will do something.
Some of the commanding officers are more reasonable than others with regard to applications from those who wish to be officers. In my opinion all officers should come from the ranks. I understand that the former commanding officer of one of the corps of engineers has given a ruling that nobody who has not had university training or graduated along those lines can get a commission.
Another matter which might be referred to is the inaction of the government with respect to enlisting the cooperation of members of parliament. So far as the Toronto district is concerned, I doubt whether any hon. member has ever been invited to attend a single camp or anywhere else to see what is being done or is hoped to be done by the government from 1940 to 1942. The only letter along these lines which we have had, so far as I know-and I have asked some other hon. members-came from the Department of National War Services, asking us to take part
2096	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
in a "scrap" campaign. I have pointed out on another occasion that this work is covered, so far as our city goes, by the police commission and licensed peddlers. It is also handled by the Salvation Army, who have big trucks going to every house in Toronto to collect the week's scrap; by the Poppy day fund, which have a regular service also, and raised by this means a large sum of money to take care of its work; by some of the women's organizations, including the Imperial Order, Daughters of the Empire; by the National Council of Women; and last, but not least, by the street department. Then, why any further duplication of services? That was the only invitation we have received. It was dated March 17, which was probably a good day to send it out, because some people born under the colour which that date symbolizes are, in any event, very full of "scrap." Anyway, that is the only invitation we ever got, to go out and collect rags, bones, and bottles, and I suppose we got it because some of us are "Conservatives," although the government is supposedly conducting a "Liberal" war.
In my opinion the small loans act operates against the interests of our soldiers. At the pawnshops where they try to raise a few dollars, they are charged rates away in excess of two per cent a month; in some cases, up to three or four times that amount. These men should have protection, if needs be by some measure brought in by the Department of Finance to assure them a little better consideration or a lower rate under federal authority.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the situation in respect of the buildings at the camps. It seems that at least three or four departments have charge of these buildings. The Minister of National Defence, who is always illuminating and informative, brought down a splendid report upon the cost of these camps, but some of the work is done by contract, some by the department of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, some by the Department of National Defence and the air force do a lot themselves. No doubt it was a rush job and the work W'as necessary.
I am making no objection to it. But as regards the Department of National Defence for Air, I have in mind that at the foot of Yonge street to Sherboume street on the Queen's quay, in Toronto, a large number of wooden huts have been constructed, and I have received many complaints from carpenters and builders and others in the district that they cannot get employment on this work, but that people from all over Canada have been brought in to do it, nobody being taken on who is over forty-five years of age; further, that the rates and labour conditions are not 
what they should be. I reported the matter to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and his director of public relations-I do not know what that phrase means, because every department seems to have a "department of public relations"-


An hon. MEMBER:: Poor relations!


Thomas Langton Church: -simply referred me to the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force at Toronto, and his public relations branch. What is the idea of having these huts? As we go past, we see a large number of troops doing nothing except guard duty enough to protect a city hall, and all they do is to protect lumber which is already protected by the city police, by the harbour commissioners, and by the contractors. No wonder there are so many people in the unit suffering from throat trouble, as the return to an order of the house showed.
I have in mind another matter which should be looked into in the interests of recruiting and of the army in general. I want to find out about the large number of civilians who are doing nothing in the army but sitting in offices, wearing uniforms, and getting-some of them- double pay-men in the city of Ottawa for whom the Ottawa river is the first and last line of defence so far as the war goes. I have received a number of communications objecting to the use of civilians in the Department of National Defence, while returned soldiers are out of work. They complain regarding the "number of uniformed men in the naval department who are merely doing the work of clerks, but who first secure commissions as lieutenants, thus enabling them to draw military pay on civilian jobs and to wear naval uniforms." Some of these lads were never on a coal barge, to say nothing of any other craft; they are not like the able "admiral" we used to have here from the bay of Fundy, who was a real authority on the sea and shipbuilding. "They will perform civilian clerical duties only until the war ends, but instead of drawing $75 per month as clerks, they will draw lieutenant's pay and allowances."
Another objectionable feature is the press bureau of the Department of National Defence for Naval Sendees. The other day I got a magnificent booklet, or brochure, or album; there is nothing like it on the north American continent, although it emanates from what is known as the "silent arm of the service."
Did you ever hear, Mr. Chairman, of the Royal Navy making up a book of photographs of itself and sending them all over the country as a publicity stunt? I am here to pay tribute to the noble courage of the men who are writing a glorious record on land, sea and

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
air; the history of courage is being rewritten by them, and I. particularly congratulate the Minister of National Defence for Air on the good work he is doing. But one feature of the work of these departments simply does not appeal to me at all, and that is the large number of people who have been engaged for publicity work. As I pointed out five years ago, when this matter of naval protection was under discussion and I was urging a national shipbuilding policy and the opening up of all shipyards to prepare for a vast merchant marine policy before it was too late, and that something be done, we found that at the last shipping conference and the previous imperial conference the Dominion of Canada sided with two other dominions, and did not side with New Zealand and Australia in an advanced, forward empire shipping policy to rebuild the merchant marine. We would not assist or give one dollar towards the Singapore base, and we said, at the last empire shipping conference, that as far as the Dominion of Canada was concerned, we had no commits ments and did not intend to make any towards maritime freedom. I do not see why the departments should be loaded up with all these publicity people. It is ridiculous to have these civilians-for that is all they are-walking up and down Yonge street in Toronto, or Sparks street here, wearing the king's uniform.
I do not blame the three ministers in charge of this department for these conditions; they have made many improvements; but why should these people, who really are only civilians and wear uniforms, enjoy increased rates of pay, while the men who are going overseas, privates and N.C.O.s, have to salute these gentlemen who are simply sitting at home getting double rates of pay for working on publicity, pay branches, and similar civil service jobs in the various departments at Ottawa and not in actual war work? Why, the streets at times are filled with many of these people 1 One has only to walk into any hotel rotunda or departmental store in Toronto to see many of them. The ministers in charge of these departments, who know far more than I do about these matters, are capable men and no doubt are trying to make some changes. I suggest that there should be some division in this matter of personnel; that those officers who are performing only civilian duties on the staffs of various departments should not wear the uniform at all, unless enlisting for any theatre of war, and the returned men should fill these positions.
Regarding publicity in general, there is no doubt that Canada is not being properly advertised in the United States. I hope that
parliament will take note that on the next St. George's day, the day we celebrate in honour of England, there is to be a visit by Mr. Menzies, the splendid Prime Minister of Australia. Australia is opening an office in New York which will operate as an information bureau and will supply data on all phases of Australian life and on what that commonwealth has done in the war, and Australia has a great story to tell of her war work. That bureau will deal with the press and put on a real publicity campaign, giving them proper information instead of some of the garbled information that is coming into Canada now of war and foreign affairs.
I have here a letter from a leading head of a big store in the west end of Toronto, complaining about our information bureau. He says he has written several times asking the head of this department not to send him any more of this information because he cannot distribute it; it just goes, he says, into the waste-paper basket. In view of the great shortage of paper in Great Britain and this country, he thinks this waste is regrettable. I think the point he makes is well taken.
This bill will be the last opportunity we shall have to go into all these questions. I wish to commend the government for a great deal of what it has done, especially during the last year, but I would direct its attention to one or two matters which should be looked into. One is with regard to British prisoners of war. I have here the British official Hansard of Tuesday, December 3, 1940, in which there are three pages of questions and answers, beginning at page 392. It is charged that owing to the United States having been more or less against Germany, the former policy under which the United States government looked after the distribution of Canadian Red Cross parcels and private parcels to prisoners of war is no longer being attended to. The British government was asked as to its intentions with regard to these privately run enterprises. They did operate through Lisbon, but now, since the lease-lend bill, it is difficult for them to do anything, or get Red Cross parcels delivered.
These parcels are not arriving. The following members took part in the debate: Captain McEwen, Mr. Law, Sir William Davison, Viscountess Astor, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Miss Ward, Mr. Lees-Smith, Mr. Robert Gibson, Mr. Bellenger, Sir Adam Maitland; and the reply is given. The government here should also look into this situation. If the British government are not delivering the parcels, how can we know with regard to any private organization in Canada who send parcels? We had the head of the Y.M.C.A. in America telling us here last fall

2098	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
that parcels were being delivered by the Y.M.C.A. He came here from the United States to give his views. The debate in Britain is to the contrary. This, I believe, is an authentic report of the proceedings in th'e British house, and this question is creating a great deal of anxiety among the relatives of our own troops. I have had several letters from mothers and fathers and wives of these men wanting to know if they get the parcels. Sir William Davison said:
... I hold in my hand a letter from a prisoner in Oflag VII camp, dated October 29, saying no Red Cross parcels of any kind had come to that camp . . .
The minister said that there was a great deal of difficulty due to shipping and the changes that had taken place, and deliveries were difficult. An inquiry should be held into the matter at once, and I refer the government to these pages of the British Hansard for a complete statement of the case. Action should be taken.
Another matter with regard to these prisoners of war is that when they are in the army they are allowed so much a day and sustenance. When they become prisoners of war they do not get any allowance, and they do not get proper clothing, although by our law they are still on active service and should be paid. The country should pay for it. There is discussion of that in the same Hansard. I hope the government will look into it. They pay for food and clothing and they do not get it, Hansard says.
Another matter is that the information the country is getting, both on the radio and in the press, is not what it should be. The proceedings of this house are not reported. I heard the other day a man on the BBC giving his views, and it is time we had a Who's Who so that we may know who these people are, even the BBC, that are giving Canadians information about the war and about this bill and other matters. One of the broadcasters is J. B. Priestley, one of the best-known pacifists Britain ever had, who, for some unknown reason, got this job. Here is what he said in 1938:
The most dangerous lunatics we have had to do -with in this century have been the "be prepared" agitators. ... All those people who go about saying that war is inevitable, and giving us their views on the next war, are either dangerous lunatics or criminals. They ought to be locked up and fed on bread and water.
One has to understand who these people are and then one can know how much attention at times can be paid to them because they \yere wrong all the years before the war. So when we are told that parcels are being delivered, the authority for those state-

ments should be looked into, and a survey made as a result of America not being now able to function in Germany.
This supplementary bill and the main war appropriation, reaching a total almost unthinkable, are the net result of the sham sort of world Canada lived in from 1921 to 1939. They thought of nothing but Geneva and all its works, and threw away not only our defence but our friends. They also misjudged the whole European and domestic situation. We were told that there would never be any more war and that a bill like this would never be necessary again. We were told that on all sides of this house; that is the result of pacifism, disarmament, Geneva, Stressa, Locarno, Kellogg pacts and Munich. Had we made ourselves secure and been prepared, we would not have had a bill for one-third of this amount. But this bill to-day, what is it? It is just preparing the way for the Marxian theory; it is simply heading for the totalitarian state. The ministers take pride in the magnitude of the figures, the dizzy height; it has almost gone up to the height of the tower of Babel, in geometrical progression, and they are very proud of it. But there has been altogether too much taxation, too much of the methods of the big stick, too much telling the people of Canada what they are going to do next fall and winter and all kinds of scarecrow publicity. The late Hon. J. Israel Tarte said "elections are not won by prayers"; and to wait until you see where Canada will be next year in taxes. With the present ministry and all the professors, we shall in time reach a totalitarian state. There never was a time in the history of this country when a vigorous opposition was more needed than it is to-day. Wait until you see how your bread and tea and groceries will be taxed next year; see how we are going to take from Mr. Hepburn and the other provinces and the municipalities the gasoline tax and the motor vehicle tax, with all the scarecrow and big stick methods. There never was a time when the opposition had a greater opportunity. The London Economist said recently:
The fact is that an alternative administration in opposition-able and willing to become a government, but with no wish, real or professed, to disrupt the state itself-is a necessity of sound democratic government. Indeed, one of the chief items in any really satisfactory reconstruction of the post-war world would be the emergence of such an opposition, and certainly not its suppression. In the event, of course, the advocates of a straight] acketed "unity" and the place-seekers may conceivably have their way, for it is hard to see where a real opposition is to come from; but it would be a setback, not progress.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
In short, what is wanted in our public life is not the blurring of outlines but their clearer definition. It is no gain to have a formula which misrepresents two opposite views. It would be much better to have both defined.
They refer to what is proposed for reconstruction afterwards. The government would be well advised to adopt the principles laid down in this British Hansard; if they did, the debates would not last half a day or a day, and allow an hour daily for questions and subsidiary questions on all features of the war and crossexamination of the ministry, thus giving the country the facts and preparing it for the difficult days ahead.


Mr. PICARD:: Last night I intended, when the discussion centred on Nova Scotia, to say a few words, but I did not have an opportunity then. Since the subject has been brought up again this afternoon by the hon. member for Davenport, I wish to make a few remarks.
The hon. leader of the opposition said last night he wanted the government to put Halifax back on the map. Halifax is on the map now, very much on the map. A couple of weeks ago I was in that city for a few days and what I saw there proved to me that Halifax was definitely on the map. If every member of the house had a chance to go there, he would see what has been done by the government and it would convince him much more than by looking up figures, listening to complaints and voicing them again in this house. While in Halifax, I spoke to people in every walk of life. I admit that the conversation at times came back to the shipbuilding programme and the contracts that had been granted in Canada; but at no time did I hear, while I was in that city, such bitter complaints as we heard here at times last night. On the contrary, instead of complaining, most of the people I met in Halifax were proud of the role played by their city in the present war, and of the use made of the facilities of their wonderful harbour.
With regard to the explanation given by the minister last night as to this question of shipbuilding, I confess I am not an expert. I was not born on the Clyde, as was the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I was born on the shores of the St. Lawrence where there was no shipbuilding industry, in a beautiful, small city, Riviere du Loup, whose people are ably represented in this house by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). That city, by the way, has supplied to this present parliament six members, who are past or present citizens of that city

the 14873-133}
Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), the hon. member for Temiscouata, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lizotte) and the member for Bellechasse.
Although, as I was saying, I was not born on the Clyde, strangely enough I was able last night to understand the clear explanation given by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) in such masterly fashion. Even in Halifax, most of the people I met, although some of them expressed the wish that more could be done if possible in that part of the country, understood the reasons which were indicated to the committee last night by the minister. One afternoon, after visiting the historic buildings that house the local assembly, I was invited by a hospitable Haligonian to his club. The reasons given by the minister last night were also voiced there by some business men. They said, "We have to admit that this is the position. We should like to have the specifications so drawn up that we could fulfil them, but we understand that they were put there not by Angus Macdonald but by the British government." So they admitted that the person responsible was not the minister; they understood that it was not the Canadian government but the British government that gave the specifications and that those specifications had to be complied with. It may have been hard for them to swallow, that they all tendered too high, but they understood the reasons that have been given by the minister.
As regards steel shipbuilding yards, the minister said there was only one. I was even privileged to visit this yard and to see the work that was being done there, and it is much more important than any new plan of shipbuilding. I am not at liberty to explain, but it may be inferred from what I say, that the work that is being done in this Halifax yard at the present time for the Canadian and the British governments is of much more importance than the building by this yard of one or two ships a year.
While there I had an opportunity to visit the British naval base. I am not at liberty to describe what I saw, but it was a heartening sight. I wish that more members could go there. They would better realize the situation. A visit to Rear Admiral Stuart Bonham-Carter would inspire anyone. He is a genial man and a fine personality. Coming in contact with a person like this makes one understand the success of the British navy. These men can be calm before and after battle, as shown by Admiral Cunningham who, after winning the last victory over the Italians, took his family to the moving pictures at
,100	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
Alexandria. They are the sort of men who control the British navy, men who can be charming and entertaining on occasion, while being authorities in their own sphere.
I also had an opportunity to visit the Canadian naval base under Commodore Jones, and here, again, I was most favourably impressed. The Canadian navy has been enlarged tenfold. It is extraordinary to see what has been done in such a short time. It is a remarkable achievement, and it has been accomplished within a few months-because, after all, we cannot count in terms of years. Only a few months have elapsed since the start of the war, and such a change has been brought about in the Canadian navy that one must actually see it to realize what has been done. One must see it on the spot. Here, we simply look at figures and we hear of so many new ships and so many men; there you actually see what has been accomplished and you realize, more vividly than the reading of figures and statistics can make you realize, the change that has been brought about. This is due to the far-sightedness of the Department of National Defence, of the ministers, past and present, and mainly to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, who has given so much attention to the programme of the construction and expansion of the navy.
While I was there I visited the headquarters of the eastern air command under Air Commodore N. R. Anderson. Again, I am not at liberty to say much, but I can say that what I saw there is indeed remarkable, the coverage made by the air force, vast areas, their activities in so many ways, the wonderful organization they have within headquarters. You have to see it to realize what is being done. When you are there you realize that the petty criticism that is indulged in amounts to nothing. Some people will say that this has not been done and the other has not been done, but when you see it in actual operation you realize what the government has done. If more hon. members would go there they might be ashamed of voicing some of the petty criticism that we hear from time to time. They would see the magnitude of the work done.
I also visited Dartmouth air port under Group Captain A. L. Morfee. It is a splendid achievement both as regards material and as far as the men are concerned. They have a much larger number of men than I imagined, men not in transit overseas but defending the eastern portion of Canada. They are working for the defence of our own countiy. I suppose I can say that the achievements of the air arm so splendidly organized by the air ministry, are due, to a large extent,

to the ' dynamic personality of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), who must have inspired his men, because a tremendous amount of work has been done and the men and the organization are thoroughly efficient.
I am not supposed to speak for Halifax; I have no brief to do so. I can tell the committee, however, something of what I have seen, and I think it would be well if others could see for themselves what the different branches of the Department of National Defence have done. It is heartening to see the material effort of Canada centralized in the activities that one sees in the harbour of Halifax. The few shortcomings can be excused in view of the shortness of the time in which the government has had to expand these facilities.
Someone referred the other night to the housing condition. I understand that this is being remedied. A number of houses are to be built under the housing programme and barracks are being erected so as to avoid the troubles complained about. I understand that barracks cannot be erected fast enough. If the expansion of such a programme is under consideration, I would advise that many more barracks be constructed for men in the different services.
Then, there is talk there about health services. Perhaps I might be permitted to say to the Minister of Pensions and National Health that the wish of the majority of the population is that one central authority should act in that connection. His department should get in contact with the provincial, municipal, army and navy health authorities, and get their consent so that there would be one central authority with power to apply regulations to prevent unhealthy conditions in Halifax.
In conclusion, may I state that Halifax is indeed a great city, a city full of enthusiasm for its war effort. Haligonians are proud of the men who hold three of the most important portfolios in the cabinet. In this regard I may say that while I was lecturing at Dalhousie university the chairman of the evening, referring to Dalhousie and Laval universities, stated that if the graduates of Dalhousie and Laval were withdrawn from the government, the administration would be crippled. It would mean that the Minister of Justice, the three Ministers of National Defence, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State would be withdrawn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And do
not forget the leader of the opposition.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am sorry I forgot to
mention the leader of the opposition. His role may be more important than that of Mr. Willkie, although less sensational. A trip to Halifax would give any hon. member who had occasion to go there a feeling of absolute confidence in victory. He would have a better knowledge of Canadian defence problems and of the achievements of the government and the different national defence services for the defence of the country, and for help to Great Britain.


Mr. McCUAIG:: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) suggested this afternoon the advisability of formulating some policy whereby, after the war is over, shipbuilding in Canada might be continued. May I add my voice to that of the hon. member in that regard? When this war began we did not have sufficient capacity in our shipyards to supply the demand. We learned, and we have known for many years, that ships can be built in Great Britain for about fifty per cent less than they can in Canada. If therefore the shipbuilding industry is to be continued in Canada, as I believe it should, it will be necessary for some government to formulate a plan of assistance to shipbuilding. In time of war, when there is a heavy demand -in fact when the demand is greater than the supply-we are warranted in giving shipyards contracts at prices higher than those which could be justified in time of peace. Therefore if we are to see to it that the shipbuilding industry does not at the conclusion of the war decline almost to the zero mark, where it was prior to 1935, it will be necessary for some government to formulate a plan.
I am keenly interested in this matter because in my constituency of Simcoe North we have in Collingwood one of the largest shipbuilding industries in Canada. Before I came here as a member of this house in 1935 I came to Ottawa with a deputation from that district to interview the government. On that occasion we urged upon the government the necessity of formulating some plan to keep a certain nucleus of men working, so that if the time did come when it was necessary to do some shipbuilding the men would be available for that purpose.
A few days ago the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) asked why the Collingwood shipyards were not working more than one shift a day. No doubt the hon. member felt that if there was a demand for ships, a larger demand than we could supply, the shipyards should be working more than eight hours a day. Discussing the matter with officials of the Collingwood shipyards I learn that they have sufficient orders. They
have orders ahead, and all they can handle at present. But if they changed from one shift to two or three shifts they would do so only at the expense of other shipyards in Canada. They require expert men in the building of their ships. They feel therefore that it is better gradually to build up their supply of skilled men, and to have those men trained in their own industry, rather than go out and draw them from other industries already engaged in the war effort.
I would urge upon the government, at this time when shipbuilding is urgently needed, the necessity of formulating some plan under which when the war is over we shall not be caught where we were three or four years ago, with our shipyards almost empty and with a lack of skilled men to work in them.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like first to make a few observations respecting what was said by the Minister of Labour when the orders of the day were called at the opening of this sitting. He stated that I had described as discourteous his failure to answer my question at an earlier date. I had no intention of conveying any such impression. I have found the Minister of Labour always ready and willing to cooperate. I had pointed out only that the system followed by the Minister of National Defence in answering questions asked in the house was a system which all departments should follow as closely as possible. Several days had elapsed since I had brought the matter to the attention of the minister, and I considered it of sufficient importance to bring it to the attention of the house. I thought I should have an answer. The reply given this afternoon does not answer the question I had intended to ask, which was this: What efforts are being made by the Department of Labour to find employment for the forty-six men who are unemployed as a result of their being replaced by girls in the plant in Hamilton?
When these men entered the plant to be trained as inspectors there was an understanding or agreement with the Canadian government that in the event of their having to go to the United States or other parts of Canada to do that kind of work they would be paid a subsistence allowance. When they were called in and informed that they were to take similar work in other parts of Canada -and some of them in the United States- they wrere told that the subsistence allowance did not apply. They were to be sent out of the country to work at 56 cents an hour which was six cents an hour more than they were receiving in Canada. They were objecting, not because they did not wish to leave the country but because the subsistence allowance had been taken from them. As a result
2102	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
they are unemployed. I wanted the Minister of Labour to tell me what he or his department had done with respect to securing employment for men over whom they should have supervision and jurisdiction.
May I speak briefly respecting the statement made by the hon. member who recently visited Halifax. He would convey the impression to the house that conditions in that city apply to the entire province of Nova Scotia. The city of Halifax is a very small part of Nova Scotia. Undoubtedly the city of Halifax is making a valuable contribution to the war effort, but compared with the rest of the province they are faring well. The majority of people living in the eastern part of Nova Scotia look upon Halifax as the end of Canada. It is the end of the radio chain; it is the terminal of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the harbour commission is there. Halifax is well taken care of and is very well represented so far as government is concerned; it is the seat of government. The conditions have been correctly described by the hon. member, but they certainly do not reflect the conditions that exist throughout the rest of Nova Scotia. I am glad he was so well received. He was taken to the historic chamber which houses the legislative assembly. He was certainly treated better than I was the last time I was there. I went there toward the end of December 1940 at the request of the executive board of the united mine workers, to take part in a coal conference called by the provincial minister of labour. When I arrived in Halifax I met the minister, but I was refused permission to take part in that conference. Apparently the hon. member from Quebec had more pull or exerted more persuasive powers upon the local authorities in Halifax.
I listened with interest last evening to the discussion of shipbuilding as applied to Nova Scotia. Two statements were made which stand out and which should form the basis for any discussion of this question. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services stated that at present the shipbuilding plants in Canada were not operating to full capacity and that there was no shortage of shipbuilding facilities. He said that until such time as the shipbuilding facilities of Canada were taxed to the full he did not see the necessity of the government subsidizing or forcing shipbuilding plants in Canada to take on orders. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) read a statement last evening which had been made by Mr. D. B. Carswell, the controller of ship construction and repairs in the Department of Munitions and Supply. I imagine that Mr. Carswell, whose duty it is 
to examine into these questions of shipbuilding, should know something about the proposition. He stated:
Principal problem facing an "all out" cargo and warship construction programme in Canada, which would involve establishment of new shipyards throughout the dominion, is the problem of finding the money for both ships and yards.
This statement on March 11 of the man charged with the responsibility of advising the Department of Munitions and Supply would indicate that shipbuilding is one of the major problems and perhaps one of the greatest contributions to our war effort that could be made at the present time. Yet on the other hand the minister, who of course was not speaking for his own department, makes the statement that shipbuilding plants in this country are not operating to capacity. Each of these men has a certain responsibility with respect to this particular question, but they have made opposite statements which should be clarified.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) emphasized the fact that food is being rationed in Great Britain when we have an abundance in Canada. Of course the reason for the rationing is that we cannot get the food to England. The people in Britain are fighting our battle and one of our major problems is getting the necessary supplies of foodstuffs and so forth to them. These two statements would lead one to believe that either the controller of shipping or the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is mistaken. It is not my intention to make an analysis of these statements; I merely call them to the attention of those in charge. Statements of this kind going out to the people through the medium of the public press lead the man on the street to believe that those charged with the responsibility of carrying on such an important part of our war effort are not using their best judgment.
I was disappointed also at the statement made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services when he attempted to analyse the reason why shipbuilding has not been carried on more extensively in Nova Scotia. He pointed out that at one time shipbuilding was the major industry of this province. He said also that shipbuilding yards in Nova Scotia had been asked to tender, but that very few had even put in tenders, and those who did were twenty-five per cent higher in their prices than shipbuilding yards in other parts of Canada. He could give no reasonable explanation for this. The minister's statement amounted virtually to an accusation against the shipbuilders of Nova Scotia of sabotage or an attempt to obtain greater profits

Supplementary IFar Appropriation Bill
than other shipbuilders. In the light of the present situation I think that is a serious statement to make.
Personally I do not believe that any such thing is true. It should be clear to anyone who makes an examination of the set-up in Canada why the shipbuilders of Nova Scotia are not in position to accept orders. The shipyards in Nova Scotia are small and their owners are not able to expand them because they have not the necessary capital. The minister doubted very much whether the spirit of those engaged in this industry was equal to the spirit which had actuated the shipbuilders of seventy-five years ago. I think the same spirit is there, but the economic setup is different to-day from what it was seventy-five years ago. The industry lacks capital and it is not able to expand in order to handle the building of these ships.
Fifty or seventy-five years ago, when the shipbuilding industry in the province was flourishing, Nova Scotia controlled its own capital. At that time there were six or seven banks in the province-the Merchants bank, the bank of Nova Scotia, the Halifax Banking company, the bank of Yarmouth, the Commercial bank of Windsor and the Union bank of Halifax. These banks were all organized in the province and were ready to lend money for the carrying on of business. Through mergers the assets of these banks were transferred to Toronto. Eighty per cent of the capital invested in the manufacturing industry is concentrated in one province. The people of Nova Scotia no longer have control of their own capital.
You must have capital to expand. If you want capital the first thing you must do is apply for a loan. If the loan is for an amount over a certain figure the application must go to the head office in Toronto. You must state the reason why you require the loan. Generally the people who direct the banks are at the head of our manufacturing industries. If a loan is required to expand an industry in the eastern part of the country which will come into competition with one established already in Ontario, the logical thing to do is to refuse to lend the capital to expand that industry. I think this matter will be serious until such time as the government are prepared to take hold of this question of shipbuilding.
The plants in the eastern part of Nova Scotia wall have to be subsidized if it is absolutely necessary-and this is admitted by all-for us to produce the ships. And we should not stick to wooden ships. Press reports have stated that an attempt was made to start a plant in the eastern end of Nova Scotia. I think that should be followed up. As I stated the last time I spoke on this
question, if the government erected a plant and operated it themselves at no profit it would serve a twofold purpose; it would not only increase production but would provide employment for the many who have not employment to-day in the eastern end of that province. I think I am absolutely right in summing up the situation in this way, and I think the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will admit-maybe off the record-that that is the true picture. The shipbuilders of Nova Scotia have been represented as people who are looking for enormous profits, but the actual situation is that control of our own resources in Nova Scotia has drifted into another province, into the hands of people who are not interested in creating in another part of the country competition for themselves.
The minister of naval services stated that so far it was not the intention of the government to subsidize the shipbuilding industry. But as the war is now developing, particularly on the sea, before very long ships will be the most important thing we shall need in the prosecution of the war, and the government would be well advised to take into consideration the question of subsidizing, where necessary, shipbuilding plants. According to the minister himself there are fifty in Nova Scotia.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
never said fifty.


Clarence Gillis: Then twenty-five. Several
figures have been given.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
never said twenty-five.


Clarence Gillis: Various figures appear on
Hansard. Some say fifty and some twenty-five. Assuming there are twenty-five, all of these plants could be put to some use, and many of them could be expanded, possibly at no great cost. On the other hand, there are thousands of boys on the road in Nova Scotia who have never had a day's work in their lives. Many of them are capable young men, and some of them could be trained at this very time while we are sitting and talking about it.
As I said a short time ago, Hitler had swept across France to the English channel before some people in Great Britain awoke to the seriousness of the w'ar situation, and instead of debating these things we should be doing something about them. It will perhaps be too late when the war is brought closer to home. We all hope that will not happen, but in the light of the events of the past year and a half we should not take any chances. If millions of dollars can be invested in industry elsewhere I see no good reason
2104	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
why money could not be expended in Nova Scotia to develop our shipbuilding plants, particularly when it would serve the two purposes of increasing the production of ships which are vitally needed and giving employment where it is sorely needed. Private industries should not be allowed to exploit at a profit. If it is necessary for the government to subsidize plants the government should receive the benefit, because in the final analysis it is the taxpayers who pay the bill, and if there are any profits accruing the taxpayers should receive the benefit.
I am emphasizing the importance of this question in order to bring it again to the attention of the government, with particular reference to the two statements that have been made from responsible quarters. One I presume was by an employee, and the other was by the minister. One said that an allout effort in shipbuilding should be made even if it was necessary to subsidize the industry. Then there is the minister's statement that the shipbuilding plants of Canada are not being used to capacity. This is a matter that should be taken hold of at once by the responsible minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must apologize for not having been in my seat last evening, but I had an important meeting with departmental, officers. I read the Hansard report of yesterday's debate, and I notice that the hon. member (Mr. Gillis) stated that I had not answered his question about the steel mill at Sydney. I thought I had answered it fully. I explained that it is well known to the department that there is a steel rolling mill at Sydney, which was established at the end of the last war, too late to be of use in that war. The mill which is still there has been partly dismantled, and part of the equipment I think has been used for other purposes. We have considered since the beginning of the war the desirability of putting that mill into operation, but the difficulty has been this, that the whole capacity of their ingot steel has been contracted for, and there is none available to turn into plate. I went further and took the matter up when I was in England, to see whether Britain would not prefer to release part of their ingot contract and take plate instead. But ingots were the type of steel most needed in Britain, and British officials were extremely anxious that there should be no reduction in the shipment of ingots from that mill to Britain


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the steel company ever made representations to this government with respect to the establishment of a plate mill there? Has the company that owns the mill not been willing to go into operation with government assistance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are quite anxious to put their mill in operation, but that does not answer the question: what are you going to use for raw material? It would be violating the spirit of our relationship with Great Britain, violating the sanctity of contract, if we did not maintain the production Britain wants. The British government was responsible for putting in some of the capacity at Sydney for ingots, and they made a contract for the output to be used in Great Britain. I for one do not wish to be a party to deliberately setting up facilities which would divert that supply of ingots from Britain.
We have been discussing as an alternative, and I think this is the proper alternative, increasing the ingot capacity there by putting in another open hearth furnace. Plans are being drawn for that now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much would that cost and how long would it take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would cost about $1,500,000, and it takes eight months. To put the rolling mill in shape would cost $8,000,000 and take eighteen months.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: About $3,500,000, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Please do not guess over there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will take that back. My recollection may have been at fault. It may have been a larger programme that was to cost $8,000,000, perhaps involving the power to operate the mill. It would cost as much as the original investment in the mill to put it in operation, and it would take a very considerable period of time. However, we are considering the basic requirement, which is more ingot capacity, and something will I think be done in that direction.
Coming to the question of shipbuilding, I appreciated the moderate tone of the address of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), and I have read the Hansard report of what was said last night. I should like to make it clear that the government is going to build every ship in Canada that it is possible for us to build, using reasonable business judgment. We do not wish to start a number of building projects which cannot be successfully carried out and which will only have the effect of diverting effort from yards which have the experience and the equipment to do the job efficiently. We have placed up to the present contracts for twenty merchant ships of the 9,300-ton class.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Twenty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Twenty, yes.


Mr. GREEN:: Is that the British contract or is it-



DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
February, 1941
Executive Assistants to the Minister W. A. Harrison E. P. Taylor W. C. Woodward
Special Adviser to the Minister Aubrey Davis
Minister
Hon. C. D. HOWE
Deputy Minister G. K. Sheils
Private Secretary to the Minister W. J. Bennett
Priorities Branch Director General It. C. Berkinshaw
Economics Adviser R. A. C. Henry
Labour Relations Director General H. B. Chase
Wartime
Requirements Board Department Representatives Chairman-H. R. MacMillan Member-R. A. C. Henry Member and Secretary-
H. Carl Goldenberg
Representatives Abroad London-C. A. Banks United States-
Washington-J. B. Carswell New York-
F. G. Rounthwaite
Publicity Directors General R. J. Deachman Rielle Thomson
Deputy Minister's Office Chief Executive Assistant-
J. P. Pettigrew
Executive Assistant-
W. D. Low
Assistant to Chief Executive Assistant-
A. J. Martin
Personnel and Equipment- W. C. McEachern Purchase Investigators-
G. A. Briggs J. A. Marsh Private Secretary-
Miss E. Heaton
General Counsel Henry Borden, Iv.C.
War Contracts Depreciation Board Member-F. H. Black
			
Assistttiil to Genual OuUiisul F. M. Covert			
Legal Branch Director General J. de N. Kennedy
E. G. Arnold T. Z. Boles R. J. Bouchard K. H. Gray
G.	M. Jarvis R. G. Johnson
H.	P. Lemay J. A. Miller
G. S. Rutherford Records-J. G. Porter
Government Owned Companies Allied War Supplies Corporation
Citadel Merchandising Co., Limited
Fairmont Company, Limited Federal Aircraft, Limited Melbourne Merchandising, Limited
Plateau Company, Limited Research Enterprises, Limited Small Arms, Limited
Department of Trade and Commerce
Liaison Officer-G. D. Mallory
Security Officer R. L. Anderson
Purchases in U.S.A. Director-D. J. O. Meyers
Munitions Production Branch
Aircraft Production Branch
Directors General H. J. Carmichael W. F. Drysdale
Director General R. P. Bell
Purchasing Branch Directors General Wilfred Gagnon J. P. D. Malkin Director John Eaton
Associate Directors General F. H. Brown E. J. Brunning Assistant Director General A. F. Gill
Secretary			General Adviser
J. M. Kitchen			J. Crone
Divisions
Contracts-W. S. Lecky Shell-H. R. Malley Cartridge cases-J. E. Openshaw Fuzes, Primers, etc.-J. L. Bieler Guns and M.Gs.-R. C. P. Webster Bombs, D.C.S. Mines-D. L. Cramp Small Arms-R. D. Keenleyside Tanks-G. Evans Armour Plate-Dr. C. W. Drury Machine Tools, Gauges and Plant Records- F. C. Gilbert-Berthiez Instruments-J. E. Kenderdine Consultants: Contracts-M. Hoey
Power-Dr. C. A. Robb Steel-G. Drummond
[Stage Direction]
Naval Armaments and Equipment Branch
Director General F. M. Ross
Executive Assistant F. L. Jeckell
Divisions
Production and Material Progress- A. K. Tylee
Engine and Airscrew Overhaul-
A. G. Sims Aircraft Overhaul-
T. W. Siers
Supervisor of Purchases-
J. A. D. MacCurdy Technical Liaison to A.M.S.-
H. H. McMahon
	
General Pu L. L	rchasing Agent Price
Defence Projects Construction Branch Director General
D.	Stairs Directors
L. C. Jacobs
E.	P. Murphy
Chemicals and Explosives Branch
Director General J. R. Donald Director
Dr. R. T. Elworthy
Divisions
Barrack Stores-T. L. Costello
Building and Office Supplies-L. A. McIntyre
Clothing-R. G. Peers
Food Stuffs-W. E. Wilford and F. X. Power Fuels, Paints, Lubricants, Electrical Supplies-
W. J. Atkinson
Government and Controlled Companies-
C. E. Morshead
Mechanical Tools, Hardware-C. P. Morrison Mechanical Transport-J. H. Berry and C. B. Doheney
Medical and Dental Supplies-A. W. Haydock Miscellaneous Militia and Naval Stores-E. W. Croll
Arsenals and S.A.A. Branch Director General Col. D. E. Dewar
Divisions
Shell Filling-Col. G. Ogilvie Pyrotechnics-C. I. Murray
i
Deputy Minister's Representative J. Fowler
Shipbuilding Branch Director General D. B. Carswell Director W. Percival
Local Purchasing Offices
Halifax-T. M. Pye	Toronto-W. E. Wilford
St. John-W. R. North Winnipeg-W. J. Sturges Quebec-A. E. Tremblay Regina-D. M. A. Murray Montreal-C. K. James Calgary-R. J. White Vancouver-S. V. T. Jeffery
Traffic Representative Transport Controller B. S. Liberty

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
['I should like to make this observation. I think it would probably be\ndesirable to have them referred to a committee, but, in the light of what we are doing in this house, with the budget to come down possibly on Tuesday, I do not see how it will be possible to have proper consideration given to these regulations between now and then.']
Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the difference between a British contract and a Canadian contract?


Howard Charles Green: I am simply asking the minister if that is the British contract to which there has been reference. There is no need for him to fly off the handle about the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, we always have great distinctions drawn as to whether we are building for Britain or for Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I am merely asking if it is a British or a Canadian contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I was trying to envision-if the minister did me the honour to read the few remarks I made last night-was the establishment of a national shipbuilding policy for Canada to be effective from now on and after the war. I think it is very important. The present programme is for Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact a programme has been authorized for Canada. Unfortunately it takes time to organize an enterprise of this magnitude. A merchant ship costs around a million and a half dollars, and it is not sufficient just to step out of the door one morning and say, "I want to order ten of these ships." It takes a little prevision. But we have been studying the situation very intensely. The British government have spoken for the output of certain yards; and the Canadian government is going to have the output of the balance of the yards, and it is our intention to organize that output to the maximum extent which is reasonably possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now we are getting somewhere.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought that in an earlier address I had made substantially that statement, because this project has been under way for some time.
We must organize not only the shipyards themselves but the raw materials, the plates, the boilers and engines, and all the innumerable fittings which go to make up a merchant ship. This is being done. We are studying sources of the required equipment. There is no use in building a hull if we cannot build a boiler which can be delivered to meet the hull when the boat is launched. The matter of brass fittings and other components of a merchant ship represents industries which must be expanded with the shipbuilding industry itself in order to prosecute a large programme of the kind. It is the intention to use existing yards to the fullest capacity, to build additional berths where
additional berths can be built and manned, and after that, and only after that, to explore the situation as regards new shipyards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the extension of the present shipyards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, as I say, extension of present shipyards comes first. That is what I referred to when I spoke about building new berths for existing shipyards.
We have not ceased from the commencement of the war to expand this industry. Anyone who will cast a look at emplo3'ment figures in the shipbuilding industry will find that each month since the latter part of 1939 has seen a substantial increase in the number of employees in shipyards. We have expanded about as fast as we can expand, and therefore I suggest, because we have decided on an all-out shipbuilding programme, we cannot in a month double the number of men at work in the industry; it must expand as rapidly as possible, but in an orderly way. We must expand the supervision as we increase other types of labour, and that is what we are doing. We have had committees of experts on both the west and east coasts. The east coast committee arrrived back in town only last evening, and we shall have their report, as well as one from the west.
There is no difficulty about getting orders for boats. We have all the orders we can fill. There is no difficulty about steel. A modern plate mill of large capacity was started before the war and is coming into operation this month.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister permit a question? I learned-I hope it is not true- that in order to keep our present plate mills in operation we shall have to import ingots from the United States. Is that true or not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we have to, I think it is only a temporary situation. As my hon. friend knows, the ingot capacity at two of our large steel plants is being expanded very rapidly. I cannot say that there will not be a transition period when ingots must be imported, but we shall have a balanced operation very shortly, if not immediately.
We believe that we can expand boilermaking and engine-making facilities to meet requirements. That is being studied in a systematic way. We believe also that we can extend the facilities, which are at present overcrowded, for the making of brass ancillary equipment, so as to meet all requirements of that kind. But to approach a project of this sort, which will involve the expenditure of a great many millions of dollars, in any spirit but one of caution, would bring results,
2106	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
I believe, which would be disappointing to hon. members and to those immediately responsible for the development.
We are placing this merchant shipbuilding in separate and, I think, most capable hands. I hope to be able to report in a day or two to hon. members the whole organization for carrying out the merchant shipbuilding programme, and I believe that the house will appreciate the fact that we have organized the operation on a very sound basis.
The matter of geography is, of course, important.
We have undertaken other programmes- for instance, a very large gun programme. Eventually guns will constitute about one-third of all the munitions made in this country.
Someone has said that we should have a shipbuilding industry at New Glasgow. I cite that city as an example, because it is being mentioned here. We are being asked to erect a great number of new houses in New Glasgow because the people engaged in industry there cannot find places to live. That indicates, it seems to me, a rather undesirable situation. It means that there has been a considerable transference of population from other locations to New Glasgow. To increase the congestion by adding yet another industry in that locality would, I assume, seem to all hon. members to be unsound.
We are undertaking in Halifax a large housing programme. That of course cannot be avoided, because there has been a large transference of population to the city from all parts of Nova Scotia. A great deal of activity centres in that area, and it must be the centre of an active ship-repairing industry. Almost every ship which comes into the harbour needs repairs of some kind, and we must have facilities there to effect those repairs promptly. Therefore it will I think be impossible to centre a great merchant shipbuilding industry at Halifax. To do so would mean further transfers of population to that point and a further considerable expansion in housing. I believe the people of Halifax themselves would consider such a mushroom expansion of that very fine old city a mistake. I am sure it would be in the long run.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not go to Saint John, then?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, in Saint John we are said to have a housing programme; we are not satisfied that that is the case, but there again we have a great deal of activity. Second to Halifax it is the busiest harbour in Canada ; in fact the tonnage passing through the harbour of Saint John is greater than that loaded at Halifax, for the reason that Saint

John is loading a great deal of bulk materials such as wheat and timber. We have at Saint John a shipbuilding industry and we are doting our best to expand it. We think it is possible to expand to a point where we shall be able to build merchant ships ini Saint John; we hope so, although there has been very little surplus labour for assignment to the small programme of corvettes that we put on in that yard early in the war.
I can say to all hon. members that we are exceedingly anxious to make this programme of merchant shipbuilding the largest that Canada can possibly execute. If on examination we can find any way of enlarging the programme on sound lines and with reasonable prospect of success, I can assure the committee that that avenue will be followed to its end.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I feel
greatly heartened by the statement just made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I wish to convey to him my thanks for the clear, succinct way in which he has laid before the committee in general terms what it is proposed to do. We shall watch with interest the development of this programme of commercial shipbuilding, and for the announcement which he said he hoped to be able to make in a few days.
May I remind the committee that this statement was in marked contrast to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services last evening. On the one hand you have a sane, cautious statement of progress; on the other you have every evidence of defeatism.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I thought I had dealt with the question of defeatism last night. If defeatism means looking at facts, of course I plead guilty to being a defeatist. But my hon. friend is not going to turn me into a defeatist simply by saying that I am one. I have never suggested at any time that ships of any size whatever could not be built in Nova Scotia. The question last night turned on remarks made by the hon. member for Cumberland and the leader of the opposition himself and the hon, member for Weyburn. As I understood the discussion, it turned on the attitude which the government had taken towards the shipbuilders of Nova Scotia. I endeavoured to state the reasons why these shipbuilders had not taken advantage of the opportunities which they had to construct ships-wooden ships, because that is the only sort of ships that in the circumstances could be constructed in Nova Scotia to-day. And for making that statement as frankly as I could make at my hon. friend

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
now borrows the phrase which the hon. member for Cumberland borrowed from a newspaper in Nova Scotia.
What I really wished to do was to commend the tone and temper and spirit of the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport. My hon. friend did not traverse the ground gone over last night with regard to wooden ships; he confined his remarks to the question of cargo ships, and expressed the hope that a long-range plan would be evolved here which would permit the building of cargo ships in Nova Scotia. He was perfectly correct in his reference. He went on to refer to the great advantages of that province for cargo shipbuilding. He spoke of the steel plant at Sydney, which is capable-by the expenditure of some money, of course-of rolling plate; he spoke of the coal available near the plant and the great bodies of iron ore in Newfoundland within easy reach of Sydney by water. All of these essentials to the making of steel or the construction of ships are within the empire; all except the iron ore are within Canada. And that of course is a fact that must be given consideration.
My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply has made his statement on cargo ships. That matter comes within his province and I am not going to dwell on it further or say anything more at this stage, except that when in the heat and turmoil of debate hon. members sometimes make statements which they afterwards regret-as I know they do-it becomes all the more important that when an hon. member on the opposite side makes some remark with which his opponent can entirely agree, approbation should be expressed. I am delighted to say once more with what pleasure I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport, and with what benefit I think hon. members listened to his sane and careful analysis of the cargo shipbuilding situation in this country.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I was pleased to hear the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply in regard to shipbuilding. It was somewhat reassuring. I would not attempt to minimize the importance of the task the government have on their hands in this matter. Probably under the circumstances the minister is doing about as well as could be expected. But as I listened to the ministers I could not help thinking that hon. members would have to decide which was right, because having heard the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services last night, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply this afternoon, I am convinced that one or the other is wrong. I am not satisfied with the statement made by the minister last evening, because if what he says is true-and
I am by no means saying it is not-then there has been great and sad neglect of the shipbuilding industry in this country. And of all the industries that need to be well and efficiently conducted, the shipbuilding industry is foremost; for we have heard over the air on several occasions of Britain's great need of ships.
The minister for naval services told us last night that they could build more ships here than they had the personnel to handle. I recall a statement being made in a broadcast from England that they had sufficient personnel over there to man the entire United States fleet if it were turned over to them.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not wish to interrupt my friend, but I should like to say when I spoke of personnel last night I was speaking of personnel for naval ships, not for merchant ships.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is exactly what I am speaking of. I believe it was Lord Beaverbrook, although I cannot say definitely, who made the statement, with reference to naval ships, that if the United States were to turn over their complete navy to Great Britain, she had already a trained personnel to man the whole fleet. For us to assert here that the reason we have not more ships is that we have not the personnel is to confess that there is something wrong, and that should not be an excuse. I was struck by one remark made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply a moment ago. He said we would carry on the largest programme-speaking of naval affairs, of shipbuilding-that Canada could afford. Surely we are not to infer from that statement that our shipbuilding will be curtailed or held back by the amount of money we have now for that purpose, because I am convinced that you cannot tax the people any more if you are going to have any regard to what they can afford. If we curtail our programme by the amount of money that we can tax out of the people, further than we are already doing, then we are not going to make much progress.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Was my hon. friend quoting me as saying that we will build what we can afford?


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood the minister to say that we would have the largest programme that Canada could afford.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; could do physically.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is an entirely different thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said, do physically.
2108	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad of the correction; otherwise it would be a terrible state of affairs to have at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I accept the correction.
I turn now to Hansard of yesterday, and if I am wrong in my criticism I hope the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will correct me. No one is more concerned about this problem than I am, because, as I have stated before, I think we should have one of the most efficient navies it is possible for us to build; and never on any occasion have we in this comer ever advocated any diminution in our defence. The opposite is true; we have insisted that our defence be carried on to the maximum. On page 2074 of Hansard the minister is reported as having said:
If my hon. friend can name me any yard in Nova Scotia which is capable of building ships for war purposes and has not been given an opportunity of bidding on these ships, I should like to have its name.
That is a wrong attitude. It is not up to the minister to ask any member of the house whether he can find shipbuilders who are willing to build ships. That is definitely his responsibility, and if he does not know, it is time he ascertained. He says that there were twenty-four Fairmiles to be built at an average cost of $100,000 each. There was a need for Fairmiles, for twenty-four of them, and so great was this need that the department went to special pains to send a man to Nova Scotia to investigate the possibilities of shipbuilding there. Let me read what the minister said, as reported on the next page of Hansard:
The department sent down the director of shipbuilding to examine the yards and see whether they were capable of undertaking this work.
They sent one of their own inspectors to Nova Scotia to see if they could handle this work, and he made a report to the effect that there were from six to ten shipyards there capable of making this type of ship. The government must have been desirous of getting this information, of finding out the number of shipyards that could build these ships-why?	Because they needed them;
Otherwise it would be foolishness to send a man there for that purpose.
Bids were asked for, but only three tendered. Out of the number ranging from six to ten, when bids were asked for, only three tendered. Let me point this out. The situation was urgent, because, as I say, they sent an inspector to investigate the possibilities of having ships built there. I repeat, they found from six to ten yards that could and

should build these ships, and when tenders were called for, only three were received, and of that number only one was near the price. The minister said that there were in British Columbia bidders whose bids were $25,000 below that price. These people in Nova Scotia, this one who did put in his bid, did so at an excess profit of over $25,000. So the minister, rightly so, said, "I won't give you that contract." But my point is this. Here is an industry which is essential to Canada-taking the minister's own word for it-which would not take a contract unless they received, in the words of the Prime Minister, blood-money-absolutely.	There is no question
about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely that is not a fair
interpretation. The yard was not tuned up to build that type of boat, and I have every reason to believe the men gave an honest tender. They tendered on what they thought it would take to build a boat, giving their best opinion. But it is a different matter to bid against an existing yard that has the experience and personnel to build that type of boat, and that is what they were doing when they bid against the Pacific coast yard.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister said they sent an inspector to investigate before the bids were put in and found that the yards were capable and efficient enough to do the job, and as a result of the investigation an opportunity was given them to bid. When they did submit the bid they were $25,000 in excess of the company in British Columbia. The price quoted by the minister was not to exceed $100,000 for the hull. I say, therefore, that there was an excess profit, a good big one of over $25,000, in the minister's own words. There is something wrong there, and it was so astounding to the minister, he was no nearly shocked to death, that he said:
So amazed was I at the discrepancy in prices that I suggested to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and to the director of shipbuilding that Nova Scotia shipbuilders must have made some mistake, that presumably they had misunderstood the specifications, and that they should be given another opportunity.
They were given a second opportunity. If these companies could not have built these ships according to specifications, and in an efficient and economical way, why should they have been given a second chance? I am assuming that the minister investigated the matter, as he said he did, and found the companies efficient, and yet they were $25,000 over the other.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Angus Lewis Macdonald: May I ask the hon. member one question. Does he think that every efficient manufacturer of an article can always supply that article for the same price?


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely
the minister does not contend that a difference of twenty-five per cent, one-quarter additional price, is anywhere near the same price -$25,000 in excess of the British Columbia price. Make no mistake about it, the British Columbia people were making a profit of at least ten per cent; they were not doing it for nothing. They were making at least ten per cent, or they would not bid, and this company raised that price by $25,000.
People who would do a thing like that in time of war should be classed as saboteurs, and nothing else. If the statement is true- and I am assuming the minister told the truth-that would be so. If the hon. member wishes to put a different interpretation upon it, I would not contradict him. The minister says that as a result of this careful investigation and placing these bids before these companies on two different occasions, the result is that of the twenty-four Fairmiles only two are being built in Nova Scotia. What is the conclusion? The conclusion must be this, that the government wanted twenty-four of these ships built, and could not get more than two built in that particular locality. It is not because these companies were not efficient, not because they were not capable of doing the work, but merely because they charged such a price that the government could not possibly give them the order. Yet the people of Canada have to subject themselves to military conscription. They have to go overseas and fight, possibly give their lives .for their country for $1.30 a day. Then the minister asks us in the House of Commons if we would desire to have them taken by the necks. I say that is, exactly the place to take them by-right by the necks, and literally, too.


Mr. POTTIER:: May I ask a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member will have his chance to speak.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Has the hon. member ever been in a shipyard? Has he had any experience in shipbuilding? Has he ever gone through a shipyard?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has, either.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is not an answer.


Charles Edward Johnston: If he has, then it brings strongly into question the capability of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, because they certainly do not agree, one with the other.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Will the hon. member point out where the Minister of Munitions and Supply and I differ? Will he give one specific instance in connection with this matter?


Charles Edward Johnston: Please do not ask me to point out the difference, because I should not like to go that far.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is drawing a red herring across the trail.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am just stating that that is the minister's own statement in Hansard of yesterday. I am saying this, that if it is not-


Clarence Decatur Howe: In all fairness, I think my hon. friend is throwing words around recklessly. If he opened tenders as frequently as I do, he would not be shocked by seeing tenders that are 25 per cent above other tenders. Sometimes contractors are in a position to do a job cheaply, and sometimes they are not. Sometimes a contractor is organized for a particular kind of work that is going on, and sometimes he is not. It is our job in placing work to pick out contractors organized to do the job in hand. In that way we get the work done more cheaply. My hon. friend is talking with an inside view of a marine industry, and I suggest that anyone would hold the view that one should know his industry before making charges of incompetency and sabotage.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not the Minister of Munitions and Supply, but I am going to put that interpretation upon it. I am using his own words, his own phraseology.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is talking about an industry.


Mr. RALSTON:: And the hon. member is drawing an inference.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the Minister of Munitions and Supply wishes to put a particular interpretation upon those words, I will not prevent him. What I say is this:	After the government sent their
inspector there and satisfied themselves as to the capabilities of this industry, they asked for bids, and there was a difference of $25,000 on a $100,000 contract.
2110	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the inspection was simply to determine whether, if they were given the contract, they would be able to carry it out. It was to determine whether their facilities would permit them to carry it out.


James Layton Ralston: Whether they would make money is a different matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whether they would make money or not depends on a great many things. First of all, it would depend on the organization of the yard. We often have a contractor taking a first contract and losing money on it. After taking two or three duplicate contracts, they are willing to lower their price, and they make money. But for any yard which has not been in the habit of building a ship such as the Fairmile to compete against yards which have been building that type of ship on the Pacific coast, I do not know why it should be so surprising that they would not be close to the mark. I would have expected that there would be a compensating factor which would let them bid closer to the mark. It is, however, only fair to say that in bidding for anything, at least they would use their business judgment. I presume they wanted the business. I believe they use their best judgment as to what the job will cost, and allow a reasonable and modest profit.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the minister is right, to a degree. There would necessarily be a difference between the estimated costs of one company and another. Unless there were collusion, I do not see how two companies could offer to work for the same price. But even if we allow for that, and take into consideration the fact that the company in British Columbia had to make their profit, and that the other company went $25,000 over that-well, it does not just work out; that is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite possible that the shipyard in British Columbia may have been able to make a profit out of its price, and that the Nova Scotia company might fail to make a profit on the other price. It is possible and it can happen, depending on how well a company is organized to do that class of work.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, just to leave that for a moment-
Some bon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the facts as stated will speak well for themselves. If anyone has any doubt he can read Hansard for himself, and I believe he will agree with what I am saying.


Mr. MARTIN:: It is contrary to the rules of the house, incidentally.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then the minister had this to say:
So far as I know, the shipyards of this country are not yet taxed to the full capacity. They are capable of taking care of all the business that is being offered.
That would simply indicate to me that we are not building ships to our full capacity. After the investigation the minister's department made, and after their statement respecting their desire for ships, we are told here that the shipyards are not being used to full capacity. What is wrong? That is one of the things I should like to know. I thought this was an all-out war effort?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have explained that on several occasions. The physical capacity of a yard might permit three shifts being worked. If labour sufficient to work three shifts cannot be got, then the shipyard is not being used to capacity. We have found in connection with several yards that we have not been able to man them to the extent of having three shifts.


Charles Edward Johnston: As I said at the beginning, I was in the position of having to decide between the judgment of the Minister of Munitions and Supply and that of the Minister for Naval Services. Not flattering him at all-and I should not like to do that-I believe I can say the Minister of Munitions and Supply is a fairly good business manager and, under the circumstances, is doing a good job. But what I am trying to get at is this: Who is right? They cannot both be right. They could not possibly be, because their statements are opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Show where they differ.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have been asking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have been asked a question, and you have dodged it, as you always dodge everything.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then on the next page the minister is reported as follows:
We asked for bids for wooden mine-sweepers, and again I may say that I hoped that most of them might be built in Nova Scotia.
That is reiterating what he said before. Apparently he is trying to set up shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, with apparently little success. Then he continues:
These five builders accepted a contract and undertook to build two mine-sweepers each, but they had scarcely undertaken the work when two of these Nova Scotia builders threw up the work and said they could not go on with it.

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
That was after the governmental inspection. We must keep in mind the fact that they had been refused the chance to bid because of the excess prices they were charging. I say there is something wrong with the shipbuilding industry down there. Then the leader of the opposition had this to say:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	For what
reason ?
Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City):	For one
reason or another.
And again:
What the full reasons are I do not know.
That shows a lack of careful management.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: From what page is the hon. member quoting?


Charles Edward Johnston: Page 2076 of Hansard of April 1.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Where are the words "what the full reasons are I do not know"?


Charles Edward Johnston: Near the bottom of the first column. To have a responsible cabinet minister-somebody says "irresponsible"; I would not say that, but it certainly is a matter of misjudgment-say that, shows that something is radically wrong and needs investigating. Possibly the whole department needs investigating, according to the admissions of the minister, who said:
They have been coaxed again and again to take the work, and the result of it all is as I have indicated.
That is in the second column on the same page. Why in the world would a cabinet minister coax and coax these fellows to take the work after the government had sent an inspector down there to investigate? Why should they be given two chances to bid? I never heard of a company being treated that way before.


An hon. MEMBER:: Faint heart ne'er won fair lady.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps
they are trying to build up a political machine, I do not know. The hon. member may know more than I do in that regard.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Where is the suggestion that I coaxed them?


Charles Edward Johnston: In the
second column of page 2076 of Hansard.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend has made the statement that I coaxed these builders. I am asking him where is that statement?


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister said:
They have been coaxed ag.ain and again to take the work.
May I ask the minister who coaxed them?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The government of Nova Scotia coaxed these men and called them together on at least two occasions, and sent delegations to Ottawa accompanied by a Nova Scotia minister of the crown. They are the people who coaxed these builders, not I.


Charles Edward Johnston: That makes it all the worse. We have the admission that the government sent out inspectors to investigate and pass upon certain contractors in a certain province. Then the dominion government gives these companies an opportunity to bid twice and they are given contracts which they cannot fill. That looks pretty suspicious. Then the provincial government had to intercede and coax them and send delegations to Ottawa to insist further that they get contracts. It just does not look so good, in fact it looks worse than it did before. The minister then went on to say:
-but I do not think it is of any use to make general observations like "every shipyard should be busy and all Nova Scotia shipyards should be working," when in some respects the yards themselves have not taken full advantage of the opportunities that offered.
To have a minister make that statement in the middle of a war is certainly pretty discouraging to the people of Canada. Every shipyard that can possibly be used should be used at this time. There certainly should not be any further delay.
The minister ended his remarks by referring to the hon. member for Weyburn in the following words:
If my hon. friend thinks we should take people by the throat and gestapo them into building ships when they do not want to build them, that is another story.
From the facts which have been presented, and having in mind the great urgency of procuring ships, having in mind the fact that we conscripted the youth of this country to fight-


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not ask me when or I may tell you. Right after the election is when. This government solemnly promised that they would not conscript people, but of course they did. Did not we have three cabinet ministers stand up in their places and say that they would resign from any government which put in conscription? Yet right after the election it was put in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: The mere fact that a Liberal government break their word is not the question here; they have done
2112	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
it so often. The fact is that we have conscripted men in this war and under the authority of this government. These companies refused to do this work, or at least they did not do it, but they were coaxed and coaxed to do it. We coax industry to do work, but we pass the mobilization act to put our young fellows in the trenches. That is not playing fair with the people of Canada. There is certainly no equality of sacrifice in it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the hon. member will get up and talk it will be quite interesting to hear what he has to say about it. We should have an explanation from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. He and the Minister of Munitions and Supply should get a little closer together on this thing.


Mr. ERASER (Northumberland):: May I interject just one or two remarks in connection with the statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat? There were reasons why the Nova Scotia yards did not bid on the Fairmile boats, and one reason was that they were not as well equipped to build that type of boat as the Ontario yards. I understand that the contracts for the Fairmile boats were let on the basis of an average price, taking a horizontal cut of the tenders given. These Fairmile boats, which are very fast, are made largely of mahogany. Spruce is the wood generally used in Nova Scotia for planking. There was no oak in Nova Scotia suitable for ribs or frames, so their timber would not be at all suitable for the construction of these boats.


Charles Edward Johnston: Inspectors were sent down to investigate all that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Learn something
about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am tiying to learn from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services.


William Alexander Fraser: I am simply trying to place on the record why the Fairmile boats were not built in Nova Scotia yards or anywhere else in the maritimes. The yacht yards of Ontario were especially equipped to build these boats and they had the organization and technicians available. They could build them to better advantage than could the yards in the maritimes. This is the main reason why the Nova Scotia yards did not tender on these boats.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like to tell the committee the position of the department and the government in connection with this

particular matter which we are asking parliament to vote. I shall then have to leave it to the committee to decide what will be done about it.
The $135,000,000 which we are asking for by this bill should be-I was going to say "must be", but I do not think I have the right to say that-made available to the crown before the Easter recess at the latest. The same thing applies to the further supplementary estimates for the year ended March 31, 1941, which have been referred to the committee of supply. The consequence of either one of these measures going over beyond the Easter recess will be that accounts, many of which have been held up now for several weeks, will not be paid until the end of April or perhaps in May. If by any chance they went over until the Easter recess into the month of May, we would have to make special provision because there is only one month of grace for payment of the accounts of the fiscal year that is ended. I was hoping that the committee, having discussed pretty much the same matters on the main bill for several weeks and on this bill for quite a number of days, would now facilitate the passage of this measure.
There are some subsequent sections on which hon. members will probably want to say something, but I should like to make it clear that it would be a great inconvenience, not so much for the government as for the people with whom the government deals, if by any chance either of these measures should go over beyond the Easter recess without being enacted.
I hope that to-morrow and the next day further supplementary estimates may be placed before the house and that they may go through rapidly. I will give an undertaking that if any hon. member wishes to raise lateT on upon other estimates any question which should properly be raised under these supplementary estimates, I shall take no exception to their being discussed.
Mr. MaeNICOL:	But what about the
chairman?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the chairman would object if we had it understood among ourselves that it could be done. I say that because I should like to have these measures passed if possible before to-morrow night. I do not know whether we can pass this one before six o'clock this evening but I hope hon. members will cooperate in seeing that this measure passes before Friday night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister was good enough to speak to me about this matter and I have given him my assurance that so far as the official opposition is concerned the government's proposals and

Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
requirements will not be held up. The minister has given an undertaking that consent will be without prejudice to future discussion. But I do not see how we can pass this measure before six o'clock, because there is an important section of this bill, section 4(1) (e), and the interpretation that has been given to it, on which I desire to make some observations.
So far as we are concerned, the appropriation will be available before the Easter adjournment, by consent if necessary, on the undertaking and understanding that the minister has given. I give him that assurance now, but it will take me about half an hour to make the protest I desire to make in connection with section 4(1) (e).


Howard Charles Green: There is one feature in
connection with this shipbuilding question which I think should be explained to the house either by the Minister of Munitions and Supply or by the minister for naval services. But before I point out this feature to the ministers I should like to say to the committee that fortunately I represent a seacoast constituency where they do build ships, and that I have been through several shipbuilding yards, so that perhaps there will not be the objection to my making a few remarks that there was in the case of some other members.
Last night I understood the minister for naval services to say that as yet there had been no money' advanced by way of capital advance to any shipyard. As hon. members know, over $300,000,000 has been advanced to different industries by way of capital advance for building plants, extensions to plants, and so on, but I understood the minister to say that nothing like that had been done in the case of shipbuilding yards. We have had complaints from members from different parts of Canada that advances of capital were required by some of the shipyards. I do not know whether that is so in British Columbia, but the suggestion has come from members in some of the other provinces. I do think therefore that the ministry should make it quite clear whether it has adopted the policy of not advancing money for the expansion of shipyards or for setting up new shipyards. Is the ministry prepared or is it not to advance money for these two purposes?
The Minister of Munitions and Supply stated this afternoon that our new shipbuilding policy is to build all the ships that can be built physically in Canada. I hope that that is correct, but his own controller of ship construction and repairs, Mr. D. B. Carswell, said in Vancouver just about three weeks ago, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun of March 11, under the heading "Lack of funds delaying ships":
Principal problem facing an "all-out" cargo and warship construction programme in Canada, which would involve establishment of new shipyards throughout the dominion^ is the problem of finding the money for both ships and yards.
This statement was made to the Sun to-day by D. B. Carswell, controller of ship construction and repairs in the Department of Munitions and Supply.
Then Mr. Carswell was asked the question:
Is there not some way this can be overcome? Germany seems to be building ships and other war materials without money. Why can we not do the same thing in Canada?
And Mr. Carswell's answer is significant. He replied:
That is a question the government will have to answer.
It is a question which I think the government should answer clearly. I have never been quite satisfied with the attitude of the Minister of Munitions and Supply with regard to merchant shipbuilding in Canada. Last year on June 14 I suggested to him-members will find the discussion at page 785 of Hansard that:
The present would seem to be a good time for Canada to inaugurate a steel shipbuilding programme.
That was last June. The minister's reply, the essence of his reply, was this:
Whether at a time like this we should divert the productive capacity of Canada to the peacetime operation of building merchant ships is, I think, questionable.
That was an amazing reply. I remember the minister more or less laughing at my making the suggestion that Canada should build merchant ships. I hope that he has had a complete change of mind since, and that he means it when he says now that Canada is going to adopt an all-out programme of shipbuilding. I believe there is no other question on which there is so much unanimity among the Canadian people as on an all-out programme of shipbuilding at any cost. They want every ship built in Canada that can be built, regardless of cost. Our distinguished visitor to Canada the other day. Mr. Wendell Willkie, made a clear-cut and definite appeal to the Canadian people which should be answered by the Canadian government when he said-I am quoting from the Ottawa Citizen of March 25:
I want to say to you, if I learned one thing in Britain it is that one of the keys to our victory depends upon the people of Canada, the people of the United States, supplying more and more ships.
Then he went on to point out what ships mean to Great Britain, and he said:
I plead with you, citizens of Canada, I plead with my fellow countrymen across the border, give every ship, give more than every ship, give
2114	COMMONS
Supplementary War Appropriation Bill
more than every ship that is free and unnecessary, give ships until it hurts, keep them going, keep them going and victory, then, is sure.
To that appeal surely every Canadian says, amen. I hope the government will go all-out on this question. Perhaps the fate of our whole civilization depends upon whether or not ships can be produced in this western hemisphere, and I hope the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will give us the definite, clear-cut assurance that Canada intends to go to the limit in building merchant ships, and that the matter of funds will not be allowed to hamper their construction.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I should prefer that the question raised by my hon. friend in the last moment or two of his address be answered by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He has made a statement here this afternoon, and if he wishes it amplified to-morrow to satisfy my hon. friend, he should, I think, undertake that duty himself.
With regard to the other question which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked, namely, whether the government has assisted shipyards, my statement last night was that, so far as I knew, the government had not. I have not had time to verify that at the Department of Munitions and Supply, but I am convinced the statement is correct.
As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), I endeavoured to make the position clear, and I am sorry if it is not clear to any hon, members. Roughly speaking, there are two kinds of shipyards in this or any other country. There are those which build wooden ships, and those which build steel or iron ships. Very seldom does one find that the same yard undertakes the construction of both types; they are two separate businesses. All the Nova Scotia yards are wooden yards, and the only warships which they can build are these small types of warships, such as the Fairmile patrol boats and wooden mine-sweepers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would not apply to Halifax.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I excepted Halifax for the reasons which I gave last night. The Halifax yards are quite capable of building steel ships, but they are busy doing repairs. The Nova Scotia wooden shipbuilding yards form part of a group numbering throughout Canada, I estimate, from fifty to seventy-five. On the great lakes and the St. Lawrence there must be more than forty yards capable of turning out yachts, Fairmile patrol boats and mine-sweepers. On the west 
coast are located many wooden shipbuilding yards. I therefore assume that there are throughout Canada from fifty to seventy-five wooden shipbuilding yards. But what the hon. member for Bow River has not grasped is that these wooden shipbuilding yards are of no value in the present cargo ship emergency. We must build cargo ships of a sufficient size to justify their being put into transatlantic use. What these small yards can do is to build yachts oir fishing schooners in peace time, and small boats in war time for naval purposes; that is, wooden boats about the size of the Fairmile craft.
The fact that certain builders in Nova Scotia did not undertake this work had no effect on the pace of the war effort in this country or in this empire. All that happened after the Nova Scotia builders, except one who took a contract for these Fairmile boats, were unable to undertake the work, was that we went to the builders on the great lakes and the west coast and said, "You do it." That did not in any way impede the progress or the speed of our war effort. It is as if my hon. friend went into a store in this city to-day and asked for a pair of boots of a certain style which the store did not have; presumably all he would have to do w'ould be to go to another boot store and get what he required. It is entirely wrong to endeavour to create the impression, as set forth by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that the Nova Scotia builders are saboteurs.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did
not say that.	.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, he said that. He said they could be considered either as saboteurs or profiteers, because either they were reluctant to help the war effort or they wanted to make too much money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not as I heard it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: There are no more loyal people in this country than the people of Nova Scotia, including the shipbuilders; but anyone who has had to do with tenders knows that among even the most reliable contracting firms there will be variations in bids up to fifty per cent. One man may be better equipped, or may be a little more venturesome, or may have a better store of supplies on hand than another There are a dozen reasons which prompt one man to submit a lower bid than another. That does not indicate in any way that the latter is a saboteur or is indifferent to the war effort.

Defence of Canada Regulations
So far as the urgency of this matter is concerned, let 'me say that wooden shipbuilding yards in Nova Scotia or in any other part of Canada have nothing to do with the merchant shipbuilding programme. They can only undertake to build small boats, and the diversion of certain orders for these small boats from Nova Scotia to other yards has had no effect upon the naval programme of this country.
Progress reported.



Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Before the house adjourns, I desire to lay on the table the regulations passed under the authority of the War Measures Act respecting payments in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the Peace river district of British Columbia, of specified sums per acre on the number of acres taken out of wheat production and seeded to grass or coarse grains or summer-fallowed in 1941.
These regulations are of necessity not complete in that there are certain cases which will require to be dealt with on a basis similar to that which is finally decided upon in setting up quotas. A case in point is the occasional farm which grew no crop prior to this year. Such a farm is not covered in these regulations, but must be covered. There may be experiences necessitating further amendments in due course.
It has been stated by a number of hon. members that they would like to see these regulations referred to a committee for review and report. Some have suggested a special committee and some, the committee on agriculture and colonization. I am having the regulations distributed to hon. members this evening. It will be understoood that the preliminary work will of necessity have to proceed. If, however, hon. members after reading over the regulations think a committee necessary, I have no objection, but I would hope that the committee could sit immediately and complete its sittings if possible before the easter adjournment. The government has adopted the policy outlined in the regulations and feels it must be made effective at the earliest possible date.


Mr. ROWE:: A pretty vain hope.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to make this observation. I think it would probably be
desirable to have them referred to a committee, but, in the light of what we are doing in this house, with the budget to come down possibly on Tuesday, I do not see how it will be possible to have proper consideration given to these regulations between now and then.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 3, 1941.