1941-03-18

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I desire to lay on the table correspondence between this government and the government of Alberta, and between this government and the government of British Columbia, relating to certain loans made by this government to those governments.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is that all the correspondence? There was no correspondence with other governments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is all.



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: I wish to lay on the table two copies of order in council P.C. 1822, providing for national war services regulations, 1940, recruits, and two copies of the regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will these regulations be printed and distributed to hon. members, or shall we have to get copies individually?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it will be possible to have them mimeographed and sent to hon. members, if that is desirable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it would be.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont) moved the first reading of Bill No. 18 (from the senate) to incorporate General Security Insurance Company of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: The principle of this bill is to give to the General Security Insurance Company of Canada the status of a dominion company and to place it under the control of the federal department of insurance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	I should like to direct to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply a matter of some importance. I brought it to his attention a week or so ago, and I spoke to him about it during the noon hour. A serious situation has developed in parts of western Ontario with regard to the supply of gas for heating purposes. I received a telegram at noon from the chairman of our citizens' committee, which reads:
Gas situation really desperate. People draining water systems and deserting homes. Unable to work in our office.
In many of these homes are small children; in others are newly born babies, and there is no other method of heating than by gas. In spite of the expected scarcity of gas, the gas company continued to sell heating equipment last summer. This matter is very serious; could something not be done about it? I realize it is more or less a provincial matter, but perhaps there could be cooperation with the province in an effort to stop the use of so much gas in some of our war-time industries.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have been in touch with the minister of mines for Ontario in connection with this matter, and some months ago he asked my cooperation. At that time I gave instructions that the officers of the department were to cooperate fully with the minister of mines for Ontario in curtailing the use of gas for industrial purposes. The difficulty I think is, as my hon. friend has said, that the gas company itself has greatly oversold the quantity of gas that can be produced, and it is difficult for this government to do anything other than to assist, if we are asked by one of our contractors to assist in installing oil instead of gas. We have been doing that for some time. We have been encouraging our contractors to change over from gas to oil. If the Ontario government minister responsible can suggest any further cooperation I am sure we shall be very glad to give it.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I suggest that the minister move some of the industries out west, where there is plenty of gas and power and sunshine.

War Appropriation Bill


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) if he can give any information in connection with the question I asked on Friday last respecting unemployment relief for those provinces which have indicated that they are not in a position to take care of it themselves.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I find that there are no written communications, but there have been some negotiations, some conversations between the representatives of the Saskatchewan government and this government in reference to relief in the province of Saskatchewan. I am not sure whether there have been conversations with either of the other two provinces, Manitoba or Alberta, but there may have been something in the nature of conversations with Manitoba, though nothing very definite.
The matter has been taken up between the Saskatchewan government and the dominion government and certain arrangements are being made in reference to the current fiscal year, not the coming fiscal year.


INCOME TAX RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In answering certain questions which appeared on the order paper in my name the minister stated that it would not be in the public interest to separate individuals in receipt of incomes between $50,000 and 8100,000 from those in excess of 3100,000. Will the minister be good enough to explain what he means by that phrase, "not in the public interest," and will he also explain why it is not in the public interest?


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: Income tax returns that are filed are confidential documents, and it is not considered to be in the public interest that we should give information which might indicate the amounts of income tax that are paid by various individuals.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: He did not ask that.


Colin William George Gibson: If my hon. friend will wait a moment, I was going on to say that when we get up into the higher income brackets, there are so few individuals concerned that any indication of the actual number would almost point to the particular individuals who are in receipt of these incomes. The department therefore has always taken the stand that it should not particularize as to income tax returns of over $50,000 a year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question has hardly been answered. I myself have often wondered what is the government's interpretation of the phrase, "not in the public interest." It seems to me to be a convenient term which has been used by many governments on many an occasion as a reason for refusing to give information which might sometimes very well be given. That was the point of the question-what is meant by "not in the public interest?"


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an important matter of policy involved in the divulging of incomes of identifiable individuals in this country. It has been decided as a matter of policy in the United States that individual incomes should be made public, but in this country we have always gone on the opposite principle-that the government should not divulge to the public the incomes of any particular persons. That is a matter of public interest. Whether the policy is a correct one or an incorrect one is a matter of opinion; but assuming it is a correct one, that is actually what is meant by saying that it is not in the public interest to divulge the information.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 17, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $1,300,000,000 for 'the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. RALSTON:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me first to put on the record
War Appropriation Bill

a few sets of figures as to which one or two inquiries have been made.
First, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) asked for the pay and allowances, by districts, of the Canadian Army. I have them here. They are as follows:
Military
district
No. 1	  $2,604,167
No 2	 8,169,445
No. 3	 5,085,769
No. 4	 3,841,136
No. 5	 3.302,993
No. 6	 5,289,390
No. 7	 2,624,269
Petawawa camp	 867,209
No. 10	 3,864,965
No. 11	 4,001,040
No. 12	 1.843,282
No. 13	 2,225,821
Some days ago the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked for figures that would show the amounts spent under a number of different headings. The first heading to which he referred was the non-permanent active militia, which is now known as the reserve army. I want to explain to him and to the committee that the accounts are not kept in such a way that one can separate the total costs of the non-permanent active militia from the active army, for the simple reason that stores, accommodation, equipment and many other items are paid out for both active and reserve army and are not segregated between these two particular functions. I am afraid that the best I can do at this stage is to give my hon. friend a statement which has been made up to show the amount paid to the reserve army, that is, the reserve army excluding those who have been trained under the National Resources Mobilization Act, for pay and allowances, also annual allowances for command, training, et cetera, paid to the commanding officers of the various units and which largely fall due for payment at the end of the fiscal year; also for rations in cash or in kind; rental of training areas; laundry charges; hire of vehicles; mechanical transport and horses where necessary.
Up to January 31, 1941, the total paid out for these items amounted to 83,008,821, and the probable payments to be made from February 1 to the end of the fiscal year will be an approximate sum of $3,000,000, a total in round figures of $6,000,000 for the fiscal year 1940-41. It must be made clear that these figures cover only the items which have been mentioned; that other costs such as 
stores and equipment, accommodation, travelling, upkeep and maintenance costs are not included.
My hon. friend also asked the same question with regard to the active service force. There the same difficulty applies. The branch, however, has endeavoured in another way to give my hon. friend such information as we could, taking a rough break-down and attempting to deduct charges for services other than for the active army. The figure arrived at in this way which was given me as a probable amount for expenditures up to January 31 for the active army is $252,497,796. That would approximate the expenditures made to January 31, 1941, for the active service force, subject to this, that it is made up roughly by attempting to make deductions so far as these could be quickly decided for services in Canada not within the active army. There again one has to consider that there is difficulty in segregating certain objects of expenditure in their application to the reserve army as compared to the active army.
My hon. friend asked for particulars of the expenditures for trainees. I refer him to page 907 of Hansard, where a statement was put on record. He also asked for the expenditures on administration of general headquarters and on the administration of the different military districts. But the accounts are not kept in that way, and it would take a very great deal of work to segregate the administration of these headquarters from the other charges for the army.
As regards actual expenditures for ordnance stores, another item for which he asked: for the ten months' period ended January 31, 1941, they amounted to $82,625,956.
On construction and repairs, the actual expenditure for the ten months ended January 31, 1941, amounted to $23,926,143. This does not include dominion arsenal, mechanical transport depots and assembly plants, or the National Resources Mobilization Act training centres.
For travel and transportation in the ten months ended January 31, 1941, the actual expenditure was $7,752,952. This item does not include transportation for those under the National Resources Mobilization Act, which is shown in the statement on page 907 of Hansard.
Last evening the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked for a break-down with

War Appropriation Bill
regard to the medical categories of those who were trained at the training camps. For the first period, October 9 to November 8, 1940, I am sorry to tell my hon. friend, the breakdown is not available; that is, it is not tabulated. It would be necessary, I am told, to
examine the medical examination forms of each particular candidate who passed. That is to say. if a man passed they just filed his form. The total number was 25,521 for the first camp. I can give my hon. friend the break-down for the second and third camps:
Second period	"A"	"B"	"C"	TotalNovember 22-December 22, 1940	
Third period	
23,152	3,899	1,066	28,117January 10-February 9, 1941	
23,199	3,867	961	28,027


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the minister if he has also the figures-I thought this had been made clear yesterday-of medical history sheets of the reserve army in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I fear it is impossible to obtain that. They are at the different districts, I understand, and I am having the Director General of Medical Services make further inquiry from the districts to see whether that information can be supplied.


Gordon Graydon: I would not want to cause any inconvenience or expense, because the matter is not sufficiently important.


James Layton Ralston: I should be interested in the result of the examination if I could get it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the course of the wonderful speech made on Saturday night last by that very great man who is now President of the United States-one of the greatest men, in my judgment, of all time-he mentioned on several occasions the matter of ships; and last evening I told the Minister of Munitions and Supply that to-day I should like to ask him a little further about ships to be produced in Canada. I thought that perhaps in the course of his reply he would be able to give Canadians the reassurance that everything possible is being done in this country to produce sufficient ships to take care of our responsibilities in that direction in connection with the prosecution of the war.
I read carefully what the minister said the other day in his brief observations on what I said in the course of a short speech on the building of ships; and if I understood him correctly, he said it was his intention to initiate and support the building of ocean-going cargo ships, presumably of five, six, seven, eight and ten thousand tons, on both coasts. With that I am in hearty accord. I believe that is where these big ships should be built, because they could not be taken down through our St. Lawrence locks, which, I believe, will accommodate only ships of 245 feet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister also said that in his opinion corvettes and minesweepers could be most satisfactorily built on the great lakes. With that statement also I am in hearty accord. But he added, as I remember, that the difficulties were, the supply of steel and the obtaining of men qualified to superintend the construction of ships.
Could the minister not do somewhat more than has been done? I do not know-perhaps he will tell us-what has been done in the way of producing a great deal more iron in Canada. I believe in 1939 we did import somewhat less than 1,700,000 tons from Bell island, Newfoundland, to keep the blast furnaces at Sydney in operation. I understand that we are now producing in Ontario over half a million tons of iron a year from the Helen mountain deposit in Algoma. Those later deposits, which I have examined thoroughly, are a magnetite ore. Now the same company which operates the magnetite ore deposits in Algoma is-I am told, although I am not sure of this-considering reopening or going on with the production of more or less similar ore deposits at Moose mountain, in the Sudbury area. I do not know whether the company has asked any support from the government; but is there anything the department could do to expedite the production of the Moose mountain ores? Because if they could produce another half million tons at that point, it would mean that a million tons would be produced in Ontario and thus another half a million less would have to be imported from the United States. It is not that I have any objection to importing from the United States, but I am more in favour of producing in Canada if we can.
I should like to know whether the department could do anything to expedite production on another body of ore, with which the minister is familiar, at Steep Rock, which, if not in his own area, is in northwestern Ontario: it is a very large deposit of haematite ore, similar to that found in Wisconsin and in Minnesota, and therefore of a high
War Appropriation Bill

grade. All of us have been reading during the past two or three years of the progress of development at Steep Rook. I know something of the difficulties, of the necessity of eliminating the water hazard, but can we do anything to expedite production there? It is a particularly high-class grade of haematite ore. I have examined a sample of it, and was much pleased with the sample I saw. In that regard the department might help materially in producing steel for the construction of ships in Ontario. Where the steel for the production of ships on the two coasts comes from is another matter. Perhaps some of it could be produced on the east coast.
Yesterday we were all alarmed, though perhaps we should not be, at what we read in the newspapers about the sinking of British shipping since the war broke out. The amount is less than 5,000,000 tons. The same article indicated that, notwithstanding that great loss, as a result of the purchases of ships, the building of ships in their own yards and the use of ships from other nations, our allies, besides captures, the total British tonnage is only three per cent less than when war broke out. But in view of the avowed intention of the Germans to send into the Atlantic ocean a large number of submarines, I have been wondering what the minister could do to speed up production at the present time of submarine chasers, corvettes and so on, all of which can do effective work in keeping down the submarine menace. Such ships can go through the St. Lawrence canals, and these small ships could be built on the great lakes.
I would ask the minister to tell the committee and, through the committee, the country, what he has in mind in that regard. Will he tell us what he can do and thereby reassure the country and, through this country, our brave friends in the old land that we shall do everything we possibly can in this house, that his department will do everything it can -all of which I know both parliament and the country will back up to the limit-in the >vay of production, first, in steel if necessary, and secondly, in any event, in the production of ships from steel that we make here or that we can purchase. A statement to this effect would reassure everyone that all that this great country can do will be done to see to it that the submarine menace now threatening is kept down. I shall be glad to hear what the minister can tell us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: First, regarding the steel
situation as it affects the building of ships, the situation is in very satisfactory shape or is becoming so. Some ten or twelve months ago, perhaps longer, we undertook to step up the steel plate capacity of Canada. At
[Mr. MacNicol.l
that time the only firm manufacturing steel plate was a firm in Hamilton, the Dominion Steel Foundries, I believe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not a plant available in New Glasgow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am told by Colonel Cantley that the plant in New Glasgow is available but is quite idle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is capable of running I am surprised that some one has not operated it. There was a plant, I believe, at Sydney, installed during the last war. Since then parts of the equipment have been taken for other purposes and it was determined that an expenditure of $4,000,000 would have been required to put the mill into operation. The difficulty there is the shortage of primary steel. Contracts had been made for the export to England of all surplus ingot capacity of that industry. We have opened up the question with Great Britain to see whether they would take steel plates produced by the mill, but the British steel controller said that it would be more useful for their purpose to obtain ingots, rather than ingots converted into plate, and as they had contracted for the output before the war we did not feel that we could interfere with that contract against their wishes. However, since the beginning of the war we have stepped up our steel plate production. Under the first ship contracts, steel plate was largely purchased in the United States. Within the next thirty days the Steel Company of Canada are putting into production one of the largest and most modern steel plate mills on the continent, and it is anticipated that the total ship requirements for anything that we can do in Canada would not reach more than forty or fifty per cent of the capacity of that one mill. So that we are amply provided for so far as steel plate capacity is concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the new plant in
Hamilton going to roll 40, 50, 60, 70, 78 and so on, or is there a limit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is one of the widest of plate mills. It is at least 72 inch though it may be 90 inch; I am not sure. However, it is one of the widest plate mills installed anywhere, and of course a mill of that type has no difficulty rolling narrower sizes. We are in quite a satisfactory position as regards steel plate.
As far as the steel situation generally goes, it has been increased by about 500,000 tons since the outbreak of the war. We had a theoretical steel capacity at the outbreak of the war of about 2.200,000 tons, and 'within the next month or two we shall be producing at the rate of about 2,700,000 tons. We still

War Appropriation Bill
require to import about 1,000,000 tons of steel from the United States, and that is the normal position when Canada is busy. Of course, except in peak periods, our steel industry is not working to anything like capacity. It is a matter of judgment whether at a time like this we should go all-out to make ourselves self-contained in steel for war requirements. It is my judgment that that is not justified, particularly as we have obtained every assurance that the usual source of supply will be available to us at least up to the amount that we nominally take, and it is the opinion of the steel controller and of those who have studied the matter that we are amply protected for our war-time steel requirements.
Iron ore is not a serious problem. Of course, Sydney has its own iron deposits, ample for all purposes. The Algoma Steel company has the Helen mine, which provides part of its requirements directly, and from which they are able to trade ore for ore to obtain the rest of their requirements. As my hon. friend knows, no single mine can produce all the ore that a steel company requires. Various grades of ore are necessary, and I believe that the Algoma plant uses some ten different grades of ore which are mixed to manufacture the various grades of steel which the plant produces. The Steel Company of Canada owns iron mines in the United States and purchases its requirements from a great number of sources. There is no shortage of ore in sight there. The only possible shortage of ore would be due to a lack of lake tonnage, and that I think is scarcely likely to occur this season.
As far as Steep Rock is concerned it is difficult to associate that with a war project. It is the estimate of those responsible that it will take at least two years to complete the development of that ore. The Moose Mountain mine near Sudbury is a deposit somewhat lower in grade than the Helen mine, and there again it is doubtful whether the development of that mine would make any great contribution to the Canadian war situation.
Hon. members will appreciate that we lost no time in undertaking a shipbuilding programme in Canada. The first order placed when the defence purchasing board was formed was for railway rolling stock, and the second was a very large order for corvettes. We have been using yards that were in existence at the beginning of the war to their full capacity, and those yards are working at full capacity to-day. We have arranged for the building of corvettes in two new yards on the great lakes, that is yards that have not been in operation for many years, but both are locations where ships had been built in the last war and where skilled labour was available, one at Toronto and one at Midland.
We carried out a very large programme of building of corvettes, and that was followed by a large programme of mine-sweepers. The last of the corvette ships that we have on order have recently been placed. We still have a number of mine-sweepers to place.
The demand for cargo ships has arisen within the last three months, as far as our communications indicate. The fact that everyone believes now that we should have been full-out in merchant ships arises of course from the recent losses, from a situation that has developed very recently. After the fall of Dunkirk the great demand was for guns. We responded to that demand; I think to the full productive capacity of Canada. About one-third of all our contracts in Canada are for the production of guns. Had the emphasis at that time been on ships, our effort would have been directed towards a somewhat more rapid development of additional capacity in existing yards, and possibly to the opening up of new yards.
Mr. ROWE [DOT] What percentage of the present shipbuilding capacity are we utilizing at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One hundred per cent of all the capacity we can get, and we are building more capacity all the time by getting more trained men. We have kept it up to one hundred per cent of what the yards can do. There is no yard in Canada capable of building steel ships that has not had all the work it can do since we started operations.


Mr. ROWE:: In three shifts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, with all the labour that they can use. They have plenty of work to do; whether they can work one, two or three shifts depends on the number of experienced men that can be made available. I assume every yard is trjnng to turn out as much work as it can.


William Earl Rowe: I think I could name a couple of yards that could increase.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, let us have your story.


William Earl Rowe: I am not going to interrupt, only to say that I believe the shipbuilding yards of Collingwood and Midland could increase their present capacity. I think they are running only one shift, eight hours a day. There have been I understand many men unemployed still in those districts that could be used for that purpose. It seems to me that in many districts three shifts would be justified, that those plants should be running nearer to full capacity instead of only one shift a day. I think they should be running also on Sundays.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is that the
Collingwood yard has had all the work it can
War Appropriation Bill

possibly do last season and this season. I know they have had applications with us for boiler makers, we have been scouring the country to get boiler makers for Collingwood and Port Arthur. It is probable that there is a surplus of unskilled labour, but if there is a man idle in this country to-day who is skilled in the building of ships I should like very much to have his name and address, because he can be given a job immediately. I cannot say why the Collingwood yard has not been running three shifts, but I assume it is only because it has not been possible to obtain more skilled men. I know that the staff at Collingwood has been growing steadily, as has the staff at Port Arthur; each week the number of men at work is larger than for the preceding week. It is just a question of being able to train and develop additional men. That is the history of the whole shipbuilding enterprise in Canada. We started from very small beginnings, and each week have had a larger number of men engaged in the industry.


William Earl Rowe: In other words, it is running at the full capacity of labour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had a letter this morning from a labour union in British Columbia in regard to that matter. I am sorry I haven't it here, I sent it to the hon. member for Vancouver South and he is gone to Toronto to-day. In it they questioned that statement. I express no opinion at all, I do not know; but I wish the minister would take steps to explore the position in British Columbia, because they rather contradict the allegation that all skilled labour there is fully employed.


Mr. REID:: I think the letter to which
the hon. leader of the opposition refers relates to unskilled labour, because it was signed by the labourers' union.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had our director of shipbuilding in British Columbia for the past week or ten days exploring every avenue for obtaining new production there. We have also had a report from the war-time requirements board; that board consulted experts in shipbuilding from all parts of Canada. It is the considered opinion of all the experts who have reported to me that it will be possible gradually to expand the existing yards in British Columbia, but all recommend against opening new yards there for the reason that there is not sufficient skilled labour available.
I wish hon. members to understand that our shipbuilding project has never been static, it has always been increasing. In every yard in Canada capable of building steel ships, each

week shows an increase in the number of men employed; that will continue, and it continues rather in geometrical progression, in that as each staff gets larger it is capable of training and absorbing men at a higher rate.
As I say, we have finished placing orders for the corvette programme, but it will be the end of this year before the last are delivered. Our mine-sweeper programme is still under way, and we have additional minesweeper orders to place. It is our intention to concentrate this work more or less in the great lakes, to the extent that we can do so and still maintain deliveries. Those that order mine-sweepers order them to be delivered as of a certain date, and it is necessary for us to maintain those dates.
The policy of the department will be to concentrate in great lakes shipyards boats that can be moved out through the Welland canal. As for the coast and St. Lawrence river yards, we have already placed all the cargo ships for which berths are readily available. Twenty ships of approximately 10,000 tons have been placed; steel is being assembled, and work is proceeding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
for the account of Great Britain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right; and we have
determined on additional capacity that can be developed. It must be developed in the way of new berths, and we have worked out what our experts advise us is the maximum programme that can be successfully carried out, covering 1941, 1942 and 1943. It shows a rapid progression in the number of boats that can be launched in each of those years, and at the present time we are proceeding to arrange for the construction of this additional boat capacity, which we will follow up with orders as we are able to place them.
In brief, that is the policy. As I stated in the house, as Canada is situated to-day we believe it is necessary, even though it is not economical, to undertake the building of destroyers. We believe that with the fleet of destroyers we have to-day it is necessaiy to develop destroyer building technique in this country, and to develop sources of supply in Canada for every piece of equipment that goes into a destroyer. That work is proceeding and will be carried along as rapidly as possible without interfering with the more urgent requirements of our programme.
Of course, as I have said in the house before, the most urgent requirement of all is to be able to give rapid service in overhaul and repairs to the boats that are coming to our shores. The greatest contribution we can make to the immediate situation is to give a quick turn around to these boats, and we

War Appropriation Bill
are doing everything we can to build up the repair facilities at Halifax, Saint John and other ports capable of doing this repair work. We are building a floating dry dock at Halifax which will greatly help out the docking situation there, in connection with the repair of ships. Construction of that dock is well under way and will be in operation this autumn. We have also greatly enlarged the machine shop facilities at Halifax. The shore shops have been enlarged and in addition we have installed a floating shop, which is a great help in the repair and overhaul of ships. That will be our first and most urgent effort, to enlarge as rapidly as possible the personnel and facilities for the repair and overhaul of ships. The situation will be eased greatly when the St. Lawrence river opens and some of that repair work can be diverted to St. Lawrence yards, but I can assure the committee that we intend to move heaven and earth to make sure that adequate overhaul facilities are available on the Atlantic coast before the St. Lawrence closes this year.
That, I think, is the building programme. It is intended to expand our shipyards as rapidly as possible. Since the beginning of the war, we have kept every yard well supplied with work. I do not think any yard can complain that it has not had at all times all the work it was capable of carrying out. I am sure if any yard had been capable of doing more work it would have delivered its boats faster than has been the case, though I must say that deliveries of boats have exceeded our expectations up to this time, and we believe the shipbuilders are doing everything possible to cooperate with the government in producing the maximum number of ships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any
extension contemplated at Saint John, and is anything contemplated at Sydney?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are studying the Sydney situation, and I believe something should be done there. The difficulty at Saint John is that we cannot get enough men to operate the present facilities. My hon. friend will understand that where we have existing facilities the first necessity is to get those facilities operating to full capacity before installing further facilities. For example, there is no purpose in extending a dock if the present dock is operating only fourteen hours a day. It is far better economy to get that dock operating twenty-four hours a day; in that way we will get quicker and better results. The same situation exists at the Saint John dry dock. If we can ever get that dock operating anything like twenty-four hours a day we will then go ahead with the additional facilities. I feel sure the time will come when these facilities will be expanded.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Mr. Chairman, it is
always a difficult matter to change the subject, and I suppose very often it is not quite in accord with the desires of hon. members that the subject should be changed. At the same time the difficulty in which I find myself is that if I do not change the subject, no one else will. There are certain matters I wish to lay before the committee under this omnibus resolution; therefore at the risk of appearing to be abrupt and even brusque- which is far from my intention-I must take the responsibility myself of changing the subject.
On Tuesday and Wednesday of last week I was speaking in this house upon a subject which was then left unfinished, and I wish to resume that discussion. I was speaking about the cordite plant located at, or certainly very near, the city of Winnipeg, and the matter of the coal to be used in that plant. I should like to preface my remarks to-day by an expression of regret at the course which the debate took last Wednesday afternoon, and to say that in so far as I had any responsibility for the debate being less orderly than it might have been, I apologize. As a matter of fact, after thinking it over I believe I had a good deal of responsibility in that respect, and I the more readily express my regret. I have another reason for saying that. Candour, I think, would compel one to do it; but I have a further reason, which I communicated in writing to the minister immediately after I left the house last Wednesday. I should regret indeed to say or do anything which would hurt the minister's feelings. There is no person for whom I have a higher regard than the Minister of Munitions and Supply. No man, I believe, is doing greater work at the present time in this war effort than this same gentleman. That does not mean that everything will flow along smoothly. In fact, I think he would be disappointed if that were the case.
There is another reason for my speaking as I do this afternoon. The general feeling has apparently been that a sharp attack has been made upon the government by one of its followers. My attitude with reference to this problem should not be interpreted as an attack upon the government, except in an indirect way. My attack is made upon some of these persons who have been given a great deal of authority but who have practically no responsibility to the House of Commons or to parliament. My attack is upon certain agents of the government of Canada. My attack is upon the people who head the Allied War Supplies Corporation Limited; the chairman of the board of directors of that corporation is Hon. Mr. Dunning, the president is Mr. Harold
War Appropriation Bill

Crabtree. They and their engineers are the people against whom I would direct any shafts
than I may shoot.
But I must say even with respect to them and to persons like them that I would not want it thought that there is any general dissatisfaction on my part. I am not one of those who is ready to come out and attack all the so-called dollar-a-year men just because it seems to be the popular sport. I think many of these men, and the two I have mentioned specifically, are doing a great job. They have given their services and time. They have had long experience, a great business build-up, and they have much to offer to the country. In the main, they are giving it fully and freely. I do not want to be misunderstood as making a general attack upon the motives, upon the patriotism, upon the abilities or upon the qualities of these people. My attack is made only on this one specific point.
As will be clearly seen to-day, my complaint is that a decision was made without thought: that no thought was given to the particular point in dispute. After the decision was made, and after the persons who had made it had drawn to their attention the fact that a wrong decision was arrived at, they were not prepared to back up or admit a wrong. They undertook to justify that decision. Having commenced to justify it, they stuck to their attitude and have been doing so ever since. I propose to prove this largely out of the mouths of these people themselves.
So far as any general attack upon the government is concerned, I do not suppose any person believes more profoundly than I do that we have a government to-day which is doing its job better than any government that possibly could have been put into these seats. I do not want to get into any tangle with the members of the opposition on this matter by saying to them what could be said. I could be just as frank with them should I so decide. I am not currying favour with the government when I talk that way, and I am not currying favour with the opposition when I please them.
Perhaps I might just restate the problem. In the cordite plant at Winnipeg, a $10,000,000 project, it is desired to bum a coal which will be the most economical. The Allied War Supplies Corporation Limited, a creature of this government, decided to use a coal which in my opinion is not the most economical. I am interested in saving as much as I can of the money of the citizens of this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is British money.
[Mr. Maybank.)


Ralph Maybank: I realize that it is British money, but that has nothing to do with it. I do not want to be thought impolite in making that quick retort. I thank the hon. gentleman for making the interjection, but I do not think it makes any difference whether the money to be saved is British or our own. If we owe a duty to our own citizens to save money, we owe a greater duty to the beleaguered people of Britain to save their money. We are trustees for them, and I think my hon. friend will agree with what I say. If I appear to be vehement in my reply, I do not intend to be impolite to him.
There is the problem. Aside from its being an economic problem, there are other factors which enter into it. There is the question of government policy generally. So that hon. members may be left in no doubt I say that the company headed by Messrs. Crabtree and Dunning has deliberately flouted government policy in respects other than economical. I think I shall be able to show this. Since I have correspondence I wish to place upon the table, it may be necessary for me to ask the indulgence of hon. members to be allowed to speak longer than forty minutes. I hope that indulgence will be granted.
Between last Wednesday and Saturday morning I spent a good deal of time interviewing people in Ottawa in order to get their opinions upon this subject. For example, I interviewed the fuel board, who are interested in the conservation of coal in this country, as well as various experts in combustion engineering, most of them government employees.
Just before presenting some of the facts I wish again to make reference to the possibility of this matter being referred to the committee which has been set up to examine expenditures. The most cursory examination of this suggestion should suffice to convince anyone that it would be a useless act on our part. The problem we have before us now is to stop some of the government appointees from flouting the government. The problem we have before us now is to stop some of these people from wasting the money of the British government which we hold in trust. The problem we have before us is to stop them now from pursuing a course w'hich will waste the coal and put our transportation system to an uneconomic use. The problem we have before us is to stop these appointees of the government now, and not leave the matter entirely in their hands to deal with just as they like, leaving it to us to inquire afterwards. Merely to refer the matter to the committee would be putting our seal of approval on what they have so far done, and then inquiring afterwards whether they were

War Appropriation Bill
right. In the meantime the money would be lost, the coal wasted, and the transportation system overloaded.
Allied War Supplies Corporation is determined to have its own way in this matter, regardless. I repeat, they are determined to have their own way. Let us get that point clear. They know where, they are going. I quite agree that when organizations of this kind are set up we must allow them a great deal of freedom, but we cannot, it seems to me, give them full freedom; for that would be simply to abdicate governmental functions. They have made a decision here, I submit, first of all, without thinking; and secondly and thirdly and fourthly and fifthly they endeavour to support it by a lot of spurious reasons and arguments. I think they have proved that point themselves.
I should like to read to the committee a copy of a letter which would seem at first glance to wipe out all the objections I am making and to set at rest or brush aside any criticisms. But a second consideration of the matter will create quite a different impression. I read from a copy of a letter which is a report to the Department of Munitions and Supply, dated January 13, and signed by W. H. Wharton, chief engineer of the Allied War Supplies Corporation. There is a reference to a file number at the top of the page, and then the report is entitled "Fuel for steam generation". It reads:
Further to our conversation of Saturday morning regarding fuel for the Winnipeg project.
This matter was given considerable thought during September when we then had before us a resume of coal costs and analyses, all from Canadian mines, and ranging from the low rank Saskatchewan lignite to the bituminous and semi-anthracite eoals of Alberta.
Saskatchewan lignite from Estevan was definitely the cheapest fuel, but other important considerations mentioned below mitigated against its use.
Lignite fines can be burned successfully on travelling grate stokers-
Lignite fines, I may say, are simply the very fine particles that you will find in any kind of coal. It is a good descriptive expression. The report goes on:
Lignite fines can be burned successfully on travelling grate stokers, but this equipment was ruled out because of high first cost and the fact that such a job is unsuitable for use with other coals. The lignite "sized" coal is best handled on the sprinkler type stoker, but this machine is more costly than single retort underfeeds and this latter machine will provide a better fuel burning range and will give higher efficiency with other western coals. The kicker stoker would give us a problem of ash discharge which we must guard against in this type of explosive plant and this consideration also ruled out the possibility of going to pulverized fuel firing. It will be realized that
this plant would consume in excess of 20 tons of lignite per hour for steam generation and since lignite cannot be stored on the site in quantity, I did not feel that we could depend on day by day deliveries from the lignite field, especially in view of labour troubles which have been in evidence in that section.
The schedule on the Winnipeg project definitely called for a part of this steam plant being in service July 1, 1941, and this fact weighed heavily in favour of duplication of equipment at Nobel, and de Salaberry, on which plants all engineering work had been completed, entailing design of power house, steam generating equipment, piping, bunker storage, etc., etc. We are still dealing with the mines in Alberta and have not, as yet, signed a contract for coal, but we will, in all probability, burn the better grades of bituminous coal, either from the Crowsnest pass or from the northern field.
The letter concludes:
I trust that the foregoing will cover the situation fully, and am
Allied War Supplies Corporation, W. H. Wharton,
Chief Engineer.
Before passing on to something else I should like to direct a little more careful scrutiny of that letter. In the first place, according to the chief engineer, Mr. Wharton, the matter was definitely closed in September, 1940. It is important to bear that date in mind because of what developed afterwards. The matter must have been closed on the date of this letter, January 13. This letter, dated January 13, says the matter had been closed in September. Well, even if it was not closed in September we can be pretty sure that it was closed in January, and it is important to bear this in mind in view of what happened afterwards. He says in the letter:
This matter was given considerable thought during September when we then had before us a resume of coal costs and analyses all from Canadian mines, and ranging from the low rank Saskatchewan lignite to the bituminous and semi-anthracite coals of Alberta.
I want to tell you what I know now, and that is that tenders were called for coal on September 30, and there were not many days left in September after the 30th. Tenders were called on September 30. In spite of that fact the letter states that they had before them these costs and analyses from Canadian mines "ranging from low rank Saskatchewan lignite," and so forth. When you read that sentence there is enough right there to start the flow of suspicion. Would you think that they had ordered the equipment for bituminous coal, equipment which they admit and state over and over again is not suitable for lignite coal, and then sent out the call for tenders? If so, it was just playing ducks and drakes with the trade, just asking them to submit informalb.54
War Appropriation Bill

tion when they knew full well they did not want any such information. They did not get their replies until October. Here again I want to point out that it was clear in their minds-pluperfectly clear-that Saskatchewan lignite coal was definitely the cheapest. After this letter there is no more argument about the economics of the question. They have to find some other objection to the use of lignite. The travelling grate costs more, and therefore it is ruled out. I have not any special complaint about that. It may be so, although all manner of other people are using it and are finding it worth while. A large number of commercial plants are using that particular equipment. But I am not concerned about that; that is not the only equipment they can use. Every other person that uses it-and most of the big plants do- say they have found out over a period of lime that the savings far outweigh the disadvantage of the higher first cost. A big sugar beet plant which has been erected in the city of Winnipeg burns while in operation more coal than this ten million dollar cordite plant will burn, and they have that kind of equipment. However, I am not insisting that any particular type should be installed; all I am emphasizing is that sound economic practice should be followed, that Allied War Corporation should keep in accord with the policies of this government generally, which in fact it is violating. I say they should follow this government instead of trying to lead it. We shall have no difficulty as soon as Messrs. Crabtree and Dunning assent to that simple proposition.
As a matter of fact, with the kind of equipment which I have just mentioned, the cost to that sugar plant of making steam is something like 28 cents per thousand pounds, whereas by any method in use with bituminous coal, the figure is nearer to 40 cents.
However, Mr. Wharton gives another reason in his letter. He says that the equipment which apparently he had then decided upon is useful for a larger range of coals. But he does not mean to include in that, it will be recalled from reading his letter, the lignite coal, because he has ruled lignite out. Well, what he is deciding to put in may be better in the sense that it will take in a wider range of the bituminous coals, but it is against the interests of the country to use anything but lignite coal. So that he does not need to set out to use something which is suitable for burning several different kinds of coal. We shall find out, as we found out in the last war, that Canada has no more coal than she needs, and that something akin to rationing will be necessary. As I understand
'Mr. Maybank.]
it, government policy already points in that direction.
Mr. Wharton declares against using the travelling grate equipment. He adds that there is another kind which is best suited for using sized lignite coal. This is coal of about half an inch to two inches. He talks about the additional cost of that kind of equipment. But he never made any inquiries as to its cost; there never was any tender called; he and they decided without thought that certain things would be done. That is all there was to it. No inquiries were made of other concerns with reference to the equipment which, he says, has a higher cost; that is, this so-called "kicker" system.
In spite, however, of his objection to the higher cost he does not go so far as to say in this case that the higher first cost of that kicker equipment would offset the savings from the lignite coal. On the contrary, the lignite is good, and he knows it, and every person knows it; it is still by far the cheapest coal for Canada, and, having regard to that, it is thoroughly efficient coal for Canada.
The description of this kind of machinery which has been given to me-and I have also seen it-is substantially this. What he calls the "kicker" system is simply a system of stoking which carries the coal in and lays it on top of the fire, whereas the kind of equipment in use with bituminous coal has already been referred to as an underfeed; it pushes the coal up from the bottom. I mention that because these terms may be used from time to time. What more than one engineer has remarked to me about the kicker equipment, which lays the coal on top of the fire, is that it is simply hand-firing, except that it is done mechanically; this is rather a contradiction in terms, but it is the way they put it; and most people would think that so long as you pile enough coal on, you can get enough steam, although you cannot do as well in some cases as in others.
I have discovered a further point. When he speaks about the unsuitability of that equipment for certain other coals, it is to be noted that this equipment which ought to be put into the cordite plant is the standard United States government equipment from coast to coast, and consequently it must be in use in the United States for all kinds of coal. In seven years in the area from Swift Current to Kenora there has not been installed a single new underfeed plant; we are left to this day and this date with Crabtree and Dunning, with a creature of this government under their leadership, or rather under their compulsion, trying to turn back the clock.

War Appropriation Bill
Not all these other people can be wrong, you know. Do you suppose that every industrialist in western Canada would be fool enough deliberately to place his industrial plant in jeopardy? It just does not make sense, Mr. Chairman. I do not mind a man on the outside making-to a certain extent- fools of the members of this parliament, but these gentlemen are going a step too far. Do you suppose that every combustion engineer out there is always and completely wrong, and that only the combustion engineers whom these gentlemen have in their employ are always right? As I have said, one of them, not the Mr. Wharton whose name I have mentioned, but Mr. Abbott, comes straight from the company which makes the equipment that is to be put into the plant. I do not suggest that this man is financially interested, but I say that after long experience with that company he is almost certain to be prejudiced in favour of the organization for which he worked so long, and which doubtless he served so well.
I might interject this. Whenever any possibility of personal interest or personal bias or prejudice, because of long association with an industrial concern or for any other reason, enters into a picture, then it is the part of wisdom to examine most carefully any decision that is being made; and it would be wisdom on the part of a man in such a position to lean backwards against the making of a decision in favour of his own company.
It was remarked in the letter I read to you that the writer did not feel safe in relying on day to day deliveries. Well, all kinds of others use a great deal of coal. They are relying on day to day deliveries. Nobody has been let down yet. There is coal of all kinds there. It is very close to Winnipeg. They are all getting it. The Canadian Pacific Railway at its Weston shops is burning 15,000 tons. The Canadian National Railways at one of its shops is burning 30,000 tons, and the Canadian National Railways in another shop is burning
30,000	tons.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Per annum?


Ralph Maybank: Per annum. I might
tell you, by the way. that the Canadian National Railways found out-and it is simple enough for us to find out from them-that when they installed the equipment for lignite they saved $40,000 in one shop. The Swift Canadian company, another big plant, is using 12.000 tons. The Manitoba Sugar company, which I have already mentioned, is using 20.000 tons. There are all kinds of small ones. The university of Manitoba is using 8.000 tons, and' all our hospitals in the city of Winnipeg are using it, one using 5,000
tons. The Selkirk mental hospital, just outside Winnipeg, is using 10,000 tons, and another large place in Brandon is the same. They are all the same. All you have to do is to take the list of industrial concerns in the area I am talking about and it will be practically a list of those that burn lignite with this equipment, with this exception. The only ones you have to cross off the list are those with old equipment, who could not change; but apart from that, the list of industrial places burning coal and the list of places burning lignite with the proper equipment that we have been talking about here to-day are coterminous. No one says they are fools except the engineers of allied war supplies.
We have lignite coal close to Winnipeg, about 290 miles away. It comes into Winnipeg by both railways, and there is a twenty-four hour service. Every person gets all the coal he wants of this kind. There are no difficulties. On the other hand, the coal which these people propose to use comes from a place about 890 miles away, and there is only one railway bringing it in. They cannot get it from the northern part of Alberta but only through the Crowsnest pass, a trip of about 890 miles. Any kind of tie-up on the railway is much more serious for that kind of delivery than in the case of the short haul of lignite.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Which railway?


Ralph Maybank: The Crowsnest is Canadian Pacific.
Now, someone might wonder about the possibilities of supply-whether or not they have all the coal in the ground, whether or not they are working at it. I have heard that raised. This man talks about the dependability of supply. I talked with Abbott, the engineer whom I have mentioned, and he spoke of dependability of supply. That was the final and only thing he had to talk about. He said that was the only thing that worried him. Well, I have a memorandum I made after inquiring into the facts-and there is no doubt about it that the facts are correctly stated.
Who are there out there who can deliver one hundred tons a day? There is one company which for a long time has been delivering
1.000	to 1,200 tons a day, and it has not let anyone down. There is a larger company which has been delivering for a long time from
3.000	to 4,000 tons a day. Numerous small mines are producing 100 tons a day or more. Most of the mines are not working to capacity. Most of them can be stepped up almost double without any difficulty at all; that is to say, they can spring right into double to-day's pro-
War Appropriation Bill

duction almost overnight. So that there is no problem of any kind involved from the standpoint of dependability of supply.
But for a really egregious statement indicating ignorance, I commend you to the last sentence of this gentleman's letter where he talks about labour troubles. There have been no labour troubles there. That is the answer. That is the fact. In 1932 in the Estevan field there was trouble. The only bit of trouble in the Estevan field in regard to labour from that time to this was a dispute between two trade unions as to which one of them should be recognized. They eventually got that settled. It was not under the present Minister of Labour; it was under Norman Rogers. I remember discussing the question with him at that time. They got that worked out. I do not know which one turned out to be the one recognized, but what does that matter? I do know that there was never any dispute about wages and working conditions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No dispute between the company and the men?


Ralph Maybank: Nothing of that sort.
The man who talks about labour trouble in this field does not know what he is talking about. There is no coal field in Canada as free from labour troubles as this. As soon as that particular union war was over the union that won signed its agreement of wages and working conditions, which had always been ready for them. Not only that, but they got a model agreement whereby all changes that come about in conditions from forces over which they have no control-cost of living and so forth-will be immediately incorporated as changes in the agreement. You have the best labour situation out there of any coal mine in Canada. When an engineer says he cannot rely on his supply because of labour troubles, and is going somewhere else on that account, he is not getting out of the frying pan into the fire; he is getting out of the refrigerator into the fire.
One day in that little community of Estevan -and that is the centre spot of this business- they decided to raise money for an ambulance. They required S2,500. In twenty-four hours the fund was SI,000 oversubscribed by the workmen in and about that field. The Red Cross and all other similar drives were quickly over the top. What do hon. members suppose would be the results in Toronto in one of these subscription drives that newspapers, such as the Telegram, put on, if there were a similar response? Instead of getting half a million, in the same ratio they would be picking up two or three millions at a time.
My reason for mentioning this is not sentimental, but simply to drive home the

thought that you cannot get that kind of patriotic response in a community which is brooding over some real or fancied labour wrong. It is only people who are enjoying a reasonable approach to contentment from whom action of that kind can be expected. And when you have such a reaction to the various movements you can be reasonably sure that there is no serious labour trouble or threat of labour trouble in the neighbourhood.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I must remind the hon. member that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Alphonse Fournier: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Ralph Maybank: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee.
Now I wish to speak in a little more detail upon the subject of costs. I would not be talking about costs if it were anything in the nature of a close decision, if it were a question of just a few dollars one way or the other. You may notice that I speak positively; well, I confess that is a matter of rhetoric rather than of knowledge. I am not claiming for myself the knowledge of an expert in this matter. Perhaps it would not have been necessary to say some of the things I have said to-day in the way of statements of fact if the Crabtree-Dunning company had laid all their facts on the table, but that of course has not been done.
I had some figures in my possession last Wednesday and Thursday but I did not wish to say very much about them because I was a little afraid that they might have come from some biased source. They did not, as a matter of fact, come to me from any biased source, but you can never tell where that sort of thing starts. So I spent two days-I think it was Thursday and Friday and part of Saturday-going about trying to get unprejudiced and impartial statements of fact.
I suppose we do not realize that we always buy coal by what is called its B.T.U. value, rather than by the ton. We may ask a dealer to send us a ton of coal, but in point of fact what we buy is heating value, in other words B.T.U's. Lignite coal of the kind Engineer Wharton says is most suitable if it were used, costs at Winnipeg S3.50 a ton, its B.T.U. content being 7.400 to the pound. The bituminous coal costs SS.15. I I am making any error I am making it in favour of the bituminous coal. The B.T.U. rating of that coal is 13.000; in other words, the heat value of the bituminous coal is almost, but not quite, double that of the other coal.

War Appropriation Bill
On that basis the cost of a million heat units obtained from the lignite will be 23-5 cents, and the cost of a million heat units from the bituminous coal, 33-6 cents. This ratio alone would strongly indicate that the lignite is very much cheaper. But we should not jump to the conclusion that that is quite the correct comparison; for there is always some loss of heat in the use of any kind of coal in a furnace, and more with lignite than with bituminous. The remaining heat value is referred to as such and such a percentage of efficiency. For example, you might say that one coal burns with 75 per cent efficiency and another with 68 per cent efficiency, and that has to be taken into account as well as the other factors I have mentioned.
I went to an engineer and posed a problem to him, and I had his answer checked afterwards by others. I am going to lay it before you just to let you know that there are some engineers at any rate besides those I have been speaking about who are able to figure costs. I said to him: "Suppose you get these two coals at these two prices, and suppose you have a 216 million pounds production of steam"-I chose that figure because I understand it is about the production at full capacity for one unit in this plant, and there are ten such units. "Then," I said, "assume these two ratings, B.T.U.'s 13,000 and 7,400." The efficiency that we find in most of our Winnipeg plants is 73 per cent for the bituminous coal and 68 per cent for the lignite. "Assume," I said, "these efficiencies, and what will be the cost in each case per 1,000 pounds of steam?" The answer came back-and I have had it checked in half a dozen different places-40-3 cents per 1,000 pounds of steam with the bituminous coal and 33-8 cents with the lignite-an advantage in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent for the latter.
If you stop there you find that the total savings is 8140,000 a year. But do not take that at once, because that is based on the assumption that the plant would be in operation at full capacity three hundred days a year. This is decidedly unlikely, so the saving would not be that great. And here another point comes into the picture. Apparently the plant is to be increased by nearly fifty per cent. If that is so, then you can stand upon the 8140,000 saving. At any rate the saving would amount to a good deal of money. That is all we need; the saving to be effected amounts to a lot of money, and money in that amount not saved is a prodigious waste.
There is another way of looking at that. In putting out their tender they said they wanted about fifty thousand tons of coal, meaning bituminous coal, the total cost of
which would be about 8407,000, while the total cost of lignite with the same B.T.U. value would be 8333,000. So it will be seen that the total amount of money to be saved is very considerable, and that is all I want this committee to understand. It seems to me that we as members of parliament should care about that. We are dealing with the purse of the people; we have the responsibility of saying whether or not the purse strings will be loosed and the mouth of the purse left open so that the money is scattered on the ground unnecessarily. It is savings of this kind that have caused so many industrial plants in western Canada to change over to the cheaper fuel. The plants that have not changed as yet are doing so just as quickly as their financial condition will permit.
Now I come to a completely different aspect of this matter. I have mentioned that there may be a coal shortage and that it is important to conserve railway equipment. I now wish to read a letter addressed to Mr. H. B. McKinnon, chairman of the war-time prices and trade board, under date of February 3, signed by Mr. F. G. Neate, technical adviser to the fuel administrator, who says:
Dear Mr. McKinnon,
Following our discussion at the board meeting of Wednesday last regarding the question of fuel requirements for the cordite plant now being erected at Transcona by the Allied War Supplies Corporation, I have now had an opportunity of reviewing this matter with officials of Canadian Industries Limited.
Canadian Industries Limited; Defence Industries Limited; Allied War Supplies Corporation-they are all pretty much the same so far as this part of the picture is concerned. Naturally they are all working in fairly close cooperation.
As the coal administrator pointed out to the board, we should permit no wasted transportation effort in these times by the haulage of coal for longer distances than are necessary. The proposal to supply this plant with coal from Alberta bituminous mines situated some 850 miles from Winnipeg when fuel from areas under 300 miles from Winnipeg is readily available does give some cause for concern.
It is suggested that Mr. H. R. MacMillan, chairman of the war requirements board, should be informed of this situation and immediate inquiries be made to determine whether or not it would be possible to secure a suitable fuel from areas closer to the Winnipeg market. It is not likely that the Allied War Supplies Corporation will make any move to correct this situation unless directly requested to do so by government.
It will be seen what is apparent in the background there. The fuel controller's office, having in mind the carrying out of the policy of the government, had conversations with these people in an attempt to persuade them
War Appropriation Bill

to act reasonably in this matter. A report was made to the war-time prices and trade board with regard to the situation, and after that Mr. Neate put into writing and sent to the board substantially what it was thought should be done. To that letter Mr. McKinnon, chairman of the board, replied under date of February 8, as follows:
I was unable to bring before the board until yesterday yours of the 3rd instant regarding the matter of fuel supply for the plant now being erected at Transcona.
We are not quite clear as to why the chairman of the war requirements board should be communicated with, rather than the head of the Allied War Supplies Corporation (if I [DOT]emember correctly, the Hon. C. A. Dunning). It was the feeling of the board that a letter should go on behalf of the administrator to the Allied War Supplies Corporation, pointing out the desirability of using the fuel so readily available from the Saskatchewan field.
In other words I think it is fair to say that in effect this letter states: "We agree with your representations regarding this matter. We agree that something has to be done with the Allied War Supplies Corporation. The only point of difference is that we think you ought to short-circuit it and get at them quickly, instead of wasting time by making a triangle out of a straight path. Do not go to Mr. MacMillan and get him to go to them; go to them directly and get them to make the change."
Pursuant to that advice Mr. J. McG. Stewart did write to the corporation directly, under date of February 12. He of course was not aware of the letter I have read to this committee, signed by W. H. Wharton, in which it was stated that the matter had been closed in September. Certainly it was closed in January. They probably told him that they desired to continue to cooperate with him, or at least that they desired to cooperate. Addressing his letter to Mr. Harold G. Crabtree, president of this organization, Mr. Stewart said:
I have had occasion lately to review the question of the coal supply for the new cordite plant being erected by Defence Industries Limited at Winnipeg.
My technical adviser, Mr. F. G. Neate, has been in touch with Mr. Wain, the purchasing agent for Defence Industries, by correspondence and on February 1 had personal interviews with both Mr. Bowen and Mr. Wain.
The point involved is the type of Canadian coal that should be used, and as a corollary, the stoking equipment that should be ordered. I have been informed that the stoker equipment under consideration at present is adapted to burning Alberta bituminous coal but is not adapted to burn the Saskatchewan lignite effectively and it is precisely in this connection that I would draw your attention to several pertinent facts.
First of all, it has been shown by the experience of several industrial plants in
[Mr. Maybank.l
Winnipeg that Saskatchewan lignite if burned in the proper equipment can produce steam at a cost as low as, if not lower than, any other coal under the prices prevailing in the Winnipeg market at the present time. Possibly this condition might also obtain at the plant you have under construction.
Of course it would, because the plant is right at Winnipeg.
Secondly, the railways throughout the west are practically dependent on the Alberta bituminous coal mines for their fuel and the railway fuel situation throughout the west, while not acute, is not any too easy at the present time. I cannot contemplate the diversion of some thousands of tons from the railway field without misgiving if other satisfactory fuel is available.
Thirdly, in view of the constant growth of our national war effort, an ever-increasing strain is being thrown upon our railway facilities. The questions of staff, locomotives, cars available, et cetera, are undoubtedly becoming of more serious import from month to month. From this point of view it would seem uneconomic to haul coal some 850 miles from the Alberta bituminous fields to Winnipeg when lignite can be secured from the Estevan area some 290 miles away. The saving to the national effort in the more efficient use of the transportation facilities would certainly be considerable.
With these three points in mind, I would ask that your engineers be instructed to make a full investigation of the possibility of using Saskatchewan lignite in this plant.
I understand that there are several modern plants in Winnipeg using this fuel with complete satisfaction and I will be glad to write them and request that your engineers be allowed to inspect the layout and costs in order that they may be fully informed.
I will also be glad to cooperate in any further way, but before closing would again urge you to use your best offices to see that no definite commitments are made to any other fuels or equipment until a full investigation has been made. If, after this investigation, the facts show that Saskatchewan lignite can be used in a satisfactory manner, I trust you will give due weight to the arguments noted above.
Naturally there was a reply to this letter, and it was made on February 11 by Mr. Crabtree, who said:
I acknowledge your letter of the 10th, having reference to the advisability of our equipping the cordite plant at Winnipeg to burn lignite.
I am pleased to be able to tell you that this situation is having our careful consideration, and for your information I am enclosing herewith copies of letters that I have written on this same subject.
I have not those copies, but I can tell you roughly what they said. They were simply letters addressed to certain people indicating substantially the same thing, namely, that consideration was being given to the matter, that they were sympathetic and all that sort of thing. The reply continues:
Your technical adviser, Mr. F. G. Neate, has also spoken to me in regard to the matter and the first time I am in Ottawa I hope to see him and discuss the situation.

War Appropriation Bill
You may rest assured that we are very anxious to cooperate in any way we can in this matter.
I have this comment to make. If men of this sort would only learn to be candid, would only learn to study the facts, would only learn to say, if, as and when they make a mistake that a mistake has been made, they would advance much further, they would get along much better with their fellow men, and their fellow men would have more confidence in them.
In order to complete the record I should like to read a telegram. In spite of the reply which I have read, dated February 11, Mr. Stewart, the coal administrator, had to follow up with a telegram dated March 12, which reads:
Reference use Saskatchewan lignite Winnipeg project. Arrangements should be made to instal equipment capable of utilizing this particular fuel. If unsuitable equipment is installed greatly fear use of Saskatchewan lignite will be jeopardized. Understand suitable equipment available for prompt delivery if ordered now.
In spite of that letter from Mr. Crabtree those people were not giving any cooperation, and they did not intend to give any. There has never been any cooperation from them from start to finish of this matter. As I said earlier, they proposed to have their way regardless. This introduces the consideration of certain difficulties which we are experiencing in getting cooperation among persons who are coming in from different industries to lend their services, cooperation among these so-called dollar a year men. There has been real difficulty in this regard, and this is a good example.
In setting up this expenditures committee a little while ago the Prime Minister said that it would have power to examine into all these things, but not to impinge upon government policy. I think everyone agrees that that is sound. But here is the fuel administrator endeavouring to carry out government policy when the actions of Dunning and Crabtree and people like that in this Allied War Supplies Corporation Limited impinge upon the carrying out of government policy. They will not carry out government policy, and they will not let any one else do it.
A while ago I said that some difficulty had been experienced during the last war in connection with coal. Despite the large amount of coal we had in Canada, there were actually ships on the Atlantic seaboard which could not be bunkered and coal was brought from Cardiff to bunker them. I see the hon. member for New AVestminster nodding his head; I was sure he would support me in that statement. AA7e know that our railroads need bituminous coal now. The situation is not acute, but they need it. In the last war we
just skirted ahead of real need, both before and after the United States came in. Several conferences were held during the last war in an effort to conserve the coal of this country and to try to get coordination among the producers and the users of coal.
Having this in mind, the government very wisely appointed a coal administrator some time ago to direct the use of coal. But then an organization, the one I have mentioned, comes along and pays no attention to anything the fuel administrator says. From the point of view of responsible government it is important that these people should be directed to do what should be done. In fact I think the whole matter of control should be placed in the hands of the fuel administrator or under some board-they could buy, handle and distribute the coal. We have to get down to zoning these supplies, we have to get down to having something in the nature of rationing. There will have to be some person to say what can be used, and his word will have to be law, subject to the control of the government.
I wish to direct your attention again to the letter of February 11, which I have read. That letter was not a frank statement, which fact is proven out of their own mouths. Earlier I read what the engineers had said as to the lignite being out of the question

that we might as well forget about it. It was said that lignite could not be used. But at this late date Mr. Stewart, the fuel administrator, is told that the matter is still receiving consideration. How can it still be receiving consideration when the equipment to bum bituminous coal has already been ordered? How could they be giving consideration to burning lignite coal when the equipment already ordered was not suitable for burning lignite coal? He was just pulling Stewart's leg, that is all. Does that mean that he will deliberately order a kind of equipment that is not suitable for burning lignite coal, and that even while it is being made he decides to bum a coal that is not suitable? Surely the man is not silly enough to do that sort of thing. No man would buy a shovel for mixing cake; and if a man has a shovel on order, he will not aver that he is getting it for the purpose of mixing cake.
Just a little while ago, when I was talking to Abbott-I told the committee about that -the statement was made by Abbott that the company would burn lignite coal with this unsuitable equipment. I am not denying that it can be done. No one will deny that. But what all will agree is that the equipment is not suitable; it is not the right thing. No person will do it deliberately, but it is done in certain places for a peculiar set of reasons.
1G40
War Appropriation Bill

He said: "We have decided to use as high as 40 per cent lignite." Then he went on to say that they would use as high as 80 per cent lignite. Of two things one is certain. When these people come forward promising, as the minister himself stated the other night they had promised, that they will burn up to 80 per cent lignite, either all the objections they have urged against the use of lignite go by the board, or else they are not bona fide in their promise. It must be one or the other. Either all their objections go by the board, or they do not intend to carry out their promise. I suppose there is another possibility; that they are not limited to those two horns of the dilemma. It may be that the two alternatives I have named are both correct; one thing is certainly true that they have not been bona fide throughout.
In order that lignite coal may be burned in the manner I have described it is mixed with bituminous coal. What does that mean? It means that they would add the expense of mixing probably 100,000 tons of coal by hand, shovelful by shovelful, in order to get a good mix. All that just adds to the expense; and instead of making the saving that they otherwise could have made by using lignite coal, that saving will be to a considerable extent wiped out by this additional labour which they will deliberately bring into play. If they could save money by using up to 80 per cent, why cannot they save by using lignite up to 100 per cent?
The only people who mix bituminous and lignite coal are those who do it under circumstances such as these, for instance. There is, in Winnipeg, a large central heating plant, one of the really large ones of the country, but they put in their equipment originally to bum bituminous coal before this lignite coal had such an established place on the market. Then lignite coal came on the market and they found that anyone burning lignite got his steam cheaper. These people had to find some way to cut their costs; while it was not satisfactory to bum a mixture of lignite and bituminous in the equipment they already had, nevertheless they went ahead and mixed the two coals because they could save a little money that way, and then, as finances would permit, they would switch from the equipment they had bought originally until they had the new type of equipment entirely. They are making that switch unit by unit. Every time they make a switch they get the new equipment for burning lignite coal, and by that method they are saving a great deal of money as fast as they can.
An industrialist sometimes finds himself in the position of burning bituminous and of see-

ing a competitor put in new equipment and burning lignite coal. He cannot himself change over immediately, and so he mixes the coal in order to try to keep up with his competitor. It is only in such circumstances that these two kinds of coal are mixed. Everybody else naturally keeps away from mixing the two coals.
But these people-Allied War Supplies Corporation-are proposing to mix the coal. They finally come to promise that, when people put pressure on them. I go back to the statement I made before either that this promise which they are now making, under pressure, to burn lignite coal is not a bona fide one, or, if it is, it wipes out every objection they have ever made to the burning of lignite coal. Probably both these propositions are correct.
In support of what some people have said, I should like to read an editorial on the subject; an editorial not particularly in my favour. The Winnipeg Free Press, dealing with the question wrote under date of March 13, what I think everybody will admit is a sound editorial. It said:
The big chemical plant being erected east of Winnipeg will use a very large amount of coal, and the question of the type of coal that should be used has been raised. It is understood that the installation of equipment for the use of bituminous coal is contemplated, although it is well known in business circles here that that type of stoker has been increasingly replaced in recent years in this city by equipment for using the cheaper lignite coal. The economy is so great that the change has been made, or is being gradually made, by nearly all large users of coal in this district.
This equipment costs more than that for using bituminous coal, but the difference is a matter of dispute, and what it would be in the case of the chemical plant is for experts to say, as is the question of the relation between that difference and the saving through the use of lignite.
That is as far as I need read. I wanted to quote that last sentence, that it is a question for the experts to decide. I do not think anyone would disagree with that, generally speaking, as a sound piece of advice. But here is the picture to keep in mind regarding the experts. Last January or last February I wrote to the Minister of Munitions and Supply about this matter, telling him that the present situation ought to be guarded against.	I
know that he dealt with the matter. I also know that at that time he was extremely busy because it was just after he had returned from overseas, and when he inquired into the matter I have no doubt that certain things were told him which caused him not to look into it any further. As a matter of fact, he must have been dealing with it back about January because about that time Wharton

War Appropriation Bill
wrote the letter that I have read to the committee. In spite of that letter, in spite of what may have been said between the minister and Mr. Crabtree, in spite of the decisions they may have made, Mr. Crabtree told a colleague of mine in this house on or about February 25 that this question was still open, that they were approaching it with a completely open mind. Then two days later, after the engineer wrote, his man Abbott told me and that same colleague that he could not understand how Crabtree could have said that; that Crabtree knew the facts; that this matter was settled long ago, definitely settled beyond being raised again, and that he could not understand how Mr. Crabtree could have made that statement. In spite of the fact that Wharton wrote to the effect that lignite could not be used, Abbott told us in that interview that they were going to use lignite to the extent of somewhere between 40 and 80 per cent. I could not help feeling, as I still feel, that there is something pretty rotten in the whole situation. When I reviewed a set of facts like that, I could not help feeling that these people were being a great deal less than frank.
The same story is in the correspondence I read to the committee. The representative of the fuel board deals with these people and apparently finds them intractable. He takes the matter up with the prices board, and they arrange to write a strong letter on the subject so as, in any event, to put themselves on record. They do so, and they give cogent reasons why these people should use lignite. It is in accordance with government policy that they should do so, because it is in accordance with government policy to save fuel and rolling stock. Even then Mr. Crabtree says, "We are giving consideration yet to that matter." By inference, from the letter I read, there is still an "open door." It was not until about a week or so ago that I learned definitely, conclusively, and, one might say, for the last time, that Crabtree's engineers are apparently "already"-that is the expression-"too far committed." If that is not the story of an irresponsible organization playing ducks and drakes with you, then you tell one.
They are not too far committed, Mr Chairman, to do what is right. They must be made to do it. They can get the equipment. If they have already ordered their other equipment, they can do one of two things. They can take it and sell it at some loss, or they can cancel the order and pay some loss. The savings will more than make up for any loss so incurred. Indeed, that is one of the points they make, that this other equipment they have ordered has salvage value. They 14873-104
can get something for it. Well, let them get something for it; it will have all the more salvage value if they dispose of it now while it is new. Let this organization, however, now do what is right with reference to the policy of the government of Canada and show a proper regard for the money of the people of the old country which we have in trust.


Mr. TUCKER:: Mr. Chairman,-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I demand the right to reply.


Walter Adam Tucker: I wish to say just a word or two before the minister speaks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member can speak after I have replied. After listening to this for three hours, I think I have the right to reply.
What in effect my hon. friend has been doing is taking the time of the committee for three hours to sell Estevan coal. That is the basic fact we have to start with. In doing so, he has attacked the probity of two men who need no defence in this chamber-one, the Hon. Charles A. Dunning, and the other, Mr. Harold Crabtree.
I am not going to argue that the Hon. Charles A. Dunning is a patriot and a man of probity. I do not think that is necessary with regard to a man who has sat in this house and occupies the place in public life which the Hon. Charles A. Dunning holds. I am not going to defend the probity or the honesty or the patriotism of Mr. Harold Crabtree. I can say that, for the last year, without salary, he has given his time and has worked harder than any man should work in conducting the organization of which he is the head.
My hon. friend says that this company is not competent to build an economical plant for the production of explosives.


Ralph Maybank: I never said that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the implication. These people are not building a coal-burning plant; they are. building an explosive plant. Now let the hon. member sit down.
Mr. MAY'BANK: May I rise to a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there is no point of
order.


Ralph Maybank: I rise to a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not yield.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. gentleman
has raised a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the point of order?

War Appropriation Bill


Ralph Maybank: The point of order,
Mr. Chairman, is this. No lion, gentleman may misquote another; and the hou. gentleman has definitely misquoted me. I ask him to withdraw. That is my point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
a fair summary of the hon. member's remarks that he said that something very uneconomical is being done in designing this cordite plant. I see no point of order there. If the cordite plant is economically designed-and I think we must assume that the people responsible are designing it to the best of their ability-* we can reasonably assume that the remarks which my hon. friend has made, taking over three hours of the time of the committee, are themselves very much out of order. Either the plant as at present designed is economical, or it is not.
As I have said, the problem at Winnipeg is not to build something for the burning of a certain type of coal. That is incidental to the problem. The problem is to build an explosives plant. I know something about building plants for a special purpose. I have spent all my life at such work. I know that in building a grain elevator there are certain practices which, although they do very well for other industries, are not economic when applied to a grain elevator; and the power part is very much a case in point. People have accepted my judgment with regard to the matter because I had the reputation of being able successfully to build grain elevators.
Similarly, when we are building an explosives plant we go to people who have a reputation for being able to build, successfully and economically, explosives plants. I may say that two explosives plants built by this organization, Allied War Supplies, with their experts, Defence Industries Limited, are in operation and producing cordite cheaper than any other plant on this continent. That, I think, is something to the credit of those responsible for the operation.
The production of explosives has several peculiarities which it is well to note at this stage. One of them is that the dangers from explosives are related very closely to the degree of cleanliness which is maintained in a plant. Those hon. members who have ever visited an explosives plant know that before you pass into the operational part of it you are required to take off your shoes, to go over the operational part bare-footed, or to put on other shoes which are furnished to you and which are never allowed to pass out of the explosives part of the plant. So much for cleanliness, and I might say that practically every explosion which occurs in an

explosives plant is caused by carelessness on the part of the workmen, in allowing something unclean to develop in the plant, permitting dirt to accumulate, or cordite or some other explosive to drop on the floor from a barrel or some other receptacle.
The problem of cleanliness is definitely related to the coal supply. It is reported in the correspondence that pulverized coal cannot be used on account of the danger of sparks and the dust resulting from the coal. It is true that lignite is a cheap coal, very economical for certain purposes; but it is also true that to get the same amount of heat from lignite as from Alberta bituminous coal, twice the volume has to be burned. It is also well known that lignite will not stand storage particularly. It breaks down quickly to slack coal, much more quickly than does Alberta coal; and it is known further that lignite in the slack form, that is, the dust of lignite, has the same objections that pulverized coal of any kind has, in that it is a distributor of dust and ash.
The problem, I know-it is obvious from the record-was thoroughly studied, because every possible pressure was brought to bear upon the company to use lignite. Those responsible for the sale of lignite have, in my opinion, exhausted every possibility that could be thought of, including pressure upon the fuel controller, and that part has been quite thoroughly done. Knowing these facts, the board of directors of Allied War Supplies Corporation have still come to the conclusion that the course they are pursuing is the proper one. Nothing could have been overlooked in the matter, because it is obvious from the record that every fact in connection with the problem was brought to their attention.
Someone may ask, what do you know about the problem? I know very little about it. I was in Europe when it was being discussed. I went to England, having left Ottawa on December 4, and I returned to Canada in the last few days of January. The matter was called to my attention then by the same agencies that have raised it in the house, and I called Mr. Crabtree to Ottawa, or at least asked him to discuss the matter with me on the first occasion on which he was in Ottawa. He came with a technical expert, and we discussed the relative merits of lignite coal and bituminous coal for that locality. We discussed the matter for the best part of an hour, and in that time Mr. Crabtree reviewed all the facts that had been presented to him and gave the reasons why he had come to the conclusion that the equipment being installed was the proper equipment for the purpose. As I said in the house

War Appropriation Bill
earlier, he did not close the door upon burning a portion of lignite in the grates, and the reason for that is that if coal can be transferred direct from the cars under the boilers, there is not the same danger from dust that there is if the coal has to be stored for a time. I pointed out to him at the time, however, that it seemed desirable to use coal from the lignite field, if only from the point of view of coal conservation. He said he agreed with me entirely and it was their intention to do the best they could in that direction, but there were limits beyond which, in his judgment, they could not go. After the study which I knew he had given the matter; after the expert type of opinion which I knew he would obtain, I saw no reason for pursuing the matter further.
A forum has been set up in which this matter can be properly considered, namely, the committee on economy. The advantage of that committee is that Mr. Crabtree can be there and refute any statements such as the ex parte statements made in this house. His experts can be brought before that committee. The Estevan coal people can bring their experts, and the committee can decide the case with the fullest possible technical information before them.
I suppose that if I had time I could make myself sufficiently familiar with all the facts in this case to discuss each item that has been taken up by the hon. member. Frankly, however, I have not the time to do it. I have gone into the matter sufficiently to satisfy myself that every factor was taken into account, that expert opinion was brought to bear on it, and that the action taken by Allied War Supplies Corporation followed the advice of their expert opinion. I may say that these were not street-corner opinions. They were the opinions of men who were paid to give their expert advice on the problem. They were the opinions of men who were qualified, by success in fuel engineering, to give advice. I know that the advice of the national research laboratories was brought to bear on the problem, as it is on all problems involving coal purchased by the Department of Munitions and Supply or by any officers responsible to that department. I know that this opinion was available to Allied War Supplies Corporation and that it was used accordingly.
That is all I wish to say on the matter. It is not my duty to say to the committee on economy what cases they should hear or when they should hear them, but I express the opinion that it is desirable that the committee should see whether economies were overlooked in this particular case, having in view the exacting requirements in connection with the manufacture of explosives. If the
committee, after examining into the situation, report to the house that there has been failure to carry out economy in the transaction, even though it is wholly for the British government, I shall be glad to take corrective steps at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not desire at this stage of the proceedings or at this late hour of the afternoon to enter into any part of the controversy between the minister and one of his followers; but there is a larger aspect, with respect to the establishment and situation of this cordite plant, to which I direct attention for a few moments. Why was this plant located 2,000 miles from seaboard?
I have made some investigation. We have, according to the minister's statement, a commitment of something over $9,000,000, all for the account of the United Kingdom, and I understand the plant is to be increased substantially, so that before this plant is finally completed and in full operation there will have been a capital expenditure of between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000. That is a great deal of money.
The raw materials for cordite are four. First, there is cotton lintos, which is the odds and ends of cotton. This is imported from the United States and is, of course, as easily available to Winnipeg as to a site on seaboard. I understand that plans are under way to make use of wood pulp in substitution for cotton.
The second ingredient in the manufacture of cordite is nitric acid, which is made at each explosive plant from ammonia. At the present time there is a contract for the supply of ammonia from the United States. This contract will expire shortly. Plants are now in operation at Trail, British Columbia, and at Calgary, Alberta, making ammonia from air.
The third ingredient is sulphuric acid, which is being manufactured from smelter gases given off in the refinement of nickel and copper and from iron pyrites. These sulphuric acid plants are located at Copper Cliff and Valleyfield in the eastern townships.
The fourth item is nitro-glycerin. Glycerin is a by-product obtained in the manufacture of soap. The large soap manufacturers are Procter and Gamble and Lever Brothers. The soap manufacturers make use of domestic animal fats and vegetable oils.
I am advised that the capital cost of the location of this plant at Winnipeg was increased some $500,000 because of the necessity of taking certain material parts there and for other reasons. But the gravamen of the charge against the location at Winnipeg is based on this, that all the product of this
War Appropriation Bill

plant has to be transported from Winnipeg
2,000	miles to the seaboard before it can be shipped overseas where it is to be used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is used at the shellloading plant at Pickering and de Salaberry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that part of it has to go to the seaboard. I have that from a source very close to the operating company; I am not going to give any further information on that. If we assume, however, that the minister's statement is correct-and I am accepting it with the utmost good faith-the annual transportation charges on the product of this plant will be substantially increased by reason of the fact that the plant has been located at Winnipeg.
I sympathize with the people of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg in their desire to get industrial plants located in their jurisdiction. That is most natural; it is something that has been contended for in this house by representatives of the different sections of Canada. Per contra, in the location of these plants consideration must be given to the economic situation. I suggest to the minister that the location of this plant at Winnipeg is uneconomic from the point of view of transportation and will, for that reason, increase the cost of the product being manufactured there.
I should like to ask the minister that at a little later stage, if he cannot do it to-day- not necessarily on the discussion of this resolution, because I had hoped that would soon be through-to answer these questions:
1.	Why was the plant located at Winnipeg?
2.	Is it true that D.I.L. recommended against locating the plant at Winnipeg?
3.	Is it not true that Allied War Supplies Limited preferred to have this plant located nearer the seaboard?
4.	Is it not true that the minister overrode all these recommendations and insisted that this plant must be located at or near Winnipeg?
5.	Will the minister lay the reports, if any or all are in writing, on the table so that we may examine them?
That is all I have to say about the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can answer these questions at once. We have in the department a policy that, as far as possible and reasonable without undue cost, plants will be dispersed out of the industrial areas. This plant was of a type that could be so placed. Naturally, under the present conditions of agriculture in the west, it would be to the advantage of Canada

if we could change over some of the manpower of that section from agriculture to war munitions work.
Two plants have been located. I may say these plants are large users of power and must be located where large blocks of power are available; I think the one in Winnipeg uses some 20,000 horse-power, something of that order. The first plant we located in the Parry Sound area where a large explosives plant had been built during the last war. The second plant we located at De Salaberry island where power and an adequate labour supply were available.
The engineers of the company looked round for available locations for the three plants, and recommendations were made. Perhaps I should not tell the committee; it may get me into trouble, but a location was suggested which would have suited me very much better than the one chosen, as far as I was personally concerned. The Winnipeg location was mentioned. It was definitely felt that it would not be wise to put further explosive plants in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We had to take into account the fact that practically all the necessary raw material that required transportation in bulk originated west of Winnipeg. There were small quantities perhaps to be brought from the east; I think we have not yet located a plant that did not have some back haul.
The purpose of this explosive plant was primarily to supply the shell-loading plant at Pickering near Toronto, and the movement of materials was a straight line movement towards the seaboard to that plant at Pickering. Of course we locate these shell-loading plants so that we can funnel in all the components that make up the loaded shells without back haul; that is, haul away from the direction that the shell must ultimately travel. As I remember the picture, I think my hon. friend is right in saying that the capital cost at Winnipeg was about $500,000 more than it would have been at De Salaberry. I think, however, he is not correct when he says that the operating costs are higher.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said the transportation cost; I did not say anything about operating costs. The second point I made was that the transportation cost would ultimately be increased by reason of the long haul from Winnipeg to the seaboard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt if that is true. I have not seen the report for a long time; as a matter of fact, the recommendation to locate at Winnipeg was not mine at all; it was made to me by a committee of our officers that was functioning at that time. As I say, a recom-

War Appropriation Bill
mendation was of a site somewhat closer to my home, and this was the second. There was little to choose between the two as to physical characteristics. The only opinion I cared to express was that of the two I would prefer to have it located at Winnipeg because I believed there was a better labour supply there, and economic reasons why that was the more desirable location of the two offered. As far as my intervening in the matter or taking any initiative in having the plant built in Winnipeg is concerned, I did nothing of the sort. I do not know what correspondence I have on the subject, and I do not wish to get in the habit of bringing down the reports from my own officers. I speak for the Department of Munitions and Supply as a whole, and it is not customary and, of course, is not required by the rules of the house that internal departmental reports be brought down to the house. I will, however, look into the matter and see whether it is in the best interests of the business of the house to bring down those reports.


Walter Adam Tucker: First, I wish to explain why I intervened in order that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should have a chance to lay his whole case before this committee. For some days now we have listened to charge after charge, general charges made repeatedly of extravagance, partisanship and so on, without any facts whatever to substantiate them. Days have been so wasted; and although the charges have been answered and answered and the people making them have been asked to bring forward facts in support of them but have been unable to do so, yet the effect has been that the people out in the country are having their confidence shaken to some extent as to the manner in which the war effort is being administered.
If a member of this house brings up a definite, concrete case like this, it seems to me he should be given every opportunity to lay it before parliament, and there should be no attempt to prevent him from doing so. That is particularly true, because of the peculiar nature of the present situation. Ordinarily, if a government department is going to spend money, an appropriation must come before parliament and be granted. In this case, however, a wholly government-owned corporation is spending money, or undertaking to spend money, without that money having-been specifically appropriated. Therefore, if this committee is to do anything other than hold post mortems, we must do exactly what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has done; we must lay the facts before the government and ask for the best possible consideration of them before action is finally taken.
What I had intended to say, had I been permitted, was this. I was going to ask the minister not to regard the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as an attack upon those administering the Allied War Supplies Corporation, and to request that, every time something is questioned in regard to these government-owned corporations, he should not feel called upon to immediately come to their support on the floor of this house. The greatest patriot and hardest working man in the world, even if he works for a dollar a year, may make mistakes. Surely it is the duty of members of this house to bring these matters in all good faith to the attention of the government, which I know desires to see that its agents make as few mistakes as possible. If hon. members are not to be permitted to discharge that duty without being regarded as enemies of the government or as making attacks upon the patriotism of people whom we all admire, then members will be definitely discouraged from doing that which they are sent here to do.
That was why I wished to say a few words in this connection. I am sorry the minister did not let me say a short time ago what I was going to say. I was about to beseech him not to take the attitude that, in fact, at the commencement of his remarks, he did take. I have listened to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I have no interest in this matter one way or the other, except as a member of this house from Saskatchewan.
If to-day you are actually using or likely to use all the Alberta coal that you can conveniently produce, and if there is an abundance of Saskatchewan coal, then I think the reasons advanced by the minister were insufficient. In all fairness I must admit that. If those reasons are to be accepted as sufficient for over-burdening the industry in Alberta and taking away a demand for what the industry in Saskatchewan can produce, then Saskatchewan might as well make up its mind that it is not going to get anything from the government-owned subsidiaries that have been set up. 1 am bound to say that. No one has greater respect and admiration for the Minister of Munitions and Supply than the member now speaking; I can assure him of that, In season and out of season I have said that, as a member of the government, -he has done a good job for Canada, that he has shown himself to be a good Canadian whom we all admire and respect. I have said that every man in this house should be ready to assist him and should not bother him by carping criticism or general criticism which does nothing but raise doubt and suspicion. When, however, some of the servants or agents of the government
War Appropriation Bill

of this country, servants of the people, of Canada, are suspected of having made a mistake; or, as appears to be the case here, when they may have been too greatly prejudiced by their past connections and may not have carried out the policies of this government, should this government not welcome one of its supporters rising in his place and saying that this man lias perhaps made a mistake; that what he did was in their opinion, not right; that the minister should look into the matter? This should, however, not be done after the action has been taken and the mistake made. I was surprised to read in Hansard this remark by the minister:
If the committee cares to bring down a report to parliament that there has been wasteful expenditure in connection with this installation, I shall be prepared to accept the rebuke and take the responsibility.
No one in this house wants that situation to develop, so that when some servant of this government makes a mistake, the minister, hard-worked as he is, must take the rebuke and the government must take the loss. That is not the way in which parliament should work. If that is all we are going to be able to do here; if we can only hold post mortems and find that money has been lost, and have that constitute a rebuke to a minister, then I submit that we are not discharging the duty which the people have a right to expect of us at this time.
Without prejudice one way or the other I am bound to state that I am not convinced that it would not have been a good thing to instal, in that plant, equipment to burn lignite. The suggestion that this might create dust does not carry weight with me, because I have seen many steam plants established entirely separate from the plants for which they were providing motive power. Of course I am not an engineer, but sitting here as a member of this house, I still think a mistake will be made if equipment is installed to burn bituminous coal, for these reasons: it will be more costly; it will use bituminous coal and overload the producing capacity of Alberta while plenty of Saskatchewan coal is available; it will be more expensive to haul that coal; it will require more labour to get the coal there; it will use and wear out railway equipment when we should economize in every possible way with regard to such equipment.
I realize that the minister is in a difficult position. Unless he stands behind these people, they may throw up their hands and say, "We are not going to work if we are going to be subject to the criticism of every little member of parliament, unless whatever we do, you stand behind us." We all

know the minister's difficulties, and we all sympathize with him; but we also ask him to take into consideration the position in which we, as private members, find ourselves. If there is a suggestion that some mistake has been made, surely it is our duty to draw the matter to his attention. I am convinced that he will consider such suggestions not as attacks upon himself or the government, but rather as attempts to assist in the war effort, about which we are all deeply concerned.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I think it is agreed that as far as possible there should be continuity of discussion in this committee. I was sorry to see the discussion on the building of ships interrupted, but the committee has got into a discussion of the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) with respect to the advantage of using coal produced in central Canada. Perhaps there are other hon. members who would wish to follow that discussion. I had something to say with regard to the building of ships, but I am ready to give way for the moment in order that the discussion being held prior to the six o'clock recess may proceed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At six o'clock the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was dealing with the coal situation as it affects western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan. I should like to make a few observations in connection with the discussion which has taken place. I think the minister is altogether too touchy regarding suggestions and comments coming from various parts of the house, and made with a view to having the work of his department more efficient. I think hon. members and the people of the country are convinced that the minister has a most difficult role to fill. In the information which came from the director of public information in to-day's mail there appears a list of the various departments under the supervision of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). It is inconceivable that in carrying on the administration of these various departments there should not be some mistakes. I think the people feel that, on the whole, the minister is possibly one of the best qualified men in Canada to administer the affairs of this department.
Many hon. members took the opportunity of seeing some of the work being done. A

War Appropriation Bill
trip of inspection, was arranged by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross) and the citizens of that city. Many of us were able to see the tremendous undertakings which are under way. We saw plans being carried out which will transform the production of ploughshares into the production of guns. We saw great mountains of scrap being transformed into steel. We saw the manufacture of gun barrels. If I remember correctly, these were some twenty-two feet in length and we were able to see them being taken out of huge furnaces and dropped into vats of oil in order to temper the steel. We saw bomb racks under construction and radio equipment being produced, equipment which is so necessary for the carrying on of our war effort. If more hon. members would visit some of these industries, they would be more apt to realize that Canada is really carrying on an important part in the present struggle for the preservation of democracy.
After seeing what is being done in that particular district, I am sure that hon. members feel that the Minister of Munitions and Supply is doing everything humanly possible to see that the work is carried on efficiently. I hope, however, that he will also realize that hon. members are anxious that his work be carried on with as little criticism as possible. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre presented a case which should appeal to impartial hon. members. Speaking the other night, he said:
I do know that about eight or nine days ago Mr. Crabtree stated to a colleague of mine in this house that this question was still an open one, that they would approach it with open minds, and yet within thirty-six hours this man Abbott sat in a room in this House of Commons with that same colleague and me and told us that it was a closed book, that it had been closed for months.
Speaking the other day, the minister said:
Mr. Crabtree believes that he would be able to burn a very high percentage of lignite coal in these boilers. I hope that is true, because we are finding it rather difficult to get supplies of bituminous coal from western Canada at the present time. The use of lignite coal at Winnipeg would have a balancing effect upon the coal situation in western Canada. Mr. Crabtree tells me that he will be able to use a considerable portion of lignite coal. He has studied the question, and I have a good deal of confidence in his statement in the matter.
Since the question was raised last week, the minister has had ample opportunity to bring expert opinion to bear upon the matter. Although he spoke at considerable length this afternoon, I still feel that the case made out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stands as a valid one. I should have liked the minister to tell the committee whether, since the question was raised last
week, he had consulted expert opinion or engineers other than those who had given advice to the department on former occasions.
I do not think the objection with respect to the dust creating problem in connection with explosives was well founded. The minister said that they had planned on using a considerable amount of lignite coal; but if they are going to mix lignite with the other coal, there will be a greater dust problem created than if lignite were used exclusively. I would think that the boiler rooms and the place where the coal would be stored would be at a sufficient distance from where the explosives would be made to overcome any great danger from dust that might be created by the use of lignite coal. I should like the minister to tell us who was the technical expert who came with Mr. Crabtree last fall to give him advice, and whether he has secured advice from other engineers since the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre first brought up this question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that I need to give the name of the engineer.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member mentioned Mr. Abbott.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not Mr. Abbott. I do not know him and I never met him. I never heard his name until it was mentioned in the house. It was a senior officer of the D.I.L. who accompanied Mr. Crabtree.
As my hon. friend knows, the D.I.L. are the designers of the plant at Winnipeg and have everything to do with it. In connection with the next question, I may say that we retain certain engineers in whom we have great confidence. We accept their advice; we do not go throughout the country shopping for engineers. We take the advice of engineers who are familiar with the problem, who are designing this cordite plant and who are competent thermal engineers. The hon. member is debating a subject here which he could very well debate in a place where the engineers could be present. A forum has been created before which subjects of this kind can be examined and before which evidence can be produced.
I have not spent enough time on this particular project other than to satisfy myself that the matter is being handled competently. I have not posted myself on the technical data that must decide the matter. It was not last autumn that this subject was raised with myself; it was only since I got back from England some time in February. At that time the matter was called to my attention, and I called Mr. Crabtree and one of his engineers to discuss it. They had the reports that had been made to them, and I
War Appropriation Bill

looked these over hurriedly. I am really not in a position to debate this question. As I say, a forum has been created where all the engineers who have had anything to do with this project can appear and where the proper information can be obtained. I urge strongly that it be left to the committee to decide whether or not this project has been carried out economically. I know I do a good deal of criticizing, but I would ask hon. members: Is this a subject of national importance? The real question now being discussed before this committee is whether we shall use coal produced in Alberta or coal produced in Saskatchewan. Is that of great importance to the people of Canada? On the question of value the matter is very close. There are no thousands or millions of dollars to be saved. There is no great sum involved.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member said that there would be a saving of $140,000 a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is mistaken. I can say
dogmatically that there is no such sum involved. Further, I can say definitely that the sum involved is not large. I believe that D.I.L. are correct in the opinion which they have given officially and on which they stake the reputation of their company, that the course recommended is the proper one from an engineering point of view. Of course engineers have been known to leave out certain factors that might have been considered, but I do not think they have done so in this ease because there has been enough pressure from the lignite coal operators to ensure that every factor which could be produced in favour of lignite coal was considered. Is it, I ask, of great importance to the people of Canada from coast to coast whether this coal comes from Drumheller, shall we say, or from Estevan? That is the question before the committee, and I do not think it is of extreme importance. To tell the truth, I think too much time has been taken up in the discussion of this particular question, and the cost to which the country has been put in keeping this House of Commons going while debate on this question has been going on would, I believe, outweigh any saving there might be one way or the other.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Chairman, on Monday, March 10, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) in the course of his remarks on this resolution made a statement which will be found at pages 1384-85 of Hansard, with respect to a vital and important part of the war effort initiated by this government, namely, the war savings certificates campaign. His statement was grossly mislead-

ing and falsely represented the stand and position, with respect to the war savings certificates campaign, of the members of the Independent group comprising the official opposition in the Alberta legislature, which is now in session. The hon. member, either in his ignorance of the facts, or else with the deliberate intention of placing a false face upon the facts of the case, stated-


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what the hon. member is reading from.


Manley Justin Edwards: I am reading from my notes.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is imputing motives. He said that I deliberately placed a false face upon the facts. I demand that he withdraw that statement. I deliberately imputed motives to no one.


Manley Justin Edwards: In order that the record may be absolutely straight I will repeat what I said. The hon. member either-or if he is Irish, ayther-in his ignorance, I say, of the facts or else with the deliberate intention of placing a false face upon the facts of the case, stated-


Charles Edward Johnston: I would
ask you, Mr. Chairman, to give a ruling on that word "deliberate". That is definitely imputing motives to a member of this house, and I demand that the hon. member withdraw that word and erase it from his notes.


Alphonse Fournier: I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw the word "deliberate", which is against standing order 41, paragraph 298 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.


Manley Justin Edwards: I would bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if there was no alternative, but my remarks were prefaced with the statement that the hon. member was "either ignorant of the facts" or else speaking with the deliberate intention of placing a false face upon them. I would like to believe, sir, that he was ignorant of the facts, and I believe that when I have finished he will admit that he was ignorant of the facts of the case when he spoke to this house on March 10.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask that your ruling be enforced and that there be an unconditional withdrawal of the word "deliberate."


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It was withdrawn.


Alphonse Fournier: I believe that the last statement of

War Appropriation Bill
the hon. member was in order. His statement was to the effect that the hon. member was ignorant of the facts.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Do we understand, Mr. Chairman, that the objectionable statement was withdrawn?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was withdrawn.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Then that is all right.


Mr. FAIR:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. member for Calgary West said "if there was no alternative." That is not an unconditional withdrawal. Even if he is a Liberal, he should have no more rights than other members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: According to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should withdraw unconditionally.


Alphonse Fournier: I understood that the hon. member
did withdraw.


Charles Edward Johnston: He did not say so.


Alphonse Fournier: I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw his statement.


Manley Justin Edwards: Just what is it that I am desired to withdraw-my whole statement?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the words "deliberately" and "intentionally" should be withdrawn.


Manley Justin Edwards: I quite readily withdraw "deliberate" if that is what is objected to.


Charles Edward Johnston: Also "intentionally".


Manley Justin Edwards: I assume that the hon. member intends what he says.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was giving the facts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should be allowed to proceed.


Alphonse Fournier: I would ask the hon. gentleman to proceed with his remarks.


Manley Justin Edwards: The statement of the hon. member for Bow River was that the resolution endorsing the federal government's war savings campaign had been passed by the legislature of Alberta on a division of thirty-five to eighteen in the face of solid opposition by the Independent members.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think that is correct.


Manley Justin Edwards: The hon. member was at pains to preface his remarks with respect to this matter with pious protestations of cooperation despite-alleged, but wholly unsupported-charges of discrimination at the hands of this government, and he then proceeded to take credit to his party for unmatched patriotic war efforts-also unsupported. I quote:
"No other organization in all the dominion has given this federal government the support that the province of Alberta has given in every way possible as far as this war is concerned."
Those are his own words.
I am indebted to a member of the Alberta legislature, Mr. J. J. Bowlen, for the facts in connection with this resolution, and I cannot do better than quote the memorandum which he was good enough to send me covering the correspondence and the draft resolution which led up to the passing of the resolution to which the hon. member has referred.
I should explain at the outset that the Mr. J. H. Walker referred to is the house leader of the official opposition, and the Mr. D. M. Duggan also referred to is the former provincial Conservative leader of the province of Alberta and a member of the Independent group. Mr. Aberhart-need I say?-is the high priest of Social Credit.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Manley Justin Edwards: At least he is the author of the revised version, Canadian edition.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, I should like to know what the hon. gentleman is reading from. He might as well put it on Hansard unread.


Manley Justin Edwards: My memorandum.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not particularly interested in this controversy; I am interested simply in a matter of procedure. Is this memorandum drawn by some one who is not a member of the house, and is this in reality a speech prepared by someone who is not a member of this house? If so, it is clearly a violation of the rules of order of this house. That is the point in which I am interested.


Alphonse Fournier: For the information of the hon.
member, citation 314 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might

War Appropriation Bill

read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention.
I would suggest that the hon. gentleman may refer to his notes, but not read a speech.


Manley Justin Edwards: I do not propose to read my speech, or any speech prepared by anyone else, but with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like now to read the letter which is signed by Mr. Bowlen, and which I shall be very happy to table, as well as the memorandum embodying the copies of the actual correspondence which led up to the passing of this resolution.
The letter of Mr. Bowlen addressed to me under date March 12, reads:
M. J. Edwards, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
I noticed in last night's Edmonton Journal a statement made by Social-Crediter Johnston of Bow River, when he said that the independents refused to support a motion moved by the Social Credit government in Edmonton introducing the war savings certificate campaign.
This statement is a deliberate falsehood and I am enclosing a copy of what actually happened.
We had a resolution prepared to place on the order paper ourselves, when someone foolishly suggested we get the government to join in with us and make it unanimous. The records tell the story of what followed, and we have learned a lesson never to expect this government to cooperate in anything.
If you get an opportunity, you might correct the misstatement made by Mr. Johnston, as it puts us in a false light.
Yours truly,
John J. Bowlen.
Acting on behalf of the Independents, Mr. Duggan telephoned the premier on the morning of February 20, the day the session opened-


Charles Edward Johnston: Is the hon. member still reading a memorandum?


Manley Justin Edwards: I am now reading the memorandum sent to me-the day the session opened, and suggested that the members of the legislature could render a useful service to the country by passing a resolution endorsing the programme of the dominion government in relation to the sale of war savings certificates and stamps. The premier concurred in the suggestion, and agreed to receive for consideration a draft resolution. The next day the Independents sent the following draft to the premier:
Resolved:	That this legislative assembly
endorses the campaign for the sale of war savings certificates and stamps, which is now being carried on within this province and throughout Canada, as an integral part of our united war effort,

And further: that this assembly urges upon every citizen of Alberta to make the greatest possible contribution to this plan, and to our country in the present crisis.
The foregoing draft resolution was accompanied by this letter:
Dear Mr. Aberhart:
In accordance with our conversation, I am enclosing herewith a draft of a suggested resolution which I think should be moved by you and seconded by Mr. Walker.


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, under standing order 41, citation
306 states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The hon. member is definitely out of order. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest that the hon. gentleman is quite in order in reading the resolution, but is not in order in reading a communication denying any statement made by a member of this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what -he is doing.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I have
asked your ruling.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. gentleman is not reading something commenting on anything said by another hon. gentleman in the house-


Victor Quelch: The hon. member stated a little while ago that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member read a statement to the effect that the statement of the hon. member for Bow River was a falsehood, thus reflecting upon a member of this house. I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member did not object in time.


Victor Quelch: The statement was that it was a falsehood.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Too late.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Let us "face the facts."


Alphonse Fournier: If any hon. member desires to express an opinion on this point of order, I will listen before rendering a decision.

War Appropriation Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the memorandum, as I have been following it, is merely a statement of what took place in the Alberta legislature. The memorandum itself has at least no obvious connection with anything any hon. member said or any proceedings which took place in this house.


Victor Quelch: I would point out that a letter which the hon. member read did refer to this matter.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is finished.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has correctly stated the position under the rules. I suggest that the advice which he gave should be followed.


Alphonse Fournier: Any hon. member reading comments upon remarks made by another hon. member in this chamber would be out of order if an hon. member raised the point of order at the time the comment was read. Later on, it would be too late. As to the last remarks made by the hon. member, I am of opinion that he has a right to read that resolution, but not to comment on what was said by an outsider against a member of this house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I should like briefly to discuss the point of order, because I think it has an important bearing upon the future conduct of business in this chamber. I would say this, that the hon. member for Calgary West, in speaking-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: -said that he was reading.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Fournier, Hull): I believe the only proper procedure would be to appeal from the decision of the chair, not to comment on a decision after it has been rendered upon a point of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand that I am not permitted to discuss the point of order?
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Fournier, Hull): As I understand the rules, after a decision has been rendered it cannot be discussed. The	hon. member	could	have
taken part in the debate, but he cannot discuss the decision after it is made. The only way would be to appeal from that decision.
Mr.	MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
May I inform the hon. member that the
14873-105}
chairman invited expressions of opinion deliberately from all members of the committee.


Manley Justin Edwards: Let me read the letter. Dear Mr. Aberhart:
In accordance with our conversation, I am enclosing herewith a draft of a suggested resolution which I think should be moved by you and seconded by Mr. Walker.
I see no necessity for a protracted debate. I further suggest that you introduce the resolution to-day under "Notices of Motion," and ask the house to suspend the rules so that you will be in a position to proceed with the resolution to-day.
If you care to discuss this matter with me I shall be glad to come to your office at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
D. M. Duggan.
Later the same day, the premier replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Duggan:
I shall be glad to introduce the following resolution which I think will cover the matter, if Mr. Walker will second the same.
Yours sincerely,
William Aberhart.
This is the premier's resolution:
Whereas the dominion government has adopted the sale of war saving certificates and stamps as one of the methods of financing the war; and
Whereas this method of financing the war, although highly unsatisfactory, has been designed by the dominion government to achieve the primary and foremost objective of the British empire at the present time, namely, winning the war;
Now therefore be it resolved that .this legislative assembly endorses the campaign for the sale of war saving certificates and stamps which is now being carried on throughout Canada as a part of our war effort;
And further that this assembly urges that every citizen of Alberta should cooperate with the dominion government in the winning of the war in every reasonable way possible;
And finally that this assembly urges upon the dominion government the necessity of adopting effective methods of financing the war and preparing for the post war period by the national control and issue of money and credit without inflation.'
Date: February 21, 1941.
William Aberhart.
In reply, the Independents wrote to the premier as follows-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are the
independents?


Manley Justin Edwards: They are the official opposition in the Alberta legislature, their leader being Mr. J. H. Walker. The following letter was addressed to the premier:
Dear Mr. Premier:
Thank you for your letter of the 21st inst., enclosing a resolution signed by you as proposer, which is designed to endorse the action of the dominion government in connection with a nation-wide campaign for the sale of war
War Appropriation Bill

saving certificates and stamps. The inclusion of the main points of our "draft" sent to you earlier the same day, is a courtesy we appreciate, but we sincerely regret that you have included in your resolution certain statements which are controversial, thereby destroying the object we had in view. We respectfully suggest for consideration the following deletions:
(1)	The words "although highly unsatisfactory" in the second clause in your preamble.
(2)	The word "reasonable" in the last line of the second clause of your resolution.
(3)	All the words after the word "period" in the final clause of your resolution.
A resolution which expresses an opinion on any specific national monetary policy would undoubtedly provoke discussion and possibly injure the campaign, thereby impairing an important phase of Canada's war programme.
If you cannot see your way to accept our suggestion, we strongly urge you to allow the matter to drop.
The next step was taken by the premier when he placed on the order paper the following resolution:


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member is still reading from the memorandum?


Manley Justin Edwards: Still reading from the memorandum.
Moved by the Hon. Mr. Aberhart, seconded by Mr. Morrison:
Whereas the dominion government has adopted the sale of war saving certificates and stamps as one of the methods of financing the war; and
Whereas this method of financing the war has been designed by the dominion government to achieve the primary and foremost objective of the British empire at the present time, namely, winning the war;
Now therefore be it resolved that this legislative assembly endorses the campaign for the sale of war saving certificates and stamps, which is now being carried on throughout Canada as part of our war effort;
And further that this assembly urges that every citizen of Alberta should cooperate with the dominion government in the winning of the war in every reasonable way possible;
And finally that this assembly urges upon the dominion government the necessity of adopting effective methods of financing the war and preparing for the post war period by the national control and issue of money and credit without inflation.
When the foregoing resolution came after the debate, Mr. Duggan moved the following amendment:
That the resolution be amended by deleting the following words:
1.	The word "reasonable" in the fifth line of the resolution.
2.	The entire last paragraph commencing with the words "And finally."
During Mr. Duggan's address, he urged the premier to accept the amendment in order that the main part of the resolution could

receive the unanimous support of the legislature. It will be noted that the premier's resolution is practically the same as the draft submitted to him by the Independents, but in order to provide an opportunity for a discussion of the ideas of Social Creditors with respect to monetary reform, an additional clause was added.
It will also be noted that the premier modified the position taken by the Independents to urge that every citizen of Alberta should cooperate with the dominion government in the winning of the war in every way possible by inserting the word "reasonable," which was interpreted by the Independents as being "modified!" support instead of unconditional support.


Victor Quelch: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member reading a memorandum to the committee? If so, by whom has it been prepared?


Manley Justin Edwards: This memorandum was prepared and sent to me in Mr. Bowlen's letter, over his signature, and he takes full responsibility for it.


Victor Quelch: Is it your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is allowed to read a memorandum prepared outside this house? Are we to listen to a memorandum prepared by different people throughout the country? Mr. Chairman, we are waiting for the ruling of the chair.


Alphonse Fournier: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr. McNEVIN:: We have listened in this house to entire Douglas pamphlets time and time again.


Robert Fair: Hon. members do not seem to understand them any better.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) it was decided a few minutes ago.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards) is reading a document in support of his argument, and that is quite in order. My first decision stands.


Manley Justin Edwards: When the amendment of the Independents was put, it was supported unanimously by the Independent members and opposed unanimously by the members of the government and Mr. Morrison, Labour member for Edson. It should be remembered that the Independents initiated the proposal for unqualified support of the war savings certificates plan and that the action of the

War Appropriation Bill
government in including controversial clauses in the resolution, precluded unanimous support.
The public should clearly understand that the Independents expressed themselves as being whole-heartedly in support of the war savings certificates programme, and the attitude taken by the government members has been interpreted as modified and conditional support.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I leave it with hon. members of this house and with the public to judge who are the true patriots in the Alberta legislature, and whether or not it was the Independent members who, when they could not obtain the passage of an unconditional and whole-hearted endorsation of an unconditional resolution, refused to be a party to a resolution which was passed and which was intended to label Alberta's patriotism wdth a Social Credit brand, and to qualify our war effort with an impossible condition.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: Did the parties who voted against the qualified resolution then follow their action by introducing a resolution of their own?


Manley Justin Edwards: No; the record shows that they moved an amendment to the resolution, and voted for the amendment. The unqualified resolution came before the house by way of an amendment to the qualified resolution; the Independents voted unanimously in support of the unqualified and unconditional endorsation of the campaign, and that unqualified resolution was voted against unanimously by the Social Credit government.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know when we have listened to a display which so clearly violated the rules of the house, and yet was permitted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Mr. MARTIN:: It was a reflection on the chair.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Alphonse Fournier: I really believe the hon. member should withdraw the first remarks he addressed to the chair. I believe it was a reflection on the decision, and if he was not satisfied at the time he should have appealed from that decision.


Charles Edward Johnston: I made no reflection on the chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Charles Edward Johnston: But if- and I say "if" advisedly-there was any reflection on the chair-and I use that word
advisedly-then I withdraw my reflection on the chair. I do not, however, intend to take up the quarrel of the unfortunate Independents in Alberta. I believe they will be quite adequately handled by the government there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You mean by the dictator?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure the committee would be interested to know who the Independents are. I have heard the Conservative party criticized in this house for taking a new name during the election campaign. I believe they called themselves the national government party. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice went to great lengths to criticize the Conservatives in this house for being ashamed of their name, and going before the electorate on a new set-up. That is exactly the picture which obtained in Alberta. They were, shall I say, ashamed of their identity, one which was so discredited in the eyes of the public that they did not dare to run as Conservatives, nor did they dare to run as Liberals.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, they did.


Charles Edward Johnston: So they had to combine all their forces. Oh, yes, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation joined with them-the U.F.A. rather-and they were-


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Charles Edward Johnston: -so grossly ashamed of themselves that they had to call themselves Independents. One of the mysteries in the west is to know what they are independent of. The only thing we can conclude is that they are entirely independent of the people of that province. I do not intend to take up the argument for Mr. Bowlen, because it seems to me the case for Mr. Bowlen has been spoken freely in this chamber this evening.
I do not-


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order: I suggest this whole discussion is out of order, and that we are just wasting the time of the committee.


Mr. GRANT:: Apologize and sit down.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that I do believe the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West was entirely out of order, but the leader of the opposition has been a long while coming to that conclusion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid it will go on all night.


Charles Edward Johnston: It should have been mentioned before. Nevertheless I
War Appropriation Bill

believe Mr. Bowlen's case does not concern us here. I want to say something about the business before the house-


Mr. THORSON:: About time.


Charles Edward Johnston: -not the ousiness of the unfortunate Independents in Alberta. The question has been discussed as to coal coming from either Saskatchewan or Alberta. I have no brief for Saskatchewan, and I have no intention whatever of entering into an argument as to whether coal should come from Alberta or Saskatchewan. I am definitely of the opinion that there should be a national coal policy, and I believe it is a long time overdue.
The hon. member for Rosthern, who spoke immediately before the supper adjournment, advanced as one of the reasons for using Saskatchewan coal the argument that there should be no attempt to overload the coal industry of Alberta. I assure the hon. member, and other hon. members who are interested, that the coal industry in Alberta is definitely not overburdened. In fact there are hundreds of miners in the Drumheller area who are sitting along the tracks, day after day, with no work to do.
Only a few days ago I read to the house a resolution from that city appealing to the government to do something to relieve the unemployment of employable men in the Drumheller valley. Over 14 per cent of the world's coal deposits are in Alberta, and yet we have hundreds of unemployed men. Just a few days ago I received a memorandum from the coal miners' association in Drumheller showing where the miners in that valley, and in other parts of Alberta, work on an average of only one hundred days in the year, or roughly speaking about one-third of the total time. They have to maintain a living for themselves and their families for the other two-thirds of the year. So certainly one cannot say that the industry is overburdened.
There should be no difficulty getting all the coal required from Alberta, not only to satisfy the requirements of Saskatchewan but for more extensive use here in the eastern and central parts of Canada. When we consider the limited amount of storage for wheat at terminal elevators we must realize at once that hundreds of box cars are now standing idle, because they are not being used to haul that wheat. I suggest those box cars could be used advantageously for the hauling of coal from Alberta to other parts of the dominion.
In this connection I would read a resolution received recently from the city of Drumheller, to show the feeling at that point about the coal situation. It would be a shame in my

opinion if the committee were left under the impression that Alberta coal miners are overworked. This was sent to me from subdistricts 1 and 2, district 18, United Mine Workers of America, and is as follows:
Dear Sir,
At a mass meeting of the general public-
This was not the meeting of a political organization but of the general public.
-held in the Elks hall, Drumheller, on March the 2nd, 1941. under the sponsorship of subdistricts 1 and 2 of district 18 U.M.W. of A. and supported by the city of Drumheller and the Drumheller board of trade, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, and I was instructed to forward it to you, for your earnest consideration.
Resolution
Whereas:
In the opinion of this meeting, the time has arrived for the dominion government to give earnest consideration to the plight of the Drumheller and surrounding districts, and the Canadian coal trade in general.
Therefore be it resolved
That this meeting protest strongly against the continued importation of United States coal and that we demand that steps be taken immediately to provide additional markets for Canadian mined coal, so as to conserve Canadian exchange during war time, and to eliminate the necessity of Canadian miners applying for relief, in the meantime, until these markets are made available, we demand the dominion government bear its fair share of necessary relief.
William Briggs Thomas Mackie William Jones George Wiggan Mike Ivan


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask the hon. member what he is reading from.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you had listened you would have heard it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I probably would not have been able to understand it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not doubt that for a moment; I would not contradict the hon. gentleman.


Alphonse Fournier: Order. I would ask the hon. gentleman to address the chair.


Charles Edward Johnston: I spoke directly to you, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was the other hon. member.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did address the chair.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps I might be permitted to conclude this resolution:

War Appropriation Bill
We hope the above resolution, which was sent to the Right Honourable Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and various other cabinet ministers, meets with your approval and that you will press for its adoption at this sitting of the House of Commons.
Thanking you in advance for courtesy and cooperation and with best wishes,
Yours fraternally,
That is signed by the secretary of the organization. In view of the fact that last year we brought in a tremendous amount of coal from the United States; in view of the fact that this resolution calls for a united effort with regard to our coal problem and asks, in effect, that we form a national coal policy, I think it only right that I should place on record our imports of coal, from a return of the house tabled last year, as follows:
		United	Other
		States	countries
1939-	(tons)	(tons)September	.. 6,644,720	1,076,191October	.. 3,469,782	701,390November	.. 3,091,195	548,668December	.. 2,406,712	234,6331940-	January 	.. 2,895,051	87,563February 	.. 2,127,463	138,174March	57,797April 	.. 2,134,974	57,490The value of	the	coal imported	in 1939from the United	States alone, amounted to	over $48,000,000.	As	I have said before, Mr.	
Chairman, it is difficult to instil patriotism and unity into the people of Canada just by talking, by advertising and by putting out propaganda. If members of the cabinet would spend a little time going among the people, especially in these mining communities, they would find that perhaps these people do not read as much as other classes do; they do not go to as many shows, because they have not the money, to see the expensive propaganda that is shown. They form their opinions from what they see in their daily' life. When they see their people sitting by the side of railroad tracks, unemployed and starving in the midst of the most gigantic war in the history of the world; when they know there will not be enough food on the table for supper, although we are supposed to be in the midst of an all-out war effort, they are not very Teceptive when we say, "You must do your utmost in this war." They look at you in stark amazement and say, "That is exactly what we want to do. Why does the government not let us work?" Here are these able-bodied men, one hundred per cent physically fit; they want to do something. Here we have the city of Drumheller, with its board of trade and even the Liberal organization, which, as I said the other day, sent me a resolution- which was perfectly correct-wanting the government to do something to remedy this condition. And all the time these people know, through their organizations, that last year the government brought in from the United States something more than $48,000,000 worth of coal; and they ask themselves whether the government is really serious about saving foreign exchange. I ask myself that question, too, and I must confess that I have my doubts when I see these things, which I know to be true. One of the most logical and essential things the government should do right at this session is to declare and develop a national coal policy.
As the Minister of Munitions and Supply said a little while ago, and perhaps justly so, this is simply an argument as to whether coal should come from Saskatchewan or Alberta. This simply magnifies the situation and shows the great necessity of a national coal policy for Canada. If we had that, it would have saved much of the argument which has been carried on to-day. Saskatchewan is a nice province; there are nice people there, but they are not quite as nice as the people in Alberta, and their coal is not quite as good. We can supply more coal than they can think of; we can supply all Canada with coal, and I am not overlooking the tremendous amount of coal available in Nova Scotia and eastern Canada. They have problems there which should be given consideration. As I say, all this simply magnifies the fact that the Department of Munitions and Supply or the appropriate department should get together and form and announce a national coal policy for Canada.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: During the passage of this resolution through the committee, the Minister of Munitions and Supply has attempted to explain the bottle-necks which exist in aircraft, shipbuilding production and other industries by outlining the difficulty the government has in obtaining skilled labour. I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of National War Services just what collaboration there is between the two departments. We understood that the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed last year for the purpose of tabulating all the available labour resources in Canada, in order to classify them into categories and to move men or give them assistance in moving so that they might be able to contribute to a maximum war effort. Could either of the ministers involved give the committee a statement as to what collaboration has taken place between the two departments?
A national volunteer registration bureau was set up in the Department of National
War Appropriation Bill

War Services and a national registration was held last year. The only value of such a registration is to permit the government to find skilled labour in shipbuilding, skilled technicians, men and women who are experienced in explosive manufacturing, and other types of labour. I have a case in mind, and perhaps other hon. members could duplicate it. I have received letters from people who are working on farms but who had experience in the manufacture of high explosives during the last war. In every case I have turned the name over to officials in the Department of Munitions and Supply. These are people who possess some skilled knowledge in this particular industry and who are desirous of making what contribution they can toward Canada's war effort.
That, however, is not enough. About nine months ago the government set itself the task of taking an inventory of the labour resources of Canada. What has been done about it? What results have been obtained? A few days ago I had on the order paper a question about this, and the answer I received was that the only figures compiled so far were for Ontario. How soon will the figures for the other provinces be compiled? How soon will the Department of National War Services be able to say to the Department of Munitions and Supply that they know where technicians are available and can give it names and addresses?
Under the Department of Labour young men are being trained with a view to absorbing them into war industry. Only last evening I had in my office a young man who had just come from Toronto. Previously he had lived in the west, but he had come to Toronto to take an eight weeks' training course at Danforth technical school. Along with the rest of his class he had graduated as a machinist, but all these young men find there are no jobs for them. When they started the course they were told that jobs would be available before they were finished, that they might not be able to complete the course. When, however, they finished the course there were no jobs. They were told to go and see the Massey-Harris people, but when they went there they were advised that 150 men had been laid off and these men would have first claim on any jobs. This young man told me they went to the John Inglis company where they were told that 50 men had been recently laid off and would be given first call before any new men were taken on.
There is something wrong. We have been told that there is a scarcity of technicians and skilled labour; we have been told frequently by the Minister of Labour that

we are going to need 200,000 or 300,000 skilled men. Those statements do not jibe with the experiences of these young men who have taken these courses and who find they cannot get jobs, although the very thing the government has been training them for is to enable them to undertake work in war industry. There is no use in the government spending money to train young men and then have them go back to the farm.
I think the committee would appreciate an explanation from either one of the ministers involved. We should like to know what steps have been taken to mobilize labour, to find out where qualified technical men can be obtained, of whom the Minister of Munitions and Supply says there is a scarcity. We wish to know where these men can be located and what steps are being taken to place them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not before me at the moment the statistics from which I could give this information. During the last two or three weeks we have been going round in circles as far as the discussion is concerned, and it is difficult to have material available at all times. All the questions which were asked during the last few moments were answered a few days ago and the answers now appear in Hansard. The figures with regard to Ontario, as well as the general statistics with regard to all Canada, were given. The statement was made that in another week or ten days the figures with regard to the other provinces would be available. They can be very closely estimated from the Ontario figures. As far as the registration is concerned, hon. members know that this was started in August of last year, being completed on August 22. Immediately afterwards a compilation was begun of the statistics gathered through that registration.
I may say that from time to time certain information has been passed on to different industries in Canada as well as to the Department of Labour. Any information required by the Department of Munitions and Supply respecting certain types of labour that might be available in certain places has been passed on from time to time. Last night some reference was made to a number of young men who have gone over to Great Britain from Canada to take part in the operation of the instruments made available for the purpose of locating planes at night and in connection with night flying. Practically all of those young men were located through the registration. The first 1,500 were located in one city. Their names were handed to the officials who visited the homes of those men house by house, and they were

War Appropriation Bill
on their way to Great Britain in a very short time. The registration figures are being made use of in that way from time to time.
One of the difficulties that we experience in connection with the matter is the fact that nearly every one who applies for employment applies, in the first instance, to the wrong place. Over a long term of years it has been customary for persons who were looking for employment to make application at the employment offices across Canada. For some reason or another, however, a great many people now think they should make application to Ottawa and they write to some minister or to some person connected with the promotion of some particular industry. We simply had to advise them that all the information with regard to these matters is now, as it always has been, at the labour offices and that that is the proper place to apply; that they can get action quicker in that way than by applying to someone else somewhere else. With that information sent back to them, some of them do find it possible to locate employment.
I quite realize that not all of those who desire employment in different parts of Canada have been brought into contact with industry that requires their labour. We have some difficulty in bringing that about, difficulties sometimes associated with the place where the person is now living and the circumstances under which he has been living. Sometimes it is difficult to take the head of the family away from the family, and sometimes it is difficult to move the whole family. There are all kinds of inconveniences of that sort because of the great distances in this country, but we are trying to work out methods of dealing with these different problems that arise. There have been advertisements from time to time put in the western papers seeking applications from persons who are competent to do certain kinds of work, such as shipbuilding, requesting them to apply for jobs in other parts of Canada, and by that method many of those who require work have been brought into contact with employment.
I do not know just how soon we shall have all the figures in connection with the registration, but I am informed by the members of the staff in the statistics branch that the figures will practically all be ready before the end of this month.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may add a word, I
hardly think it is fair to judge the whole labour situation by the case of this one young man. My hon. friend said that he had received six weeks' training as a mechanic.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Eight weeks' training.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In other words, he was converted into a mechanic in eight weeks. That is hardly long enough experience for a mechanic, as my hon. friend will admit. The difficulty may have been in his approach. An employment officer naturally pays some attention to the type of approach made. The lad may have been cheeky, or a number of other things may have happened. It was stated that the John Inglis company were laying off 50 men. That is not the situation. They are taking on additional men each week, and if any men are being laid off, they are men who have not measured up to the standard required by the John Inglis company.
So far as the Massey-Harris company is concerned, they are doing work in their own line of business, which is the manufacture of agricultural machinery. It is possible that some may have been laid off who are engaged in that line of work, but I can assure my hon. friend that, so far as the war work of Massey-Harris is concerned, employment has not slackened because contracts are still current.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know it is always dangerous to argue from the particular to the general, but I am informed that this is the case not merely of one young man but of an entire class. I saw his graduation certificate and the marks he made were exceedingly good. Could the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) give us some idea of the percentage of young men who have gone through this course of training who have been placed in employment, and what percentage have not yet been placed?


Mr. McLARTY:: I cannot give a categorical answer as to the definite percentage placed of those who have taken training courses. We are operating training courses at a substantially high rate at the present time. It is regrettable, but it is a fact that in certain localities some of those who have received training have not yet been placed. For example, a situation arose last fall where we had something like 500 men in Calgary who had received upwards of 600 hours of training, and who did not have employment. We arranged to transport them to a point where there was employment, and I think it is not unfair to say that all those 500 men were placed in employment. It undoubtedly is true that we are training faster in certain localities than the war industries in that particular locality can take care of the men. It is necessary to arrange for their transpor-
War Appropriation Bill

tation, and even when that is done, you are going to find the isolated case of a man who cannot immediately secure employment.
Let me give to the hon. member the figures, which are quite recent, of the number of trainees in the month of February; that is, the number receiving training in that month. There are four branches of training being carried on under the general training plan of the government. There are, first of all, the war emergency classes; there are the war industrial classes, under the youth training programme; there are the army classes, under the war emergency training programme; then there are the Royal Canadian Air Force classes, training aeroplane mechanics and those who are to take their place in the aircraft manufacturing industry.
In February, the month just past, we had in training in the war emergency classes, 6.351; in the war industrial classes, under the youth training programme, 992; in the army classes, under the war emergency training programme, 2,353; and in the Royal Canadian Air Force classes, training aeroplane mechanics and those who will be engaged in aircraft manufacturing, 1,727; or a total throughout Canada of 11,423. That was the number of trainees whom we were training in the month of February.
Please do not get an incorrect impression from that. It does not follow that that number joined the training classes in the month of February or that they were turned out in the month of February. That is the total number of trainees in that month.
Then as to the average time for training, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) mentioned eight weeks. That is substantially below the average.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some train for eighteen weeks.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Generally speaking, I
think it will be correct to say that the average is about three months. Mind you, in dealing with the number trained, we do not deal with those who go into industrial plants and perhaps spend seven or eight days in learning a trade. They are not included in these figures. I think I am safe in saying that the average period of training-in some instances it may be longer and, in some instances, shorter-is three months; we have 11,423 men in training in one month, and the number is constantly increasing. That was the number in training in February. In January the equivalent figure of the total number of trainees was 10,381. In other words, February increased over January, in the number of those receiving training during the month, by over 1,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What would be the average output per month? Has the minister a rough idea?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have that figure somewhere, but it does not appear to be right at hand; I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend. In a rough way I suppose you could calculate it. If the average period of training is three months, and there were 11,000 in training in the month, there would be a present output of over 3,000 a month, but I shall be glad to supply the hon. member with the exact figure because we have it.
That is the situation, scattered throughout Canada. Then vocational training is carried on in seventy-five schools situated in different parts of Canada. In some of those parts, war industry is carrying on at a tremendous rate; in others, though having the advantage of trainees, war industry is not so substantially located. It is inevitable that between the time of training and the time of securing employment, some delay occurs. What we are endeavouring to do in connection with the training programme-and I am dealing now only with vocational training, to which I assume the hon. member for Weyburn referred -is to stimulate the use of vocational schools. I hope by the time this measure is through to have a somewhat complete report as to the success which has been obtained in plant schools.
We are, however, endeavouring to attain a condition in which those who receive training will not have to return, as the hon. member remarked, to territories where industrial concentration is not great. We are trying to correlate the training plan with industry itself so that, once a man receives his training, he will, as soon as possible, be placed. As the Minister of Munitions and Supply pointed out, we are up against a difficulty as to individual characteristics of the particular trainee. That is inevitable. We shall be faced with the difficulty that you cannot secure immediate employment for those who are trained. But we believe that, when this general industrial movement reaches its height, there will be employment for every trainee whom we can turn out; in fact our difficulty at that time will be to provide enough trainees.


Mr. PURDY:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take up much of the time of the committee; I feel that we are getting pretty well tired of the discussion. But you recall that on Friday evening, at the closing hour, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) tried to leave with the country and the committee certain impressions respecting the purchase of lumber for the Debert camp. These I gathered under the following headings:

War Appropriation Bill
1.	That a large portion of the lumber used in construction at Debert military camp was purchased from Harry J. Mackenzie at very high prices.
2.	That H. J. Mackenzie was my campaign manager during the March, 1940, election.
3.	That a portion of my lumber was included in the Mackenzie sale.
4.	That Mackenzie, an insurance agent, was not previously interested in the lumber business.
On Monday, the Minister of National Defence pointed out that the lumber sold by Mackenzie was about one per cent of the total amount comprised in the purchase. He further showed that the price paid to Mackenzie was very reasonable.
At the time the discussion was on, I denied that Harry Mackenzie was my campaign manager. I do not propose to say who my manager was, but I think a good many hon. gentlemen here will say that, whoever he was, he made a fairly good job of it.
That a portion of my lumber was included in the Mackenzie sale I denied at that time.
We come now to the statement of the leader of the opposition with respect to Harry J. Mackenzie not having been previously interested in the lumber business. This evening at around six o'clock the following telegram reached my desk:
Have been interested in lumber at various times for thirty years. Did not solicit orders for Debert. Was called to hotel by Mr. McCabe and asked if I could supply special sizes which I had on hand. Standard price delivered at Debert. Will have one million feet of first class lumber for delivery early summer at competitive prices. Will go to Ottawa at Hanson's expense if necessary. Letter to follow.
H. J. Mackenzie.
Now that we have laid the last wrinkle in the shroud of the ghost raised by the leader of the opposition, I do not think I should say anything more, except, in closing, to leave the idea that it does seem a shame that because a known Liberal gets a contract from the government it is immediately suggested around the country that there is something underhand about it, and that he is making money at the expense of the country.
You know, sir, that in this chamber there are some big big men, and there are some big little men, and there are some little little men and there are some little big men. I am going to leave it with you and the committee and the country just where the leader of the opposition places himself by making such an unwarranted reflection upon a friend and follower of mine.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think the Minister of Labour should give the committee more complete figures on the point he mentioned a
moment ago. To my mind they are very important indeed, first, because the people are looking to those training plants, and the government is continually asking everyone to do his or her utmost in carrying on the war effort, whereas so many people find themselves unable to do anything.
I realize, as I think all hon. members must, the magnitude of the work which the government has to do, to organize in eighteen months all the activities which have been necessary because of the war, and there are bound to be some complaints, a number of bottlenecks, and a certain amount of disorganization. In the western cities, however, there is a great deal of unemployment. I made inquiries of the city hall in Vancouver by letter a few days ago, and I am told that there are at present over 10,000 unemployed, of whom over 7,000 are employable. That is an enormous number at a time like this. We need the labour of every man who is capable of working. The minister should make as complete a survey as possible of the work which the training centres are doing, and let the country have the figures at an early date.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I should be very glad to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East. A survey is now proceeding in connection with the plant schools. May I, however, point out to the committee that there are two phases of the work which the interdepartmental committee on labour supply is doing. One is through the vocational schools, and the special training schools for aeroplane mechanics. Another phase of it deals with an entirely different matter, namely the plant schools. It is a little difficult to get exact information as to the volume of training being done in the latter schools. The survey is, however, now under way, and I believe that within a few days it will give us a more accurate picture.
I appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said with regard to the situation in Vancouver. It is, I know, a little different from any other city in Canada, and necessarily so, on account of the charming climate of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver in the winter time; and the figures he gives are not startling.
Generally speaking, I am advised by the officials in British Columbia, they are largely those of unskilled labour, and there is a period of definite seasonal unemployment at that point. Perhaps the situation is more aggravated in Vancouver than in any other city. I believe that to be fair.
I shall be very glad, when the bill is in committee, to give a complete statement of the whole training plan. I have given figures indicating that the plan as regards adoption
War Appropriation Bill

of industrial training classes in the development of aeroplane mechanics and air training mechanics is operating in a pretty substantial way. I should like to be able to give to the committee definite figures of the plant schools.
Generally speaking, the plan is to train in the coming year 1941-I speak of the calendar year-something over 100,000 men. It is designed that about 80,000 of these will be available to war industries, and as far as basic training is concerned they will be skilled men. I do not suggest that after they go through basic training they do not also have to take certain practical training in the plants. The members of the committee will agree that that is essential, but, generally speaking, we aim through the plant schools, the training schools, to train not less than 100,000 men this calendar year. I shall be glad to give a break-down of the figures when the bill is in committee, if that is satisfactory to hon. members.


Thomas Reid: I suggest to the minister that when he makes his survey he should look into the complaint which is made that many manufacturers, in the preference for employment, are favouring young men of from twenty-one to twenty-four, and that many of the older mechanics-I am referring to British Columbia-find it almost impossible to obtain work. When they go to the shipyards and the factories they are told that they are a little too old. That aspect of the matter should be looked into seriously by the minister in the survey he makes.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Last night the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked for some information as to the number of men who had been promoted from the ranks to officer rank in the navy, with particular reference, I think, to the number now talcing the officers training course at Hatley Park near Victoria. I looked up the figures since last night, and I find that twenty men formerly serving as ratings in the navy are there now taking the officers course.
Another question was asked last night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who I am sorry is not in his seat at the moment. He asked for certain figures showing the composition of the item of $28,000,000 odd which I gave as representing the expenditure for ten months of the current year for acquisition and construction of vessels. I do not know whether the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) would take down the figures or whether he desires me to wait. I may have a chance of getting the floor again when the leader of the opposition returns, but I can give the figures now.

The item of $28,525,293 which I gave last week for the acquisition and construction of vessels is made up of the following sub-items:
For construction of corvettes	$18,503,682
For construction of mine-sweepers..	5,401,708


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister give the number of each-how many corvettes and how many mine-sweepers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I suppose it could be given, but it is something the naval authorities never want to give in exact detail. I do not mind saying, however, that our programme is for seventy corvettes.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does that mean the total?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: By
the spring of 1942.


Grote Stirling: For Great Britain and Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; for Canada only. To continue:
Acquisition of armed merchant
cruisers	 $2,097,433
Motor torpedo boats	 579,507
Other vessels, which would take in smaller vessels for patrol-auxiliary vessels, harbour craft, et cetera.. 1,942,963
These figures total $28,525,293, which represents the amount I gave last week as the outlay for the first ten months of the present year.
The leader of the opposition also asked last night for some details as to the vote of $56,000,000 odd required for the coming fiscal year. I am able to say in that regard that that amount is made up, in part, of the moneys necessary to complete destroyers and to commence construction of further destroyers. In that respect the total is $9,250,000. The other figures are:
To complete corvettes	$ 8,750,000
Anti-submarine vessels, to complete..	3,300,000
Anti-submarine vessels, part construction	 4,875,000
Fairmile boats, coastal motor launches 1,500,000 Fairmile boats, ano.ther group of these
boats	 1,500,000
Motor torpedo boats, to complete 12..	1,002,600
Four other motor torpedo boats		1,054,200
Six motor seine vessels	 324,000
Ten harbour service motor boats		300.000
Two base supply ships	 1,200,000
Twenty-eight mine-sweepers (that is
the sum necessary to complete) ....	6,750,000
Ten mine-sweepers, part construction^ 4,750,000 Ten mine-sweepers, another lot, part
construction	 2,0.00,000
Two magnetic mine-sweepers, wooden. 350,000
Four boom maintenance vessels		320,000
One boom maintenance vessel, conversion	 20,000
One boom attendant vessel, to complete	 15,000
Four giate vessels (to be purchased,
and converted for such purpose) ..	340,000

War Appropriation Bill
Four gate vessels, conversion alone... $	100,000
Twenty-five harbour craft, partly constructed; amount necessary to complete	 150,000
Two ammunition lighters	 130,000
111 degaussing	 702,000
One fire boat	 125,000
Contingencies	 3,000,000
Sales tax	 4,149,200

Mr. STIRLING Did the minister refer to the building of submarine vessels?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City); Antisubmarine.


Grote Stirling: Was the second one mentioned an anti-submarine vessel?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City); Yes. There are three lots of these anti-submarine vessels. There was no item for the building of submarines.


Percy Chapman Black: How many of these classes of boats are of wooden construction, and could be built in yards in the maritime provinces?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Those boats known as Fairmile could be built in the maritime provinces. As a matter of fact, two are being built in the county of Digby. Some others which could be built in the maritimes are the motor torpedo boats, the motor seine vessels, harbour service boats, two wooden magnetic mine-sweepers, twenty-five harbour craft and the ammunition lighters. Any wooden ship mentioned in this list could be built in the maritime provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What kind of wood is used in the construction of wooden ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It varies, according to the type of ship. For instance, there is a good deal of mahogany in the Fairmiles. There are mahogany planks and decks. Of course the plans for these boats were British Admiralty plans, and they were followed in Canada. That is true, too, as to certain types of mine-sweepers. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg pointed out the other night that some of these boats contained a good deal of teak, and other expensive woods. These, again, were British specifications, and very little could be done about it here. As a matter of fact, the mine-sweepers about Which he spoke were all built for the British Admiralty, to British specifications. We have changed the specifications, to some extent, in connection with the two mine-sweepers we are building, so as to permit greater use of native woods.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is rock elm used in the construction of boats?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: So far as I know, rock elm has not been specified for any of the larger boats, but I would not be sure about some of the smaller craft and the motor boats, a good many of which have been built in Nova Scotia.


Percy Chapman Black: Have the boats for next year's programme been requisitioned, and have orders been placed, or is the new programme still outstanding, so far as construction is concerned?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: A
few boats are still to be placed. However, by far the greater number have already been ordered. While this is a matter which might more properly be dealt with by the Department of Munitions and Supply, I have in my hand a list of the boats built in Nova Scotia since the beginning of the war. My figures show that the total number stands at 126. That looks like a great many, but from the point of view of Nova Scotia the unfortunate thing is that most of these boats were small craft, such as pulling boats, whalers, crash boats, cutters, some scows and a few tenders.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister the information for British Columbia?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
will come to that later. So far as I can ascertain, the total value of ships ordered in Nova Scotia so far stands at $930,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Only $930,000 in a programme of $50,000,000.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Up to date, yes. The point to be remembered is that one steel ship, such as those built in British Columbia, on the lakes or on the St. Lawrence is worth a great many times more than the value of the wooden ship. Ten steel ships which would run to a value of six or seven millions of dollars would easily outstrip fifty or perhaps one hundred wooden ships. As a matter of fact, Nova Scotia, building 126 wooden ships, receives only a total of $930,000. On the other hand, it would seem to me that the total orders already placed in British Columbia-and these figures include some cargo ships-stand at something like $38,000,000.


Grote Stirling: How many ships does that represent?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: This amount includes a large item for cargo ships, concerning which I have not the exact information. Leaving out, however, the cargo ships, we still have an item of $24,000,000 in British Columbia.
War Appropriation Bill


Grote Stirling: How many ships does that represent?
Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City) There are fourteen corvettes and twenty-two minesweepers.


Grote Stirling: That makes a total of
thirty-six. In addition, I believe there is a considerable number of smaller craft.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, I have only given the larger ones. I have left out such things as the Fairmiles, which cost about $80,000; I have left out some scows, towing tugs and such craft. I have given the larger ships of the corvette class.


Grote Stirling: The minister mentioned
111 vessels being supplied with degaussing equipment. What kind of craft are those?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Those are our own ships: corvettes, mine-sweepers and other naval ships. That would not take in any merchant ships.


Percy Chapman Black: In the main
statement made by the minister at the beginning of this session, he made an announcement of policy with regard to the construction of destroyers and ultimately cruisers in this country. Would he care now to enlarge upon that statement and inform the committee what headway has been made, when this work will be undertaken if it has not begun already, and in what part of Canada it is proposed to carry on this construction?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I regret to say that I have nothing very much new to tell the committee on that point, except that we have continued our efforts to get some experienced workmen from the British isles to supervise the construction of these destroyers. When I spoke on the general question of naval services last November, I think I said that the construction of destroyers was a very difficult undertaking, which would require the services of some men especially skilled in that work. We approached the British Admiralty with a view to getting those men, and we have every hope that they will be here shortly to undertake the supervision of the construction of our destroyers. As to where these destroyers will be built, I am not in a position to make any statement at the moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister in a
position to say where the destroyer steel is to come from; that is, the steel to be used for the plates? Is it coming from Great Britain, or will it be made in Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I think the whole thing can be made in this country. I think we can make the destroyer and all its machinery.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I understood the minister to mention an item for degaussing. Is that to take care of merchant ships plying between England and Canada?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No. I think I said that item covered only naval ships, our own ships in the naval service.


Percy Chapman Black: Northumberland has produced many famous men. If not by birth, certainly by environment, we produced the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I would refer also to Lord Beaver-brook, to whom the eyes of the world look for assistance in this terrific struggle. Northumberland had the distinction of having two fathers of confederation, an outstanding historical event.


Percy Chapman Black: Cumberland had four.
Mr. O'BRIEN:	Probably Cumberland
needed four as against Northumberland's two. I do not want to take up the time of the committee with historical references, but I should like to refer to an old member from that county. Mr. W. S. Loggie is now ninety-one years old, taking an active interest in present day events. He was speaking in this house when the House of Commons caught fire in 1916. I hope that no similar disaster occurs at this moment.
To get down to the matter of shipbuilding, the reason why I am now on my feet, I do not wish to be considered as wailing over the conditions which prevail in Northumberland county. We consider ourselves to be rugged individualists, and we and our forefathers have always tried to maintain ourselves without applying to other governmental bodies for assistance. On May 26, 1866, our forefathers went to the polls with high hopes in their hearts. As I speak here to-night I wonder whether those high hopes have been fulfilled. I should like to place on record some information contained in the submission by the municipality of Northumberland to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. Quoting from page 9, I read:
There is a great deal of unemployment and much poverty in the county. Perhaps it is this increase in unemployment and poverty that has given the marked increase in tuberculosis and insanity.
The assistance to the poor is a parish affair and as little outside relief as possible is given.
And again:
Certain obligations and services now performed by the municipality should be taken over by the province or the dominion or at least there should be a greater contribution therefor paid to the municipality by the province or the dominion or both.
That submission was made prior to the war. One might believe that in an all-out war effort similar conditions could not prevail, indeed could not be foreseen at this time. I hope it may not be thought that while we sit in this committee pondering national problems, my references may seem to be parochial. I represent this constituency and my constituents look to me for some measure

of help and assistance. In 1932 the gross bonded debt of the municipality was only 842,000, with $22,269 of a sinking fund, leaving a net debt of only $19,730. The final figures quoted in this submission are for 1937, by which date the gross debt of $42,000 had multiplied exactly ten times in five years and stood at $420,000. In the intervening years since 1937, the debt has reached the astounding sum of very close to $600,000, largely due to the years of depression and the severe and difficult times through which that municipality passed.
To explain the situation fairly to this committee would take too long a time and would be too involved a matter. I have no intention of doing so, but I should like to cite from the submission that paragraph which says:
The conclusion that unemployment has become a national problem and should be dealt with as such is rather obvious. We submit that the matter of unemployment relief has grown to such proportions that it has long since ceased to be a subject of local or private interest and has become one of national concern.
As I said, that was pre-war, pre-September, 1939. Since then, money has been expended at such a terrific rate that perhaps even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley)-and I say this not unkindly-has not been able to keep up with the terrific pace because through no fault of his own, after bringing down this resolution asking the house to appropriate $1,300,000,000 for war expenditures only a few days later he announced that $160,000,000 more was required. And so the expenditure goes on at this terrific rate. Yet the municipality of Northumberland, after passing through the most severe years of the depression to which I have referred, now finds itself-I hope I am not prophesying that which may happen, but I cannot see any other outcome-entering upon what we believe will be another period of depression, because the constituency which I represent depends largely upon fishing, and particularly upon lumbering.
Prior to the war we were making shipments to Europe, to a country which I would not in present circumstances care to mention as being that country upon which our people had to depend for their livelihood and sustenance. That is perhaps a travesty upon what we call our democracy and perhaps upon our commonwealth of nations. That, however, is in the past, and I hope that when peace is declared, such conditions may not prevail again.
Realizing as I do that in times of war we must submit ourselves and our desires to the overwhelming demands of the war effort and that people in various localities throughout Canada must suffer to a certain degree, never-

War Appropriation Bill
theless with a view to alleviating the possible, perhaps probable suffering in the constituency I represent, I plead with the government to attempt to do something, within the scope of the war effort, for the people of my constituency, and it might perhaps be shipbuilding. That has been referred to by hon. members from Nova Scotia, where shipbuilding has been carried on more extensively in recent years. The Miramichi has a wonderful history of shipbuilding dating back to 1796, when ships were first built there and pine masts were shipped across the Atlantic for his majesty's navy. From that time down until 1860 or 1875 we were building ships there. True, we have not built any ships in recent years, although we built one sailing ship during the last war. The Minister of Munitions and Supply, and perhaps rightly so from the point of view of budgeting and watching the national purse as we believe at least the national purse should be watched, has not so far done anything in approximating volume for us in the maritimes, in shipbuilding, maybe because we have not the trained men. I admit that we have not the trained men in Miramichi, but I submit that if we have not these men already trained, they at least are there and it is our duty to attempt to train them so that they may be enabled to earn their livelihood.
Seventy-five years ago, Mr. Chairman, we did not have a Dominion of Canada, and eighteen months ago we did not have a Department of Munitions and Supply. All these things have been created because of the necessity of the moment. Now that the timber controller in the United Kingdom has stopped the purchases of our lumber-I hoped at first that this would be but a temporary measure, but now I believe that it will be permanent-with that in the offing, the people of Northumberland county are faced with the prospect of going through this summer and into next winter with virtually nothing to do in the way of earning the living to which they are entitled. Therefore, I plead with the minister, yes, with the ministry, to see if he or they cannot possibly do something for the people of my constituency.
We hear a great deal these days that we must "stick to fundamentals"; but when one asks what these fundamentals are, no definite answer is given. The only fundamental I know, pre-war, and the only reason for having government and for having these houses of parliament, is to create some degree of happiness so that the people for whom we legislate may be able to live, not in luxury necessarily, but at least in happiness and contentment.
Since the war broke out, the one overwhelming fundamental is the winning of the war. If, however, our finances have in some way become so tangled that we must pay tribute to an inanimate thing called gold; if human happiness must circulate about that gold standard, we have perhaps reached the point where it has ceased to be of any useful value in the lives of the ordinary citizens.
I know little about financial problems in the higher involved order, and I have met very few others who seem to know just what it all means; but I do maintain that at the present time-I hope I am wrong-the dollar sign seems to be the guiding factor, and in Canada the dollar sign seems to be almost placed upon the glorious union jack. That, I think, we dare not have. If the people of Britain need our products of the maritimes; if they need ships, then in this fight to save democracy and civilization we should give everything we possibly can even if we must do it "on the cuff", as a matter of credit. It seems strange to me that we here in Canada, directly connected with and a part of the British empire, should find our cousins to the south virtually giving to that empire in order to save those things in which the people of the United States believe, while we here in Canada apparently cannot do that, but must have Canadian dollars of which Britain is now running short.
These matters are all too involved for me to attempt to solve them or even to explain them because, after all, I am only thinking out loud, which is what I believe most members of the house are doing. Yet perhaps in thinking out loud we may arrive at some possible solution that would be of benefit not only to the people of my constituency to whom I am responsible but to the whole dominion. Therefore, so long as I occupy this seat in this house, I dedicate myself and this seat to the service of the government, not in any maudlin way that would assume the government to be letter perfect in everything they do, but rather in a constructive sense. It is for that reason I have until now refrained from taking up the time of the house in making what I think have been perhaps somewhat neutral speeches. Again I dedicate myself and my seat to the members of the government individually and collectively so that, as a unit in the constitutional government of this country, I, during my tenure of office, may satisfy at least myself that I have done what I think is the decent thing.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The hon. member for Cumberland raised somewhat the same question as was raised last week by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.
IFar Appropriation Bill

As far as the building of ships in Nova Scotia is concerned, there was only one firm in Nova Scotia at the beginning of the war, and I think there is only one now, that would undertake the building of steel ships, namely, the Halifax Shipyards, Limited. Nobody else in that province was equipped to build steel ships, but this firm could have built mine-sweepers or ships as large as 10,000 tons. It was felt, however, that they could better devote their energies to the repairing of ships, and they have been very busily engaged in that work since the beginning of the war. In New Brunswick the Saint John Dry Dock company or a subsidiary have now the contract for the building of three corvettes, and they also have a good deal of repair work.
At that time, no other yards in either province could undertake the building of a steel ship of any size, and up to the present the policy of the government has not been to bonus or subsidize shipyards, in view of the fact that there are at the present time and were at the beginning of the war fifteen or sixteen or perhaps twenty yards in Canada which could undertake the building of steel ships.
After I came to Ottawa I had many requests from Nova Scotia asking money from the government for the repair or establishment of shipyards for the construction of wooden ships, or perhaps, steel ships. Obviously it would be rather unfair to existing yards which have been developed by private capital for the government to go in and erect government yards when there were enough existing yards in the country to carry on such work as was available.
With regard to wooden ships, I have given my hon. friend some figures indicating that orders were placed in Nova Scotia for some 126 wooden ships. They were mostly small ships, but there were two classes for which orders were placed a few months ago, many of which I hoped, would be built in Nova Scotia. These were the Fairmile boats, the motor launches 112 feet long, and the wooden mine-sweepers.
To show that every effort was made to get Nova Scotian builders into the production of wooden ships, I may say that my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply sent down last August the director of shipbuilding, Mr. Carswell, who surveyed all the shipyards in the east before the orders for these wooden ships were placed. It seems to me that if the Nova Scotian builders, in view of the fact that twenty-four ships were to be ordered in the Fairmile plant, had wanted the work, and if their bids had been low

enough, they could easily have got eighteen or twenty, because there is no question that my hon. friend is right when he says that the proportion of money going to Nova Scotia for shipbuilding is very small as compared with the sums which have gone to Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia. It is out of proportion in relation to a great shipbuilding province such as Nova Scotia. Therefore it was the desire of my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and, the hon. member for Cumberland will agree, it was my desire to see perhaps eighteen or twenty of these Fairmile boats built in Nova Scotia. That would have meant orders amounting to something like a million and a half dollars for the wooden shipyards of that province. What happened?


John Ritchie MacNicol: : The Fairmile ships of which the minister is speaking are mahogany ships, are they not?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Mahogany planking and so forth, yes.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the value of a boat?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is SI 12.000.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No; it is a little less than that. It is something around $90,000 for the hull. It is under $100,000; I have not the exact figures here.
Mr. Carswell went down to Nova Scotia, looked at the yards, and discovered that there were a good many which were capable of building the ships. Tenders were invited from those yards; the government of Nova Scotia interested itself in the matter, called a meeting of the shipbuilders, urged them to go on; called a second meeting of the shipbuilders, sent to Ottawa a delegation of shipbuilders accompanied by a minister of the crown in Nova Scotia; but after all that work the only Nova Scotian tender which was at all comparable with tenders from Ontario and British Columbia in the matter of wooden ships was one by a man at Weymouth, who tendered for and received a contract for two ships.
Mr. Mac*NICOL: At what price?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Only three other tenders were received, and none of them was at all within the mark. That is the Fairmile story.


Mr. GILLIS:: On that matter of tenders, would the minister make this clear: how did the Nova Scotia tenders compare with others, and what is the reason for the tenders from Nova Scotia being higher? A desire for more profits? How does the minister explain such a difference?

ll'ar Appropriation Bill


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Well, I do not know. All I know is that the government of Nova Scotia urged these people to get their tenders down as low as possible, because we knew the competition would be stiff. These people had plenty of time to consider the plans; indeed, they were given extensions of time for that purpose. In spite of that, there was only one man who could meet the price advanced by builders in British Columbia and Ontario. What the reason is I do not know.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is not the reason that, so far as Ontario is concerned, a great number of boats of this type are in use, and large numbers are made, in the counties of Mus-koka and Parry Sound and Midland, and towns adjacent to Georgian bay? That is where these classes of boats are used.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; there is a good deal of that sort of building Tound the Georgian bay district and Midland, but that does not answer the question of the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Thomas Reid: British Columbia pays the highest wage.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: British Columbia pays a high wage. Of course there are firms in that province which have done a great deal of shipbuilding in recent years. They have splendid timber, and for some reason or another they are able to underbid Nova Scotians for the construction of these ships.
The next type of wooden ship, in size, which we had to build was the mine-sweeper. Eight of these mine-sweepers were for the British Admiralty and were built to their specifications. It is true the specifications called for expensive woods, such as teak, which Nova Scotia people were not entirely accustomed to, but neither, I suppose, were the builders in other parts of Canada. Every Nova Scotian builder of any consequence was given a chance to bid on these mine-sweepers. I have here a list of twelve builders who were asked to bid and who did bid. The first eight of these British ships-the whole eight-were awarded to Nova Scotia. What has happened? Four builders have renounced their contracts. They have said that they will not go on with the contracts to build these ships because, as they are honest enough to admit, they do not think they can do it for the money in the time specified, and they have asked to be released. That is the story with regard to the minesweepers.
Everything possible has been done. I should think, in fairness to the builders in that province, both by the authorities here and by
the government of Nova Scotia, but there is an unfortunate condition. It may be, as my hon. friend pointed out, that the builders there, accustomed to working on a small scale, have not the necessary capital. It may be that when they saw the expensive wood that would be required, such as mahogany and teak, which will have to be imported and paid for, they felt that they had not the capital necessary to undertake the work. Whatever the reason may be, there is the result. It is unfortunate, but I do not see that anything more could have been done here.
One other word. My hon. friend said he thought the matter of shipping was second in importance only to aircraft and aircraft production. It is my judgment that it is second to nothing at all in the winning of the war. So long as Britain remains an island and so long as she has to get supplies from overseas, shipping and the protection of shipping will be absolutely vital to the life of that country. There is no question in the world about it. We must have not only cargo ships to carry supplies to England but ships of other kinds which are just as necessary-underwater craft, surface craft and, at other stages, aircraft for purposes of protection.
That brings me to this point. You cannot take a navy, whether it be a merchant navy or a service navy, and turn out its ships and its men overnight. This afternoon I was pondering the time it takes to train an officer in the navy. Someone has asked how many men were promoted from the ranks, and what educational qualifications were required. I believe I told the hon. member for Vancouver East that at least senior matriculation was required for entrance into the Royal Canadian Navy, but after that a cadet would have to go to naval college at Dartmouth, England- I am talking of peace time-for a period of about two years. He would then be made a midshipman and be at sea for about a year and six months or two years more. Then he would be a sub-lieutenant for a year and a half or two years more. He would then take some courses of about six months to qualify as lieutenant. At the end of six years of study, after he had acquired matriculation standing, he would be a lieutenant in the navy. At the end of another eight years he would be a lieutenant commander. Thereafter his promotion would depend on merit and selection.
You cannot turn out such men overnight, nor can you turn out skilled shipbuilders overnight. The thing to remember in this house in future is, I think, that whatever you may be able to do in other respects, and without in any way attempting to depreciate the importance of other services, the naval service is one the nucleus of which, both in
War Appropriation Bill

service personnel and in shipbuilding personnel, should never be allowed to decrease below the danger point. It has been allowed to decrease below that point here and in other countries as well in the last twenty years, and this and other countries are feeling the effect to-day.
We are trying our best to train men for the navy to man the ships we are building, and it is not an easy task in view of the high calibre of training required in a naval officer or even a petty officer. As regards the shipyards of the country, the programme which was agreed to in 1939 for shipbuilding in Canada, estimated at four years, is going to be compressed into the space of two and a half years. Every ship that we planned to build up to the year 1943 will have been completed in 1942.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But not destroyers?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: No, because the plan had not contemplated destroyers. I am speaking of the plan made in 1939 on the basis of what was then considered to be the capacity of Canadian yards. We said that we could build so many corvettes, mine-sweepers and patrol boats; that was all that we could do, and the plan was to last until the end of 1943. That plan will be completed next year owing-I think it is fair to say-to the enterprise, courage, skill and energy of the shipbuilders of the country who have done a magnificent bit of work in this regard.


Percy Chapman Black: Accepting the statement of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, that the building and maintenance in operation of ships constitutes the most important of our war activities, and accepting the assurance of the Minister of Munitions and Supply that he is endeavouring to harness the shipbuilding capacity and the man-power of Canada to its utmost, I feel that some special effort should be put forward to get the production that can be derived from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am satisfied that if proper efforts are made, a very much increased programme of production can be obtained in Nova Scotia. I am of opinion that the time has come when the yards and the facilities and the men should be subsidized and encouraged in order that the shipbuilding programme can be pressed to its utmost limit, and I should hope that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and the Minister of Munitions and Supply would make special efforts to this end.
I was surprised to see the following Canadian Press dispatch from Shelburne, Nova Scotia, yesterday, showing that this yard has no construction work. I quote:

Shelburne, Nova Scotia, March 16	(C.P.)
The 118-foot freighter U.K. service IV was launched Saturday from the ship yard of Winslow Mack-ay Sons Limited and shortly after that officials of the company announced they were closing down the yards for lack of further orders. The 149-ton wooden vessel built for a firm at LaHave, N.S. was the 14th turned out by the plant in the last year.
We accept this as correct, coming from the Canadian Press. It seems to me that with the present need for the building of ships, this condition should not exist. There should be officials from the Department of National Defence for Naval Services and the Department of Munitions and Supply following up the work in these yards, to see that new construction is offered to them to the limit of their capaoity. Not only should the yards be given business to the limit of their present capacity, but they should be expanded, as has been done in connection with munitions factories, largely in central Canada. I suggest there should be some explanation as to why a dispatch such as I have quoted' should be sent across Canada at a time like this, when there is such pressing need for more ships of many kinds.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I had intended to deal with that matter when I spoke earlier, but it slipped my mind. The hon. member has referred to the shipyards of Winslow Mackay Sons Limited at Shelburne. I would reply that the Mackay company were asked to tender on the Fairmiles, but did not put in a bid. That happened last fall. They were again asked to bid on the mine-sweepers. They said they would not bid on that type of boat, but they might be interested in a somewhat similar type of boat built on Canadian designs and of Canadian material. The Mackay company has had some work from the government, although not a great amount. I believe it has built three derrick scows, four float scows, and four wooden lighter skids, but it has not bid on the larger wooden ships.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about the machinery used on those lighter ships?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They do not have to provide the machinery.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then how are they going to build Fairmile boats?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Is the hon. member referring to the building of engines?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; the machinery for planing, and fitting up the woodwork.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Mackay has as good facilities as any yard in Canada.

War Appropriation Bill


John Ritchie MacNicol: For Fairmile construction?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes; nobody can turn out a better yacht than Mack ay.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that; and yet they would not tender.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: They would not tender, no.


Mr. KINLEY:: I am glad the minister said that, because Mackay is one of the finest shipyards in the east. I have information that they were figuring on a ferryboat for the city of Halifax at the time these tenders were asked. In order to be sure that they could do the work they were tendering on, they stuck to the other boat. I believe the contract has since been awarded to a firm at Dartmouth. It may be that some of the firms which were at that time figuring on the Dartmouth ferry might now be open to figure on these other boats, if they were asked to.


Grote Stirling: Examining the two sets of figures appearing at page 1495 of Hansard, I would suppose that the first one sets out the amount of money required for the next fiscal year, and the second one contains figures relating to expenditures in the present fiscal year, up to January 31.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes


Grote Stirling: In neither figures do I see any reference to armaments and guns.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Armament stores appear in both lists.


Grote Stirling: Armament stores usually apply to ammunition.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It includes ammunition and guns, and such things as mines, depth charges, ammunition, reserve ammunition and so on.


Mr. POULIOT:: I wonder whether it would not be possible to-morrow for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to give a full statement of the representations which have been made regarding the repatriation of funds. Something was said about it in the press. There is now a mission, and I believe most of the work is done by one missionary, Sir Edward Peacock, who is now in the United States, selling British capital.
Besides the statement about repatriation, I should like to know if Sir Edward will come to Canada on the same mission, and if part of his mission is to sell the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian government. I am more interested in it because Sir Edward himself is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and all the
movement behind a union government converges on the amalgamation of railways.
In addition to that, it would be interesting to see the connection of the Hon. Charles Dunning with the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway, showing the boards on which he sits with the directors of that railway. All that is done behind the stage, and we, of course, need information about it.
I remember reading in the press some months ago a statement about the repatriation of funds for the Grand Trunk Railway. The question was not decided for a long time; but finally some pressure was brought to bear, and a decision was reached regarding the repatriation of those funds. These are general questions, and I can understand that it would be impossible for the minister to answer them to-night. I shall be pleased, however, if he would look at Hansard to-morrow, and see what he can do about giving an answer.
People are ready to make sacrifices for war, but the question is as to what is properly called war. It is most absurd to think that the Canadian people will suffer privation to increase the value of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to give some schemers an opportunity to make much more money at the expense of our people. The feeling in Canada is strongly against amalgamation of the railways. Those who are for it do not come out boldly; they try to get it in some other way, in a different way from that to which we are accustomed. The purpose of the last union government was not to win the war; the railway business was behind it, and now there is another railway scheme behind the move for a union government. That is known by everyone. We want some enlightenment on the matter. I do not wish to take the minister by surprise. I respect and admire him, but the matter is of such tremendous importance that we are entitled to full information about it, which I hope the minister will be kind enough to supply. I am not making any attack on Mr. Dunning, although it would be very easy for me to k.o. him. I am just asking for facts. The matter is so serious, so important, that we should not show false sympathy to anyone who is behind the curtain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for
Simcoe North is behind the curtain.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is there, but he is not offensive.
There is another matter that should be investigated as well; that is, the Purvis business, the C.I.L. We must have full light on the C.I.L. and all the interlocking companies. After the Minister of Finance has answered
War Appropriation Bill

those questions, with regard to the amalgamation of the railways and Mr. Dunning's connections with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and so on, I shall have other and more interesting questions to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply. But everything in good time; I am not in a rush. We are here to take our time, to judge the pros and cons of everything. I am not acting in any spirit of animosity.
Let me add one further word. Last year when I mentioned to the leader of the official opposition that some people were receiving large fees and high salaries, some members of the Conservative party protested vehemently, and the leader of the opposition said he had resigned all his directorships when he was appointed leader of his party. According to Hansard, however, he has kept at least one, and in a guide in the library it is stated that he has several others. I do not object to that at all, but what is interesting is the connection between a man who is a director of a company and other men who are directors of the same company and who sometimes may confuse their private interests with public interest, unless they are great enough completely to sacrifice their private interests and think only of the public interest. That would be praiseworthy, but I am not yet sure that it applies in this case. I do not say that it does not apply; I am very careful, and I want to use parliamentary language. After I get the information about Mr. Dunning, I will show the business connections of the leader of the opposition, and then I will go further and show what are the jobs of those whom he defends in this house. Then people will have all the information. I do not say there is anything evil in that, but the people should have full information before we vote such amounts of money as we are asked to vote now.
There is only one further observation I wish to make. If the Minister of Finance is able to collect the amount called for in this measure, he will be the best man ever born in Canada. I know he is a good man, but we have to be very careful. Some people say, "Oh, let it go." The duty of the opposition is not to step on it but to apply the brake at times, but this the leader of the opposition never does. We have to apply the brakes from this side. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that if we go too far, if we become careless or reckless, the result will be that we shall have to go to the United States for money, and if we have to do that, my great fear is annexation in the near future. I fear it very deeply. I want Canada to remain a British dominion, and my constituents and I are

ready to make great sacrifices in order that this may be so. We desire to be at peace with the United States, who are our allies. We want to keep them as our allies, because their interests are the same as ours in this war. On the other hand we do not want annexation at any time; and if we have to go to the United States to borrow huge sums of money, annexation will be all the closer. That is a matter to consider. I do not want to be a false prophet, but I tell the committee frankly what I think about the matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: WTould the Minister
of Finance be kind enough to make a short statement to-morrow with regard to the portion of this appropriation which may be raised by taxation and the portion which may be raised by way of loan? I think he promised a few days ago he would make some such statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No: I did not agree to
make any such statement, although I was requested to do so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understood that the
minister said he would make a statement later on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; I never agreed to
make a statement to that effect at all. It would be impossible, for the reason that this is only part of the total requirements of the government, and it will be necesary to make a budgetary statement. I said that to make any such statement would be anticipating the budget, and that I did not think this was the debate during which that statement should be made.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understood that in
reply to the leader of the opposition the minister said he would have some statement to make.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to
ask the minister of naval affairs a question.
I understood the minister to say there were seventy corvettes, but in a bulletin issued by the Department of Munitions and Supply it states that there are eighty corvettes. Are there seventy or eighty?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ten for the United Kingdom.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Seventy corvettes for Canada and ten for the United Kingdom.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

St. Lawrence Waterway
Wednesday, March 19, 1941.