1941-03-10

THE LATE JOHN HALL KELLY TRIBUTE TO MEMORY OF CANADA'S FIRST HIGH COMMISSIONER TO EIRE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have to-day received the following cable from Premier de Valera of
Eire:
I wish to express my sincere sympathy with you and the Canadian government on the death of Mr. Hall Kelly, your distinguished representative in Dublin. He has endeared himself to all who knew him, by his personal qualities, and by his zeal and devotion in fostering close and cordial relations between Canada and Ireland.
I am sure that hon. members of this house will have learned with deep regret of the passing of Canada's first high commissioner to Eire. The career of Mr. John Hall Kelly is a record of industry, charity and devotion to the public interest. With few early advantages, Mr. Kelly gained for himself a high place in his chosen profession of law and success in the businesses in which he was engaged. As a member of the legislature of the province of Quebec, as an appointed member of the legislative council, and as minister without portfolio in the government of Quebec, he gave to his native province long and unselfish service. In him were joined the traditional eloquence of the Irish race and an ever present and kindly interest in the welfare of his fellow men.
Since his arrival in Dublin Mr. Kelly quietly and effectively worked for Canadian-Irish good will. His reports to the government have been of much value and it has been a great satisfaction to myself and my colleagues to note how warmly he has been welcomed by the people of Eire. The tribute which has been paid by Premier de Valera to his personal qualities, his zeal and his devotion is, itself, an indication of the loss which both countries have suffered by Mr. Kelly's passing.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to associate myself with

Questions
the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to the sudden, I might say the shockingly sudden death of Mr. John Hall Kelly. I knew Mr. John Hall Kelly for more than thirty years and had somewhat intimate relations with him extending over that period. I learned to value highly the many good qualities which he possessed, not the least of them being his fine Irish sense of humour.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many regiments are now included in the reserve army of Canada?
2.	What is the annual cost to Canada of pay and allowances of reserve army who are on full time pay?


Mr. RALSTON:: If the hon. member will permit me, I should like to make a verbal answer to this question, because I conferred with him and I want to give him the information I have at the earliest possible moment. I have not all the information which he asks for.
To the first question, the answer is as follows:
493, composed of regiments of cavalry, batteries of artillery, engineer and signal formations, battalions of infantry, army service corps, medical corps, dental corps, ordnance corps and postal corps units, and Canadian officers training corps contingents.
The answer to the second question is that there are personnel of the reserve army who are employed outside the unit, for instance, on full time duty on staffs of training centres and on district staffs. It is assumed that the inquiry relates to personnel who are performing duties in reserve army units. I have consulted with my hon. friend, and I understand that that is what is desired. There is no fixed annual cost, because the number employed is constantly fluctuating. Information is not available at national defence headquarters without reference to each military district where the pay of officers and other ranks employed full time in reserve units can be segregated from pay and allowances of those otherwise employed and those of the active army. In order to afford some idea of present payments, the military districts were asked to compile the amount of pay and allowances paid to such personnel in the month of January, 1941. This aggregated 8242,400. It would require monthly compilations by each district to make up the aggregate amount
14873-86*
paid for the calendar year 1940. If this is required, telegrams will be sent to the various military districts asking that these compilations be made, and the results will be tabled as soon as received.
I should like my hon. friend to take into consideration the answer to the question, and if he will let me know, I shall be very glad to comply with his wishes, whatever they may be, with regard to additional compilations.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-SOREL PLANTS

['1.\tYes.\n2.\tNo.\n3.\tThe whole question of export of logs is receiving very careful consideration by the timber controller.']
Mr. HO  WE@: There are two main industries in Sorel, Quebec, engaged in contracts for the Department of Munitions and Supply and for the British government. The Marine Industries Limited are building corvettes, and the Sorel Industries Limited are engaged in work jointly required by the Canadian and British governments. We presume the questioner refers to the latter.
1.	The Sorel Industries Limited is a privately owned company operating under a control committee, of which two members represent the Canadian government and two represent the original private company
2.	No.
3.	The original contract was entered into by the Sorel Industries Limited with the British government before the Department of Munitions and Supply was organized. The contract has since been revised to take care of Canadian requirements by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and further British requirements. Because of the joint nature of the contract, details as to its terms cannot be given.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by 4.
6.	No. The original contract was a British government contract. The revised contract is a Department of Munitions and Supply Canadian government contract.
Questions



Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many keels have been laid down in the various shipbuilding yards in Canada since September 3, 1939?
2.	How many cargo ships have been completed since September 3, 1939?
3.	How many of the said ships are in service?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Steel ships, 104; wooden, ships (from 16 feet to 112 feet), 380.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by 2.


NEW BRUNSWICK TRAINING SCHOOLS-COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. BROOKS:: What has been the total cost of construction of, (a) training centre, Fredericton, New Brunswick; (b) training centre, Edmundston, New Brunswick?


James Layton Ralston: (a) $253,244.95, as of
January 31, 1941; (b) $191,712.59, as of January 31, 1941.


SUSSEX, N.B., MILITARY CAMP
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to purchase more land in the vicinity of Susses military camp (a) for training purposes; (b) to provide for an airport?
2.	What has been the total cost to date for the construction of the Sussex military camp since January 1, 1940?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	(a) Under consideration

no decision irrived at. (b) No.
2.	Amount committed to March 6, 1941: $2,074,000, of which $1,474,733.56 had actually been disbursed up to January 31, 1941.
cost OF THIRTY-DAY TRAINING


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What did it cost the dominion government for each period of the thirty-day training under the Mobilization Act?
2.	What was the cost of each camp in Canada used for such training?


James Layton Ralston: As regards the cost for each period of thirty-day training, in the system of bookkeeping in the department we have no records which would show the complete cost for each period of thirty-day training. What we have is the amount of pay and allowances for each thirty days' training, which is probably what my hon. friend has in mind.
In the matter of food, the hon. member will realize that food is purchased for a much longer period than thirty days, and there is no specific account as to just how much food goes into each day of the thirty-day period; the contracts may run over six weeks or two months. The same applies to clothing. As

my hon. friend knows, most of that is capital expenditure. The same answer applies as regards construction. I am going to refer my hon. friend to Hansard of February 21 last, page 908, where he will find the combined statement of all the costs for the three months. If he desires pay and allowances separated for the thirty-day periods, that will be done.
With regard to the cost of each camp, I now have figures for most of these camps, but some of them were built by contract and the material and supplies for those were purchased in bulk. The department of my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply is now at work calculating the cost for each camp, having regard to the shipments to each camp out of -that bulk purchase.


TIMBER CONTROL-EXPORT OF FIR LOGS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1.	Are the regulations still in effect prohibiting the export of fir logs from British Columbia?
2.	Have any regulations been put into effect prohibiting the export of logs from British Columbia of other varieties of wood including spruce, hemlock and cedar?
3.	If not, and in view of the importance of these for war purposes, is the government or the timber control board giving any thought or consideration so as to prevent logs of spruce, hemlock and cedar from going to countries at war or not friendly to that of Great Britain and her allies?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The whole question of export of logs is receiving very careful consideration by the timber controller.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-VALUE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS

['This question relates to policy. It is not the practice of the government to disclose matters of policy in giving answers to questions.']
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 
Mr. CASGRAIN:: (a)	$34,530.
(b)	to (g) None.



Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total value of all imports from Japan during each of the years, 1937 to 1940, inclusive?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	What was the total value of all exports from Canada to Japan during each of the years, 1937 to 1940, inclusive?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Canadian external trade with Japan, during the calendar years 1937 to 1940:
Calendar	Imports entered
Year	for consumption	Exports1937	
$5,874,940	$25,807,0481938	
4.642,762	20,782,2591939	
4,864,090	28,177,0231940	
5,887,330	11,366,892


SHIPMENTS OF PULP LOGS AND LUMBER TO JAPAN
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What quantity and value of pulp logs have been shipped to Japan since September 1, 1939?
2.	What quantity and value of all other kinds of lumber have been shipped to Japan during the same time?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Exports to Japan, during the period Sep-temper 1, 1939, to January 31, 1941:
M.ft. Value
Logs, Douglas	fir	
3,226	$ 92,326Logs, hemlock	
32,810	528,430Logs, spruce	
66	1,018Logs, other softwood.. .. 7,279	100,3932.	M.ft.	ValuePlanks and boards	
86 $ 1,035Timber, square	
1,202	20,664


OIL CONTROLLER
Mr. HOBLITZELL:: For what special purpose was the oil controller appointed?


Mr. HOWE:: P.C. 2818, paragraph 2, sets
out the purpose for which the oil controller was appointed as follows:
"And Whereas it is deemed necessary to conserve, co-ordinate and regulate the oil and petroleum resources and industry of Canada, in order to fulfil the present and potential needs of Canada and her allies and for such purpose to appoint an oil controller."
See also minister's statement regarding controllers, page 268 Hansard.


NON-INTEREST BEARING WAR LOANS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many individuals have subscribed to interest free war loans, (a) under $1,000; (b) between $1,000 and $5,000; (c) over $5,000?
2.	What totals w'ere subscribed in each of the above ?
[DOT] 3. How much has been spent by the government in popularizing voluntary non-interest bearing war loans?


Mr. ILSLEY:: No. of	
1 & 2.	applications	: AmountUp to $1,000.. ..	5,903	$1,098,394.78SI,000 to $5,000..	, 191	271.290.77$5,000 and up.. ..	84	4,639,500.003. $667.45.	6,178	$6,009,185.55


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	What wrns the gross debt of Canada on, (a) September 1, 1939; (b) March 1, 1941?
2.	What was the net debt of Canada on, (a) September 1, 1939; (b) March 1, 1941?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Gross debt of Canada:
August 31, 1939....	$3,763,645,202	13February 28, 1941..	4,815,107,164	632.	Net debt of Canada:
August 31, 1939.... $3,126,946,251 96
February 28, 1941..	3,536,514,901	59


'''INTEREST RATES
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Wild the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing into parliament, as an emergency war measure, an amendment to the Interest Act providing for the compulsory reduction, for the period of the present war, of all interest rates on all mortgages on and agreements for sale of land entered into prior to -the war, to 5 per centum per annum?
2.	Alternatively, wifi the government give consideration to the advisability of putting farmers in Saskatchewan, who in previous years obtained proposals under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act (which proposals usually provided for interest rates of 7 per cent per annum and later of 6 per cent per annum on land mortgages), on the same basis as farmers recently obtaining proposals (which recent proposals now provide for the interest rates of 5 per cent per annum) by an amendment to the Interest Act, reducing such interest rates on all proposals heretofore made to 5 per centum per annum?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This question relates to policy. It is not the practice of the government to disclose matters of policy in giving answers to questions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	From and through whom did the Department of Public Works purchase the tug Helena, at Sydney, Nova Scotia, and at what cost?
2.	To what use has the said tug been put during the past five years and what are her earnings?
3.	What has the tug Helena cost the department during the past five years for maintenance, repairs, wharfage and watchman or ship's husband?

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	To whom were these amounts paid and how much to each person?
5.	Can any department of the government make profitable use of this craft? If so, why has this not been done?
6.	Why has this craft not been disposed of by the government?
7.	Have any craft of similar build, tonnage and power been acquired or chartered by the government for any purpose while the Helena was idle?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.
OEt, CONTROLLER


Mr. HOBLITZELL:: 1.	Who has been appointed as oil controller?
2.	What previous experience did he have in the oil business before appointment?
3.	What remuneration or expenses have been paid to date to the oil controller, and what are the total expenses of the oil controller's department since it was set up?
4.	Is the head office of this department located in Ottawa? If not, where is it located, and for what reason?
5.	What are the names of the persons employed by the oil controller and what were the previous occupations of each of them?
6.	Are all appointments to the staff made by the said controller? If not, by whom?
7.	What is the salary paid to each and what are their respective duties?
8.	What office rent is being paid for the head office, and from whom is the space rented?
9.	What solicitors has the oil controller employed, and what are they being paid?
10.	How many applications have been made for new service stations or retail gasoline outlets since the appointment of such controller, and by whom?
11.	How many applications have been approved of and to what individuals, company or companies were permits issued?
12.	How many applications have been rejected, and what are the names of the applicants in each case?
13.	How many retail outlets have been erected since applications have been approved how many have yet to be started, as of this date, and to what individuals, company or companies were these permits issued?
14.	Have applications been made by any oil company on behalf of any applicants? If so, by what company, and have any such applications been granted?
15.	Have any arrangements been entered into
between the government and any individual or any oil company or companies whereby financial assistance would be provided by the gov-irnment?	**


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


IMPORTS OP CANNED BEEP
Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many pounds of canned beef were .mported into Canada during each of the fiscal years 1939 and 1940?
2.	What was the country of origin, and the number of pounds from each?
3.	Who were the consignors and to whom was this canned beef consigned?
4.	Is any of this canned beef being served to our military forces in Canada or overseas? If so, how much?
[Mr. Gillis.l


PURCHASE OF CALGARY PROPERTY FOR OFFICERS' QUARTERS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount paid for the Shaver funeral home on First street east, Calgary, now used as officers' quarters?
2.	What additional amount has been expended on alterations of this building?


VESSEL &quot;DOROTHY AND FRANCES&quot;
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	From whom and through whom did the government purchase the vessel Dorothy and Frances which was registered at port of Saint John on May 28, 1940, under the new name of General Bigg art
2.	How much did the government pay for this vessel?
3.	What was the age of the vessel when purchased?
4.	What was its size and tonnage?
5.	After the vessel was purchased, (a) were the repairs and improvements made in it; (b) were tenders called for same; (e) who made these repairs and improvements; (d) what did they cost; (e) when were they made?
6.	When was this vessel first put in commission by the government?
7.	After the vessel was put in commission,
(a)	were further repairs made to it; (b) who made these further repairs; (c) how often has it been repaired since; (d) who made these repairs; (e) how much did they cost?
8.	What is the total cost of repairs and improvements to date?


COMMEMORATIVE AND HISTORICAL POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What special commemorative and historical postage stamps have been issued since 1900 by the postal department of Canada; stating subjects or occasions, denominations, year and whether there was a reissue?
2.	What list of men, explorers or events were specifically honoured on Canadian historical or commemorative postage stamps, giving date and denomination of such issues?
3.	Have special postage stamps been issued in honour of: Sir Charles Tupper, Sir J. S. D. Thompson, Sir Robert Borden, Honourable Joseph Howe, Sir Sanford Fleming, Sir Samuel Cunard, Sir A. G. Archibald. Honourable E. Whalen, or of John Cabot, Sebastien Cabot, Champlain habitation at Annapolis Royal or Citadel at Halifax?
4.	Has any Nova Scotia man or woman been honoured by special issue of Canadian postage stamp ?


Mr. MTJLOCK:: Return tabled.


SALES TAX ON RAW LEAF TOBACCO
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What quantity of raw leaf tobacco,
exclusive of flue cured tobacco, was produced in 1940 and 1941, (a) in Canada; (b) in Ontario; (c) in the province of Quebec?
2.	What approximated quantities of this raw leaf tobacco are still unsold and in the possession of the growers?
3.	What was the average price per pound paid for this type of tobacco to the producers, since the month of August last, (a) in Ontario;
(b)	in Quebec?

Motions for Papers
4.	Is it a fact that the tobacco producers of the province of Quebec can hardly sell their tobacco at fire cents per pound and without profit?
5.	What was the amount of taxes collected by the national revenue department from the sale tax of ten cents per pound on all Canadian raw leaf tobacco?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frederick George Hoblitzell: For a copy of all orders in council, reports, memoranda and correspondence between the Minister of Munitions and Supply or any officer, clerk or employee of the Department of Munitions and Supply and the oil controller, his officers, assistants and employees and associates and consultants in his own or any department of government having reference to the constitution of the oil controller and of his office, or the control of oil or the oil production and supply business or having reference to the maintenance and carrying on of the office of oil controller and the various policies to be pursued by him, or acts, matters and things proposed, done or to be done by him during the years 1940 and 1941 to the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I understand the rules of the house, correspondence between a minister and one of his officers is privileged, and therefore this order cannot be complied with.



TRENTON, ONT., AIRPORT

Mr. STOKES:: For a return showing, names and addresses, nature of employment and salaries of each civilian employed at Trenton airport, as of February 1, 1941. Also a statement showing who recommended the appointment of each of these persons.



WHEAT-PROCESSING LEVY

Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any department thereof or any government board or any official thereof and any person, persons or firms, in respect to the processing levy on wheat products in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


James Angus MacKinnon: We are ready to furnish all the information required, but it would be very helpful to have this motion particularized.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, not necessarily.
Motion stands.



VICTORIA COAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). Men employed by the Victoria Coal company in the mine known as the Bright-lite at River Hibbert, Nova Scotia, employing 110 men, have been informed by the company and the provincial department of mines that that mine will be closed on April 30 next. In view of the demand for coal at the present time, is there any possibility of keeping the mine operating in this area?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I do not know of any action which the federal government could take to compel a mine to operate in the province of Nova Scotia. As my hon. friend knows, the mines of Nova Scotia are under the control of the provincial government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you have taken authority under the War Measures Act to do this very thing. What is it for?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might refer to the observation of the leader of the opposition, who has hastened to the rescue of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I do not know anything about the particulars of this mine. I should assume that if the provincial government, who are familiar with the operations, thought it was not advisable to maintain the mine in operation, their judgment would probably be sound. In any case I do not think it will affect the volume of coal that will be moved from Nova Scotia to other parts of Canada, whether the mine remains open or is shut down. There is plenty of coal available to meet the requirements that can be moved at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). Has the government under consideration the question of assisting, by way of either grant or loan, provinces which have indicated that they are unable to provide sufficient funds for their relief requirements? If so, when may we expect to have a statement with respect to the matter?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I shall have to get some information to answer the question, because so far as I am aware, unless they might have come to the Department of Finance, no representations of that kind have so far been made to the Department of Labour. I shall be glad to inquire whether they have or not, but that is about the only answer I can give to-day.

Provincial Boundaries-Alberta



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR CURRENT CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) whether the government las formulated a wheat policy for 1941?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am hoping to be able to make a statement on wheat very shortly.


Mr. PERLEY:: Will the minister, before he makes that statement as to policy, table any recommendations that have been made by the advisory committee to the wheat board, either to the board or to the government, since September 1 last?
I can hardly consider a shake of the head as an answer by the minister to the question asked. Will he tell us whether the advisory committee has made any recommendations, and if so will he table them?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall take the hon. gentleman's question under consideration.



PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. EDWARDS (Calgary West):: In the speech from the throne, delivered at the opening of the legislature of Alberta on February 20, there appears the following:
The government-
That is, the government of Alberta.
-'is pressing strongly for extension of the province's boundaries to include the rich mineral areas of the northwest territories in order that orderly development may be speeded up. We have received with great satisfaction the assurance of the federal government that there .appears to be no reason why this should not be done.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, or the appropriate minister, what and when the alleged representations, if any, were made by the provincial government to the federal government for extension of the boundaries of Alberta, and what assurance if any the federal government has given to the province of Alberta with respect to this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before attempting to
reply to the question which my hon. friend has just asked, I think I should say to him and to hon. members that the answer will 
depend upon the interpretation placed upon the clause which appears in the speech from the throne of the Alberta legislature, more particularly upon the meaning to be attached to the word "this" as it appears in the text. My hon. friend gave me a copy of his question as I came into the house. The clause quoted reads.
The government is pressing strongly for extension of the province's boundaries to include the rich mineral areas of the northwest territories in order that orderly development may be speeded up. We have received with great satisfaction the assurance of the federal government that there appears to be no reason why this should not be done.
If "this" refers to the Alberta government's pressing strongly for an extension of the boundaries, the statement is wholly correct; but if the word "this" is to be interpreted as meaning that there must be an immediate extension further northward of boundaries of Alberta or of any other province, I cannot say that any such undertaking has been given.
What I recall at the moment is this. At the time of the conference between the provinces and the dominion, held a month or two ago, the premier of Alberta and one of his colleagues called upon me to speak about the possible extension of the boundary of Alberta further northward, and wished to know whether this matter could not be taken up at once. Having had one experience with the conference between the dominion and the provinces, my first reply was that I questioned the wisdom of attempting anything of the kind just at this particular time. I had been reminded that there were more pressing matters connected with the war than some of the domestic issues that might be raised. I stated that I doubted whether it would be possible to take up the question of the extension of the boundaries of Alberta to the north without also taking up at the same time, with the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, the question of the extension of their boundaries further north.
I did say that the government at different times had had this matter under consideration but that we had reached no final conclusion with respect to it. However, it was pointed out to me that, in the minds of our friends in Alberta, the addition of the northern lands to the province might be a means of furthering the war effort because of some of the resources that existed there, and I was asked whether I would not arrange to have the matter looked into from that point of view. I replied that

War Appropriation Bill
I should certainly be only too pleased to do so, and after the conference I met my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and asked him to have the officials of his department look into the question of resources to the north of the province of Alberta with a view to considering whether at the present time it would be desirable to take up further with the Alberta government and the governments of other provinces the possibility of an extension of their boundaries to the north. That, I think, accurately represents what was said at the time. As I say, the clause that appears in the speech from the throne is capable of different interpretation. This may be the one that is meant.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to direct a question to the acting Minister of Transport. I am informed that the board of transport commissioners handed down a judgment last week authorizing discontinuance of the railway which runs between Beiseker and Langdon, Alberta, and removal of the tracks. In view of the fact that there is already a serious wheat storage situation, would the minister think it desirable in connection with our war effort to have this road continued in view of the fact that its discontinuance will put out of use five different elevators along the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As acting Minister of Transport I have to say that I have no knowledge of this situation. But I may point out that a decision of the board of transport commissioners is not subject to review by the Minister of Transport. The only authority that could answer the question is the board of
transport commissioners itself, which is a judicial body responsible to no one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, there is an appeal to the governor in council from any order of the board of transport commissioners, so that that is hardly a fair statement.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What about the National Resources Mobilization Act?



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 7, consideration in committee of a resolution [DOT]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. Usley- Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: On Friday last I placed on Hansard a detailed statement of the amounts submitted by departments making up the sum of $1,460,402,232. Those were the amounts submitted by departments to January 31, 1941; they will be found on pages 1352-3 of Hansard of March 7. There have been some revisions of those amounts since, and I should like now to place on Hansard a statement of the revised amounts submitted by the departments to March 10, 1941. The total will be $1,450,426,059, a reduction of approximately $10,000,000. There are increases in five departments or branches totalling $2,586,433 and decreases in four departments or branches amounting to $li,-562,606. If the committee would like me to give now the increases and decreases-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the revised table not be put on Hansard? That would be much preferable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I will put it on Hansard.
The statement is as follows:
14873-S7

War Appropriation Bill

War Appropriation, 1941-42
Revised Amounts Submitted by Departments to March 10, 1941
National Defence-
Departmental administration	
Army services	
Naval services	
Air services	 $421,619,348
Less-
Recoverable	 35,000,000
Internment operations	
Censorship	
Dependents' allowance board	
Royal Military College	
Northwest Territories and Yukon radio	
Inspection board-United Kingdom and Canada
i 746,660 666,574,659 169,640,304
386,619,348
8,232,697
207,636
342,240
434,492
177,500
3,510,640

Munitions and Supply-
Administration	 $ 3,500,000
Expansion of industry	 176,958,422

 180,458,422

Other departments-
Agriculture	 $ 7,877,550
Auditor General	 72,000
Civil Service Commission	 126,822
External Affairs	 288,500
Finance	 2,034,513
Fisheries	 603,000
Justice	 79,260
Labour	 4,878,404
Mines and Resources	 657,245
National Revenue	 5,600
National War Services	 1,789,400
Pensions and National Health	 3,804,900
Post Office	 495,085
Prime Minister's Office	 11,500
Privy Council Office	 6,380
Public Works	   4,183,100
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	 4,045,691
Secretary of State	 231,134
Trade and Commerce	 308,015
Transport	   888,362

Government-owned enterprises	 1,095,000

 33,481,461

Reconciliation
Estimates-January 31, 1941	
Add-Items increased over original estimates-
National Defence-Air	 $	619,348
Munitions and Supply-administration	 750,000
Pensions and National Health	 140,500
Post Office	    81,585
Government-owned enterprises	 995,000

Deduct-Items reduced under original estimates-
Finance	 $	74,380
Munitions and Supply-industry	 969,678
National Defence-navy	 11,359,696
National War Services	 158,852

'Mr. Ilsley.]

War Appropriation Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: On February 18 the minister gave a statement, found ait. page 823 of Hansard, of the payments, the actual cash outgo, amounting to S538.804.000. He said:
For the full fiscal year it is now estimated that our total war expenditures will approximate $875,000,000. That is the closest, the most accurate estimate that can be made now.
I suggest that the minister put on Hansard now a table-the figures are so large that we cannot follow them-showing the breakdown of this sum in somewhat the same form as the one he gave on Friday-that is, the amount spent by the three branches of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the other departments that are doing war work.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I can do that at once. Would the hon. gentleman like to have it
all together, coupling it with the actual expenditures to January 31, 1941?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I find in connection with
these statements that two or three weeks afterwards officials come and say that slight corrections have to be made, but these never affect the picture substantially. It runs in my mind that in one or perhaps more of these figures of actual expenditures to January 31 there were corrections made and brought to my attention in the middle of February. But they do not amount to anything in the total.
I will put on Hansard now the estimated war expenditures by departments and services for the fiscal year 1940-41, with actual expenditures to January 31, 1941. They will be subject to slight corrections in respect to the actual expenditures.
Estimated war expenditures by departments for fiscal year 1940-41, with actual to January 31, 1941
Estimate
Agriculture	$ 5,828,000
Auditor General's Office	 60,000
Chief Electoral Officer	 5.000
Civil Service Commission	 135,000
External Affairs	 379,000
Finance	 1.656,000
Fisheries	 173,000
Justice	 47,000
Labour	 1,610,000
Mines and Resources	 364,000
Munitions and Supply	 120,770.000
Actual to Jan. 31/41 $ 3,499,000
36.000 5,000
79.000 218,000
1,218.000
158.000
24.000
645.000
207.000 61,176,000
National Defence:
Estimate	Actual
Administration	$ 1,186,000
Dependents' Allowance	Board	 242,000
Military Services	 404,714,000
Censoring	 185,000
Internment	 3,957,000
Radio Services, N.W.T.	and	Yukon	 146,000
Royal Military College		 360,000
Naval Services	 85,460,000
$	926,000
188.000 268,687,000
149.000 2,521,000
93,000
279.000 58,266,000
$496,250,000	$331,109,000
National Defence-Air Services	 230,000,000
National Harbours Board	 250,000
National Research Council	 542,000
National Revenue	 5,000
National War Services	 2,522,000
Pensions and National Health	 3,519,000
Post Office	 685,000
Privy Council	 6,000
Public Works	 5,540,000
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	 2,759,000
Secretary of State	 181,000
Trade and Commerce	 22,000
Transport	 1,260,000
127,481,456
200,000
302.000
4.000
1.418.000
2.280.000
155.000
4.000
3.799.000
2.023.000
123.000 18,000
504.000
Totals
$874,568,000	$536,685,456
1364
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. MacINNIS:: Before this resolution, is reported I want to refer to a matter that has not received very much consideration so far. I refer to the great discontent that is prevalent among workers at the present time and to the unsatisfactory employer-labour relations in our war industries. One of the important factors operating against efficiency in our war industries is that neither the government nor employers of labour have tried to secure the confidence and cooperation of organized labour. I have never known of so much discontent among working people as prevails at this time. It arises from the fact that too many industrialists have looked upon war contracts as a lucky bit of business and have failed to realize that they are engaged in a business which concerns not them alone but every Canadian. War contracts are often looked upon as an addition to the ordinary business turnover ratheT than as a ohallenge to our industries to organize the country's resources in an all-out endeavour to destroy the menace to our democratic way of life. After all, I am not so very much surprised that employers look at things as they do. Certainly their outlook and actions at the present time are not democratic. Indeed now in Canada we are seeing a repetition of those things that have been either fatal or nearly fatal to the war effort of our allies in other parts of the world. It was this same attitude on the part of British industrialists, until after the fall of the Chamberlain government, that proved nearly fatal to Great Britain. It was this attitude on the part of the French industrialists that brought about the fall of France; and indeed it is not likely that there has been any change since.
The great majority of the workers in Canada are not only willing but anxious to do their bit in this struggle, but in doing it they want to be considered and accepted as partners in the fight we are engaged in. They want to be consulted on policy and on organization. They object to being considered only good enough to be ordered about. A great deal of time and energy is being frittered away in labour disputes 'that could be used to better advantage in organizing our industries for a successful conclusion to this struggle.
It is almost unbelievable that at this time, when united effort is demanded of everyone, employers should refuse to recognize and cooperate with their employees on a basis of equality. It is even less understandable that the government's policy in planning and organizing the country's war effort should have almost completely left out organized labour. Earlier in this debate, when the matter of conditions in the Malton plant was discussed,

the Minister of Munitions and Supply was asked if he could give any reason for the high labour turnover in that plant, and he said he could not. I asked if he had consulted the workers in the plant, and he replied that he had not, that he had enough grief consulting with the management. It seems to me that in this reply is summed up the whole attitude of both the employers and the government towards the hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who perform the actual labour necessary to our war production. The dissatisfaction in the Malton plant, where in six months there was a labour turnover of from seventy-five to ninety per cent, is not exceptional, but for the turnover figures.
Discontent is rampant in the war industries throughout the country. In the aircraft industry, one of the most important in the war effort, and in this particular plant, there is admittedly a high labour turnover. Yet it never occurred to anyone-not even to those giants, the dollar-a-year men in the Department of Munitions and Supply-to approach the workers in the plant and ask what was the cause of their discontent. It seems to be the studied policy, both on the part of the government and on the part of employers, not to consult labour. The attitude seems to be something like this: Oh, you must not consult labour. It is dangerous. They might get an inflated idea of their importance. Labour must be kept in its place. You give the workers orders; you post notices for them to read, and of course you ask them to subscribe to war savings campaigns, but you must never consult them in regard to the work they are doing, or ask if they have any ideas as to how efficiency and output might be improved.
That seems to be the whole attitude, and before I sit down I am going to prove it. Employers and members of the government must get away from that point of view, otherwise we may very well lose the war; and if we should win it under such policies certainly we will lose the peace. We will have gotten so far away in practice from the principles for which we are supposedly fighting that when peace comes with its own problems we will still be fighting on the labour front. We must realize that to-day efficient production depends upon harmonious labour relations in industry just as much as it depends on efficient management in other directions.
In Great Britain labour is consulted at every turn. If similar conditions prevailed here, there is no reason to doubt that organized labour would act as a check on managerial inefficiency, as it has done in Britain. In my opinion it is necessary to give this recogni-

War Appropriation Bill
tion to labour for two reasons. First, it will improve the general morale so necessary for efficient production, and in that way greatly accelerate the war effort. Second, the democratic objectives of the war make this recognition imperative. Some little time ago we had as a visitor to our country an outstanding labour representative from Great Britain, Sir Walter Citrine. He spoke in many cities across Canada, including Ottawa. I quote a few words from the report of his speech in Ottawa as it appears in the Canadian Congress Journal for February:
The development of collective bargaining in Great Britain is so complete that all but the tiniest fraction of disputes are settled between the employers and the trade unions without any government intervention of any kind.
Then he continued:
After all is said and done before you can have order in industry you must have organization in industry. Before trade unions can control large masses of people those large masses must be members of the unions. In other words, you cannot speak and act for and control a constituency you do not represent.
How impossible it would be for a labour representative from Canada to go to the old country or anywhere else and make a similar statement in regard to Canada!
The situation here is bad from every point of view. Lack of organization is responsible for bad working conditions, and is responsible indeed for the inefficiency prevalent in our war production. I have under my hand dozens of letters complaining of conditions in war industries. Among them I find one from workers in a Montreal plant working on a war contract-The Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited. The chief complaints are, first, that the sanitary conditions in the plant are bad. They say the floors are continually covered with water. To absorb that water sawdust is spread, and the men have to stand in that wet sawdust during the whole of their working time. The second complaint is that at that time the plant was running seven days a week, with considerable overtime-this at a time when many men are idle, and when men are being laid off in other plants engaged in war work.
Then, not only do they work seven days a week, but they work eight-hour shifts, with only fifteen minutes off for lunch. It is claimed that the bolting of meals, unavoidable under these conditions, is having a bad effect on the health of the workers. Furthermore, government wage scales call for 40 cents an hour as a starting wage, increasing to 50 cents an hour after twelve days. But the company, it is said, pays no attention whatsoever to these regulations. Some
men have worked in the plant as long as four months before receiving the stipulated increase.
This company will not tolerate any attempt at labour organization in the plant. I am informed that one of the Catholic trade unions held meetings to which workers in this plant were invited. The company had its stool pigeons at the meeting, and the workers who attended were dismissed the next day. After this episode, the superintendent of the plant, Mr. Lemieux, called the men together as they came off shift and warned them against unions, saying that such unions were made up of crooks and thieves.
We have thousands of police watching for subversive activities among workers and others. But it is treatment of this kind which causes workers to listen, to subversive talk, and to take action which in many cases must ultimately be detrimental to themselves. We will abolish discontent and strife in industry only as we accept the policy, and act upon it, that workers are not just a part of the industrial raw material, but that they are human beings with hopes and aspirations, and they must be considered as such. If we are to have peace and harmony in industry, if we are to have the highest degree of efficiency in production, employers must not only concede the right of the workers to organize but must recognize that because of such organization the workers shall have some say in setting up the wages and the conditions under which they are to work.


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


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the hon.
member reading from?


Angus MacInnis: I am reading from a
report I have prepared from letters received from employees of the company to which I have referred. I say that ultimately they must be given a voice in the management of industry; for in that direction only lies peace and progress.
By order in council P.C. 6286, employees upon leaving the employment of an employer must have a clearance card from such employer before they can obtain employment in another plant engaged in war work. I have complaints from employees in a number of plants that this regulation made by the government is being used by employers to blacklist men they do not like. I am told that on each card there is a number, and that No. 1 may mean one thing, No. 2 means something else, and No. 3 something else again. For instance, No. 1 may mean that
War Appropriation Bill

a man is a poor worker; No. 2 may mean that he is an agitator, that he is a member of a trade union. Because of this information it may become impossible for men released from one job to get work anywhere else.
Then, there is continual intimidation and discrimination against union workers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member say that that is universal throughout Canada, or is he taking an isolated case?


Angus MacInnis: Do I say it is universal?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes?


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend means to ask whether I suggest that every employer in Canada acts in this way, I will say no. But it does happen in a large number of cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it
general?


Angus MacInnis: I would say it is fairly general, particularly in the war industries.
When parliament reconvened after the recess, on February 17, I drew to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) certain dismissals in the Biltmore Shirt company's factory at Montreal because of union activities. I have been told unofficially that the Department of Labour is satisfied that discrimination has taken place in that plant. Despite that recognition the men who were dismissed have not yet been restored to their jobs.
Dismissals take place for trade union activity despite the government's order in council expressing the desire that employees and employers get together in a scheme of collective bargaining to settle grievances. Collective bargaining is absolutely impossible unless opportunity is given the workers to organize.
At the present time employees of the National Steel Car Corporation of Hamilton, a company which has received many war orders, have two cases pending in the courts under section 502A of the criminal code, which has to do with the dismissal of employees because of trade union activities.
I have in my hand a number of "application for employment" forms now used in many industries. I am told they are approved by the government; on that point, however, I have not had verification. One in particular which I hold in my hand was given some publicity a short time ago. It is a form which was handed the employees of the International Metal Industries Limited at Vancouver. Incorporated with this company is the Canadian John Wood Manufacturing

Company Limited; Service Station Equipment Company Limited; Canadian John Wood, Vancouver, Limited, and Fess Oil Burners of Canada Limited. This application calls for the name and address and other necessary details of that kind, which is all right. Then it proceeds to ask these questions:
Have you previously been in the employ of this company?
In what capacity?
Reason for leaving?
Nationality?
Are you naturalized ?
What is your Teligion?
Why should an employer of labour be interested in the religion of his employee? Is not a man's religion his own private business? He may have a religion or he may have none. What has that to do with employment? Then follow the questions:
Married, single, widow, widower, separated or divorced?
Number of dependent children; respective
ages.
Other dependents-specify.
What is your height?
Weight?
Physical handicaps?
Have you a hernia?
Any chronic ailment such as -tuberculosis or
silicosis ?
Are you willing to submit to a physical and medical examination?
Are you drawing a pension?
Reason ?
Amount ?
Are you buying your home, renting, boarding, or living at home?
How much life insurance do you carry?
Are you in debt?
Are you, or have you ever been a member of any labour organization? Specify.
Date?
What interests or hobbies have you?
What is the object of asking a man if he has ever belonged to a labour organization? There can be only one object, and that is to refuse him employment if he has.
Here is something else he must sign. I ask hon. members to listen to this. This is an agreement giving the company right of search. It reads as follows:
I agree that the company, at any time and from time to time, by -and through its officers and/or duly authorized agents of the company or any of the officers of the company (hereinafter called "officers or agents") m-ay, and shall have the right, to search through my clothing or any box, locker, container or conveyance of mine while on the company's property for any chattel or other property of the company and in so doing may apply force to my person. Such search may be made at any time and from time to time whether or not there be any suspicion or any good or valid ground for suspicion on the part of the company or its said officers or agents that any chattel or other property of the company may be in my possession or may be found as a result of such search. Should any chattel or other property

War Appropriation Bill
of the company be found as a result of any such search the company may then by and through its officers or agents enter any residence or place of abode of mine and may and shall have the right to search for any chattel or other property of the company and, in connection with any such entry and/or search, may break or remove locks and may force open windows and/or doors. I declare that the above rights and powers are terms of and are incidental to my employment. I specifically release and agree to release and waive any and every claim which I may ever have for damages or otherwise resulting from the exercise of any of the above .rights and powers or from any force, assault or other action in connection with the carrying out or enforcing of the foregoing provisions or from any force, assault, trespass or forcible entry in respect of any of the matters herein set out. Should no chattel or other property of the company be found in my residence or place of abode which has been entered under the provisions hereof the company will make good the damage done to locks, doors or windows in effecting any such entry as contemplated hereby.
There is a whole lot more he is asked to sign.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What company is that?


Angus MacInnis: International Metal Industries Limited, at Vancouver. The men and women who work in these plants have no access to the means of life other than through the sale of their labour to those who are willing to buy it. Through force of circumstances they are compelled either to sign a document like this, or refuse and go out to look for work somewhere else where they may have to face the same kind of thing, or apply to the relief authorities for the means of sustenance.
This is not the only company in connection with which the condition I refer to prevails. Here is another one mentioned in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 14, 1941-the Richardson Road Machinery Company Limited, which has a contract for the manufacture of war supplies. In this case the applicant is asked what is his religion; then, "Have you carried a union card?" "Do you believe in a competitive system of work or business?" Then they want to know the man's political preference. They ask: Are you a socialist? Here we find the dirty snout of political patronage entering into the situation. It seems that this company is particularly opposed to one kind of political preference. I ask the government what they are going to do about this sort of intimidation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does the hon. member recommend?


Angus MacInnis: I would recommend that under the War Measures Act freedom should be given to the working classes of Canada.
If the workers carried on in this way I would not have to tell the Minister of Munitions and Supply what to do, nor would he ask me for my advice as to what should be done. He would jolly soon find out how to deal with them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The labour laws are provincial.


Angus MacInnis: The War Measures Act is the constitution of Canada until the end of the war, and the minister cannot get out of it with a remark like that.
I should like to refer to the application form which is placed before those seeking employment with the Fairchild company of Montreal. Not only do men applying for work in this plant have to fill out an application form of this kind, but they are finger-printed as well. I am told by the employees that this is done with the connivance, if not with the consent of the government. It is felt that eventually these finger-prints will be in the custody of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A letter which I have in my hand contains the following:
Our immediate danger, as I see it, is from these new application forms which delve rather deeply into a person's ancestry, immediate past, and spare time activities, since one of the questions asks the applicant to give the names of any clubs, .associations, et cetera to which he has belonged within the last ten years.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: I understand that all employees in munitions works in the United States are finger-printed.


Angus MacInnis: All employees in munition works in Germany may be nosenprinted for all I know, but that does not say that that is good enough for us here. If the government thinks it necessary to finger-print the employees of any Canadian industry, why not consult with the officials of the trade union movement? Put the case before them, tell them what is required, and I am satisfied that they will be found to be reasonable and ready to give their consent to anything that may be necessary in this emergency. If they give their consent, I am sure 'that the rank and file of the labour movement will agree to what is necessary when they understand it.
There are a number of other matters to be considered. There is the question of the recognition of trade unions, the applications for conciliation boards, and the taking of the votes which are necessary before such boards are granted. I am told that in a number of cases the employers have interfered with the taking of the vote and have attempted to intimidate the employees. I am informed also that the government No. 1 pet contractor, the John Inglis company, have stated their intention to run an open shop. An
War Appropriation Bill

open shop is a shop where there is no dealing with the workers through a labour organization I should be much surprised if a vote were taken of Canadian workers and it were found that they agreed that we are fighting for anything like that in the present war.
Again, the fair wage clauses in the contracts-[DOT] that is, if they contain fair wage clauses- are not lived up to, and we find that wages and working conditions which the workers have laboriously built up over the years are going by the board, without any reason whatsoever being given.
I have here a letter from an old trade union organization, possibly one of the oldest in Canada, a local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Vancouver. They call attention to a contract whereunder the government is furnishing assistance to the West Coast Woollen Mills Limited, for the building of an addition to the plant of this company. The contract amounts to $21,000, and the building is being erected by non-union men, working for a contractor who refuses to recognize trade unions. This is what they say, in part, in connection with this work:
We have been assured very often since the commencement of the war, that the conditions and wages established by the trades unions would be guarded and respected, yet firms such as the above can get contracts, proceed to erect and extend their factories, and totally disregard the conditions and wages established by agreement and recognized by the government in the dominion Fair Wages and Hours Act.
I have received to-day a letter from another trade union in Vancouver, complaining about the same sort of thing. I have also a number of complaints regarding the operations of order in council P.C. 7440. Most of these complaints deal with the delays in getting a board after application is made. I believe section 20, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act requires that immediately the second party to a dispute receives a copy of the application made for a board, they must "without delay"-that is the wording of the act-prepare their reply. As far as I know there has never been a definition of that phrase "without delay", but I believe it is generally accepted that the reply must be made within fifteen days. I have a case under my hand where a board was applied for by some of the employees of the National Steel Car Corporation, Hamilton, on February 3. The Department of Labour has, I understand, been continually considering this application, and no word has yet been received by the department from the National Steel Car Corporation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the bon. member, but his statement of the facts is entirely wrong.
fMr. Maclnnis.]


Angus MacInnis: Very well; I will read a copy of a telegram which was sent to my hon. friend last Saturday, and if I am wrong, then there must be something wrong with the telegram. I am reading from a copy of a night letter to the minister from Mr. Millard, March 8:
Am advised by Representative Dalrymple that management National Steel Car Corporation at Hamilton now refuses to allow Mr. J. S. MeCullagh, representative of your department, to conduct ballot which was arranged to meet company objection to establishment of conciliation board. This arbitrary and irresponsible action by Mr. Hart removes last possible objection to your announcement of board constitution. Urge you act without further delay. Please advise.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Again may I say that Mr. Millard's information-he was not there- is inaccurate. The machinery to take the vote was not set up in sufficient time to take the vote on Saturday. It was not a refusal.


Angus MacInnis: I have this information in Mr. Millard's own words. We will go step by step over the proceedings which were taken since the application was made on February 3. On February 3 the dominion Department of Labour received the request. On February 14, eleven days after the application had been received, Mr. Ainsborough, of the Toronto branch of the department, visited Hamilton. He made no attempt to meet the workers or the union representatives, but he went to the plant and was refused an appointment by, I believe, Mr. Hart. I understand that the Department of Labour, after waiting fifteen days, can appoint the board without regard to the attitude of a company. But on February 19, sixteen days afterwards, no reply had been received from the Department of Labour, and the employees at that plant supposed that the board would be appointed.
A few days afterwards Mr. Howard Chase, of the labour relations branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply, went to Hamilton. The union was assured that when he went there he would have with him a copy of the company's reply, but when he reached Hamilton and met the employees he had no copy of the reply. On March 1, in a letter to Mr. Millard, Mr. Brown, the assistant deputy minister, stated that Hart, that is, the manager of the National Steel Car Corporation plant, had been given until March 3 to return an answer. Mr. Millard said that Brown indicated that he could see no reason why a board should not be appointed. Now, March 3 was exactly one month after the original application had been made. On March 7, Mr. MeCullagh, also from the Department of

War Appropriation Bill
Labour, arrived in Hamilton, and an attempt was made to take the vote at the plant. The management refused to allow the vote to be taken. Following that-


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is not correct. The management did not refuse. The machinery for taking the vote could not be set up in time to take it on Saturday.


Angus MacInnis: Well, according to my information, he was there at eleven o'clock in the morning.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, but they had to prepare the lists.


Angus MacInnis: They had to get the lists, but Mr. Hart was insisting on the lists of the employees who had come into the plant since February 3.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, there was some dispute about that.


Angus MacInnis: Of course there was some dispute. A dispute had been going on since February 3, but the Minister of Labour did not do anything about it. As a matter of fact I advised the minister as long ago as, I believe, last July, to be master in his own house. The trouble is that the Minister of Labour cannot settle any labour dispute without asking the Minister of Munitions and Supply what to do.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is not correct, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that on one single occasion I have asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply to settle a dispute- not on one occasion.


Angus MacInnis: I am convinced that the
labour question cannot possibly be satisfactorily settled until the government takes into its confidence and consults at every step the representatives of organized labour; and organized labour has been asking for this ever since the war began. I have here the Canadian Congress Journal, the official organ of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, for February, in which the following statement appears in an editorial:
Organized labour would like to see the government give a little more tangible evidence that it believes that labour is entitled to be treated as an equal partner in industry. The Prime Minister has demonstrated both in his writings and public statements, and by pre-war practice, that he personally supports this principle, and it therefore makes it all the more difficult to understand why, during the past year and a half, practically no effect has been given to it.
In the framing of the Unemployment Insurance Act, labour representation both on the commission and the advisory committees to be appointed by the commission is provided for, as it was in the previous measure of 1935. It
is also true that a halting step has been taken to give labour some- place in the war effort by the establishment of the national labour supply council.


Norman Alexander McLarty: But my hon. friend
knows it is not a halting step. Labour has fifty per cent representation.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, but what is the use of a board if there is never consultation? I will give the minister another indication of the way in which the labour supply council is consulted. In any case, these are not my words. This is what has been said by the oldest and largest central labour organization in Canada:
Labour has also been invited to give its services in the work of the national war charities funds advisory board, a request which has been gladly complied with. It is also equally true, however, that in no case where labour's particular interests are involved, such as in the management of the twenty-eight or more government financed and owned companies set up for war production, on the committee established to advise the director of ship construction and repairs, or on any of the numerous control boards, has labour been given any recognition whatever.
The weakness of the national labour supply council is that it has not been allowed to function as a planning body, but instead merely called upon to give an advisory opinion, many times at extremely short notice, on measures already prepared by others. To be of real use, workers representatives should be placed in a position where they can contribute from their experience toward the shaping of policies and not be called into consultation only after the course of action had been decided upon.
I am not saying that. The editor of the journal, with the approval of the president of the largest labour organization in Canada, is saying it. I have the memorandum submitted to the dominion government by the Canadian Congress of Labour on February 14, 1941. The Canadian congress has this to say:
The congress believes, however, that a greater willingness on the part of the government to consult and cooperate with bona fide labour organizations, in all matters of primary concern to the workers, is imperative, in, the interests -not only of the workers but the people of Canada. While representatives of the organized workers have been -appointed to the national labour supply council, the unemployment -insurance commission, and the unemployment insurance advisory committee, there are a number of bodies dealing with various phases of the war effort on which labour is not represented, and this inevitably tends to make the workers feel that they -are not being given -the consideration to which, because of their importance in the field of production and distribution, they are justly entitled. The government is therefore urged to provide adequate representation of iabour on existing boards or commissions and on any which may be established in future.
War Appropriation Bill

In the Montreal Gazette of March 8 there was a report of a board or advisory committee or something of that kind being set up. I got into touch this morning with a representative of the national labour council and he told me he had never heard of it. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 8:
Canada is being organized into industrial zones, each with a chairman and committee to work in conjunction with the munitions and supply department "to harness all possible industrial resources to war needs," munitions minister Howe announced to-night.
As I read further down the item I find that this committee, or whatever it is going to be, is carried on by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce with "the approval and support of the Department of Munitions and Supply." I quote further:
In addition, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce will accompany the organization work with a national survey of industrial resources. This survey, to begin this week, will be conducted by a war production committee under joint chairman, L. L. Lang of Kitchener, Ont., and J. D. Johnson of Montreal. Mr. Lang is first vice-president of the C.M.A. and Mr. Johnson is vice-chairman of the executive committee of the C.C.C.
The survey will provide information on labour available, machine tools and other equipment in existing plants.
The national labour supply council was not considered. The member to whom I spoke did not know that such a thing had been contemplated; yet the important factor in a survey of industrial resources is labour. What those who are carrying on this kind of work think of the position of labour is clearly indicated in the phrase, "will provide information on labour available, machine tools and other equipment". Evidently they do not think that labour should have any more place on a committee of this kind than "machine tools and other equipment." Let me tell my hon. friends that this is not the way to build the new social order which the Prime Minister referred to at the time of the ill-fated conference which met in Ottawa on January 14. We shall have to have more cooperation with those who are doing the real work in this war effort, both from the government and from employers, than we have had in the past. Otherwise we are simply riding into trouble.


Mr. GREEN:: I have no desire to interrupt this discussion on labour questions, but I understand that the minister is not replying at the moment; therefore I am making bold to bring up another subject. This debate jumps so frequently from one subject to

another that it is difficult to keep the questioning in order. Last week the Minister of Munitions and Supply suggested that the opposition should ask him questions rather than make speeches. I wish to ask him one to-day. It is a question which affects also the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services; perhaps it is more a suggestion than a question.
At this moment nothing is of greater importance in Canada's war effort than shipbuilding. It is of the greatest importance that the government should adopt and announce without further delay a policy with regard to merchant shipping. Perhaps they have that policy ready, perhaps not, but I suggest there should be no further delay in adopting and announcing such a policy. I understand that in Canada we have placed contracts for twenty merchant ships-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-all of them to be built for Great Britain; none to be built for Canada. I understand that none of the twenty keels has been laid.
I doubt whether any hon. member will dispute the importance of shipbuilding. The minister himself clearly indicated the emphasis which he placed upon it when on his return from Great Britain he said in Washington on January 25:
The most important development immediately will be a decided emphasis on merchant ship production and the building of bombing aeroplanes. In one instance we are building transportation and in the other producing machines that can carry themselves over the Atlantic to service. We hope to step up the capacity of all Canadian shipyards. This is one of the first things that must be done.
A month later Lord Beaverbrook made his appeal to Canada. He closed with these words:
Gather together every kind of transport by sea. which will enable us to continue the defence of this island. Seek the whole world for ships; make our sea paths safe during the battle of Britain.
Yet in spite of that appeal no announcement has been made to the Canadian people as to what is to be done. Last week a famous United States-European correspondent, Mr. Percy J. Philip, of the New York Times, speaking in Ottawa, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of March 6, said:
Mr. Philip deplored the failure of Canadian authorities to act quickly toward helping to fill Britain's marked need of more ships.
"When I came to Canada I expected to see every shipyard and many new ones just bustling with activity building ships. I was mortified to find that such was not the ease.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where did he say that?

War Appropriation Bill


Howard Charles Green: That is from a speech
delivered in Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier on March 6.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are those Mr. Philip's exact words?


Howard Charles Green: It is in quotation marks in the newspaper report. I was not at the meeting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think he said it at all.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot vouch for the
accuracy of the report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the hon. member
should vouch for the accuracy of a statement he quotes.


Howard Charles Green: To-day we find in the morning papers a report of a statement made by the Labour minister for Great Britain, Mr. Ernest Bevin. The report says:
The labour minister emphasized the importance of shipping in the war, and warned that the "decisive struggle in the Atlantic may soon begin."
Further on he said:
British troops must be supplied with food, and that means shipping.
In the United States there is great activity on both coasts in the shipyards. They have under way a huge shipbuilding programme. A press dispatch from Sydney, Australia, quoted in the Ottawa Journal of February 24 says:
It is learned the government intends building its own merchant ships w>hich will be chartered to shipping companies for operation.
Then Mr. MacMillan, in the report which appeared in Voles and Proceedings of February 27, had this to say with regard to the building of ships:
(1)	Volume of orders now placed does not exceed existing plant and management facilities, technical problems all surmounted. Performance
is good.
(2)	Progress henceforth will depend upon:
(a)	Organization of expanded facilities which can he done.
And I repeat those words, "which can be done."
(b)	Deliveries of plate and other ship components from U.S.A., or expanding plate production in Canada, which requires one year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish Mr. MacMillan would be a little more consistent, because I have a report on my desk from him to-day declaring that labour cannot be found to operate the shipyards to anything like capacity.


Howard Charles Green: He goes on:
(c)	Deliveries from U.S.A. of machine tools for expanded programme involved in 18 cargo vessels already ordered and other orders that might be placed.
(d)	Finding trained personnel without interfering with ship repair plants necessary to prevent delays to naval and merchant vessels now operating in Atlantic.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That last sentence is the whole thing.


Howard Charles Green: It is impossible to emphasize too strongly what shipping and the shipbuilding industry mean to Canada. We have a great export trade which before the war was practically all carried in ships belonging to other nations. We had practically no merchant fleet. Adequate ocean shipping facilities would be of the greatest importance also in carrying freight between the east and west coasts. For some years before the war a steamship line ran a ship a month to the east and west coasts via the Panama canal, but this service was discontinued when the war broke out, with the result that freight rates have been raised by the railways and a situation has developed which to say the least is very unfair to the provinces on either coast. I suggest to the minister that if we entered into a really large shipbuilding programme, making not only the hulls but also the engines and boilers and auxiliary equipment, on either coast-wherever it may be decided to build the ships-there is no reason why we could not build up a great shipbuilding industry for Canada in the maritime provinces and British Columbia for the years after the war.
So far as British Columbia at any rate is concerned I am assured that there is no shortage of ship workers; many of them in that province are out of work. For instance, I received to-day the Vancouver Sun containing a press dispatch of March 5 from New Westminster which says that the deputy minister of trade and industry for British Columbia told representatives of the metal trades industry there that there were two thousand skilled mechanics unemployed in British Columbia. He is reported as saying:
. . . the provincial government has completed a confidential survey of skilled workers in the province which showed that two thousand skilled mechanics are out of work.
He added that the provincial government is forwarding the information to Ottawa to-day.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Were there some shipwrights in that number?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I understand there is
no scarcity of shipbuilders on the Pacific coast.
War Appropriation Bill


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend take
an order for a thousand of them to-day? I can place a thousand shipyard workers at once.


Howard Charles Green: That is not my business. It is up to the minister to talk to the people concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is talking
very loosely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the good of making a statement like that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the good of making a reckless statement?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
hon. member is asking the minister to declare a policy. He says that according to a statement made by a member of the government of his own province, there are skilled workers in British Columbia who are idle. The minister comes back and tries to browbeat the hon. member by asking whether he will take an order for a thousand men. That is not worthy of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that neither this minister nor any other one can browbeat me. I should like to see him try it. I have before me a dispatch which appeared in the Vancouver Province of February 19, 1941, as follows:
A survey recently made by employment services in Vancouver showed that there are at least 1,000 skilled men in British Columbia available for employment in shipyards; that if the labour supply is diluted to include unskilled craftsmen the number of men ready to take shipyard jobs is almost unlimited.
Now I have a word for the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs, who gave us a very hopeful and promising-and perhaps optimistic

statement when he spoke in the house on November 19 last. This is what he said, as reported at page 207 of Hansard:
But, Mr. Speaker, we intend to go further. It is our hope that in the Canadian yards we shall be able to build destroyers and perhaps cruisers as well. The building of these craft requires a high degree of skill; they have never before been built in this country. In the early stages of this development we shall require the assistance of skilled men from admiralty dockyards or from private yards in Britain, and we have asked for that assistance.
That was the last the house or the Canadian people heard about this proposal to build destroyers and possibly cruisers. I suggest that the time has now come when the minister should tell us all about it; whether this is another case of the wish being father to the thought, or whether we are in a position to commence building these warships in Canada. I think we must face the fact that it will be impossible for us to have destroyers built in

Great Britain at least during the war and probably after the war. We cannot get started too soon on a policy of building our own destroyers and perhaps our own cruisers. It may be that steps in this direction have been taken, but I think the minister should let us know without further delay.
Summing up my question-or suggestion, whatever it may be called-I think the government should set an objective that will arouse the enthusiasm of the Canadian people in connection with this matter of shipbuilding. Let us go all out on this question. Perhaps the government have an objective now. I suggest that no matter what that objective may be, the government should give consideration to doubling it, because at this time we cannot build too many ships in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should reply to the hon. member. It sounds so easy to say we should expand our shipbuilding indefinitely, as the hon. member states, but we have done a very considerable job of expanding shipbuilding up to this time. At the beginning of the war one of the first things we did was to fill every shipyard with work to its capacity. It has taken us a great deal of time to build up the shipbuilding organization we have to-day. We started with less than 1,500 men employed in our shipyards. We have been able to bring that figure up to about 20,000 men, and we hope to expand it still further. But to-day, while I do not know about the west coast, I do know about eastern Canada, and I know that every shipyard could use more skilled men if it could get them. The situation is particularly acute in Halifax and Saint John. We have been trying to get the Saint John shipyard on a twenty-four hour basis since the beginning of the war, but we have not been able even to approach that objective. The same is true in Halifax; we are working on short time there. That is the bottleneck of the shipbuilding industry. I could follow the suggestion of my hon. friend, go out to British Columbia and start three or four more shipyards; I know there are promoters ready and anxious to sell stock to the public, in fact are just waiting for that very opportunity, but it would only mean a drain of employees from existing shipyards.
Our shipyards are doing a good job and we have ample work in sight to take care of ithem for a very long period. If it is considered to the advantage of any existing yard to have a further contract, we are in a position to place that contract. At this very time our director of shipbuilding is on the Pacific coast, where he will explore every proposal we have had for additional shipyard

War Appropriation Bill
capacity, in order to determine whether or not in fact we can step up our production of ships by starting additional yards there. I was particularly warned in England about the folly of doing that if it would mean a drain of skilled workmen from other yards. I was told that from their experience it was not wise to start a new yard if the trained personnel had to come from other yards. They expressed the opinion that any yard in Britain could do more work if it had more skilled men, and that unless and until they were sure they had the trained personnel with which to start additional yards, it was not their intention to start them.
I do not think there is a shipyard in Canada, large or small, that has not been offered all the work it can do. The work each yard has taken has depended a good deal on the courage of the operators. We have had some small yards that did not wish to take more than one boat at a time. They wished to take one and finish it before taking a second. We have had others willing to take almost an unlimited number of orders, but there again we see no purpose in placing orders ahead of the time when the yards can actually transform those orders into something more than sheets of paper. In other words, if it is possible to order steel ahead, if it is good business to order steel ahead, they can go ahead and do it. If it is possible to lay a keel, that keel is laid; but, as I say, we are 'trying to develop more shipbuilders here, more skilled men. Steel ships are not things that can be built by men without experience. Shipbuilding is probably one of the most highly skilled businesses we have on hand here at the present time. We are working as hard as we can to develop shipbuilders; we intend to continue doing so, and if the number of shipbuilders available warrants starting additional yards, my hon. friend can be sure that it is our intention to do so.
A word as to the question of destroyers. We have not been idle in this matter. I may tell my hon. friend that we have now obtained our detail sheets; our plate specifications are here, and our plate sizes are here. We have explored the equipment market, and we know exactly where to place orders for equipment. We have been able to obtain a few experienced men from England; the British government was reluctant to spare them but they are on their way here now. We are pushing along the destroyer programme just as quickly as we possibly can, but these things have to be taken up in an orderly way. It would be quite possible to disorganize this whole industry. We could do that; we could encourage everyone to
start yards, but we would reach 'the position where we would be simply churning labour around and building nothing. We are very actively engaged in stepping up the shipbuilding industry of Canada, and just as rapidly as we can step up the ability to construct we will start new projects to be constructed.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not possible to have merchant ships fabricated in the steel construction plants and then assembled by shipbuilding companies? I understand there have been discussions as to whether or not that could be done. If it could, it would mean that it would be possible to construct many more ships. Then the minister did not say whether Canada is to have merchant ships built for her own account. Are they all to be for Breat Britain, or is Canada to have merchant ships built for herself as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that will interest the committee is that we are going to build all the ships we can. Whoever owns them, they are engaged in the same sort of traffic.


Howard Charles Green: It makes a difference who is going to own them after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We owned a good many after the last war, and I took a hand in liquidating a few of them.


Mr. HANSON (Yo-k-Sunbury):: Too bad you haven't got them now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Too bad?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is a grand thing we haven't got them now.


Olof Hanson: All right; we will agree to differ about it.


Howard Charles Green: What about the other point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we are exploring at the moment. My hon. friend must remember that not only the hull but the machinery and all other components of the ship must be arranged for. We build these ships complete in Canada. As I say, if it is possible to build them faster than we are building them, we hope to have that information in a week or two, and we will take steps accordingly. My reason for making that statement about ships built in the last war is that those ships have a very small carrying capacity. It has never been found possible to operate them with an even break in expenses. Whether or not it could be done now, under present abnormally high charter prices, I do
War Appropriation Bill

not know. But I doubt very much whether they would be profitable, even under the present price condition.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government adopted the policy of having engines, boilers and other auxiliary equipment built in the district in which the ship is being built? Is it not possible to adopt a policy of that kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have done everything we can to follow that policy. The reason it is not always followed out is that the shipbuilders themselves believe it is better business to have the equipment built in another part of Canada. I may say that we tried to do a good deal for Vancouver by paying them a considerably higher price for ships than the price at which we would have built them in. eastern Canada. In spite of that fact, much of the equipment and machinery for those ships was ordered by the people in Vancouver from eastern Canada and was shipped out to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Of course if they would pay decent wages in eastern Canada the costs would be more nearly equal.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Mr. Chairman, the object of the motion before the committee is to raise money for our war effort. That money will have to be raised by taxation or by borrowing. Many members of the house and many persons throughout the country are saying that our financial system is all wrong. They point to Germany, and they suggest that if we would finance the way Germany is financing we would get along without taxation and without borrowing, or at least with a great deal less taxation and a great deal less borrowing.
The leader of the Social Credit group in the house has said that if we financed in the Social Credit way we could do so " without additional debt; without additional taxation." The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation made a speech in which he said:
The allies have money, but failed to produce the goods; the Germans had no money, but did produce them.
He added " we ought to pay some attention to methods other than those we have been using to finance our war effort."


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I correct the hon. member? I did not say that. I was quoting Dorothy Thompson.


George Henry Ross: The hon. member quoted it with approval, and commented favourably upon it.


Major James William Coldwell: I did, but I want to have the record straight, that is all.


George Henry Ross: And the hon. members sitting behind the leader of that group approved what had been said.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The secretary of the All-Canadian Congress of Labour.


George Henry Ross: It met with the unanimous approval of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. So that they, too, see magic in German finance.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: By his observations the hon. member implies that the Social Credit group have defended the financial methods of Germany. That is absolutely wrong. At no time has this group advocated German methods.


George Henry Ross: I am glad that they are seeing saner methods of financing than they have been advocating in the past.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is imputing to us things he has no right to impute. At no time has the Social Credit group advocated Germany's methods of financing. Now, will my hon. friend get that into his head and keep it there?


George Henry Ross: They have been looking to Germany as if Germany had a magic way of financing. Hon. members in the house have referred to it, and Social Credit speakers in the country have also referred to Germany's method of financing.
Social Credit's latest recruit, Premier Hep-bum of Ontario, is telling the people of that province that Germany is financing with "rubber money." He apparently envies the accomplishments of Hitler in seizing great slices of Europe," and credits that success to rubber money financing. "With rubber-money, Hitler built an army and seized control of nine capitals of Europe," Mr. Hepburn is reported to have said. And we have other funny money theorists throughout Canada, each with a theory of his own. What is there about German financing that appeals to these people? I have read a number of books and magazine articles and newspaper clippings on German financing. The writers are all pretty well agreed as to Germany's method of financing. Let us consider it for a few moments, but before doing so I should like to picture the background, so that their method of financing may appear in its proper setting.
After the great war Germany issued money so freely that inflation set in. Money became very cheap, and prices of goods very high.

War Appropriation Bill
The disparity between the two eventually became so great that it took 4,200,000.000 marks at their official value to buy goods to the value of a single mark. In the year 1924 the old currency was discarded and new currency was set up in Germany. Savings accounts created prior to 1924 were practically wiped out by the inflation. All domestic debts and all debts payable in German currency that matured prior to the introduction of the new currency were practically wiped out. Contracts expressed in the old currency were extinguished. Debts payable in gold or foreign currency as well as unmatured debts payable in German currency were greatly compromised.


Mr. QUELCH:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


George Henry Ross: So that in 1924 Germany had a fresh start, almost completely free of debt.


Victor Quelch: What is the hon. member quoting from? Evidently he is quoting from some authority?


George Henry Ross: I am making my own speech.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is something you cannot do.


George Henry Ross: Germany was
not overrun during the first great war. Her factories were not damaged; her industry remained intact. Other warring nations had to rebuild much that was destroyed in their countries by the war. Such was not the case in Germany. Her economic activity had been in a measure suspended during the war. After the war she was permitted to carry on as before.
Germany's present military and industrial power is in considerable measure due to the huge loans made to her, largely by the United States, and to some extent by Great Britain, after she stabilized her currency in 1924. Industries proceeded to incur new debts, and to equip their old plants and build new ones with most modern and up-to-date machinery. These borrowings amounted to almost three times the reparation payments Germany was making during the period of prosperity which followed the introduction of the new currency.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Exception has been
taken to the reading of speeches. I wonder if this ruling applies to the hon. member who has the floor?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Vancouver South read his speech.


George Henry Ross: The great
depression of 1929 struck Germany very hard. Unemployment became severe, more severe in proportion to population than in any other European country. The standard of living was reduced to extremely low levels. The standard of morals was lower still. During the course of the depression Germany obtained the benefit of the "Hoover moratorium" on United States and other foreign loans to Germany. When Hitler came into power Germany declared a moratorium on all foreign debts. This enabled her to buy greatly depreciated German bonds at a few cents on the dollar.
On obtaining power on January 30, 1933, Hitler set out to mobilize the military and economic resources of the reich for the purpose of waging war. He developed an organization designed to produce as quickly as possible all that the German people could possibly produce. All this had to be financed. Thorough and far-sighted rearmament is of crucial importance in preparing for a mechanized war. Plans should be laid and the building well under way years before they are used. This has been recognized by all countries in respect of navies which have always been mechanized forces. No country waits until the outbreak of war to build its navy. They build it years before it is needed so as to be ready when war breaks out. The nazis extended this principle to their air and land forces.
With the advent of Hitler, Germany began her rearmament on the basis of a small army of 100,000 men allowed her by the Versailles treaty. Secret rearmament was under way in 1934. It became open and acknowledged in 1935 and began to hit its stride at that time. Flying clubs were formed throughout the country and she became active in building up her air force. At the same time she commenced to mechanize her army for the second world war, so that Germany has, in effect, been on a war economy since 1935 when rearmament got under way on a large scale. Hitler was also preparing for war by striving to make Germany' independent of supplies which might be cut off by enemy activity. In other words, he was striving to make Germany blockade^proof in case of war.
The intensity of the depression created economic conditions for rearmament unparalleled in normal times. When the nazis came to power they found production machinery largely idle and 7,000,000 to 9,000,000 workers unemployed. In the following years it was possible to increase armaments rapidly be-
War Appropriation Bill

cause idle plants and idle men were available in large numbers. As the reich credit society declared in its report for 1936:
Whereas four years ago there were huge reserves of capacity lying idle in the fields of production and investment, to-day the productive possibilities of many industries are not only being utilized to the full, but there is an urgent need for the construction of big new plants.
Hitler regimented agriculture, manufacturing and labour on a national scale. He controlled raw materials and production; he fixed wages and prices; he placed Germany's whole national economy under the direction of military officers whose commands were and are enforced by fines, imprisonment and firing squads. According to an article by Peter F. Drucker in a recent issue of the Saturday Evening Post, there are "2,000,000 persons engaged full time in controlling the economic activities of other persons" in Germany.
As to agriculture, in 1934 elaborate marketing boards were set up. These 'boards undertook to make Germany self-supporting in agricultural products so that she would not have to import products of the farm. They fixed prices on all agricultural products; compulsorily reduced principal and interest rates on farm mortgages; reduced taxes on farms; compelled farmers to sell their products at fixed prices; required farmers to farm in an efficient manner (if a farmer failed to do so they took his farm from him and gave it to someone else who would work it efficiently) ; required a farmer to pass his farm on to his eldest son or other heir. As a consequence, a farmer could not sell his farm or mortgage it to raise money to buy up-to-date machinery. Restrictions were also placed on farm labourers getting work in towns. Labourers were taken from towns and forced to work on farms for little or no wages.
The nazi farm programme has not been a success. There is not a plentiful supply of 'bread. There is a shortage of butter, eggs, cheese, meat, milk and fat products. They had to kill off much of their breeding stock because they lacked feed for it. In the subdued countries Germany confiscated large fodder supplies and shipped them to Germany. Holland and Denmark always import quantities of fodder for their live stock. Owing to the looting by Germany and to imports of fodder being cut off by the blockade, Holland and Denmark were short of fodder and had to slaughter the greater part of their dairy herds. Germany then confiscated the carcases. Some of the smaller countries which have since been overrun anticipated a long war in which they had hoped to remain neutral. They built up

reserves of food. The Dutch built up reserves to last them for four years. The Germans swiftly confiscated and used up these reserve stocks. As a result of Germany's looting, there is a real lack of farm products in the German-controlled countries.
As to industrial control, only those things are produced which the government thinks are necessary and in the quantities deemed necessary. Prices are frozen at the 1936 level. Dividends are limited at from 6 to 8 per cent. Dividends in excess of the authorized limit must be deposited in the reichbank where the funds are held for the account of the shareholders. The funds cannot be withdrawn by the owner but are invested for him in government securities or otherwise under government direction.
The cost of government control and the salaries of the staff required in setting it up and carrying it out are paid by the industry itself. The cost hits small businesses much harder comparatively than it does large businesses. Many small businesses are thus being ruined. Large business, too, has been ruthlessly dealt with. Germany's largest steel enterprise was confiscated by the government and reorganized into the Hermann Goering works. The reason given for confiscating it was that August Thyssen, head of the enterprise, was not cooperating satisfactorily with the nazis. In the countries overrun by Germany she forced the banks to give their money in exchange for reichmarks at a price fixed by the Germans. She is now taking over control of their banks and manufacturing plants.
At a nazi congress held on September 9, 1936, Hitler announced a four-year plan designed, in these words:
In four years to make Germany wholly independent of other countries in all those materials which German capacity, our chemistry, our machine industry, and our mining industry, can produce at home.
Her ambition was to be blockade-proof in case of war.
Germany proceeded to build up new industries by the creation of synthetic ersatz. Without Lorraine, she had to import 84 per cent of her iron ore; as a result of experiments carried out under the four-year plan, a great expansion of production was provided from poor domestic ores. She built up synthetic oil plants, distilling oil from coal; at the commencement of the war more than 50 per cent of her liquid fuel demands were produced from coal. Her leaders say she is now producing 5,000,000 tons of synthetic gasoline a year. This is probably an exaggeration. She

War Appropriation Bill
is believed to be producing a little more than one-half this amount. These plants are favourite targets of British bombers. From coal and lime she produces sufficient synthetic rubber known as "buna" to supply more than one-third of the needs of the army. She produces textiles on a large scale from lumber, straw and other plants as well as from coal, lime, glass and fish. These and other ersatz enterprises were financed in many instances by their competitors in existing industries.
With regard to labour control the economic life in Germany is severely controlled. By reason of this control the nazis are able to carry out effectively, but ruthlessly, their agricultural and rearmament programmes, the four-year plan and the war itself. This control involves the loss of individual freedom and initiative to an extent as great as, if not greater than, that involved in soviet Russia, even though Germany retains the formal capitalistic organization.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask the hon. member a question? I did not follow that document. He said something just now with relation to labour control. Is what he is giving us a description of labour control in Germany, or in Canada?


George Henry Ross: In Germany.
One of the first major actions of the nazis on gaining power was to destroy completely the trade unions and all they stood for. At that time the trade unions were very strong in Germany. Their funds were confiscated; their leaders were killed, imprisoned or driven into exile, and the organizations destroyed.
The unions were replaced by the labour front, which is not a labour organization as we understand labour organizations in this country. The workers have no voice in labour matters. The labour front is a branch of government. Labour trustees appointed by the government are all-powerful officials dealing with labour matters. All workers must belong to the labour front and pay dues to it.
The average worker must pay 16 per cent of his wages for compulsory insurance in the labour front. The labour front also collects sufficient dues from the workers to pay the salaries of 16,000 instructors to train men for jobs requiring skilled workers. They also have to provide winter relief and other funds for the workers.
Wages of workers were reduced to and frozen below the low level of the lowest depression year, 1932, and increases are forbidden, subject only to minor adjustments. Dismissal of workers was prohibited in order to stabilize employment. Food rations have been reduced to the workers since the commencement of
the war. German scientists say a man can do a full day's work on 70 per cent of the food which he consumes under normal conditions. Hence in Germany food is rationed and cut down to 70 per cent of the pre-war level.
The worker under nazi rule is not free to move from one district where there is a scarcity of labour to another where he thinks there is a chance to get better employment. He is not free to give up one job to accept another that will pay him better. An employer is liable to a penalty of $500 if he offers higher wages or otherwise attempts to attract a worker already employed; newspaper advertisements for skilled labour are banned. Hiring and firing are both to a large extent under the control of the government. All skilled workers are registered and are allocated to those jobs which the government deems most necessary.
By the spring of 1938 all employable persons in Germany were mobilized and put to work. Further labour was needed on the Siegfried line. Skilled craftsmen were needed in their factories. As soon as Poland was overrun, the Poles were driven like cattle into Germany and have since been forced to work like slaves. According to the London Economist there have been sent to forced labour in Germany more than 1,000,000 Poles, 100,000 Dutch and 80,000 Slovakians. Mr. John Wheeler-Bennett in an article in New Europe quoted in a recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, says:
German official figures place the number of workers conscripted from the enslaved areas for forced labour in German agriculture and industry at 950.000, including 340,000 from Poland, 160,000 from the low countries, 107,000 from Bohemia and Moravia, and 17,000 from Denmark. These figures are exclusive of prisoners of war, of whom nearly a million are employed, chiefly on the land, but some in activities directly contributing to the nazi war effort, and it was added, somewhat significantly, that a further million conscript workers would be required. According to reports from neutral sources the standards of living of those engaged in forced labour in Germany is so low that many cannot survive, without receiving additional food from home.
The people in the subdued countries are systematically starved in order to increase the surplus that Germany can wring from her conquests. These foreign helots in German factories and on German farms have been driven from their homes by the spectre of starvation. They must work for Germany or starve.
According to German economy, Germany is to be the industrial hub of Europe after the war. Positions which demand initiative and leadership will be reserved for Germans; the more menial tasks will be left to the lesser breeds.
War Appropriation Bill

The Winnipeg Free Press editorial to which I have already referred, further quotes from Mr. Wheeler-Bennett's article in New Europe, from a speech made by Walter Darre, Minister of Agriculture in the reich administration, to nazi officials last May, when a complete nazi triumph for nazi arms appeared to the Germans to be only a few weeks off. Here are Darre's words:
Before autumn sets in we shall be the absolute masters of two continents, with the exception of soviet Russia. It will then be our duty to organize economically the territories gained, which gradually will be included in the German area. We will introduce into our "living space" completely new methods. All soil and industrial property of inhabitants of non-German origin will be confiscated without exception and distributed primarily among the worthy members of the party and soldiers who were accorded honours for bravery in this war. Thus a new aristocracy of German masters (herrenvolk) will be created. This aristocracy will have slaves assigned to it, these slaves to be their property, and to consist of landless, non-German nationals. Please do not interpret the word "slaves" as a parable or as a rhetorical term: we actually have in mind a modern form of mediaeval slavery which we must and will introduce because we urgently need it in order to fulfil our great tasks. These slaves will by no means be denied the blessings of illiteracy; higher education will, in future, be reserved only for the German population of Europe. We have selected this form of slavery for several reasons. The most important reason is that we are abolishing the gold standard and replacing it by work. This work must be as cheap as possible in order that our economic conquest may spread extensively and rapidly. Our future generations must, even in peace time, be educated in such a manner that, in case of necessity, they may be fit to defend strongly and energetically what we acquired. Here too the form of slavery mentioned above will prove its worth. German masters, accustomed to command, and, in case of necessity, to strike inconsiderately where striking is necessary, will be fine pillars to uphold Germany's rule of the world.
From Mr. Wheeler-Bennett's comments on the text supplied by Doctor Darre, the Free Press quotes:
Here in the terse, direct phraseology of nazi rhetoric is the blueprint for that brave new world which Adolf Hitler plans to build upon the ashes and debris of European civilization. This is not the thought of a single man; it is the kind of doctrine currently discussed by the inner circles of the nazi party.
Last Wednesday's Lethbridge Herald, in an editorial, tells of the cruelties and indignities to be visited upon the British if Hitler wins. It quotes a nazi agent who writes:
As soon as we beat England we shall make an end of you English once and for all. Ablebodied men and women will be exported as slaves to the continent. The old and the weakly will be exterminated.
All men remaining in Britain as slaves will be sterilized. A million or two of the young women of the Nordic type will be segregated in

a number of stud farms, where, with the assistance of picked German sires, they will during a period of ten or twelve years produce nearly annually a series of Nordic infants to be brought up in every way as Germans.
These infants will form the future population of Britain. They will be partially educated in Germany, and only those who fully satisfy nazi requirements will be allowed to return to Britain and take up permanent residence. The rest will be sterilized and sent to join the slave gangs in Germany. Thus in a generation or two the British will disappear.
The editor then makes this comment:
You may think that no nation would do such a thing as this-not even Germany. But remember it is actually being done in Poland to-day.
So we know what is in store for us, if Hitler wins the war.
At the end of 1940 the national debt of Germany was 79,000,000,000 reichsmarks. Germany has been spending on her war effort 5,000,000,000 reichsmarks a month, or
60.000.	000.000 reichsmarks a year. According to a dispatch in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, nazi war spending for the current year will be 6,000,000,000 reichsmarks a month, or 72,000,000,000 reichsmarks for the year, compared with an annual income rate of
100.000.	000.000 reichsmarks. Where is the money to come from? Germany is raising a very considerable part by taxation. In the year 1939 she raised by taxation 23,600,000,000 reichsmarks. During the present fiscal year ending 31 March, 1941, she expects to raise by taxation 30,000,000,000 reichsmarks.
In Germany, tax collections take about one-third of Germany's total national income, according to Mr. G. F. Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, in his annual report to the finance minister tabled on February 11, 1941. He makes this statement:
In Canada, during the same period, dominion government revenues will be about one-sixth of total national income. In the United Kingdom the proportion will probably be something more than one-fifth. Including the levies of the states (or provinces) and local governments, the German people are paying in taxes at least one-third more, in relation to their income, than are the people of Canada. In addition to formal taxes, Germans have also to make substantial direct payments to their government in the form of party dues, winter relief fund donations, and other special "contributions" which are just as compulsory as taxes.
Apart from taxation, most of Germany's financing has been done by borrowing. Up to 1935, borrowing was mainly done by the issue of short-term bills. From 1935 to 1938, financing mainly took the form of long-term loans. Since then, they have been experimenting with short-term delivery certificates

War Appropriation Bill
and " tax certificates," but since the commencement of the war, almost entirely with five-and ten-year notes.
Everyone in Germany who has money is compelled to lend it to the government whether he wishes to or not. Most of the borrowing is done from the financial institutions. The borrowings are spoken of as loans, but they are really taxes, because nazi leaders openly admit that the loans will never be repaid.
To build up her war effort Germany has, by means of controls, greatly lessened consumption. Interest rates are much higher in Germany than in Canada. In 1933, the interest rate on high-class government securities was 6 and 7 per cent. It has been reduced from time to time so that the general rate now paid by the German government is 4 per cent. The reductions were made not by agreement with the creditors, but by government decree. Germany also adds to her treasury by levying on the Jews and other unfortunate minorities, and by looting the overrun countries and selling the loot.
According to an article by Frederick T. Birchall in yesterday's New York Times, speaking of Germany's finances:
Every invaded country, whether it resisted or not, has been systematically ransacked for all that was valuable in it. Its stores of gold, its currency reserves, its arms and military equipment, the rolling stock of its railroads and a large part of its industrial plant have been removed to Germany.
Working for reich
By the hundreds of thousands, labourers and skilled workers have been sent to the reich to do Germany's work and leave her man power free for military service. Hundreds of thousands more are working for Germany, producing military equipment and supplies, in their home factories. Unless they work for Germany they and their families cannot eat. It has been estimated that already nazism has enlisted 2,500,000 conscript labourers in the conquered countries, that they have contributed $1,275,000,000 to German national resources and are producing probably $400,000,000 worth of supplies annually for the war.
Every occupied country pays an amount far in excess of actual cost for the maintenance of the German armies of occupation that hold it in subjection. The French are assessed
144,000,000,000 francs (about $2,800,000,000) annually for the German occupation. Norway pays $1,870,000,000, more than a third of her national income, to her military jailers. She is being bled white, but so are the other countries From the resources of all combined, Germany is paying a large part of the cost of her war. The nazis even make a source of profit. Fines are laid upon communities which show a tendency to resist domination. Only last week disorders in Amsterdam were punished hy infliction of a fine of $8,000,000 against the city.
Of all the conquered countries Poland is admittedly in the most wretched plight. A million Poles have died in concentration camps
and prisons and of starvation and exposure outside them. Thousands have been deported to hard labour in Germany. Mass arrests and deportations take place constantly without apparent cause. Labour is compulsory for all, under pain of being sent to concentration camps, and all Poles without exception must surrender thirty per cent of their meagre wages under pretext of contributing to the "reconstruction of Poland".
Germany has also been forcing the smaller nations to deliver goods to her and is paying for them in reichsmarks. Germany issued Rm. 10,000,000,000 of "printed money" plus billions of special credit bills and IOIJs to finance in conquered countries. These reichsmarks and IOUs are offered for sale in the stock markets of the world, but they are almost worthless. A person cannot legally buy reichsmarks abroad and take them into Germany and use them there. These are the only novel financial methods carried out in Germany.


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to associate myself with the remarks made a short time ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South, (Mr. Green) with reference to shipbuilding. At the outset I may say that if the minister should ask me to produce one thousand ships, or one ship, I should not 'be able to do so, or [DOT]to tell him where to get them. I also recall that over a year ago when the matter of tanks was being discussed, the minister told us that it was practically impossible to manufacture tanks in Canada. But we are now told tanks are being produced in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: We hope so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And I believe they are being produced in substantial numbers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the first time I have ever heard anyone on that side admit it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it true?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have been told by the government that it is so, and I am not doubting their word for the present. But the minister tells us that with regard to ships we cannot do any better than we are doing at the present time. I have no data upon which to contradict 'that statement. The minister tells us there are no further shipbuilding experts to be obtained in Canada. But we all know that in all our war effort, whether in the building of aircraft, the manufacture of munitions or even the training of our men, there were not sufficient experts at the beginning of the war; these experts had to be developed. No doubt it
War Appropriation Bill

takes time to do this; but the war has been going on now for eighteen months, and if we made any criticism at all I think one criticism we can make would be that this work should have been started eighteen months ago. I am satisfied that if a definite shipbuilding plan had been commenced at that time, we should now have in Canada more experts, more shipyards and we should be launching more ships at this time when they are so urgently needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I remind the hon. member that we started a programme eighteen months ago and have turned out a considerable number of large ships up to this time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, they sink fifty and sixty a month, so one hundred is not a very large number in comparison with the need. One hundred ships now would certainly be much better than five hundred or a thousand when the war is over. Ships are as important as food and guns. We all realize this. Under the terms of the United States lease-lend bill which has just been passed, this principle has been recognized. The hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago mentioned Lord Beaver-brook's appeal. Lord Beaverbrook stressed this in a broadcast to the empire a few days ago. He said that we in Canada should procure ships wherever they can be obtained.
What policy the government has in this matter I do not know, but I presume every effort is being made by them at the present time to procure ships. Where these ships can be built is the problem of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. It is also the great concern of the Canadian people and the people of the British empire. The minister has told us on different occasions that with regard to production he is interested only in results and proposes to obtain supplies where they can be obtained most readily. I have no quarrel with that statement of the minister. But in carrying it out I would ask that he make no mistakes and that he use his very best judgment as to where these supplies should be obtained.
We in the maritime provinces feel that the minister and his department have more or less overlooked us. I contend that more ships should be built in the maritime provinces and particularly in my own province of New Brunswick. I have not heard the minister say whether wooden ships are suitable for use. I have seen comment in the press and heard statements that wooden ships would be useful and should be produced. If that is the fact, I point out to the minister that the maritime provinces are the logical place in which to build wooden ships as well as steel ships. It is not necessary for me to
[ Mr. Brooks.]
say here that at one time the maritime provinces were the largest producers of ships in the world. I am told that some years ago 57 per cent of the ships of British registry sailing out of Liverpool had been built on the bay of Fundy between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I also remember that during the last war many ships were built on the bay of Fundy and other sections of the maritimes. We have a tradition and background of shipbuilding; we are a maritime people, and if any industry is suitable for the maritime provinces, surely the shipbuilding industry is the outstanding one.
The minister spoke about building ships in the city of Saint John. I know they have been built there and that, as the minister stated, they are trying to extend their facilities in order to do more.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trying to get some men.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, there are lots of
men in the maritime provinces, and I am not satisfied that the minister's statement that men cannot be got to build ships is accurate.
Another advantage in building ships in the maritime provinces, as well as on the Pacific coast, is that we are not icebound for five or six months of the year. If a ship is built on the great lakes or the St. Lawrence early in the winter, it is held up there until the spring. A ship built in the maritime provinces or British Columbia is already on the seaboard. There are also other advantages which might be mentioned.
Then there is the matter of financial assistance, which is a sore point in the maritime provinces at the present time. I should like to call attention to the treatment we have received in New Brunswick, and I refer to page 923 of Hansard, where there is a digest of Canadian and British capital assistance to industry, including some 220 items, with a capital expenditure of some 1307,000,000. Of the 220 plants throughout Canada which have received assistance, only one is in New Brunswick. That is in the town of Campbellton, and the amount involved is less than $200,000. We have not been fairly treated, in this regard, and I think it is time that at least some consideration should be given our part of Canada. I do not think one plant in Prince Edward Island has received any assistance, although I believe it has 'been given help in other ways. In this connection I should like to refer to an article which appeared recently in the New Glasgow Evening News. This article speaks of the assistance given to industry in other parts of Canada, and says:
But by and large, the maritimes are producing nothing.

War Appropriation Bill
That, of course, is an exaggeration; but their production does not compare with that of other parts of Canada.
That in spite of the fact that Ottawa on behalf of the Canadian and British governments, has authorized the construction of far more than 100 new plants.
It is more than two hundred.
This is a tremendous development, costing many hundreds of millions of dollars. But its net result when the war is over will be only to increase the industrial disparity of the rest of Canada and the maritimes.
That is a true statement.
Yet we do our share of supporting war loans (better than other sections), Red Cross and other drives, as well as all types of recruiting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend not aware
that we have given capital assistance amounting to three and a half million dollars to New Glasgow and Trenton? What do they think is their share?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It took
them months to get that much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I know that assistance has been given. We get a little hand-out once in a while; we do not deny that; but I am speaking of the broad principle. I do not think we have received our share. We have over a million people in the maritime provinces, and if we received our share in proportion to the rest of Canada it would not be three and a half million dollars but a great deal more. Then this article goes on to ask this question:
What's wrong? Is it our fault? Have we lost the ability to become industrialists?
We were industrialists years ago.
Or are we forgotten?
I sometimes think, Mr. Chairman, that we have been forgotten, sadly forgotten. Just to show the mentality of the people in the central part of Canada in this connection, I would refer to a picture which w7as shown, at a local theatre a short time ago, entitled "The. Story of Canada's Growth." That was a beautiful picture; I enjoyed seeing it; but what did we find as far as the maritime provinces were concerned? One of the highlights w7as a Dutchman driving an oxcart through the village of Lunenburg. Another scene a Scotsman trying to squeeze the last inch of soil out of a barren hillside, although we have thousands of acres of good, fertile land in the maritimes. A further scene pictured a tarpaper shack with some lumbermen emerging from it. That is the sort of advertising w7e received as far as this picture was concerned. There was only one bright spot in it, the part showing the building of ships;
that was the only instance in which the maritime provinces were shown in a good light.
What was the situation with regard to Ontario? Factory after factory was shown booming; the wheels of industry were turning to capacity. We were shown the great offices of the leading businessmen of Toronto. One man called up Edmonton and said that certain goods would be shipped by airmail. Another man wras shown telephoning his representative in Vancouver that he would look after certain matters. That is the sort of comparison which leads us to believe that we are a forgotten people. In war all sections bear their full share. I was veiy glad to see in a recent article that the Minister of National War Services has become interested in the further development of industry in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is he taking a hand in this, too?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Evidently he is. The article to which I refer mentions the appointment of a committee of three representatives, under a policy designed not so much to decentralize future war industry that Canada may create, although this will be part of its function, but rather to distribute as widely as possible across the dominion the new industries that are expected to settle in this country as a result of the disturbances in Europe. The representative for the maritime provinces is Mr. Matheson, of Moncton. I know Mr. Matheson; I believe he is an energetic man, and no doubt if he is allowed to do so he will be of great help to the maritime provinces and eastern Canada. I think this is a sound policy; I hope it goes beyond sound, as far as the minister is concerned, and that something will be done along the line suggested. Canada cannot be a great country while the central part does all the manufacturing and the extremes, such as the maritimes, have no share in industry.
We have been told that one reason why there is not more industry in New Brunswick is that we have not the power. I know that our power in New Brunswick is limited; but since w7e are spending millions of dollars in other parts of Canada, why could not a few million be spent in order to produce more power in New Brunswick? At Grand Lake we have a large power plant, which could be expanded. We have plenty of coal, and I have been given to understand that power can be produced from coal as cheaply as from water. We are told that the development of the St. Lawrence is to be proceeded with. That also reacts against us in the maritimes. We will get no advantage from the development of the St. Lawrence, although we will
War Appropriation Bill

help pay for it. The excuse being used is that more power is required in the central provinces. The power development in the St. Lawrence river will not have been completed until the war is over. I believe the people of Canada realize that fact. Nevertheless we are asked to spend money from eastern Canada to develop more power in Ontario. In other words, more industry is taken away from us, and we must pay for it.
That policy is not fair. I pick up my Montreal paper each morning and I see in it pictures depicting the distance the icebreaker has moved up the St. Lawrence river. Perhaps I cannot criticize those pictures, because they arise through a practice which has been established over many years. But I wonder if hon. members realize that again, in connection with the operation of that icebreaker in the St. Lawrence river, we at Saint John and Halifax are helping to pay for something that is taking work away from those ports and our workmen.
We are told it is in the general interest. We have no great objection to helping anything which is in the general interest, but we do suggest that there should and must be a limit to this sort of thing. We are not looking for hand-outs or special concessions. We are seeking an opportunity of throwing our full weight into Canada's war effort.
Another point is that an equal burden in our war effort should be borne by all people. Anyone who will look over the list of recruits from one end of Canada to the other will find that we in New Brunswick have done as well as, if not better than, any other section in Canada. Our young men are still looking for a chance to enlist. Why? Because there is no industry in which they may take part. If in that province we have no industry in which they may be absorbed, if there is no outlet for young men, except on farms where we produce at a loss, we are again handicapped. However, I shall say nothing further about that now. There is only one outlet for our young men, so far as the war effort is concerned, and that is for them to enlist. Anyone who will tell me that a young man working in a factory is doing as great a service for his country as the man who takes his life in his hands is telling me something I cannot believe and I know hon. members will not believe.
This is a serious matter, and I would ask that the government give it careful consideration. We cannot keep this great Canada of ours united if one section of the country is prosperous, and another section is struggling for its very existence. What we need in Canada to-day is men of vision, men who can see beyond the narrow confines of their own provinces, men who will work for the good

and interests of the whole dominion. We want to have established in Canada a great country-not a great country in the centre, but a great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. POTTIER:: I cannot allow a discussion on shipbuilding, and particularly the building of wooden ships, to pass without at least taking some small part in it, particularly in view of the fact that I come from what I believe is or should be the banner shipbuilding constituency in Canada. I think it was around 1870 or 1880 that we had in .my constituency more registered ships of the type then in use than any other place in the world.
I listened with keen interest to the observations of the minister when he explained his difficulties in connection with mechanics. I know of shipyards in my constituency


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is that?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: If the hon. member who has just interrupted does not know enough geography to know where the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare is situated, then I suggest that his constituents should elect someone else to the riding he represents at the present time.


John Horne Blackmore: Tell us about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They build some very fine boats.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I know of two shipyards in my constituency which have turned down orders offered to them by the government. Someone may wonder why that has taken place. I am going to give some of those reasons, briefly, and make a suggestion as to how the condition could be remedied, to the benefit of the shipbuilding industry. One of the reasons for the turning down of offered contracts is that our shipyards have turned out smaller and less expensive ships than those mentioned in the government tenders. They have turned out schooners valued at say $10,000 or $15,000, whereas the ships mentioned in the government contracts were of a type which would be valued at $50,000, $60,000 or $85,000. That would be a type of ship, the building of which some of the shipyards in that constituency would find it difficult to finance. It is not a type of ship beyond their powers of construction, nor a type for the construction of which they do not have the necessary mechanics or material.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
beyond their financial capacity.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Yes; their financial capacity was lacking. When those orders were turned down there were men in the vicinity who

War Appropriation Bill
could have been hired to do the work of carpenters. They had material sufficient to complete the ships; but they lacked the credit, and I suggest that is one of the factors which has brought about the condition to which the minister has referred. It appears to me that some method must be adopted which would remedy this difficulty, so far as the construction of wooden ships is concerned. I do not know if the remedy would lie in guaranteed credits to the banks, or some other method, but I do suggest that something along that line must be done.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: When the committee took recess at six o'clock I was discussing the difficulties being faced by some of the shipyards in my constituency. I would not want it to be thought that I am talking about all shipyards in western Nova Scotia. There are some about the financial standing of which I have not full particulars, and I have never had an opportunity to discuss this matter with those in charge. To finance a ship costing $50,000 necessitates a deposit of 10 per cent, or $5,000.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What kind of ship can be built for $50,000?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: A mine-sweeper.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They cost $550,000.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am sorry to differ with the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me, but I know that the hulls of wooden mine-sweepers are being built for $50,000. The shipyard must put out another $10,000 or $12,000 for material and there will be labour costs of $5,000 or $10,000 before they can get a cent from the government by way of an instalment payment. If a yard is building four or five ships of that type it would need capital or credit of between $75,000 and $100,000.
In the last fifteen or twenty years wooden shipbuilding in the maritimes has suffered a slump. The result has been that many family shipyards have gone down and their credit has been used up. To-day many of these shipyards find it difficult to finance to the tune I have indicated. At the risk of repeating what I said before recess, may I say that the trained labour to do this work is available and the necessary material can be found in
the vicinity; yet orders for wooden ships are going past our door simply because in some instances credit is lacking.
Many of the shipyards are equipped to build only one or perhaps two ships at a time; they oannot build four, five or six at once. If they were given proper encouragement by the government, the tonnage could be increased a great deal. Then the government is often quite tardy in making the instalment payments under contracts which have been let.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government is slow pay.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The government is good pay, but it is sometimes slow. This affects the production of tonnage to a certain extent. Many of these yards have bad to wait for their money and sometimes they hesitate to take another contract. Something could be done by way of rushing payments. Another reason for the falling off in tonnage is the long period which seems to elapse between the calling of tenders by Great Britain and the awarding of contracts. In order to bring about increased production of tonnage, some improvement might be made in this connection. If the four things to which I have referred were taken care of, I think we would have an increased production from our wooden shipyards.
Last fall I spoke about wooden shipbuilding and urged that we adopt some policy which would bring about a greater production of cargo ships. I realized at the time that there was some difficulty in connection with gross tonnage of wooden ships as well as in connection with getting the necessary speed for convoy service. I have since discussed the matter with sea captains, shipbuilders, designers and the like, and I have come to the conclusion that what we should do in Canada is to build what was known in the last war as composite ships. In the last war, as at the present time, Canada built both steel and wooden ships, but we did not build any of the composite type.
During the last war the United States built ships of this type with tonnages of from
3,000	to 4,000 tons. The beams, frame and ribs were of steel, the rest of the ship being of wood. I have in my hand' a blueprint of a ship of 3,500 tons. Its length is 269 feet, its breadth 45 feet and its depth 24 feet. These ships could be built with a speed sufficient to take part in convoys, and they would take care of the shortage of tonnage which we seem to be approaching quite rapidly.
Many of our shipyards could build these ships. We have the wood necessary to build them and they could be built to last for from fifteen to twenty years, long enough to
War Appropriation Bill

get through the struggle now facing us. We have the wooden shipbuilding mechanics available to do the work and it would not be necessary to train new men. By building this type of ship, considerable steel would be saved. In the last war I think we built between 150,000 and 200,000 tons a year of wooden ships. If we in Canada were to make an effort to construct wooden and composite ships, we could reach the same tonnage. If we consider that in Great Britain, for example, the output is only about a million tons a year, in the United States between two and three million tons a year, and that the world tonnage is but little more than twenty millions, an additional production in Canada of two or three hundred thousand tons would be of great importance and value in these days of short tonnage and of the urgency of supplying transportation in convoys. While perhaps this is in some degree a new venture so far as Canada is concerned, it must not be forgotten that in the last war we built wooden ships, steel ships and even, I believe, cement ships. I have discussed this matter in my own constituency with captains who served on these composite ships in the last war. They told me they were fine vessels, having a speed of twelve or thirteen knots; one captain had a ship of 3,200 tons, and I gathered, in our discussion, that the boat was well suited to convoy work.
I suggest, therefore, that the minister and the government consider seriously the advisability of developing a programme of building composite ships. If those parts which are composed of steel or iron could be fabricated according to a standard in some of our steel plants, probably they might be sent to different yards and the boats constructed by the builders of our wooden ships. That, in my opinion, is the proper and the best way to utilize the wooden shipyards for cargo tonnage ships, and it is a thought which I desire to emphasize at this time.
In conclusion, it seems to me that we should arrange to provide credits for the development of the wooden shipyards, through the provision of both working capital and additional equipment and machinery. If, by using the materials and the men available, we can produce a wooden ship which will operate efficiently under convoy conditions, I believe we shall have done all we can as Canadians in wooden ships in this struggle for ships, ships, and yet more ships.
[Mr. Pottier.3


Charles Edward Johnston: I desire
to say only a few words before the conclusion of this debate on the war appropriation bill. From all parts of the chamber has come a great deal and a great variety of discussion. Of course, we of this group realize how tremendous is the appropriation which we are invited to vote under this bill, and we well understand that ministers have a great deal of work to do in connection with the war programme. It is a tremendous job, but this is also a tremendous war, so I think every hon. member should be entitled to criticize the government constructively in order that the greatest amount of effort shall be put behind the prosecution of the war.
I have just been reading a reported statement by Mr. Bullitt, former United States ambassador to France, to the effect that no country can really get down to business in the matter of war preparations until a few bombs have been dropped on them, and I have often thought that it might stimulate our war production if a few bombs were dropped here in Canada; we would then begin to realize that a real war is going on. I am convinced that we are not exerting our maximum effort. I do not say that the government is not doing its best, but that best is not good enough under present conditions.
Criticism of the government by hon. members, no matter where they sit, should be regarded as intended, not to hinder but rather to stimulate the government's war effort. The government takes decidedly the wrong attitude, therefore, when ministers become peeved at the criticism which is offered from the opposite side of the chamber. Some of them seem to have almost reached the point of mental break-down; they become slightly hysterical, and certainly irritable, at some of the criticisms. This attitude was evident the other day in ministerial references to the press. I have not found, in any criticism which I have read in the newspapers, any evidence of a desire to interfere with or hinder our war effort. To my mind it is the duty and the right of the press to criticize any government when it believes that that government needs criticism. I am quite aware of the attitude which ministers have taken towards some of their critics, but I assert that it is the duty, the privilege and the right of everyone in a democratic country to criticize when in his opinion the occasion calls for it. I believe everybody is most desirous of assisting this government in every way possible. That is certainly true of some of the provincial governments. Alberta has probably received the greatest amount of criticism and

War Appropriation Bill
has suffered more than any other province from discrimination, especially at the hands of the present dominion government. Yet here is what Alberta, through its legislature, said the other day:
War savings drive given endorsation in Alberta house.
In the face of solid opposition by independent members, a resolution endorsing the federal government's war savings campaign and urging upon the federal 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 without inflation" was passed in the Alberta legislature to-day.
The resolution also urged that "every citizen of Alberta should cooperate with the dominion government in the winning of the war in every reasonable w7ay possible."
The division was 35-18.
What did the provincial government ask the people of the legislature and the province of Alberta to do? First, to endorse the federal government's war savings campaign. Surely this dominion government is agreeable to that. Yet the opposition in the legislature of Alberta, instead of showing the same spirit of cooperation that the Social Credit members of parliament in this house have displayed towards the federal government, divided on that issue and voted solidly against endorsing the dominion government's war savings campaign. The vote on the resolution was 35 to 18, and the minority consisted of independents. Who are the . independents in Alberta? They are made up of Liberals and Conservatives, and so far as I know, the only thing they are independent of is the people.
The second point was the necessity of adopting effective methods of financing the war. Who in the world could honestly and sincerely oppose the federal government's adopting effective methods of financing the war? I cannot understand any sane, intelligent people voting against such a thing.
The third was the issue of money without inflation. Surely those Liberals and Conservatives in Alberta do not advocate inflation; yet that is what they did when they voted against that.
The resolution further urged that:
Every citizen of Alberta should cooperate with the dominion government in the winning of the war in every reasonable way possible.
Can you understand, Mr. Chairman, any people voting against that? Yet Liberals and Conservatives in Alberta, did so. That may be their idea of cooperation, but I am sure this federal government would not appreciate cooperation like that from the opposition in this chamber. There was a division of thirty-five to eighteen in the Alberta legislature. May I point out that no other organization in 14873-88
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. The only thing they are concerned about, the only thing we are concerned about in our criticism of this government, is that we should be doing more, not less, and our suggestions have always led to that.
This government, however, whether intentionally or not I do not know, seem to be critical of any criticism that may be offered; and, as I pointed out a moment ago, they took exceptional objection to the criticisms offered by the press. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) even said, referring to one newspaper, that it was the No. 1 saboteur. That is a very strong statement, and if it is true, then I think the minister should do something about it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day had this to say with reference to the press, as reported at page 1321 of Hansard:
My criticism of the press, more particularly a certain section of the press, would be this, that there is no organized group in the dominion that has done more since the fall of 1939 to delay the war effort of this country than certain sections of the press in Canada. That effort started even before war was declared, and it has been carried on since.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Who said that?


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture and Minister of National War Services. He said that they had done more to interfere with the war effort. That must be subversive, certainly against the defence of Canada regulations. If that is true, the Minister of Agriculture should do something about it. Let us see what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said. At page 1231 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
As a member of parliament, I feel that the rights of parliament are supreme over the press or any other institution in the country; and if I find the press of the country misrepresenting the position as it affects the government or its war effort, I intend to take exception most emphatically to what the press says. The press is one power in the country, but I hope the day will never come when the press supplants the place that parliament is supposed to have in upholding the rights of the people. There is one other power that is supreme over press and parliament alike, namely, the people of the country; and the people of this country, on more than one occasion, have shown what they feel with respect to a press that represents a point of view contrary to that which they themselves entertain.
These are strong terms, but he goes further. Mind you, I am not saying that the Minister of Agriculture was not right, nor am I implying that the Prime Minister is not right;

War Appropriation Bill

but what I want to know is, what they will do about the matter. The Prime Minister went on to say, as reported on page 1232 of Hansard-.
I ask hon. members if that is fair criticism. Are not all these not only false insinuations but false statements? Are they not malicious statements? I go so far as to say that that article is libellous; first, because it is false, and, second, because it is malicious, and it bears the stigma of both these things on its face. I go further and say it infringes the privileges of this house.
One minister says the press is the No. 1 saboteur; another minister says it has done more to interfere with our war effort than anything else in Canada; the Prime Minister says that these statements are malicious, libellous and false, and infringe upon the rights of the members. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it? Let us go back and see -in the statement I first read to the committee. He said: "I intend to take exception most emphatically to what the press says." Take exception! They do not care whether he takes exception to it or not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should they?


Charles Edward Johnston: Why should they? He is going to take exception to it. I could not help thinking, from the way in which the Prime Minister guarded his remarks, that the insinuation all the way through, as I understood the speech, was a direct threat to the press. Yet he adds that he will take exception to it.
I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not right, but I wish to compare the attitude of this government to criticism from the press with the attitude which they took towards the Alberta government when it had something to say about the press. The Alberta government never at any time refused the right of criticism to the press. It never called them saboteurs. It may have said that they misrepresented the facts, but this is what it had to say with regard to the act to ensure publication of accurate news and information:
Why pass:
First, because the control of news and the control of credit are both exercised by the financial interests.
Second, because "the freedom of the press" has become licence to distort news-*
I do not think the Minister of Munitions and Supply would contradict that statement. -misrepresent facts-
I think he agrees with that.
-and withhold essential information from the public.

I said, "essential information"; that is, truthful information. I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply agrees with that.
Third, because this anti-social aspect of the press, under inspired direction, is being used to thwart the people of Alberta in their struggle against finance.
What happened? Assent was withheld by the lieutenant-governor, a Liberal appointee of this government. The measure was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and on an appeal by the province of Alberta from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the privy council refused to hear Alberta's argument by counsel.
What it would have done:
First, it would have ensured that all newspapers in Alberta would publish all the facts in their news reports of governmental matters, so far as this was possible-
No restriction whatever.
-and if, from any cause, false statements appeared, equal space would be given for authoritative correction.
Is that unreasonable? Had that passed, had that practice been carried on throughout Canada, I wonder if this Liberal government would have appreciated it right now.
Second, would have ensured that the same information that every publisher demands from correspondents to his columns, that is, the names of contributors of articles, would be available to the people when demanded by their representatives.
This, briefly, is all the Press Act meant. It was widely misrepresented by the press as a muzzling act; actually it was the reverse. It did not prohibit the press publishing anything it wanted; it merely provided that the public be told all the facts, not merely what a particular newspaper saw fit to publish. I wonder whether the Minister of Munitions and Supply agrees with that. I wonder whether the Prime Minister agrees with that. Yet the opposition to the Social Credit government were the very ones who opposed that Press Act. The federal government is now complaining most bitterly when the press criticize it. I think the press should have every possible privilege of criticism; but they should not be allowed to publish misrepresentations and false statements, and if they should do it under any circumstances, by intention or otherwise, then the correction should be made and given the same publicity.
The Prime Minister overlooks one fact-if he does not know it now he soon will-that the press in this country under organized finance is much stronger and more powerful than he is.


Olof Hanson: Stronger than the government?

War Appropriation Bill


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes,
stronger than the government.


Olof Hanson: That is a broad statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is. but it is proving to be true. The government is quite concerned, and perhaps rightly so, about the criticism that is being offered about it from time to time. That is a privilege of members of parliament, and I do not see how the government can expect the people of Canada to have confidence in it when the members of this house have no confidence in it. I am not saying that in an unduly critical spirit, because there is no one in this country more anxious than I am to see this war carried on successfully. Never have I done anything that I know of to hinder this war effort.
I have, however, been greatly concerned by reason of our lack of effort. Why? Maybe it is because I do not know all the facts, but I certainly have been trying to find them out. I look at the newspapers and see great headlines about the quantity of munitions pouring off the line. I see pictures of a fleet of aeroplanes, giving the impression that we are putting out aeroplanes faster than the British can use them. One goes to a movie and sees, as we were shown in Ottawa the other day, a row of tanks and these aeroplanes going round. That is propaganda, and probably rightly so, to indicate what we are doing, but the impression is being given that we are doing everything that is humanly possible. I do not think that is true. It may be good propaganda, and I do not think that should be neglected, but it is definitely wrong to lull our people into false security, because it will work against us in the long run.
We are told on the radio time and time again that this is an all-out war effort. If it is I say, let us go at it; let us do it in that way. But I very much doubt that. I had an illustration which shows why I have not the confidence in the government that possibly I should have. On one occasion I went into a manufacturing plant in eastern Canada and the management told me they were then working on contracts which the government had not signed. I asked, "How do you know the government are going to accept your tender?" He said, "We do not know, but we cannot wait on this government." When a manufacturer tells you that-


An hon. MEMBER:: What was he making? Moonshine?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not have to tell the hon. member, because he probably would find it if it was. One cannot expect people to have confidence in the 14873-88J
government when they find such things as that. The other day I saw in a newspaper this statement by Mr. Macaulay when he was speaking at a banquet in Toronto, I think it was on February 28 last, with the premier of Ontario:
When I know that not ten miles from here there is a great aircraft plant working at only twenty per cent capacity and know at the same time it is touch-and-go if Britain will have enough aircraft, I then wonder if Canada has wakened up.
Mr. Macaulay is a responsible member of the Ontario legislature. I do not think any citizen in his position would make a statement like that if there were not some truth in it. No matter what the government say, I cannot bring myself to believe that, when such conditions exist, we are putting forth an allout war effort.
I have travelled over western Canada a good deal and .have visited many plants in Calgaryq Edmonton, Lethbridge and Macleod, and these establishments which were manufacturing war materials in the last war are not doing anything now. I ask myself, if we are having an all-out war effort, why are not these plants doing something?
The other day the minister stated that we are something like three months behind expectations. That, I think, shows that the minister is not satisfied. He may be doing all he possibly can, but it leads me to believe that there is something wrong somewhere. It is up to the government to find out what and where it is. It certainly cannot be said that the people are not anxious to do everything that can be done, because everywhere I go I find that one of the most talked-of questions. Men say, "Why cannot I get a job?" I heard the minister talking about experts to-day, saying they cannot get sufficient skilled labour. Only yesterday I got a letter from a man, and I know this personally because in the early part of last winter I myself told him to write to the government. He is a trained blacksmith with years of experience, an expert electric welder and an expert acetylene welder, but he cannot get a job. When I was going home on the train last year I met a man coming from Quebec, a young French fellow, who told me he had spent seven years working on a lathe. He could not get a job; he was going out to British Columbia to see if he could get work with a private concern. He told me that he had waited for three weeks in Montreal trying to get a job with a firm having a government contract, but he could not get employment with them. Nevertheless the government say now they cannot get experienced workmen. When I see the conditions that exist I can hardly bring myself to believe that statement.
War Appropriation Bill

The other day I received a resolution passed by the city council of Drumheller and signed by Mr. Harold A. Brown, city clerk and treasurer. These people are greatly concerned about our war effort. Sometimes I think it would do the members of the government good if they would just travel around among the people and find out what they are thinking. After all, it is the people who must be behind our war effort, and if we have not their confidence we cannot get very far. This is what the city of Drumheller has to say:
The mayor and members of the council of the city of Drumheller hereby go on record of their support of the efforts which have been made to date by the Drumheller board of trade, the Drumheller junior chamber of commerce and other organizations in this community to obtain location at Drumheller of some of these wartime enterprises.	,
And further go on record in their submission that the city of Drumheller and district is not receiving fair and reasonable consideration in this regard and request the government of the Dominion of Canada and its proper ministers and officers to take under consideration the claims of this city and district to have established here one or more of the schemes created for the furtherance of Canada's war effort.
And that the field army workshop No. 0 R.C.O.C.R.A. be established as a permanent force with headquarters at the said city.
This council hereby undertaking on behalf of itself as a corporate body, its members and the citizens of Drumheller and district as a whole to continue their whole-hearted support of the government of this dominion in the prosecution of the war and in particular undertaking to cooperate and assist our dominion and the various departments thereof with reference to making available the facilities of this community in connection with the establishment of any war-time undertaking here.
In view of that, no one can tell me that the people of Drumheller are not greatly concerned; and as they see the hundreds of unemployed, they ask themselves the very same question I am asking: what is the matter? Is this an all-out war effort? We go around and see plants idle; we see aircraft factories not working to capacity. What is the matter? Surely something must be wrong. The other day the Minister of Munitions and Supply suggested that hon. members should visit these factories, and I think he was quite right. He should, however, make it possible and convenient for members to visit these munition plants, gun and aircraft factories, military centres, barracks and air-training centres. It is the duty of hon. members to make these visits, but I believe the government should issue blanket passes to all members of parliament to enable them to gain admission to these places. Hon. members should visit these Bren gun and aircraft factories; they should talk to the management and see what is going on, in order to know whether or not everything possible is being done.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many private
members would know whether or not a factory was doing a good job?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not
think it takes a great deal of intelligence to know whether or not a factory is working full time; and I for one will never be satisfied that we are making our maximum effort until every able-bodied citizen in this country is at work, until every factory that is capable of production is working twenty-four hours a day. Then I will admit that we are making our maximum effort.
The other day I think it was the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) who said there was a great deal of politics in this war, and I am inclined to agree with him. He mentioned the great work done by the people of Canada in the past, referring to the national registration, the war savings campaign, and so on. It is said that we are going to have a census taken, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000. I believe it will be a bad thing if, after asking the people to do all these other things voluntarily, the government begins now to conduct the census on a patronage basis. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) told us definitely that this was not going to be a patronage affair. I understand that in my constituency the government asked the defeated Liberal candidate to recommend a commissioner, and this gentleman recommended himself. He is the commissioner, and people must apply to him if they want anything to do in connection with the census.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Name him.


Charles Edward Johnston: It was Mr. Claypoole; I have no hesitation in naming him. I hope the hon. gentleman is satisfied.


Vincent Dupuis: Is he a good citizen of this country?


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, he is a Liberal.


Vincent Dupuis: That is a good recommendation.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not go any further than that. I do not think that sort of thing is right, nor do I believe it will help to create unity in the country. As a matter of fact, I think it will work in the opposite way. I believe it would be decidedly wrong for the government to carry on this census under these conditions.
I should like for a few minutes to refer to the salvage scheme. I do not think any section of Canada has contributed more to

War Appropriation Bill
our war effort than have the prairie provinces. When one considers what the farmers have contributed, are contributing and are expected to contribute, with absolutely no profit but rather a loss to themselves, no hon. member can say that western Canada is not doing its share and possibly more than its share. Now we are asked to support a salvage campaign. I have no objection to that; if it is necessary, it should be done, but one thing about it surprises me. In a letter we received some time ago from the Minister of National War Services we were urged to collect scrapiron. and were told that it was one of the most essential things at the present time. Perhaps he is right, but on February 26 we received a letter signed by Mr. Justice T. C. Davis, associate deputy minister of the Department of National War Services, in which we find this statement with regard to scrapiron:
Scrap cannot be economically moved at_ the moment from Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia owing to the fact the point of consumption is largely in the Hamilton area, in Ontario, and the freight rate on these commodities from these provinces to this point is such that it is practically impossible to economically move this material.
At the moment negotiations are under way with the railway companies to try to get them to reduce the freight rates on material of this kind, gathered in these provinces by voluntary organizations, created according to the terms of my letter of February 5. We are also in consultation with the steel controller and expect to be in consultation with the steel companies to see if we cannot get an increase in the price of scrap gathered in these provinces by organizations created in accordance with the terms of the said letter.
This is the thing which, if it were not so serious, would be funny. The government pleads for scrap iron. Then Mr. Justice Davis tells us that scrap iron cannot be economically moved from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. If that movement is essential to our war services, why bicker with the railway companies to see whether or not we can get reduced freight rates? Why not tell them what you want to do? That is what you are doing to the labourer; that is what you are doing to the farmer. Why not tell the railway companies what you want to do, and not deal with them as the Minister of Transport tried to deal with me a short time ago in connection with the matter of elevators in western Canada, when he placed the blame on the board of railway commissioners.
The course taken by the government is not a serious war effort. Let us get down to realities. Let us merit the confidence of the people. Not by such acts as I have mentioned will the government merit it. It is stated that movement cannot be made economically because the only place where the scrap iron
can be used is in Hamilton. Some time ago a request was made that the government open the rolling mills in Calgary. Those mills operated at the time of the last war, and the machinery used at that time is there to-day.


Vincent Dupuis: Good for scrap iron.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does the hon. member
use scrap iron?


Charles Edward Johnston: It might be necessary to spend a little money on them, or to add a little more machinery, but if those rolling mills were opened again, we would not have to ship the scrap iron to Hamilton, Ontario. We could take care of it right in Alberta. No one can tell me that we are doing our maximum war effort when that plant is lying idle. Those rolling mills in Calgary could supply materials for places such as Macleod. Medicine Hat and Edmonton. They could use all that scrap iron, and Mr. Justice Davis would not have to write a nonsensical letter such as this saying that scrapiron cannot be economically moved to Hamilton. We could process it right in Calgary.
When I see these places not working, I question the sincerity-possibly I should not say the sincerity'-the action of the government. I do not for one moment believe the government' is not sincere, but I think there is something lacking in the organization, and that there should be a change.


Alphonse Fournier: I would remind the hon. member he has spoken for forty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I say a few words?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have I not the right to reply? We have heard two opposition speeches.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to say something about shipbuilding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish to speak about the same subject.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who has the floor?


Alphonse Fournier: I saw the leader of the opposition first.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I promise the minister I shall be exceedingly brief. I wish to deal with two topics, both of which are germane to the resolution before the committee. One arises directly from this evening's debate with respect to shipbuilding.
I shall ease the minister's mind at once by telling him that I am not in a critical mood this evening. Rather would I hope with regard to this Darticulax matter to make some con-
War Appropriation Bill

structive suggestions. I heard with a great deal of interest, and subsequently read with equal interest the progress report made by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) last November at the opening of the session. I was particularly interested in that part of his speech which dealt with naval construction in Canada, when he told us that the government had been making certain types of naval vessels, such as corvettes and mine-sweepers, and in which he visualized the building of destroyers and cruisers in Canada.
I recall that when the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) returned from England he made an announcement, first, I believe in the United States before he reached Canada, and subsequently amplified in Canada, that tlie Canadian government for the account of the British government would undertake the construction of a substantial number of freighters, due, of course, to the losses in British tonnage which had been sustained through submarine warfare. All of this was heartening. But when one comes to analyse the statements which have been made, he will see at once, and become convinced that all these are directly attributable to the war effort, and to the war effort alone.
Not for one minute do I condemn that. It is absolutely as it should be, and in so far as the government has gone I desire to commend it. Just how far it has gone in the construction of various types, the minister will perhaps inform the house at a later time.
In this connection I am reminded that last evening over the radio we had the pleasure of listening to a speech by the president of Vickers in Montreal, in which he dilated for fifteen minutes-I assume under the auspices of the bureau of information

upon the programme of construction of war vessels and freighters-all of which was heartening. I would suggest to the ministry to-night that it take a little longer view of this question of shipbuilding. We have heard a good deal to-day about loss of industry in the maritime provinces. May I point out to the committee and the country that if there is any part of Canada constituted favourably for the development of steel shipbuilding, it is the maritime provinces, where we find the conjunction of coal and steel. I am not as old as some hon. members, and perhaps a good deal older than others, but I recall the days when the Dominion Iron and Steel company was first established on the island of Cape Breton. That huge plant was established at that point because the relationship of the natural resources of Cape Breton to the iron mines in Newfoundland stood in a particularly happy position, so far as the export trade of Canada was concerned.

I believe Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance at that time, and I remember how he endeavoured by a policy of bonusing to establish the steel industry in Nova Scotia. That industry has had its ups and downs, fortunes and misfortunes; but to-day I believe, if we view it in the light of what it is doing in connection with the war effort and for the British government, it must be recognized at once that no matter what may have been the cost to the country in days gone by, it is a good thing for Canada and for Great Britain that to-day that huge industry operates in the bluenose province of Nova Scotia.
May I impress this point upon the ministry: The maritime provinces have suffered industrially and geographically. I have never disguised from myself the fact that geography has been against New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from the point of view of interprovincial trade. If I needed any reminder of that fact, all I would have to do would be to read the report my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services published some years ago when he first became premier of Nova Scotia, and when I thought they overplayed their hand a little bit too much.
I do not want to make anything like a political speech to-night and I shall come immediately to the point. We have in this government some important men; there are a number of key men, members who are endeavouring to do their duty to the countiy and to the nation. They are doing their duty as they see it in connection with the war effort. I often think, however, that this is not the only duty that devolves upon them as occupants of the treasury benches.
From time to time we have been reminded in this house that there will be a post-war situation in Canada. Unless we take time by the forelock and endeavour to develop some new ideas, that period is going to be a sad time for this dominion. I should like to make a constructive suggestion to the com-mitee and to the country. I should like to impress upon the ministry, especially those members who are from the maritime provinces, that they begin now to visualize a future for the maritime provinces by the recapturing of our industrial position. I can see no greater scope for the effort of the government than in connection with steel shipbuilding.
During the past summer I had the honour to address the Commercial club of Halifax, and I outlined at considerable length to the merchants, manufacturers and business men of Halifax there assembled the opportunity which would come once more to the maritime provinces by recapturing and rebuilding

War Appropriation Bill
the position which had been lost, largely through our own inertia. I put to them this alternative: Shall the business men of the maritime provinces seek to take advantage of the opportunity which will present itself presently to rebuild the industrial status of our provinces, or shall they continue just to sit down and draw their bank and other dividends, as they have done in days gone by, rather than exert themselves to build up for the future?
I am optimist enough to believe that there is an opportunity in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to build up a steel shipbuilding industry that will carry us on to new adventure and new profits in the post-war period. We have heard, in days gone by, that in times of peace we cannot compete with England in the building of steel tonnage because our costs are too high and perhaps we have not the skilled labour. These offer a challenge to our people. In days gone by, the government has spent substantial sums of money upon dry docks and shipbuilding plants in the maritime provinces. These dry-docks and plants are now occupied to capacity, but largely on repair work.
As soon as I read that the Minister of Munitions and Supply had returned to Canada with a programme for the construction of 9,000-ton freighters, I thought immediately of the possibilities with respect to the plant at Saint John. I was told that without a substantial capital expenditure it would not be possible to lay keels for 9,000-ton ships. But if given the opportunity, which I believe they will be given, they could lay keels for 6,000-ton, 5.000-ton and 4,000-ton ships which would be of great advantage to Great Britain at the present time, as well as in the post-war period. There are enough men with enterprise and ambition to take up this matter, and there is still capital in the maritime provinces.
I suggest to my hon. friends from the maritime provinces who are in the ministry that, no matter how engulfed they are with their war work-and I know they are so engulfed- they get together and bring into consultation the best brains available with marine knowledge to see if a plan cannot be mapped out for the establishment of a steel shipbuilding industry in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If they do that, a generation down there will rise up and call them blessed. I have lived a good many years in that section of Canada and I have seen one old family company after another fold up and pass out of the picture. This has been one of the most distressing experiences in my whole life.
Fifty years ago, those provinces were teeming with small industries. I think we made a great mistake in Canada when we failed to support the maintenance of small industrial units. We have been so imbued and impressed with the example of our friends in the United States; we have felt that everything must be done on a huge scale, that there must be great mass production, and we have lost sight of what to me is a most important factor to the community and to the nation. We should maintain as far as is economically possible small industrial units throughout the country. I throw out this suggestion to the ministers in the utmost good faith and ask them to give it consideration.
There is a large dry dock at Saint John and another at Halifax, both built with government subventions. These dry docks do intermittent work during peace time, but a programme of steel shipbuilding would give them the necessary backlog to retain their artisans and skilled workers. They are not as scarce as the Minister of Munitions and Supply thinks they are. I was told that -the Saint John company had stepped up its personnel from 400 to 1,200, and they may take on still more. It may be necessary to train some men. I believe that the genius of our people and their desire to see a rehabilitation of this industry in the maritime provinces is sufficient to overcome what are insuperable difficulties in the minds of some persons, but which fade into insignificance when one gets down to realities. I feel sure that once more the people of the maritimes, with the vision they have had in days gone by, will be able to come forward and regain, in part at least, the position which they occupied in older days.
What part of Canada is more favourably situated for export trade than the maritime provinces? Why have we not the export trade we ought to have. I know it is the custom to blame everything upon central Canada, but that is not the whole story. Part of the story is the fact that after the civil war in the United States, after the good times that came then to our seaports, our exporters were content to consolidate their gains, to sit down and invest their money in bank stocks and things like that; in other words, to rest upon their oars. The maritime provinces should have seized their opportunity and built up a sound industry of steel shipbuilding. Where would we be to-day? Therefor I say to the members of the government, those who are charged with the responsibility to-day:	Do not be so engulfed in your
duties in connection with the operation of the war, important though they are; have a little vision and let all of us get together,
War Appropriation Bill

perhaps round a table, and see if we cannot do something to further that which is so dear to my heart, at all events.
There is just one other observation I wish to make. In the very much abbreviated statement, covering as it does less than four pages of Hansard, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) made on February 18 when he introduced this resolution, he, having announced this huge expenditure, omitted- and I am not saying this in a critical sense- to tell the people of Canada and this house how he proposed to get this money. Before this resolution is reported out of the committee, I invite him to do so. How much of this money is to be raised by taxation? I do not suggest for a moment that he should tell us what, if any, new taxes should be imposed; that, of course, would neither be proper for me to ask nor for him to disclose. But what I should like to know is, just how much of this $1,300,000,000, or if it is now to be $1,460,000,000, are the Canadian people to be asked to pay in taxation, and how much are we to be asked to lend? I think that is a reasonable request, and if the government has arrived at a conclusion we should be told.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would be anticipating the budget.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I disagree entirely with that. This is a credit. All may be borrowed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not for a moment anticipate that all will be borrowed. I anticipate that a certain amount will be raised from taxation, based upon the returns received from the taxation which is already imposed. The Canadian people have a right to know if they are to be asked to pay so much more in taxation for the next fiscal year than they are paying for this year. I think it is the duty of the minister, and I invite him to tell the committee and the country, just how much more we are going to have to pay in taxes, and how much is to be raised by way of loan.


Charles Edward Johnston: All of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not all of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The resolution says so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are in this war, and this resolution will be passed. It will be passed in this chamber unanimously,

I imagine. At all events it will have behind it the unanimous support of our party in this house; it will have behind it unanimously the government's supporters, and I hope it will have the unanimous support of my hon. friends in the far corner, although I, cannot speak for them. Our Canadian people are thoroughly behind a maximum war effort, but we want to know. We want to know everything which can be told to us, save and except those things which might bring aid and comfort to the enemy or which might be detrimental to the war effort; and to assert that a statement that so much is to be raised by taxation, so much by loan, would be detrimental to the government's war effort is, I submit, an absolute non sequitur. We should be told in advance of the budget.
The government is now making preparation for the next loan. It will take the united effort of every class of political opinion in Canada to put this loan over. I am not unmindful and I am sure the minister is not unmindful of the last loan. That condition must not happen again. And there must be no forced loans in Canada. That would not be creditable to the Canadian people, and I am sure it will not be necessary. But in order to achieve the maximum in connection with loans, I suggest to the minister that he will have to get the united and undivided support of every class and every species of public opinion in Canada.
I tell him this, just one final word before I sit down, that he cannot get that if the government is to continue to be carried on in a partisan manner.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very glad that my hon. friend took the floor before I did, because what I have to say might have rather spoiled his eloquent address.
In considering the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) it occurred to me that I could have gone somewhat further than I did in saying the government of Canada has approved a Canadian programme of shipbuilding. I often think it is not wise to go too far into the details of that sort of thing until one is able to say just exactly what he can do and how fast he can do it. I have been criticized for making an announcement and having a time lag before we carried it out. But we are examining the situation closely to see how far that programme can succeed. We are hopeful that we can get out some additional capacity, but I am perfectly certain that it must be done in an orderly' way. We had an example in the last war of a government rushing in, late in the third year of war, with a shipbuilding

War Appropriation Bill
programme which was put out helter-skelter; almost any sort of plant which would undertake a job or accept government assistance took a contract. The result was that they got some very badly and uneconomically built boats, and they had a post-war problem which lasted for the next twenty years. We hope to be able to build in an orderly way a Canadian fleet of boats, and, of course, we shall distribute that work as widely as circumstances will permit.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has spoken for shipbuilding in the maritime provinces. I agree with him that from its history and its geography that section of Canada should be an ideal place to carry on a shipbuilding programme. We must nevertheless face the situation as we find it. At the time that the first corvette programme was placed, we ordered three corvettes from the St. John shipbuilding company. Those corvettes are not built yet, although other yards have turned out many times the number. I am not criticizing the St. John yard, because it has been using every man it could employ, and has searched Canada for men. I know that the company has searched the prairies and every other part of Canada in an attempt to bring shipbuilders to St. John. The fact remains that they have not been able to man their yards sufficiently to work twenty-four hours a day on the repair of ships. We refrained at that time from placing orders for new ships in Halifax, for the reason that we knew the capacity of that yard would be taxed to the limit on the overhaul of ships, and we wished all the manpower that could be collected there to be concentrated on that particular work.
After all, to obtain ships to be of use in this war, by far the most efficient method is to give a quick turn-around to the ships that are in service, and that is possible only if we have entirely adequate repair facilities at the turn-around port. I am sorry to say we have not been able to do that entirely. We have been bending every effort towards it. We have been trying to attract manpower to those ports. We have put in additional facilities and we are still building additional facilities in the hope of being able to bring that about. But I wish to make it clear that until we can have completely adequate repair and overhaul facilities for the turn-around of the boats now in service, it would be folly to attempt a large-scale programme of shipbuilding that would in any way cope with the situation affecting the present shipyards.
Another fact that stares us in the face is that a factor in the efficient use of ships is rapid loading, and there again we have not 14873-89
up to this time been able to organize the waterfront of Halifax on a twenty-four hour basis-again, for lack of man-power. We hope to do it. Until recently the docks closed at eleven in the evening and did not open until eight next morning, and Halifax, I believe, was working with only one shift of stevedores, who were working a long day.


Mr. ISNOR:: That has been changed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. If we can attract
sufficient man-power we hope to have a twenty-four hour operation at Halifax which will greatly improve the situation there so far as the efficient use of shipping is concerned.
These are the immediate problems and they must be fully overcome before we can do very much in a merchant shipbuilding programme. However, we have the programme; we are undertaking it and we are going to press it as rapidly as we can. How many ships we shall be able to build in our own programme, in addition to present and future demands from Great Britain, I cannot say, and of course no one can say at this time. We are going to do the best we can, but I must point out that the building of steel ships does not lend itself to the upbuilding of small communities in the same way that the building of small wooden ships did in days past. That cannot be expected. We must also face the fact that at the present time the cost of building merchant tonnage in Canada is about double the cost of building the same tonnage in Great Britain. I have a feeling that we can better those costs, and at least by the end of the war we shall have developed some skill in that direction which will make us better able to compete in the building of ships as a peace-time operation.
Everything that can be done will be done in that direction, and I sincerely hope that as the days go by we can attract more and more men into the shipbuilding industry and have them trained to be skilful mechanics in that industry, so that our shipbuilding industry will grow stronger from month to month.


John Horne Blackmore: What device is being used to attract men to the shipbuilding industry? What advertising facilities are being used so that a man in my constituency, for example, would know that there was a job, what he would get, and how he could get there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have seen advertisements in most of the prairie papers. I do not know that I have seen them in the Lethbridge Herald or other Alberta papers, but I have seen them in several prairie papers stating that experienced shipbuilders were required and that the company would advance the railway fare to the place where work was available. That is, experienced shipbuilders.

War Appropriation Bill


John Horne Blackmore: Do they advance the railway fare back again so that men would know they were not going on a wild-goose chase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think they would want to pay for a round trip.


John Horne Blackmore: That is where the difficulty lies. If a man goes to Saint John and is not accepted, and if there is no opportunity for him to be examined beforehand, it is a serious matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If they cannot work in the shipyard there is plenty of work. They would have to work until they earned their fare back.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say what sized ships will be built?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are studying the situation.


Howard Charles Green: Is it considered possible to build wooden ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Naturally we should like to build 10,000-ton ships if possible; if not, we are studying such other sizes as can be built which are economical in operation. We have no demand for wooden ships.


Mr. KINLEY:: The building of ships in Nova Scotia seems to have dominated the discussion in committee to-day. I know of nothing that will capture the imagination of the people of Nova Scotia more than this question, but I am sorry to say that in recent years it has been mostly imagination. The practical application has not been as good as it should have been. I believe, however, the time has arrived for a revival, for several reasons. The first is the great need of the country; second, the situation at tide-water on the eastern coast of the country; and, third, the fact that we have as Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) a gentleman who is eminently fitted for the position and who has knowledge of conditions in Nova Scotia. The Minister of Munitions and Supply bears the illustrious name of Howe, and I believe he is of the same blood as that great tribune of the people of Nova Scotia, the great Joseph Howe, who is still to-day considered Nova Scotia's greatest statesman.
The hon. gentleman has been Minister of Munitions and Supply in this government for some time; and as one who is interested in industry, having some little knowledge of industry in the country, I have been watching his performance. I have also seen what the press had to say, and while they have criticized him-and much of that criticism, I think, is light thinking and subtle and shows a lack of knowledge of the mechanics of the situation-I have yet to see a newspaper that has questioned his integrity, ability or industry.
rMr. Howe.]
For some years the minister lived in Nova Scotia, having been a teacher in our university of Dalhousie. He therefore knows the background of Nova Scotia and I believe that when we appeal to him, as we have done to-night, with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) backing us up in our desire for more shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, we can look to this minister with confidence that he will do something more in the near future.
This talk about delay in getting on with the war effort from a mechanical point of view suggests that many people do not appreciate what it takes to turn out a new product in the mechanical field. I recall that Henry Ford, a great mechanical genius, perhaps the greatest on the American continent, closed his plant for a whole year in order to change the model of his car; yet we want the minister to take on new products and overnight produce them so that they will be sent forward, without all the thought, work and planning which it takes to bring a new product into existence in the mechanical field.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) this afternoon painted a very blue picture of Nova Scotia, so much so that I would hate to live in a country that is as bad as he painted Nova Scotia. I think he was talking euphemistically when he said he saw Nova Scotia in pictures in Ottawa-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the hon. member not
see the things I mentioned?


John James Kinley: Just a minute. I do not
know much about New Brunswick, but I happen to know Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. As the hon. member says, I did see the picture of Nova Scotia, and to my great delight the two things he referred to were in my own riding and my own home town. He talked about a Dutchman driving an oxcart. Let me tell him that when I see a farmer with a good fat pair of oxen in my county I know he has money in the bank. I also wish to say that there are no Dutchmen in my county. Many people in my riding are Hanoverians whose ancestors came to this country about two hundred years ago; they were followers of Louis, Prince of Lunenburg, who became George, King of England. They are Nova Scotian and later Canadian citizens for two centuries, loyal, industrious and progressive.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would be the last to say otherwise.


John James Kinley: Strange to say, the shipbuilding activity my hon. friend spoke of was in the same town. Lunenburg in prosecuting the fisheries has been able to keep up shipbuilding as an efficient industry without

War Appropriation Bill
getting government aid. The shipyard in my town is now busy on private work and it is not looking to the government for work at the present time. Does the hon. member know that the government of Nova Scotia in the last year had the biggest surplus in its history? No business in Nova Scotia? This week-end I went to Toronto and was the guest of a man who is the head of a national industry with branches all across Canada, and he told me that Nova Scotia in the last two years has the best percentage of increase of any part of Canada. Business has increased twenty per cent in the last year. Surely that is not bad. Coming along in the train, I was talking to the conductor; the train was late, and he said, "Ah, well it is pretty hard to be on time"; between Moncton and Truro-I think it is about 120 miles-there are 27^ miles of cars either rolling or on sidings. That looks like good business in Nova Scotia.
To-day Halifax is the greatest maritime port in' America, perhaps in the world. The population has greatly increased. Halifax has the greatest war activity of any part of this country. It is the centre of the shipping of the world. It has one of the finest harbours in the world, and if I could go into detail- which I shall not on account of giving too much information about the war-I could amaze the committee regarding what is going on in Halifax.
In Nova Scotia we have concentrations of troops and extensive military camps that create a good deal of business. We have many air fields. At Sydney there are the great steel works, also steel works at Trenton, engaged in war industry, and all in all the province of Nova Scotia is receiving some benefit from this artificial war-time prosperity. There are poor spots in the province, for instance, the Annapolis valley where the apple-growing industry is a war casualty, but the government has appropriated $2,500,000 to relieve this situation. While we in Nova Scotia are an aggressive people and want things for the province, I do not like to come here and tell this committee that we are an inferior people, not able to look after ourselves and not willing to take our part as citizens of Canada.
Let me now say a word about shipbuilding. In the Sirois report one will find as good an historical record of the early days in Nova Scotia as one will find anywhere. It is splendid^ written and contains a great deal of information. They refer to our conditions in Nova Scotia years ago as the economy of
wind, wood and water. That is, we had the wood to build the ships, nature provided the wind to sail them-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John James Kinley: -and the ocean was the road they travelled to every country in the world, to bring back the products of all quarters of the world, that brought prosperity and made life so pleasant in Nova Scotia. The days of the wooden ships were Nova Scotia's halcyon days. Nova Scotia ranked fourth in the world in shipping; it had more ships upon the seas per capita than any other country in the world. In those days the wooden sailing ship was the world's best method of ocean transportation, and Nova Scotian ships were the best. By its shipping Nova Scotia developed banks and allied industries; it had an economy that was almost perfect, and everyone now speaks of those days as the great days of Nova Scotia. But as the day of the wooden ship began to pass, Nova Scotia began to slip and they have blamed it on confederation ever since.
The wooden ship has survived in the fishing industry because in the smaller units wooden ships have advantages over the steel ship. The wooden ship is not a conductor of heat and cold and will be freer from ice. It is better for coastal navigation because if it runs into the shore it is not apt to be damaged so much, and it is cheaper. Therefore, in the smaller units the wooden ship has advantages over the steel ship. I am told also that it has an advantage with regard to the magnetic mine.
Some years ago we thought the fishing industry was doomed because the wooden sailing ship was beginning to be a thing of the past. But then came the diesel engine which has revived wooden ships, making the small wooden ship an economic unit, cheaper and I think for some purposes better than a steel ship. What the government is trying to build to-day in Nova Scotia are small wooden ships, most of them propelled by diesel engines; they are good; they are economical and, when the war is over, there will not be as much to scrap as with a steel ship.
We are having some difficulty about getting a full effort on wooden ships at present. Shipbuilding had gone down. The yards were more or less in a state of decay. To start building wooden ships at this time is a hazardous business. A man knows that, when the war is over, whatever he has invested is a total loss. Therefore, to put money into wooden shipbuilding to-day. with the income tax situation as it is whereby he is allowed to earn only about ten per cent a year and can only expect to go two or three years, is
War Appropriation Bill

not justified from a financial point of view. But there is provision in the income tax act whereby a man in a business of this kind can get a special depreciation allowance, and that might be the salvation of the wooden shipbuilders.
Some of the men who are in this business are short of capital. There are many good artisans in Nova Scotia who have men who can build ships, but they are short of funds. When we see the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been lent to industries in upper Canada, surely these builders of small wooden ships might very well be helped over the hurdle. They are going to produce a ship for you; their security is good. That situation does not prevail in my own county, but I know that it does prevail in other parts of Nova Scotia.
We should do some missionary work in this connection. These men are frightened by the specifications. The departmental officers have naval specifications obtained from England, where in days of peace they brought teak-wood from the east, and there are other points that do not apply to this country at all. These officers go to a builder in Nova Scotia, a man who is not experienced in business but who is a good ship carpenter. They say to him, "You must have this ship finished in a certain time." Well, he gets scared at once. Then they come along with a great long specification, made out for the purpose of protecting officials, and they say the ship must be built to that specification.
I know that at the present time ships are being held up because they demand keels of oak larger than we grow in the maritime provinces. A birch keel is just as good under present circumstances. The shipbuilders tell them that, but the officials do not like to change. Then they demand teak-wood in the superstructure. Teak is a very expensive wood, while the spruce we have in Nova Scotia is tough and just as good for their purpose under present conditions. I do not know why they quibble over these details instead of going ahead man fashion with the building of these wooden ships; it is hard to understand. It simply means that officialdom is protecting itself instead of going ahead and doing those things necessary in the interests of the country.


Olof Hanson: They even want copper rivets in the life-boats.


John James Kinley: Canada is not marine
minded. Once we had a man who was marine minded, who had vision. They said he was extravagant, but whatever else might be said of him at least he had vision. I refer to Sir Henry Thornton, who put Canada into

the business of carrying on ocean trade. He had a fleet of ships that carried Canada's products all over the world, to Australia, the West Indies and elsewhere. For years those ships showed a deficit. He put them on at a time when the wooden ship was passing out, and there was some criticism because it was felt that he was perhaps shoving the wooden ship out a little faster than it should go, but still it was a step forward. It was progress in ocean-going traffic, and for years these ships carried on until finally they got out of the red and showed a profit. Then we had a railway problem in this country. The railway was hopelessly in debt; between 1930 and 1935 we had hard times in Canada, and the government sold anything they could in order to realize some ready money. So they conceived the idea of selling these ocean going ships, the only part of the Canadian National system that anyone would buy. They sold these ships in order to realize a little money with which to make the railway situation look better.
If these ships had been retained they would have been worth a great deal to-day; as a matter of fact, they went up in value very soon after they were sold. Most of the ships were taken over by English shipping companies. When we speak of vision, what sort of progressive country is it whose efforts stop at the shore? No country ever became great without having commerce upon the sea, and Canada should have a great overseas trade. These boats did the missionary work, and do not forget that when your products go to a foreign country in your own ships you can control the freight rates. As soon as these ships were bought by the shipping ring the freights went up. No private industry in this country can compete with the shipping ring; it requires a government for that. The ring watched the situation closely, and as soon as they could do so they bought our ships. Then, when we wished to send our goods to foreign countries under such conditions that we could overcome the tariffs and other obstacles facing us, we found that one of the most necessary facilities for the transport of our goods was in other hands, and Canada's effort was circumscribed by the freight rates charged by other people.
It was a mistake to sell Canada's merchant marine. The greatness of Nova Scotia came from the sea, and Nova Scotia never will become great again except through service on the sea. Our merchant ships, although they were not built in Nova Scotia, were important to my province because Nova Scotia crews could man them; our young

War Appropriation Bill
men could become seamen, and that is the activity we desire in that province. To-day many of our young men are in the navy.
Therefore I say, in later years there has been no incentive to build ships in Nova Scotia. The government did not want ships; the minister told us that England could build ships much more cheaply than we could. I recall that concurrently with the signing of the statute of Westminster, there was passed the merchant shipping agreement, which left our coastal shipping open to practically the whole world, with no protection for our own nationals. Why, even the great United States below us, with a wealth of shipping, restricts her coastal trade to her own ships. I am not going to blame any government for disposing of these merchant ships, although I believe they were sold before this government came to power. I believe it was felt that this would bring in some easy money to help out the national economy.
I have said that this is the time for a revival. I believe we should now press forward and, even though the wooden ship is passing away, we should be building iron ships at tide-water in the province of Nova Scotia. The other day I read an editorial in the Montreal Gazette, commenting upon the fact that someone had intimated that iron ships should be built on the great lakes. There is no doubt that this would have certain advantages, principally cheap power. All the rain that falls in western Canada comes down the great lakes and through the Niagara gorge, and because of that act of God we have cheap powe. in this part of Canada. But it must be remembered that central Canada is frozen up for six months of the year, and it must be remembered also that our canal system connecting the great lakes and the St. Lawrence is extremely vulnerable in war time. If you destroy one part of it you cripple the whole structure. In Nova Scotia, while we are on the Atlantic coast, I think we are much more protected from the point of view of shipbuilding.
There is still plenty of labour in the maritime provinces. A few months ago a man came into my office seeking men to go to Montreal to build boats. There was quite a little excitement in Nova Scotia with regard to this man coaxing people to go to Montreal to build ships. I said, "If the men are not employed you cannot complain, because they should be employed. If they are employed in building ships, the order in council will not permit him to take them away, so we have not very much room for complaint." There is no reason, however, why we should
not be busy in Nova Scotia by the construction of wooden ships for a few years to come. But when this war is over, let us be building iron ships in Nova Scotia.
When I hear about spending money to help stimulate industry in other parts of Canada, I think we are justified in asking that in the maritimes we should have some stimulation and help from the government of Canada in a scientific, and perhaps in a financial way. Let us have this help to establish shipbuilding plants, so that Nova Scotia again may seek the destiny which should be hers in Canada, namely, that of a truly maritime people.


Mr. ROY:: Mr. Chairman, it is after some hesitation I rise to take part in the debate. Hon. members will recall the speech delivered on December 3, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), following my address on the same day. In his observations the right hon. gentleman said that I was not speaking for the county of Gaspe because I had been elected by grace of a minority vote. The other day the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald) in his turn reproached me because of circumstances which had brought about my election.
You may understand, Mr. Chairman, my hesitation. However, I took the trouble to make an incursion into that precious source of information concerning the political performances of hon. members in this august house. I refer to the Parliamentary Guide. It seemed only proper to begin my study of the results of the last general election with a survey of what happened in the constituency contested by the revered leader of this chamber, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). This is what I find at page 319 under the heading "Prince Albert, Saskatchewan":
General election 1940:
King (L)	 8,310
JIanville (NU)	 7,534
Strelive (CCF)	 1,993
Campbell (Comm)	 243
These figures indicate that the Prime Minister of Canada was elected by grace of a minority vote of 1,460. I deemed it unnecessary, therefore, to carry my incursion further. I was satisfied to be in the category with the Prime Minister, even if we were only two of a kind.
I am sorry the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are not at the moment in their seats. I sincerely hope the Prime Minister has not found too bitter the judgment given on the weakness of our mandates by that great specialist in the art of making statements who sits at his side as his right arm and closest friend. I am sure no one would dispute my right to speak in the house
War Appropriation Bill

on behalf of the electors of Gaspe, and of a large number of those in Quebec who by their votes opposed the government.
The shock caused by the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) when introducing his war appropriation bill of tremendous proportions, to which measure we are asked to give our approval, has occasioned many interesting speeches in the house, and has revived, in the press and throughout the country the campaign toward the formation of a non-partisan cabinet, or a so-called national or union government. In his courageous speech of February 21 the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), denounced in no uncertain way some newspapers of his own party. He made a vigorous attack on three members of the cabinet, namely the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), a unionist of 1917, charging them with being party to the scheme to form a union cabinet.
If one does not ignore the fact that the Liberal government has 185 followers out of a house of 245, and an absolute majority of 125, it folLows that a union cabinet cannot be substituted for the present administration unless pressure comes from within its own ranks.
It so happens that a great number of believers in such form of government are found in the very midst of the Liberal party, with the support of the most influential English Liberal newspapers which, during the election campaign of 1940, were vigorously opposing the principle of national government as advocated then by Hon. Doctor Manion. May I mention here that at a certain conference the Prime Minister, according to a report published by the British United Press, threatened to resign if the lack of confidence persisted.
Moreover, following the hon. member for Temiscouata, the Minister of Justice, speaking in the -house on February 24, said, as reported at page 962 of Hansard:
I do not feel that I could sit in such a government if I were asked to do so and represent my province.
If one compares this statement with the minister's past declarations, he will observe that the minister does not now say that he would fight such a government. Why this sudden neutrality? Since the formation of national government or its equivalent is inevitable-I dare say we will have it within six months-the Minister of Justice is simply preparing his way out. He brandishes before the population of his province this scarecrow
[Mr. Roy.l
of union government, but he refrains from telling the dangers against which he was prone to warn us.
What are these dangers? Could it be the danger of the St. Lawrence waterway project? That danger has disappeared, and cannot, because it is almost a fait accompli, be expected from a union government. Is it the danger of sabotage of provincial autonomy through the adoption by a union government of the recommendations of the Sirois report? If the dominion-provincial conference failed, surely no credit for this failure can be given to the present government; and the danger is not removed if this government is kept in office.
Could it be the danger of unification of railways? The hon. member for Temiscouata gave a pertinent answer to that when he pointed to the special appropriation of 8400,000,000 to be provided for later, to redeem Canadian securities held in England. The Minister of Justice abstains-and the purpose is clear-to mention any of these things he said in the past would come about under a union government.
In this respect, let me quote again his own words. He said:
This mere mention of the name "Union government" brings forth painful memories which it is almost a crime to resurrect at this time.
Here, if I may, I wish to extend to the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources my most sincere sympathy for having received such a hard blow.
What are these things? First, there is the expeditionary force overseas. Three army divisions have already left our shores, and more are to follow. Then there is the national registration. The Houde incident reminds us that we have had it. Then follows conscription. We have had it, too; and I submit that the act providing for the present mobilization of men and resources far exceeds anything done by the union government of 1917. Extravagant expenses? We have a war emergency appropriation of 81,300,000,000, with other commitments foreseen by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in the budget to be submitted. This will make an approximate total of 82,500,000,000. This parliament will have provided since July, 1940, the unbelievable sum of 84,000,000,000. It is proper here to insist on the fact that, contrary to the usual procedure, we are now having two of these heavy budgets yearly. No one dares to inquire as to the size of the national debt because we all dread the answer. Even before the Minister of Finance submits his budget, our taxes have reached almost the point of saturation.

War Appropriation Bill
We have had war profiteering and squandering. The people are alarmed' and their suspicions are aroused by the government's refusal to allow a public investigation into these vast expenditures. This short analysis brings one to the conclusion that no other government, no matter by what name it might be called, could have gone further. Even with all his eloquence, the Minister of Justice cannot make us forget that. We realize fully that a free, voluntary and moderate war is much more expensive than an ordinary war.
Let me tell the committee the minister's reasons for his pretence of opposition to a union cabinet. They are threefold. The first is that the phantom of union government conveniently serves the minister as a reason for retiring from public life. He knows full well that he cannot hold out any longer against public opinion in his province, nor can he escape the judgment of the trend of events which are turning against him.
The second reason is the fact that a union government would take away from the Liberal party the precious benefits deriving from the exclusive control by the party of radio, the bureau of information and censorship. It would prevent the government from extending its patronage to a certain press in exchange for the praise now showered on the Liberal party. It would put a stop to scandalous patronage in the granting of contracts of all sorts and on such a large scale.
The third reason is: In recalling the union government of 1917-that is the crime, to use the expression of the Minister of Justice-the Liberal party of Quebec is trying to shirk its responsibility. In the face of the inevitable result of their own acts they are preparing to throw the blame upon a union government which they would have themselves already created. In other words, by exploiting the prejudices of 1917 they expect to make the people forget their broken promises and engagements. These are the three true reasons why the Minister of Justice says that he will never be a member of a union government.
The newspapers of the country are justified in trying to end the squandering which shocks public opinion and which is the result of patronage running wild in the granting of war contracts and the distributing of subsidies to jobbers.


Vincent Dupuis: To Tories.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I think the Tories are more sincere and logical than the Liberals from Quebec have ever been.
If we keep in mind the supreme object of our war effort, from the state of affairs I have described comes the suggestion of a cabinet so constituted that it would stop leakages,
prevent ruin and ensure a judicious spending of the huge sums which are being exacted from our people for the defence of democracy and liberty. The incompetency and inefficiency of the present government in making good use of public funds are so obvious that I would welcome any change did it not imply the abandoning of the principle of responsible government, the very foundation of the political doctrine we are defending.
Furthermore, it is only right that the party which declared war should see it through and should not be relieved of any of its responsibilities. A few months ago it received a renewal of the expression of confidence of the people, which at the same time was a disavowal of that form of national government. Although the so called King-Lapointe government had never bothered much over whether it had a mandate, had respected or disregarded it, I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that on account of the unequivocal answer it received to its appeal from the people, the government cannot run away from its responsibilities by consenting to form a union government. However, I condemn the attempt of the Minister of Justice to predispose the province of Quebec against that form of government which may come before long. These tactics of his are dangerous and are bound to destroy national unity. In doing this, the minister who likes to pose as a good apostle of bonne entente and unity is really not giving a good example. This is not the first time this has occurred. Let me quote another instance. During the discussion on national unity on December 3, the Minister of Justice said:
I am not saying anything against Conservatives in the province of Quebec. Heaven knows I would not do that, because they voted for us. They were ashamed of those who were opposing us. That is the reason why my hon. friend, alone, of his clan, is here in the house to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: As the Minister of Agriculture
and Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) and the Prime Minister are in the same position, hon. members should not say "hear, hear" too loudly.


Mr. GARDINER:: Conservatives voted
for me.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Since this declaration of the Minister of Justice is injurious and libellous for all the candidates in the last election who opposed Liberals, I ask him to state in what respect gentlemen like Messrs. Dupre, White, Larue, Cahan, Turgeon, Duguay, Robinson and all the others are unworthy and dishonourable and why their
War Appropriation Bill

compatriots should be ashamed of them. Such insults ought never to come from the lips of a man who pretends to be a statesman and the champion of national unity.
Yet there is one statement of the right hon. gentleman that I wish to commend. I realize that the first condition to Canada's unity and happiness is the respect of one for another. Speaking of those in one province who stir up ill feelings against their compatriots in other provinces, the Minister of Justice said on February 24:
I pledge myself to employ the years which remain to me in fighting any diabolical conspiracy of malicious, narrow and despicable microbes, whenever and wherever they may be found, in order that they may not defile the work of beauty that is Canada.
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if those, whoever they may be, who throw insults at their political opponents, respectable, distinguished and loyal citizens, belong to that category of common microbes?


Vincent Dupuis: Does the hon. member
take that category for himself?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The hon. member should know who I mean.


Mr. REID:: We have listened this evening to considerable discussion with regard to shipbuilding. After sitting here all evening I can quite agree with a remark made in a speech over the radio yesterday by, I believe it was, Mr. Bird, of the Winnipeg Tribune, that the people of the United States were more alive to the fact that there are two oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, than were the people of Canada. In an endeavour to bring an important phase of this subject before the government and other hon. members, I wish for a moment to speak about the Pacific ocean and British Columbia.
Sometimes I think that we of the Pacific province are so far away that if we were attacked from the sea it would create no more concern around the city of Ottawa and elsewhere in the east than if the attack were upon Norwray or Timbuctoo. When I heard the leader of the opposition, speaking on behalf of his province, mentioning that ships had been built there of four and five thousand tons, I could not but remark to myself, why are we in British Columbia being neglected when we can build and have built ships there up to 12,000 tons? It may be that during the last war we built ships somewhat hastily, but I agree with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) in deprecating the sale, prior to the war, of our Canadian National

vessels, which at the present time would come in very handily and serve a most useful purpose.
In the last war we did not commence to build ships until 1917, but during the brief remaining war years we constructed in British Columbia something like 135 ships representing a total programme of between 80 and 88 million dollars. It can readily be understood, therefore, that the people of that province are wondering what has happened during this war, when most of the orders for ships have been placed in eastern provinces.
We must take note of both coasts, but I want to touch for a moment to-night on a larger aspect of the subject which was only briefly mentioned by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg; that is, the fact that this country of ours is more dependent than any other nation on her export trade by water. Before coming down this evening I looked up some statistics, and it may astonish many hon. members, as it surprised me, that over 60 per cent of Canada's export trade is carried on sea-going vessels; yet to-day and for some years past, Canadian traders who wished to send products abroad must perforce charter ships belonging to foreign nations, and not those of Canada itself.
I am going to leave with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), who, I am glad to see, is in his place to-night, one thought with particular relation to foreign exchange, and I believe I cannot do better than cite what is taking place at the present time as regards shipping on the Pacific coast. We have developed considerable trade with south Africa. Ships running there from the Pacific coast of British Columbia make something like four trips a year. For each trip those vessels take, in freight charges alone, some S200,000, all of which must be paid for in United States funds. I am told on fairly reliable authority that all the costs of our freight on ocean-going ships to-day have to be paid in United States funds. That, it seems to me, is a great loss, and indicates that we are not taking the broad view that we as a nation should with such a gigantic export trade. Sixty per cent of our export trade represents in value well over 600 million dollars' worth of freight a year by water; yet to-day there is not one Canadian ship carrying that freight. Our merchants have to make bargains and charter vessels under foreign flags.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg spoke about the extra added costs. Not long ago we in British Columbia had an example of the control exercised by foreign shipping boards. The poultry producers of British Columbia wanted to ship eggs from that

War Appropriation Bill
province to Great Britain via the Panama canal. Looking around for ships to carry those eggs, they found a vessel of Norwegian ownership which was willing to take the eggs for about $1.85 per hundred pounds. Immediately the "shipping combine" shall I call it, with headquarters at San Francisco, notified the owners of that Norwegian vessel that they would not be allowed to take the eggs at the freight cost they had quoted; that their charges would have to be something like $2.85 per hundred pounds instead of $1.85. Naturally we lost that order for eggs. The merchants and the shippers of this country are in the hands of foreign shipping combines and so have to pay a great additional charge for the carriage of our products to countries overseas.
I fear that, as time goes on, the scarcity of shipping will greatly cripple our trade. Only a short time ago, I understand, the British government requisitioned for her purposes a considerable number of merchant ships which would ordinarily be used in the Canadian trade.
I hope that members of the government, and particularly the Minister of Finance, will view this matter from the broad angle of making this country of ours a maritime nation, not forgetting that we have two oceans, the Pacific as well as the Atlantic. I sometimes think that even in matters of defence we are somewhat like the French, who relied entirely on the Maginot line, forgetting that there were other ways of entering their country and that they should be guarded. The United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars south from the tip of Alaska, and I do not believe that we are spending as much as we should.
Before I resume my seat I will mention just one other matter w'hich came up in the course of the debate this afternoon. It was referred to by two other hon. members, one of the Social Credit group and one connected with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They were recommending to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) that the forthcoming census be taken on the same basis as that of the national registration, and I gathered the inference was intended that the national registration, done as a voluntary effort-and a splendid effort it was

was done without cost to the government of Canada. If I am wrong in that I am sorry, but that is the impression I got. I find, from looking up the figures, that the cost of the registration will astound even some members who, I know, when speaking privately, express the belief that the national registration last year cost this country but very little, if anything.	[DOT]


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) is not here, but I understood him to say that the national registration cost $900,000. He was aware that it cost a considerable amount.


Thomas Reid: If we are to do the work on
a voluntary basis, then I suggest that it should be entirely vo'"ntary, involving no cost whatsoever. I know that in my riding- and I suppose other members have had the same experience-there were certain groups who, when the proposal was made to them with regard to assisting, suggested that they be paid for the work called for. The result was that payment was made in one quarter of the riding, while work was done voluntarily in other parts of the constituency, and I know from experience that this gave rise to a great deal of criticism after the registration was finished. I am one of those who believe that if you are going to have the work carried out voluntarily, then the whole thing should be on a voluntary basis. But if you pay some, then you should pay all. I am expressing the feelings of many people in my own constituency, after the experience with the national registration of last year.
Just one word further and I will resume my seat. I have heard it stated on many occasions, and I have heard it again tonight, that there has been political patronage in the matter of contracts. Hon. members who rise in their places and make such statements should be prepared on their word as members of parliament to lay a definite charge or to make a definite statement as to political patronage. I say that in all seriousness. I have heard it time and again, and I know that the inference has gone abroad throughout the country that the government is ladling out political patronage in the face of a very serious crisis of war. I believe every member on this side of the house can say that we are finding it almost a detriment to be on the government side so far as making any approach is concerned, and I can say in all seriousness, from experience, that I have never made a statement on the floor of the house since I came here in 1930 which I was not prepared to substantiate, by naming the particular case. I do not think hon. members should rise in their places and say that the government is handing out political patronage, contracts and positions, for I maintain it is not. I can go further. I do not want to have to do this, but I could do it if called upon. A survey of all appointments which have been made, either in a military way or in connection with the war effort, would show, I believe, a great
War Appropriation Bill

preponderance of those belonging to the Conservative party. I say that in no mean sense for why should they not be called upon to help with the war effort? But I say, in order to controvert statements which some hon. members have been endeavouring to put over, that appointments are not political and that contracts are not being handed out to political favourites.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like
to make one or two observations in view of the fact that there has come to our desks to-day correspondence marked "urgent." Before doing so, however, might I refer for a moment to the observations of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) with reference to the taking of the census. Is it really so urgent now that war is on? If the national registration did cost money, and if on the other hand we are resolved among ourselves that we will do away with the census for the time being, then it would not cost us anything. At least we would save the cost of taking the census.
After all, what is the census and what is its relationship to affairs as we find them in Canada? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) could tell us how many hundred thousand men are overseas. Will that fact obtain five years hence? We had a census ten years ago. What figures did we use during the interim, in the last ten years? We arrived at our statistics by addition and deduction, and we felt we were reasonably accurate. We have an efficient bureau of statistics, which has received the compliments of similar bureaux the world over, and that department gives us accurate figures. If that is so, if it has been so for the last three or four decades, will not the same condition obtain until such time as this war is over? And would not those figures arrived at in that manner be just as accurate as the figures obtained by a census, should we take one at this time, in view of the ebb and flow of our man-power not only as far as our men going overseas are concerned but internally as well. There is a change in vocation of men and women into different kinds of work, moving from one point to another. City dwellers were asked whether they could milk a cow, and some will go and milk cows; but many more will see these advertisements that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) spoke of to-night asking for shipbuilders in the maritime ports, and many will leave the farm. Where will the census be, then, from the point of view of accuracy, in the course of another year or two?
Let us save this $3,000,000, I say to the hon. member for New Westminster. Let that provide 120 Spitfires; let us rely on our efficient

bureau of statistics to give us the statistics we require by addition and deduction; and then, for the man-power we need, let us study the reports that have been tabled by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) and find out where the required artisans are and what is being done so far as their activities are concerned. In the national registration, I say to the Minister of National War Services, we have valuable and vital information. We have that now. Some of the other information we get in a census is only comparative, but comparisons do not hold any longer, because the scene has changed fast since war was declared, and will change much faster while the war is on, from now on, so much so that I am of opinion that it is impracticable, over and above the question of economy, for us to take a census until the Canadian and the world situation settles down a little more than the position of things to-day indicates.
I wanted to say a word or two with regard to the observations of the Minister of Munitions and Supply in connection with shipbuilding. Frankly, I was shocked when I came into the chamber this evening and heard the minister say that the twenty-four hour day has not been employed by artisans in the building of ships since the war started. Not a week goes by when the press does not remind us that Britain's tonnage is some 18,000,000, and that from three to four million tons each year are lost. Indeed, the question is, in view of the strong enemy submarine campaign that is being carried on, how long can we keep up a supply to replace those ships that are being lost? Britain is doing a wonderful shipbuilding work, and has more shipping on the high seas to-day, I understand, than she had at the beginning of the war. But she will continue to do this great work only as we in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, helped by the lease-Iend bill which I am happy to knowr has passed the United States congress, replenish and help her to keep that dominant position which she has had for so many years.
Comparisons are not welcomed by the minister, but I think of that island outside Sydney, Australia, with a six-inch air pipeline twenty miles long all round it with air pressure on ready to serve that greatest of dockyards and shipbuilding yards south of the equator, operated under the direction of the commonwealth of Australia, turning out not only merchantmen that we are speaking about to-night but destroyers, and I think I am right in saying cruisers, as well as aeroplanes, and the men of Australia schooled to take their place in the shipyards doing a real job of work on behalf of the British empire at this time. Where are our schools? Where

War Appropriation Bill
have they been these last five years, that should have been training young men from the farms in the art of shipbuilding?
I had the pleasure of riding into Ottawa to-night with a gentleman who left California last night at nine o'clock, and landed in Ottawa to-night at eight-thirty. He knows the aeroplane industry in California and the conditions in it. Are they closing aeroplane factories at eleven o'clock at night, as I heard the minister say they have been closing the shipyards because personnel to keep up three shifts was not readily available? No. His deposition to me within the last two hours, coming in on the plane, was that they are working twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. And the personnel is being supplemented by young men trained within the last three years in schools so that the aeroplane business can carry on. I do not use that illustration of what is going on in a country that is not a belligerent as showing that they are any better than we are; there are no better people in any line of business than the Canadians. The Minister of Munitions and Supply was told by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) that he had the blood of a Howe. The Canadian people have the blood and brawn. The hon. member -who just took his seat said that in that chart laid on the table here last week by the minister we had a great number of men who were Conservative in thought, and I notice quite a number who are Liberal in thought, but whether they be Liberal or Conservative we have in Canada the brains to do this work. So we have the four Bs, the brains, the brawn, the blood and the bone. Let us then get on with the job.
I do not make this next statement in too critical a sense, but if the administration as at present composed cannot take hold of these virtues of the Canadian people and the great desire in the heart of Canadians to do everything they possibly can in an all-out war effort, then they should sit down round the table and search their hearts in order to see why it was necessary for the Minister of National War Services to rise in his place and say, with regard to the census, "It is not my department; that belongs to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I do not know about it." Why should this debate go on the way it is doing?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. Minister of Mines and Resources says, "hear, hear." In that regard I will not take lying down any criticism with regard to holding up this debate. Forty hon. members have risen since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gave any sort of a summary of what
this vote is about. Even one of his own colleagues who, I understand, should come after him, intervened in the debate; I refer to the Minister of National War Services, the minister of a much junior department and certainly of a much lesser category in respect of the money being spent. His statement came in advance of that of the minister charged with the responsibility of this vote of $1,300,000,000. I should like to have heard, before I participated in the debate, a great deal more from the Minister of Finance. True, he said this should be a matter of question and answer to give him an opportunity to discuss the matter. But when one of his own colleagues rises ahead of him and sets out in detail what he has in mind, and another minister, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, takes the brunt of the debate, what runs through the minds of those of us who have been observing the panorama here for a couple of decades is that it is all lopsided; we seem to be out of order in dealing with this bill.
Another matter which is brought to our attention to-day and which, to my mind, should be at the bottom of the list although it is nevertheless important, is the national salvage campaign. Inasmuch as I have only a few minutes left, I shall reserve my other remarks to another occasion and place a few suggestions on the record with regard to this urgent circular which has just come to our desks. It urges us to think nationally. Of course we should do so, and most of us do. It says we should talk scrap, find scrap, get scrap, help win the scrap and so on. They go on to say that they are going to have a national outdoor billboard appeal, a national newspaper advertising appeal, a supply of leaflets for distribution-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: More waste of money.


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, a waste
of money-a supply of posters for display by local committees, a selection of mats, newspaper advertisements, et cetera, all available in English and- French. There is still time to do what I am going to suggest, but the time is short. First, I make a general Observation, that the cart is before the horse in this campaign. Large municipalities are not headed up with the municipality taking charge. The only way that those in the large centres of population can handle salvage properly is by having the municipality take the leadership and the responsibility for the campaign; then let your propaganda come behind them when they are organized and ready. I will give an instance before I finish. When they are ready, let this propaganda come along and let all these public-minded
War Appropriation Bill

bodies of citizens who are so anxious to do something, such as the daughters of the empire, the local council of women, the veterans' organizations, and so on, across Canada, not do the actual work, which belongs to the street-cleaning departments in large cities, and the health departments in other cities, but urge the citizens to salvage the waste.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should qualify for that.


Joseph Henry Harris: I can qualify; and, if necessary, I could call a witness to that effect. Let them be properly organized before this propaganda goes out.
I said I would cite an example; that was why I was anxious to take part in this debate to-night. In Toronto we have a very fine body known as the local council of women, who are anxious to help with this work. One gentleman gave them office space; another firm paid for the four or five telephones they had installed. These women, who are familiar with every neighbourhood, set themselves up in their office and received telephone calls from thousands of home owners. But they had no direction. Can hon. members not see how ineffectual it was for them to attempt to operate without some direct contact with the municipality beyond the mayor and board of control saying, "Yes, ladies, we will help you in every possible way. What do you want?" Should the direction come from organizations that are not quite sure of what they want, or should it come from the government to the municipality and then to the organizations?
Before going on with that, let me state what actually happened. Hundreds, yes and thousands of telephone calls were received. The ladies were asked to go to the far end of the city to pick up an old fur coat; they were asked to go somewhere else to pick up a brass ornament, and so on. They hired trucks, picked up all sorts of material, put it in a shed and sorted it. No one knew exactly what they had; no one knew just what to do with it. Another call came in to pick up papers in another section of the city, and one of the girls who were volunteering to drive the trucks, which were hired at so much a day, went to the address and found fifty pounds of old papers. They were brought to the shed, which has been made available by the Toronto transportation commission, and thrown into a corner with other old papers. Then a dealer comes along and offers $3 a ton for everything in that comer, which cost $10 a ton to collect. In this regard I should like to pay tribute to the International Harvester company of Hamilton, which lent a truck for three months.

All through this recital I want to pay tribute to the women who are trying to carry on this work. Their services should be used to encourage people to support this campaign, even as this pamphlet is used for the same purpose; but those who should be charged with the responsibility of doing the actual work are the departments of street-cleaning, which have all the necessary equipment available. How can that be done? In the city of Toronto there are sometimes two hundred trucks on the streets making collections. It would not be difficult for these trucks to carry various receptacles, one for paper, another for scrapiron, another for bones, and so on. The balance of their loads would be taken to the incinerator or the dump, as the case might be, and these receptacles could be taken to the city yard. Then these various commodities could be contracted for and picked up in loads or by the ton, and in that way the work could be made to pay. I think I have made that point clear. [DOT]
How are we going to take advantage of the enthusiasm of these women to see that this job is done? This is my suggestion: zone the	city.	Let the	women sit in	their office,use	the telephone	and see to it	that all thepeople in a certain zone are apprised of the fact that collections will be made the following	day,	and that	they will be	expected toput	their	paper in	the paper receptacle, their
iron in the iron receptacle, their bones in the bone receptacle, and so on. Then, when the collection is made, there will be no delay.
Following that a little further, hon. members must remember that the women who do this work, whether through the local council of women, the daughters of the empire or any other organization, want to get credit for it. Give them that credit. It is a small concession to make in return for the work they will do. They do not want money; they simply want some recognition of the energy and enthusiasm they are putting into this work. I am sony the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his place, but no doubt he will be made aware of what I have said. I suggest that he get in touch with the heads of municipalities at once. In the larger centres do not ask our public spirited men and women to become collectors of rags, bones, bottles, scrap, and so on, at a collection cost far in excess of the value of the material. So much for the situation as far as Toronto is concerned.
I should like to make another observation with regard to the whole country. The great difficulty across Canada is that commodity freight rates are not available on 'the commodities being collected in order to bring them to the point of consumption. Some fifteen

War Appropriation Bill
or sixteen years ago there were commodity freight rates which permitted the movement of many low priced commodities, particularly from the western prairies, to the centres of consumption in Ontario, and that applied also to the products of the maritime provinces. That situation, however, does not exist today, and that is one of the difficulties which must be overcome.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to make one further observation. I think the Minister of Finance has an idea of my views in this matter, which he may convey to the cabinet. The matter of salvage in Canada has to do not only with the civilian population but also with every industry. After all, if industry could cash in on its by-products, very few balance sheets would have red figures. What applies in business also applies to this expenditure of $1,300,000,000. In the organization chart which was given us by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, I looked in vain for any individual charged with the responsibility of looking after the by-products of the industries which are spending this great amount of money. When I think of cost-plus contracts on clothing, shells and what-not, I wonder who is looking after the by-products of those industries; I wonder who is looking after the salvage of scrap metals, borings, scrap aluminum, scrap copper and all the other things coming back from those industries. I wonder whether the cost-plus basis for the sheet of metal which finds its way into an industry also applies when that sheet is punched out and the scrap is left over. I wonder whether we are getting for the Department of Munitions and Supply a full return of the money for the scrap which forms the by-product, coming back from the industry which made the expenditure of the government money in this vote. So much for that class of expenditure.
I come now to the Department of National Defence. I wonder whether the salvage branch of that department is coordinating its efforts with the Department of Finance as much as should be done. I believe, if I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) or the Minister of Finance to make a statement, we would get the admission that there are some difficulties in connection with getting branches of the Department of National Defence to cooperate to the full in seeing to it that we receive returns from the by-products originating from the heavy expenditures in the Department of National Defence. The salvage branch of the defence department is necessarily a vital one, and what applies to that branch should apply to the whole organization.
To my mind, the revenue from salvage in the Department of National Defence must in its entirety find its way to the exchequer of Canada. I know that is being partly done now, and that it was not done at the time of the last war. I hope the degree of efficiency with which the work is being carried on-and I could elaborate at greater length on that point-has reached a fairly high percentage. But do we know? Is anyone charged with the responsibility of making sure that he knows? Is that person who is responsible definitely answerable to the Minister of Finance who, in the main, is responsible for all moneys coming to the Receiver General of Canada.
Has the Minister of National Defence broken down that right which the army assumes it has, namely, of assuming that what once comes to them is theirs? Is the revenue from by-products derived from stores of second-hand clothing, second-hand boots, shoes, metal, tanks and so on, the property of the unit involved? That condition obtained in England, and I say it should not obtain here. The revenue derived from that source running, as the minister will admit, to an amount of almost $1,000,000 a year, should find its way into the coffers of the Minister of Finance.
I am asking the committee to endorse the idea so that we may reinforce the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance with our view that that which belongs to the government of Canada does not belong to an individual unit. What obtains in that particular should also obtain in connection with all manufacturers doing work for the government. Somewhere within the organization there should be someone coordinating these efforts. The Minister of National War Services should not be left to run his department all by himself, nor should the Minister of National Defence. What is needed to-day -and I am going to suggest it now-is a war-time prime minister who will more and more coordinate the efforts of these hardworking ministers in all departments of government.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is now eleven o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Not quite.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I might take a minute or two to deal with the last remarks of my hon. friend. He appears to believe that the remedy for all this is a war-time prime minister to coordinate the work of the ministers.


Joseph Henry Harris: To see if we could not coordinate.	[DOT]
War Appropriation Bill


James Layton Ralston: This gives me an opportunity just to mention to the committee- and I believe I can do so in two or three minutes-some points which, it seems to me, are not too well understood in the house. I refer to coordination of the war effort.
Let me say this: First, we have a wartime Prime Minister as president of the privy council and chairman of the war committee of the cabinet. On the war committee of the cabinet we have the ministers of the three defence services, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National War Services, the Minister of Mines and Resources, and the Hon. Senator Dan-durand. That body is the body coordinating governmental effort in connection with this war.
May I just in a minute, if I can, indicate to the committee of the house how the committee to which I have referred operates. In the first place we have the three defence services. To some extent those three services are naturally competing in connection with their requirements. The army needs small arms ammunition; the navy needs small arms ammunition, and the air force needs it. So with uniforms, clothing, armaments-so with everything that goes to the fighting forces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But is the Minister of National Defence not the head of the three?


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of National Defence, under the act, is in this position: It is provided that where a particular project affects more than one service the Minister of National Defence, in consultation with the minister or ministers of the other service or services concerned shall make a decision.
But suppose we have a situation wherein the three defence services are in competition. That is ironed out and coordinated first by an inter-service priorities committee. That is a committee composed of representatives of the staffs of the three services, which meets and functions and makes recommendations to the ministers.
The ministers meet in the defence council, which is composed of the three ministers, the three deputy ministers and three chiefs of staff. I do not think there is much difficulty about coordination of the work of the three services. That is one branch of the service. Next comes the ministry of munitions and supply. In munitions and supply you find the

whole purchasing power, not of one service only, as in England, but of the three services- for the navy, the army and the air force. In England we find the minister of munitions and supply purchasing only for the army, and certain raw materials for the other services. The navy does its own purchasing, and the ministry of aircraft production does purchasing for the air ministry.
Coordination is effected in Canada by means of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who not only purchases for all three Canadian defence services, but also purchases on British account as well. So he has in his charge the full range of the organization of industry in Canada to meet these combined requirements, and has the authority to deal with the raw materials which are needed in connection with that industry.
How is that dealt with? It is dealt with by means of controllers within the Department of Munitions and Supply. There are controllers for the various commodities, who with some controllers in the Department of Labour meet together and form a committee of controllers who coordinate the whole matter of supply and production of raw materials. That is the Department of Munitions and Supply. First we have the defence services; second, supplies, and then third, man-power is to be dealt with.
That is done in the Department of Labour where we have the labour coordination committee, a committee headed by the deputy minister of labour, and composed of representatives, first, of labour; second, of the national labour supply council, which is an advisory body, as everyone knows, representing industry and representing labour, a representative of the Department of National War Services and a representative of the defence services. That brings about a complete coordination and integration among the services in which man-power may be required.
Every demand which can be made upon man-power in Canada is looked into by the labour coordinating committee, and along with that is the national labour supply board, of which I spoke. In the result we have, first, the defence services; second, munitions and supply; third, labour; and, fourth, finance, all tying up in the war committee of the cabinet. With this tie-up in the war committee of the cabinet, headed by the war-time Prime Minister, the blueprint of the war effort of Canada is worked out to the

War Appropriation Bill
highest degree we possibly can; nobody claims perfection because the work to be done changes from day to day and almost from hour to hour.
Before this committee is through, I hope to be able to give hon. members some idea of how the army programme has worked out. My hon. friends of the other two services will give the same for the navy and air. In the war cabinet committee is also tied up the work of the joint defence board. I should have said that the Department of External Affairs is also represented on that committee by the Prime Minister. That department deals with Canada's affairs in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom and foreign countries. I think this is a fairly complete tie-up, a fairly complete integration, a fairly complete coordination of Canada's war effort under men who at least ought to know something about what is being discussed and who are able to bring to this problem first-hand knowledge of the difficulties, the needs and the requirements of the particular services they represent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The inspection departments are still under the three branches of the defence department.


James Layton Ralston: The inspection department has now become a separate board, entirely under the inter-governmental inspection board which is made up of both Canadian and British personnel who give their efforts in connection with whatever may be required. A Canadian may possibly inspect a British requirement or a Britisher may inspect a Canadian requirement. If we have a particular man who can do a certain job on a certain gun, then he does that particular job; if the British have a better man in connection with textiles, for instance, he does that. But it is all done under the one board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Segregated from the
department.


James Layton Ralston: Not at all.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It does not come under the Minister of National Defence; it comes under this joint board?


James Layton Ralston: Not directly under the
Department of National Defence, but under the inter-governmental inspection board, on which there are personnel who were formerly on the department's inspection service.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, March 11, 1941.