1941-03-12

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: 

II, 1941

[Stage Direction]
Questions
world's conscience has condemned the wanton aggressors who have placed freedom, Christianity, and civilization in jeopardy.
As the chairman of the foreign relations committee said yesterday in the House of Representatives, the lease-lend bill "is the voice of aroused America, sounding the trumpet call of victory for free government everywhere."
The courage, determination and fortitude of the people of Britain in the face of continuous and appalling danger have not only gained the ungrudging admiration of the American people, but they have proved, with inexorable logic, that the strength of Britain is the one great obstacle in the path of the aggressors. The American people know that the magnificent resistance of Britain has made her the main outwork of the defences of the United States. Canada's example, as a nation of the new world, actively participating to the utmost limit in the present struggle, has also had its influence in arousing the people of the United States to their present realization that freedom itself is at stake in this war.
It in no sense minimizes the magnificent effort of Britain and the nations of the British commonwealth to say that the aid, .the cooperation and the limitless resources of the United States definitely ensure final victory.
We in Canada may feel more than a little pride in the share -we have had in bringing about the closer relationship between the United States and the British commonwealth. It will, I believe, seal the spiritual union of free peoples everywhere, out of which we may hope to build an enduring new world order.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the passage of the lease-lend bill by the congress of the United States and its approval by the great president of that republic constitute an event of great magnitude and importance at this juncture of world affairs. To Britain as the head of our beleaguered empire, and to Canada and the other dominions which stand at her side as belligerents, it may -well be, as indeed I think it will be, a turning point in this war distracted world. In any event its importance cannot be overestimated.
We in Canada as good neighbours of the United States, along with our kinsfolk in Britain, should raise our voices in grateful acknowledgment of the effort of the president and his administration in pursuing the policy now adopted. In the days to come, with the abundant assistance which will be forthcoming, we and generations yet unborn will raise our voices and call their names blessed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Was Richard Creed, supervisor inspector of fruits and vegetables suspended by the Department of Agriculture? If so, when?
2.	What was the reason or reasons for his suspension?
3.	Were any other fruit and vegetable inspectors suspended or expelled in the maritime provinces from 1933 to 1936, both years inclusive?
4.	Was Richard Creed dismissed from his position? If so, when and what were the grounds for his dismissal?
5.	What were the carryover charges due by the shippers for inspection fees on potato table stock and turnips for the years 1933 and 1934 in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes; on December 1, 1934.
2.	Unsatisfactory collections and remittances of inspection fees.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes; February 1, 1936; unsatisfactory service in connection with the collection and remittance of inspection fees.
5.	Prince Edward Island, 1933-34, $1,033.50; 1934-35, $390. New Brunswick, 1933-34, $9; 1934-35. $714.


ALBERTA AIR TRAINING SCHOOLS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What type of air training schools are located at Macleod, Granum and Claresholm, in the province of Alberta?
2.	How much money is allocated for the construction of each of these three schools?
3.	How many regular officers and men are stationed at each of these schools as instructors, and what position does each hold?
4.	How many trainees will each of these schools accommodate at any one time?


Mr. POWER:: With respect to Nos. 1 and 2 of this question, there will be no difficulty in giving an answer. With respect to Nos. 3 and 4, I would prefer in the public interest not to make specific answers. I have on some occasions in the house stated in a broad and general way the number of persons who were employed at the various flying training schools and the number of trainees; but if the hon. member would permit, I would prefer not to specify exactly the number of such persons.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Nos. 3 and 4 dropped. The remainder stands.

Questions


CANADIAN ARMY-REGIMENTAL BANDS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What is the number of the various regiments comprising both active service forces and that of the non-permanent militia, or non-active service armies?
2.	What is the total number of regimental bands authorized and at present functioning, showing the number of pipe, bugle, brass and drum bands, respectively?
3.	What, if any, consideration has been given to the matter of providing a greater number of bands for military purposes?


Mr. RALSTON:: I spoke to the hon. member regarding this question and advised him that it would be difficult to give satisfactory information in answer to the first question as it stands, since the word "regiment" is usually regarded as applying to substantial formations of infantry and artillery, and it would be doubtful whether giving this information so far as the active forces are concerned would be in the public interest. The hon. member indicated that he was satisfied not to proceed further with this part of the question as far as the active forces are concerned.
I am therefore tabling the answer to the second part of question No. 1, and questions Nos. 2 and 3.
1.	(a) Referred to orally.
(b) 493 units composed of regiments of cavalry, batteries of artillery, engineer and signal formations, battalions of infantry, including reserve companies of veterans guard of Canada, army service corps, medical corps, dental corps, ordnance corps and postal corps units and Canadian officers' training corps contingents.
2.	As to the Canadian army, active and reserve formations in Canada:-
Regimental bands Authorized Functioning
Brass	117	107Bugle	45	41Pipe 	35	33Drum	3	3Trumpet 	. 3	3Fife 	1	1Total	204	1883.	Frequent consideration being given and action taken as is deemed advisable. The matter was recently discussed by the minister personally with the G.O.C. Canadian Corps, the senior officer at Canadian military headquarters, London, and the G.O.C's. 1st and 2nd divisions.


CANADLAN FARM LOAN BOARD-ONTARIO LOANS
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	How many loans were made in Ontario by the Canadian farm loan board in each fiscal
[Mr. Speaker.l
year from the setting up of the board to March 31, 1940?
2.	What was the total amount of the loans made in the said province during each of these years?
3.	How many applications for loans in the
province of Ontario were disposed of in the period from March 31, 1940, to December 31, 1940, and how many of these applications were granted?	.
4.	What was the total amount of such loans made from March 31, 1940, to December 31, 1940?
5.	How many persons were employed in connection with the Toronto office of the said board during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940?
6.	What was the total cost of the administration of the farm loan board in Ontario for the said fiscal year?
7.	Is this cost in addition to the amount collected from farmers for inspection fees and other expenses collected from persons applying for loans?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The following reply is furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
1 and 2.		
Year ending	Loans granted in	
31st March	Province of Ontario	
	No.	Amount
1936	.... 700	$1,380,2001937	.... 501	1.044,6001938	.... 418	885,8001939	.... 413	852,6001940	.... 437	934,400
3 and 4. During the period March 31, 1940, to December 31, 1940, the board disposed of 569 applications in the province of Ontario as follows: 247 granted loans for the amount of $529,400. 107 still pending as at December 31, 1940. 322 withdrawn, cancelled or rejected.
5.	During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, 21 persons were employed in the province of Ontario on a salary basis. In addition, the board employed as and when required 25 part-time appraisers throughout the province on a daily fee basis.
6 and 7. The cost of operations in the province of Ontario for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, was $49,087.73 after crediting inspection fees retained amounting to $8,206.63. Included in the cost of operations is a proportion of head office expenses amounting to $10,251.74.


WHEAT-PROCESSING LEVY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many grist mills are there operating in each of the nine provinces?
2.	What is the total amount collected to date of the processing levy on wheat products?
3.	Is the processing levy as regulated by order in council P.C. 4387, September 3, 1940, still effective ?

Questions
4.	If not, in what province has the levy been discontinued and by what authority?
5.	Have any refunds been made in any part of Canada, and, if so, what is the total amount refunded in each province?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1. Number of grist mills reporting to the
Canadian wheat board:
British Columbia	 22
Alberta	 62
Saskatchewan	 63
Manitoba	 43
Ontario	 136
Quebec	 28
New Brunswick	 6
Nova Scotia	 1
Prince Edward Island	 4
.	365
2.	Total amount of levy collected to date is $2,995,741.85.
3.	Yes, subject only to amendment contained in order in council P.C. 134/813, 1st February, 1941.
4.	The levy has been, remitted in the case
of wheat grown in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and taken to a mill to be gristed for consumption exclusively to the grower's own home (authority:	order in
oouncil P.C. 134/813, 1st February, 1941).
5.	Refunds amounting to $144.38 have been remitted in the province of Quebec for wheat grown in that province but gristed for the producer's own use.
In addition we anticipate receiving claims for refunds for wheat gristed for the farmer's
own use, as follows:
New Brunswick	
$473	15NovaScotia	
39	90Prince Edward Island	
316	75Quebec	
92	22


$922 02 CALGARY HIGHLANDERS PAYMASTER
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How much pay and allowance has Mr. Andrew Davidson received up ,to date as paymaster of the 2nd battalion of the Calgary Highlanders?


James Layton Ralston: $156 less national defence tax of $3.36

total received $152.64.


APPLE SURPLUS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Is there a surplus of apples in Canada in 1940-41?
2.	If so, did the government purchase such surplus and has it been disposed of?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government has assumed responsibility for part of the apple crop and has been disposing of same through processing and the distribution of the processed product.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any of our Canadian universities offered buildings to the government for use in the present war?
2.	If so, which of them, on -what terms and conditions and for what purpose?
3.	What university property, if any, is now being used by the government for war purposes?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
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 complaints relative to the processing levy on wheat products in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-EMPLOYEES FROM SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a return showing, (1) the names of persons from Saskatchewan now employed by the Department of National War Services; (2) the duties of each of these persons; (3) salary paid to each; (4) value and source of any superannuation or other pay received by each of these persons.


TORONTO-FEDERAL REVENUE AND FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing what federal revenues have been collected from the city of Toronto, during the last year of record in (a) postal receipts; (b) customs; (c) excise; (d) income tax; (e) inland revenue; (f) sales tax; (g) other federal levies. Also a statement of the expenditures made in the city of Toronto by the federal government during the last year of record?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to obtain this information, at least without a tremendous amount of research, and I suggest that the motion be dropped.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Thomas Langton Church: Would the minister give the information as far as possible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not altogether a question of possibility. Perhaps the hon. gentleman
Motions jor Papers

will look at the motion. In connection with income tax collections from the city of Toronto, for example, it would be necessary to examine long lists of income taxpayers to ascertain whether or not they were residents of Toronto, and then reckon up the total amount of taxes paid by them. This is a task which a department of government should not be asked to undertake. The same applies, only in much greater degree I should say, 'o customs and excise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They give that information every month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is through the port of Toronto-an entirely different matter. This motion has reference to the city of Toronto; apparently the hon. member is talking about residents of that city. What I have said applies to inland revenue, sales tax and other federal levies, and these amount to such a substantial part of the motion that I would suggest it be dropped.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: If the word "city" were changed to "port", would that meet the minister's objection?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That gives a wrong impression.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It could not be amended in that way. The port of Toronto would be the proper term with regard to customs and excise; but with regard to income tax, it would be the district office.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister let the motion stand, and perhaps the hon. member can revamp it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Very well.


Georges Parent: Stand.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to ask the acting Minister of Transport if it is the intention of the government at this session to appoint a committee to consider the annual report and review the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (acting Minister of Transport):: I suppose the standard reply would be that the intention of the government will be made known in due course. I can go further than that, however, and say that in a war session I do not think the affairs of the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are sufficiently complicated to warrant the appointment of a committee this year.


STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to make a statement as to the government's policy with regard to the 1941-42 wheat situation. Before outlining the policy I wish to deal with the 1940 wheat quota system, and how it has worked out; the general 1940 deliveries and certain over-deliveries; the wheat position as we expect it to be on July 31, 1941; the wheat situation during the last war and the directly opposite situation in which we find the wheat problem to-day; our possible local wheat consumption and exports for 1941-42; our storage situation; the world wheat situation; the possibilities of wheat disposal, and the financial aspect of the wheat situation. Then I wish to outline the proposals as to our policy as it affects my department. I would appreciate it very much, Mr. Speaker, if I could proceed without questions until after I have made my statement.
On November 22 last I made a statement to the house dealing with the wheat position as at that time. On that occasion I reviewed the work of the government and the wheat board in meeting the unprecedented conditions which had arisen in the early part of the present crop year. It is my purpose to-day to review the main developments in [DOT] the Canadian wheat situation since my report of November 22. Before doing so, I wish to point out to the house, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks deal with the marketing of wheat and matters relating thereto. The field of production lies within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and policy references to production lie under his management. Because some of the members may not be familiar with wheat terminology, I would explain that the crop year runs from August 1 of one year to July 31 of the succeeding year. I would like hon. members to keep this in mind when I am speaking in terms of crop years.
Quota system. The most important development in connection with the handling of the 1940 crop was the establishment of a quota system intended to allow the equitable use of available storage by farmers throughout the three western provinces. This quota system was provided through amendments to the wheat board act in July last.

Wheat-Government Policy
On November 19 out of a total of about 2,200 shipping points in western Canada nearly 1,600 points had quotas of 12 bushels per acre or less and slightly over 500 points had quotas of 15 and 20 bushels per acre. By the end of this week it is expected that every shipping point will have quotas of 15 or 20 bushels per acre. These increases were made in two ways. First, by increasing the general quotas at all shipping points in western Canada as soon as storage conditions warranted. and secondly, by increasing quotas at individual points, where local storage was available. The wheat board is making every effort to relieve the few points which remain on a 12 bushel basis. It may be said, therefore, that as far as the west as a whole is concerned a general 15 bushel quota is now in effect. In addition over one-half the shipping points in western Canada are now on a 20 bushel basis.
If every farmer wished to deliver all his remaining wheat up to 15 bushels per acre, local storage space at many points would at present be insufficient to house the wheat. However, many farmers are holding their wheat until spring or later to earn the farm storage payments. In addition the restrictions on shipments to the lake head are now being eased which will help to relieve pressure on country elevators.
The plan of payment for farm storage put into operation this year had the effect of slowing up deliveries which have, generally speaking, lagged behind the quotas established. I placed a statement on Hansard in November showing the basis on which farm storage is being paid. For example, wheat now being delivered to the board has earned 3 cents a bushel in farm storage. This plan has not only assisted a great number of farmers in a financial way, but has given an incentive to holding wheat on farms and has thus taken some of the load of the heavy delivery months usually experienced in the fall.
Up to November 19, as I pointed out to the house at that time, 221 million bushels had been delivered under the quotas then established. Since that time another 100 million bushels have been delivered so that the total receipts as at March 7 were 326 million bushels.
Before leaving the question of wheat quotas I would mention that in certain cases overdelivery of the established quotas has been permitted. Over deliveries were permitted to enable farmers to contribute to war service funds, such as the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Salvation Army Red Shield war service fund, the Young Men's Christian Association war services fund, the Canadian Legion war services fund and the Knights of Columbus Canadian army huts fund.
More recently the wheat board has permitted deliveries by producers who wished to buy war savings certificates or non-interestbearing bonds. By permitting over deliveries' in these particular cases, many of the farmers in western Canada have been able to contribute to these important causes.
In addition to these over deliveries under the quota which can be made without individual permission, the wheat board has in some cases upon special application issued special permits to allow of the delivery of low grade wheat over and above the quota established at the farmers delivery point, so as to relieve the feed situation in eastern Canada and British Columbia. It will be remembered that for the same purpose the board removed the quota on barley and oats early in the marketing season. In addition the board has facilitated the movement of feed grains and low grade wheat from country elevators.
On the basis of the present estimate of the 1940 crop, and after making allowances for seed and feed, we anticipate that, approximately 472 million bushels of wheat will be delivered during this crop year. As I have stated, approximately 326 million bushels have already been delivered, leaving a balance of approximately 146 million bushels to come in during the next five months, an income of approximately 75,000,000 dollars in cash.
I said in November that it was the expectation of the wheat board that by the end of next July farmers would have had the opportunity to deliver the entire surplus production from the 1940 crop. I feel very confident now that that will be done. In connection with remaining deliveries, however, I would like to suggest to farmers to keep storage space at their local shipping points filled as far as possible in order to prevent an undue rush of wheat in the closing weeks of the crop year. I wish to stress this.
There is, I believe, no doubt that the quota system as it was applied this year by the Canadian wheat board has given general satisfaction, and in no small degree the successful working out of a quota system has been due to the splendid cooperation which the wheat board has received from wheat producers throughout Canada, from elevator companies and their country agents and from all those who have business interests generally in the prairie provinces.
When I say that, I am not in any degree minimizing the excellent work which has been done by the wheat board. I have received dozens of letters, entirely unsolicited, from individuals, farmers' organizations, business men, municipal organizations, and others, giving the highest possible praise to the wheat board for the way in which they tackled and
Wheat-Government Policy

overcame the many difficult problems which they had to face. In the west there is a general realization that the wheat board throughout their activities acted in a completely fair, equitable and impartial manner in all their dealings with the 1940 wheat crop.
As to the expected position July 31, 1941, there are certain important factors, Mr. Speaker, which have had and are having a distinct bearing on our present wheat situation and although I do not intend to deal with them in detail, I am of the opinion that they should be brought to the attention of the members.
May I say first of all that in the last war the Canadian farmer was faced with a position which is definitely reversed in this war. Our wheat acreage then was little more than half the present level and the whole difficulty was shortage, not surplus. In this war the government had to intervene to prevent prices being radically reduced. Then the government intervened to put an upper limit on wheat. For part of the 1916 crop $2.40 per bushel was paid by the board of grain supervisors; for the 1917 crop $2.21 was paid and for the 1918 crop $2.24^. Finally in 1919-20 the then wheat board paid $2.63 per bushel. All these prices were on the basis of No. 1 northern Fort William and Port Arthur.
Since the over-running of Norway, Holland, Belgium and France, the United Kingdom has provided the only volume market for Canadian wheat in Europe and only very small shipments have gone to Eire, Portugal and Spain. At least as long as the war remains in its present phase, Canada cannot look forward to large exports of wheat. We expect exports during the present crop year will amount to about 150 million bushels, most of which will be taken by the United Kingdom. This, of course, will have a very definite effect on our wheat position at the end of the present crop year.
There are only two ways at the moment of disposing of Canadian wheat. We can either use it in Canada or we can sell it abroad. As far as using wheat in Canada is concerned we need about 50 million 'bushels for human consumption and another 77 million bushels for seed and feed, giving us a total domestic utilization of 127 million bushels. If in addition we oan only export this year about 150 million bushels, it is apparent that we can look forward to the disappearance of only 277 million bushels of wheat during the present crop year. We started the year with 852 million bushels, by far the largest amount of wheat ever held at one time in this country. This means that on July 31, 1941, we will have a wheat carry-over of about 575 million 
bushels, and within a few weeks after that the 1941 wheat crop will be coming on the market.
I would now like to deal with the probable position in terms of the storage situation in Canada. The rated capacity of grain elevators in Canada is 521 million bushels including 84 million bushels of temporary annex space built in the last two years in the prairie provinces. After allowing for the storage of coarse grains and flax seed, a certain amount of Canadian wheat in the United States, wheat in transit, and space which for one reason or another cannot be used at particular times, it was obvious that additional grain storage would be needed in Canada prior to July 31, 1941, in order to take care of the balance of deliveries from the 1940 crop, and the government had given the wheat growers of Canada an assurance that they would accept from them the total deliverable portion of their wheat.
To meet this situation the government entered into an arrangement with western elevator companies for the construction of approximately 50 million bushels of temporary terminal storage space at Fort William-Port Arthur. The arrangements made were approved by order in council of February 19, 1941. I am assured a large part of this new space will be ready by July 31 of this year and the remainder in August and September. These facilities are being constructed by the elevator companies. The government has agreed to maintain all elevator tariff charges now prevailing without reduction until July 31, 1943, and to allow the companies to write off as depreciation for income tax purposes 50 per cent of the actual cost of construction in each of two successive years.
It is further agreed by the companies that after the 31st day of July, 1943, they will, upon request, each enter into agreements (upon the basis of payment of reasonable remuneration for each operation) as may be mutually satisfactory in the light of the operating experience gained during the period up to July 31, 1943, for the operation of its temporary facilities during the balance of the time such facilities are needed.
The following storage, it is expected, will be available at July 31, 1941, or shortly thereafter:
Statement showing approximation of storage as at July 31, 1941
Permanent storage, all
classes	 437,000,000
Temporary country annexes	 84,000,000
Suggested new, temporary terminal....	50,000,000

the ensuing 12 months. To these commitments already made must be added any additional commitments which we undertake in respect of the 1941 crop. It is in the light of these facts that we have had to reach a decision in regard to the wheat policy to be followed for the crop year 1941-42.
The government has been alive to the difficulties of the wheat situation and the whole wheat problem has been under constant and persistent study by various branches of the government and of the wheat board. The advisory committee, appointed last fall under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, has been giving a great deal of consideration to every aspect of the problem. From the many representations which have been made to me from people in all walks of life, throughout the west and throughout all Canada, I think I am safe in saying that no Canadian problem has received more careful attention and consideration than has the wheat problem.
I shall now outline the plans the government proposes to make effective this year in connection with the 1941 crop.
(1)	To take such action as will ensure as nearly as possible that the visible supply of Canadian wheat on July 31, 1942, shall be no larger than on July 31, 1941. In other words we feel that we have reached the limit of the volume of wheat reserves which should be carried.
(2)	To accomplish this a definite limit will be set on the amount of wheat which it will be possible to deliver either to the board, on the open market or otherwise, during the crop year 1941-42. The limit will be 230 million bushels-for the rvhole of Canada, an amount which it hopes can be sold in the domestic and export markets in 1941-42.
(3)	The Canadian wheat board and the government have given the most careful consideration to an equitable plan by which deliveries of the 230 million bushels will be distributed among wheat producers. The quota system so successful this year will be maintained and these quotas will be based on the production from 65 per cent of the 1940 acreage. The first quota will be a general one and will allow the delivery of the same amount of wheat per acre from every farmer. The second and following quotas will be certain proportions of the 1941 yield for the farmer's shipping point; that is a high yield point in 1941 will have a higher quota per acre than a low yield point. I cannot at the moment give further details of the delivery plan but I can say that the plan will be equitable as between farmers and as between areas in the prairie provinces. This plan of quotas will operate only if total production provides a marketable surplus of wheat in excess of 230

million bushels. In the event of the crop being smaller than this the system of quotas will require to be varied to meet this condition.
(4)	The dominion government through the Canadian wheat board will continue to guarantee an initial payment of 70 cents a bushel basis one Northern on wheat delivered during the crop year 1941-42.
(5)	The Canadian wheat board will continue to pay storage to the producers on the same basis as in 1940-41, but only on the undelivered portion of the 230 million bushels.
(6)	No change will be made in the amount or incidence of the processing levy as at present established.
My jurisdiction as Minister of Trade and Commerce covers the marketing of wheat. With this I have dealt. Agricultural production lies within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. The restrictive measures I have outlined are deemed necessary. There must be compensations in view of these restrictions and the Minister of Agriculture will now deal with these compensatory measures.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), the minister of that department has, ever since there was a Canada Grain Act, been responsible for its administration, and on each occasion when we have had a wheat board act the minister has also been responsible for its administration. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no minister of trade and commerce and no wheat board has ever had a more difficult year to deal with up to the present than the year 1940. I think I can say at the same time that the minister, his department, and the wheat board in particular, should be complimented upon the efficient manner in which they have handled that difficult situation.
We have just been given an outline of the activities of the year and of the difficulties facing us this year. As my colleague has already intimated, I desire to deal with that section of wheat policy which has to do with production and its relation to the statements that have been made.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated to the house what will be available to provide handling facilities and advance upon the wheat which can be taken by the government this year.
It is considered by the government that only 230 million bushels of wheat can be delivered to the board on the open market or otherwise. In view of all the uncertain circumstances, the government is of the opinion that

Wheat-Government Policy
the advance upon the amount delivered should not be increased. The outstanding reason for that conclusion is the opinion that production of wheat should be decreased.
The figure arrived at will suggest that farmers keep before them an objective of not more than 65 per cent of last year's acreage. It has also been pointed out that a certain farm income is necessary to the maintenance of western economy. It is generally agreed that this should be not less than 325 million dollars.
If this income is going to be realized it will be necessary for the farmer to obtain from the lands which were in wheat last year a net return at least equal to that of 1940.
The government has therefore attempted to set up a plan under which that may be accomplished, while at the same time securing a reduction of the acreage in wheat to an area which is not likely to produce more than 230 million bushels.
It is not our intention to pay farmers for not growing wheat or to compel them to reduce acreage. It is our intention to pay them to do something other than grow wheat, which we believe in the long run will improve western agriculture.
We intend to do this in a manner in which, if the happenings of the war or the after-war period require it, reasonable quantities of wheat may be produced.
But, most important for the time being, we will attempt to do it in a manner which will give the farmer a net cash return comparable with what he would have had if he had followed his pre-war methods of agriculture and could have disposed of his products in the usual way.
It is our intention, therefore, to make payments of certain sums per acre on all reductions made in wheat sowings in the prairie provinces in 1941 as compared with 1940, provided the farmer does certain specified things with the land.
1.	If he summer-fallows the reduced wheat acreage or part of it, the government will pay him $4 an acre for the reduced wheat acreage which is black July 1, 1941; payments to be made as soon as possible after July 1, 1941.
2.	If he sows the reduced wheat acreage or part of it to coarse grains in the spring or, in the case of rye, in the fall of 1941 on lands not summer-failowed, the government will pay him $2 a.n acre in 1941 as soon as possible after proof of sowing is established.
3.	If he sows the reduced1 wheat acreage or part of it to grass or clover during 1941
provided the land has not also been sown to coarse grain or summer-fallowed, the government will pay him $2 an acre as soon as possible after proof of sowing has been established and an additional $2 an acre if the same land is still seeded down to grass on July 1, 1942.
4.	If he sows reduced wheat acreage or part of it which is also sown to coarse grain, or which is summer-fallowed in 1941, bo grass or/and clover or to rye in 1941, the government will pay $2 an acre as soon as possible after July 1, 1942, provided the same land is in grass or/and clover, or rye, on thaJt date.
The above payments are considered to be liberal allowances for the work necessary to utilize the lands for the different purposes outlined. The methods by which the money can be earned are intended to be varied enough to permit of the farmer adopting the one most suited to his farming conditions in order to obtain revenue which he has been denied because he is unable to deliver the amount of wheat he has been accustomed bo market.
An estimate of the amount of money which can be earned is possible. If the entire 9,000,000 acres wrere removed from wheat as summer-fallow, the amount distributed would be $36,000,000. If 6,000.000 acres were utilized as summer-fallow and 3,000,000 for coarse grains and grass, the amount distributed in 1941 wrould be $24,000,000 for summer-fallow and $6,000,000 for ooarse grains or grass, or both, whereas the farmer would have additional returns from the increased coiarse grains in this latter case, and in 1942 could collect additional amounts if the grass and rye lands are still out of wheat. Any other combination can be estimated similarly.
Certain regulations will be necessary to prevent corporation farmers or those operating farms on the tenant plan from taking advantage of the plan to the detriment of their tenants. Other safeguards may be needed. Such regulations will be provided as soon as possible.
A distribution of the funds made available by these payments between seeding and summer-fallowing, and between cultivation and harvest should be even more helpful in this difficult year 1941 than funds distributed in an increased price spread over the latter five months of 1941 and the first seven months of 1942. With this suggestion I desire to leave with the house the statement of policy as set out, in the first part by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and in the second part by myself.
War Appropriation Bill



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 11, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $1,300,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1942, for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Last night the leader of
the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked if I would have certain figures broken down and placed on Hansard. I hope to be able to do that to-morrow. It was not possible to have it completed for this afternoon.


Mr. McLARTY:: I do not intend this
afternoon to engage the attention of the committee with a discussion of expenditures provided in the appropriation bill for the Department of Labour, nor is it my intention to deal with matters of general labour policy.
I propose to devote myself entirely to the remarks which were made on Monday afternoon last by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I regret I was not present during the earlier, in fact during the major portion of his remarks. When I entered the chamber, however, I found that he was in a rather critical mood.
I felt that when I read Hansard I would find that in the earlier part of his address he had unquestionably been kindly and fair. Imagine my disappointment when, after reading his remarks, I found that they had been equally critical in the first as in the concluding section of his address to the committee. He went so far as to suggest that the Department of Labour might well be fused with the department headed by my colleague to my left, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).
The hon. member went so far as to say that throughout Canada to-day unrest was rampant among labour organizations and among working people. I suggest that if the unrest were as great as the hon. gentleman's informants have led him to believe, there might be some definite and tangible evidence of that unrest; yet it is gratifying to know that throughout Canada, from coast to coast, notwithstanding the wide increase in industrial activity due undoubtedly to the war, there is not a single strike in Canada to-day-not one. The closest approximation we have had to a strike is to

be seen in rumours carried in the press with reference to some unfortunate decision in a hockey game in Cape Breton, on the strength of which some of the coal miners of the district thought it might be their duty to go on strike. They did not, however, and the .production of coal is still going on.
The hon. member attributed this suggested unrest to lack of cooperation between employers and labour and lack of cooperation between the government and labour. There are throughout Canada 12,500 employers of labour. I fancy it would not be difficult to find in that number some who do not cooperate in a proper way with the working people in their employ. It would be remarkable were the situation otherwise, and one of the difficulties which the Department of Labour has constantly to meet is the fact that some employers do not cooperate to the extent they should with their own working people. When, however, the hon. member suggests lack of cooperation on the part of the government, I should like to indicate briefly the extent to which that cooperation has been given since the war commenced.
In the first place, the very day that war broke out we appointed the war-time prices and trade board. What was its purpose? Its purpose was fundamentally to maintain real as against nominal wages and to keep the cost of living at a point where working people would not be penalized as they were in the last war by a rapid ascent in living costs. We went further and, at the request of labour, extended the scope of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Let me make it clear that the extension of that act under order in council to all war industries was made at the specific request of labour.
On June 19 last we passed an order in council in which the government set out the principles they considered should govern the relationship between employer and employee in the war period. I know it has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East that the order in council, not being coercive, not being mandatory, did not go far enough; but I would suggest to the committee that this order in council was approved by organized labour before it was passed by the government. Incidentally to that, we appointed the national labour supply council.
What was its purpose? It was to endeavour to maintain on an even keel the relationship between industry and labour in this country.

War Appropriation Bill
It was a unique experiment. For the first time in our history we brought together the three great union organizations of the country to sit round the same table-the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Catholic Federation of Workers. In addition to that, for the first time in the history of the country, on an advisory council industry and labour sat with their feet under the same table to deal with the problems which the war necessarily entails.
We went further. WThen it was suggested that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, in connection with the construction industry in so far as fixed rates were concerned, was not being observed we passed, at the request of labour, an order in council stating that in the event of employers not observing the wages fixed by the Department of Labour in the construction industry, the moneys thereby saved by the contractor would be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, and it would be the duty of the deputy minister of labour to see that the parties who could not possibly be found otherwise be located and the money paid to them. In addition to that, we passed an order in council, P.C. 7440, which was designed to help labour and to help our general economic structure. This order in council was passed after it had been given the unanimous approval of the national labour supply council. This was done in order to prevent repetition of the circumstances that arose in the last war, where in that general spiral, rise of wages and cost of living, the cost of living won. It was done with the purpose of stabilizing our whole economy in war time. But the point I want to make, having regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East as to lack of cooperation in connection with that order in council, is that the order in council before it was passed had the approval of the national labour supply council.
The hon. member suggested that in dealing with that council labour had only a small representation. When I pointed out to him that it had a representation equal to that of industry, in its origin five of each, later increased by two representing the railways and the running trades-fifty per cent representation-he said, "But they are never consulted." I do not think there has been a matter of major labour policy on which the national labour supply council has not been consulted since its appointment, and-what
is more remarkable, and showing the results that can be secured when men of good-will get together-all their decisions have been unanimous. They were, for instance, consulted in connection with order in council P.C. 6286 dealing with the problem of bidding for skilled labour by war industries. They were consulted as to order in council 5922, which provided for the establishment of the labour coordination committee. They were consulted in connection with order in council 7440. I believe it is safe to say that there has not been a single measure of government labour policy on which they have not been consulted since the time the council was established.
In addition to that the government passed, with the unanimous approval of this house, the Unemployment Insurance Act, which it is hoped will come into effect at an early day. This was done in order to meet the wishes of labour plus the desire to establish sound economic conditions in the post-war period. In other words, I cannot see how the government could consult labour through the national labour supply council to a greater degree than it has done.
The hon. member mentioned representation of labour on boards. Let me deal with the boards of which the Department of Labour has the recommending. They are of course represented on the unemployment insurance commission; that, as he stated, is provided in the aot. They are represented on the unemployment insurance committee, and their representation on that committee is greater than that of industry, because labour has a definite representation of three out of six members and in addition there is one very prominent social worker who is a woman. The commission itself will be setting up a national employment committee under the aot, but I believe I can assure hon. members that labour will secure a fair representation. An offer of the chairmanship of that committee has already been made, to put it mildly, .to one of the leading labour leaders of this country in the person of Mr. Tom Moore, and I believe he will be kind enough to accept it. In other words, so far as government cooperation with labour is concerned I should like to have any suggested failure stated, not in wide and general terms, but by pointing out specifically wherein cooperation has failed.
War Appropriation Bill

The hon. member dealt with certain specific instances in which he felt that injustice had been done. He mentioned the National Steel Car company at Malton, and he asked my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply why there was a labour turnover of seventy-five to ninety per cent in that plant. The figure struck me at the time as startling and requiring explanation. I took the matter up with the company and inquired as to the correctness of the assertion. The reply I received from the president of the company was this:	"In last six months, the labour
turnover at Malton has been approximately twelve per cent, of which about a third have left to join the services." Quite a wide difference, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Can the minister give the total number of men who quit in 1940?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, I have not that
figure; I have simply the reply to my inquiry. I quoted the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and asked as to its correctness, and that is the reply I received. Even that may be a large turnover. But when we consider that the aircraft industry is a new industry; that at the beginning of 1939 the number of men employed in it was 1,000, whereas to-day it is over 18,000, is it not reasonable to expect that it will show some greater measure of turnover than the older and more stabilized industries?
The hon. member went on to refer to conditions existing at the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment company. Notwithstanding what was said the other day about the federal government having the power under the War Measures Act to overstep provincial rights and assume provincial duties, the fact is that the inspection of sanitary conditions at a plant is a provincial responsibility. There can be no doubt about that, because if it were not so, apart from any constitutional difficulty there would be the practical difficulty of duplicating the services necessary to do that work. It is not unreasonable to assume that out of 12.500 plants in Canada there may be found some that are not living up to their obligations in regard to sanitary conditions. So far as the Department of Labour can deal with the matter-and the department can do so only when it is drawn to their attention-we are glad to do so.
The hon. member went on to point out that they are working seven days a week. I agree that that is extremely undesirable. Experience 
has shown that working seven days a week decreases rather than increases production in a plant, owing to the fatigue that results. That was the experience in Great Britain; when after the collapse of France they started to -work seventy-two hours a week but found the fatigue was such that production really was impeded. The ministry of labour in Great Britain has suggested that the optimum hours of work in labour for maximum production are fifty-four to fifty-six a week.
The hon. member went on to refer to the Fairchild company of Montreal, aircraft manufacturers, and suggested that discontent and unrest existed in that plant. About two weeks ago the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) placed on Hansard a memorandum given to me by some employees of that plant, members of the union. It was sent to him by members of the union, and he assumed that he wTas within his rights in putting it on Hansard. I do not criticize him in any way for the action he took, because he had no reason to believe it was confidential. But the information he placed on Hansard, which was reinforced by the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, was such as to indicate that unrest existed in that plant as between the employers and the employees.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I would ask the minister to quote from Hansard anything I said with regard to unrest in the Fairchild plant.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member brought up the matter of finger-printing, and I was going to deal with that.


Angus MacInnis: I suggested something else.


Norman Alexander McLarty: You suggested the matter of finger-printing.


Angus MacInnis: That is something entirely different.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, no; the suggestion was that it was creating unrest among the employees. The whole tone of the hon. member's remarks was that there was unrest among these men, and this was part of the evidence he produced to prove that contention. All right. The grand lodge representative of the International Association of Machinists, organizing department, who is residing in Montreal, read in Hansard the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn, and as a result he wrote the hon. member. To be quite fair I must say that the hon. member for Weyburn sent me a copy of the letter, as did the writer. I should like to read it, in order that we may see the measure of unrest that exists at this plant. In the letter to the hon. member for Weyburn this gentleman states:

War Appropriation Bill
My attention has been drawn to Hansard of February 28, in which you are reported as quoting from a memorandum submitted to the Minister of Labour by a delegation of aircraft workers employed by the Fairchild company of Montreal.
The document from which you quote was intended for the Minister of Labour only, was considered confidential, and not for public ventilation. We are not aware of the source from which you obtained this memorandum-
Let me make it quite clear that I am not criticizing the hon. member for Weyburn. I know he did not realize that it was confidential.
-and beg to inform you that its publication was not authorized by this association, or any of its responsible officers.
Since the memorandum was submitted to the Minister of Labour we are happy to say that conditions in the Fairchild plant have greatly improved. Through the good offices of the Minister of Labour the management and the employees were brought together, the differences and misunderstandings that did exist have been composed, and a spirit of cooperation and good will now obtains which, we believe, will bring about what we all desire, namely, the smooth and efficient running of the plant without interruption.
While we are aware that you acted in good faith and in a public spirited desire to help the national war effort, we believe that no public service can be rendered by pursuing the matter further, in view of the good relations that now exist between our association and the company, and our mutual determination to work together to obtain the best results.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister say who signed that letter?
Mr. MciLARTY: The letter is signed by Robert Haddow, grand lodge representative of the International Association of Machinists, organizing department.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: The hon. member for Weyburn should apologize to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Chairman. The memorandum to which I referred was submitted to the Minister of Labour, it is quite true. The facts contained in it must have been correct, but the situation has been cleared up and good relations have been established, for which I am very glad. But surely I have no reason to apologize to this committee or to the house.


William Alexander Fraser: You had no right to the letter, and you put your own interpretation upon it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
true.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I must give the hon.
member a clean bill of health in connection with this matter. He did mot know it was confidential; it was sent to him by a member of the union. Had he known it was confidential I am quite positive he would not have used it.
To deal with the further matter brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver East, the matter of finger-printing, I had not heard of it until he made his statement. I took up that, point with the manager of the plant, in order to determine just what had occurred. This gentleman stated that this finger-printing had been done entirely voluntarily, that there was no compulsion about it at all. The purpose for which it was dione was this: in tihe event of a serious accident in the plant, or in the event of sabotage, this was the most convenient method of identification they could think of, but no one in the plant who did not wish it was finger-printed.
Then the hon. member went on to deal with a personnel application of the International Metal Industries of Vancouver. That application has been placed on Hansard, and I think every hon. member of this committee Who has read it will agree that it is a harsh and conscienceless document; I do not believe anyone would think otherwise. But at page 1366 of Hansard I find this statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East:
I am told they are approved by the government; on that point, however, I have not had verification.
It would have taken the ban. member two minutes to obtain that verification if he had so desired. Here is the point. He is suggesting that there is industrial unrest. Does it help to allay or assuage that industrial unrest to place on Hansard the suggestion that the government has approved a heartless document like this? Would it not have been better for the bon. member to endeavour to verify that statement before placing it on Hansard? Does it relieve industrial unrest or help our war effort to say, " I have been told the government approved of it?" In the first place, I think the hon. member probably realizes that there is no department of government which passes upon personnel applications in the matter of employment in private industry. In the second place, far from approving it, as soon as the matter was drawn to my attention I immediately wrote the company, and I should like to put the letter on Hansard:
There has been brought to my attention a reproduction of the "personnel record" form which you apparently are using in connection with the employment of your personnel.
I regard it as unfortunate that such a form should be used by any Canadian industry and especially at the present time when the success of the war effort so largely depends on effective cooperation between management and labour. The searching character of the information requested is resented on the part of labour. Its general effect is to hamper the effort of this department and of the provincial departments of labour to establish a greater conscious-
War Appropriation Bill

ness of identity of interests on the part of management and men in this period of crisis.
By order in council 2685 of June 19, 1940, copy enclosed, the government laid down certain principles designed to establish and maintain good relations between firms engaged in the execution of war contracts, and their work people. Whether a firm is engaged partly, exclusively, or not at all on war contracts, it cannot but be detrimental to the war effort as a whole if the principles laid down are disregarded as has been the case in connection with the use of the "personnel record" form referred to above. I hope you will see fit to amend this form and expunge that part of it which is provocative in character.
If the hon. member for Vancouver East hiad merely telephoned me I should have been glad to send him a copy of the letter. I *think it ia sufficiently clear that this letter, heartless as it is, never secured the approval of this government.
Mr. MaeINNIS: What is the date of the letter?


Norman Alexander McLarty: March 3. That was a
Monday, and the information came to me the previous Saturday. Incidentally, in connection with the Richardson Road Machinery Company Limited, to which the hon. member also referred in his remarks, I understand that the use of the form about which he complained has been discontinued also.
The hon. member for Vancouver East complained about delay in the appointment of boards under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I should like to make my position clear with respect to the set-up of these boards. Once the applicants have satisfied the Minister of Labour that they have complied with the necessary preliminary conditions, the minister has no discretion in the matter; it is mandatory, and he must set up a board. But on the other hand it is necessary that he be satisfied that those preliminary conditions have been complied with.
An application came from some of the employees of the National Steel Car company at Hamilton. I believe the facts are that that company employs in the neighbourhood of 2,400 to 2,500 men. The number involved in this particular application-and I may point out that they were maintenance men-was about 70. The company stated that, contrary to the statement made in the application, there had been no negotiations, and that the application did not represent a majority opinion in that particular department.
I felt it was necessary to obtain information as to the correctness of the statement. I endeavoured, without success, to secure negotiations. My suggestion was that the only way to determine which statements were correct-and I am not suggesting that there were deliberately untruthful statements-was

to take a vote of those particularly involved. That vote was to be taken last Saturday, and an officer of the Department of Labour went to Hamilton for the purpose of taking it. There was a dispute as to those who were properly on the list, and the officer was unable to take the vote on Saturday afternoon, as had been desired. However the company waived the question of vote, and the board was set up. I might point out that it had been set up before the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke in the house.
But the mere fact that the Department of Labour secures an application for a board does not mean that we immediately rush to our forms and endeavour to appoint it-and for this reason: We try to iron things out in every possible way without appointing a board. That we have been somewhat successful along that line is shown by the fact that out of 95 applications for boards received since the beginning of the war it has been necessary to set up only 47. In other words the conciliation service continues, even though the application for a board is there. I would make this further point: If in some instances there are delays beyond the period of fifteen days provided in the act, those delays are the result of endeavouring to compromise the difficulty rather than set up a formal board.
I believe I have covered all the points which have occurred to me, arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. He mentioned the name Sir Walter Citrine, one of the outstanding labour leaders of the world. We have had the opportunity, and the inspiration arising therefrom, of having Sir Walter Citrine in this country. He was tremendously generous of his time. While in Canada he addressed Canadian clubs and units of the Trades and Labour Congress. Wherever he went I believe he instilled confidence in the fact that the labour movement of Great Britain is sound. His visit afforded us an opportunity of paying in a small way a tribute to those who are working so hard in Great Britain. I believe that having him in Canada was a real help to our national effort.
When he returned to England it would appear that he did not report that there was that great measure of labour unrest which the hon. member for Vancouver East has found. In fact, within a short time after his return Mr. Hugh Gibson, chairman of the Trade Unions Congress of Great Britain, made some observations respecting the labour situation which were entirely complimentary to the government of Canada and to the Department of Labour.
I believe that no advantage is served by endeavouring to stir up labour unrest through suggesting that it exists. I believe, sir, that these small items of complaint might be

War Appropriation Bill
better handled by the Department of Labour than on the floor of this committee. I believe, further, that if we will all cooperate, not to disturb but to heighten the confidence of labour, we will do more by way of contribution to the war effort than we could do by any other method.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Mr. Chairman, I had intended this afternoon to resume the discussion I initiated last night. It had been my intention to speak at the beginning of to-day's sitting, but I was made aware that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) desired to make a statement, as he has done, and consequently I deferred rising until now. I make this explanation because the two hon. members to my left rose immediately after the minister spoke, apparently with the idea of following up with further debate on that subject. This is the reason for my appearing to butt in, and, if necessary, I offer my apologies. I am really carrying on from the point I had reached last night. The speech by the Minister of Labour was what might be called a sweet interlude.


Mr. HANSON (Yofk-Sunbury):: It was not so sweet to some people.


Ralph Maybank: Last night I said the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) had made a couple of statements to which at that time I wished to direct attention. The eleven o'clock adjournment interrupted my speech.
I have read over the statement made last night by the minister. The committee will recall that the only information he reported from Mr. Crabtree was that the equipment necessary to burn the type of coal they ought to burn was more expensive. He indicated that no other consideration entered into the matter; that the initial cost of equipment was the only one. If there are other arguments against the use of lignite coal, a coal which could be used economically in the war plant in question. I think we ought to have them. At the present time, however, there is nothing before the committee except the objection that the initial cost is the one bar to using the coal which could be used economically.
If one has available at the place he is going to burn it a coal costing $3.50 a ton, and if he has another coal at the same spot costing $8.15 or $8.75, then, of course, other things being equal, there cannot be very much argument as to which coal one ought to use.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would the hon. member give us the comparative British thermal units for each kind of coal?


Ralph Maybank: I will do that. The minister was just a little quick on the trigger

that time. I did not suggest that the difference between these two coals was to be reckoned by the difference between $3.50 and $8.75. Other things being equal, it is clear which of the two is the more economical. Everyone knows that when you are going to buy coals you find out their heating values as expressed in the phrase just used by the minister. I think it is generally agreed that as far as thermal units are concerned, almost twice as much of the lignite coal is required as compared with the other type of coal. I may be a little generous in that statement because the quantity is hardly two for one. I think the B.T.U.S, run 74 and 140. Therefore the price is actually not $3.05, but twice that amount, or $6.10. That is what you must pay to get the proper calorific results at the place where you want to do your burning. You do not need to go any further than that to find out where there is a saving. Engineers have arrived at a great many findings with respect to this matter, and I may be able to give some to the committee. Anyone could figure out a saving of around $60,000 or $75,000 on the amount of coal that these people say they are going to burn. In the light of that, it seems to become necessary to lay out the information for Mr. Crabtree as to the cost of one kind of equipment as compared with the cost of the other.
I know full well that no matter what I may say, no matter what any person from Saskatchewan may say or no matter what industrialists in western Canada may say, the Allied War Supplies Corporation are going to put in equipment to use the other kind of coal. I am under no illusion as to what power there may be in the human voice, either mine or that of anyone else. I know full well that there will be no power in anything I may say. I know full well that the least economical job will be done. The decision was arrived at when the minister was away. I do not say it was arrived at because he was away; I say it was arrived at when he was away. When he took up this question, as he stated, he was beaten before he started because these people had reached their decision.
Hon. members know that if they want to burn a lot of coal, the wise thing to do is to decide what is the most economical coal to use and then get the equipment to burn it. Everyone knows that; one does not need engineers to figure that out. These people, however, chose the equipment and then said they could not burn lignite coal. That was the first statement. I am sure the minister will confirm what I am saying, and many other people will also confirm it. As I say, the first statement they made was that they could not burn lignite coal, and they gave
War Appropriation Bill

a number of reasons, although none of them has been introduced into this question so far. In recent times, when pressed for a statement, they have said they are going to burn a great deal of lignite coal, as much lignite coal as experience shows it will be possible to burn. The experience with the type of equipment that they have shows that not an ounce of lignite coal can be satisfactorily introduced into the furnaces. They know that, and they knew it last January when they dealt with this matter.
That is why I referred last evening to this organization which is not responsible to this parliament. It is just playing horse with the members of the government and the members of this parliament. As I have said, they first made their decision and then, after pressure had been applied, they said they would do something which at first they had stated was not possible. The same engineers said it was not possible; they could not think of it; then they said they would do it, although it would depend upon experience. That was done in an effort to shut up any argument against them; they had to do something to stop any talk that might come up.
I have no interest in this matter, such as some people might have. This is not something that impinges upon my constituency. It does not affect labour in my constituency one way or the other, as might other matters which would have to do with railroad labour. That question does not come into the picture, at least to any extent. With the greater bulk of coal which would be necessary, it is possible that more switching would have to be done, but that would be just a bagatelle. The situation, however, would be altogether different with hon. members from Saskatchewan where the people would be more directly affected.
There is not an industrialist in western Canada who would not be interested in the most economical type of fuel to use. When an industrialist is interested in this matter, doubtless those concerned with the burning of lignite coal speak to him. Many of these men have come and told me what they have done in their industries in order to carry on economically, and then they say, "Look at what the government is doing in this matter."
I am put on the defensive immediately. I realize that it is not the government, although technically I suppose it is. In a sense the government is not doing it, but large powers have been granted to this corporation. Apparently what they do is not subject to review. That is how the matter originated with me. There is no doubt that any industrialist who was trying to run his plant 
economically, and who was placed in the same position in which we were in January, would make a decision in favour of lignite coal.
I should like to have definite information as to costs of equipment. We would then be in a position to know what the saving would be. The information now before the committee is not complete enough. The question as to the possible value of the equipment after the war may be raised. The minister said that Mr. Crabtree indicated that there was not as much salvage value in one kind of equipment as in the other. I suggest to the committee that they place this problem m front of a group of first-class engineers who have had experience in the use of lignite coal. They will say that by the use of lignite coal, there will be saved in one year a great deal more money than the whole additional cost of the comparatively more expensive equipment. I lay that down as a challenge at the present time, that if engineers of that sort, completely neutral, are approached and inquiry of them is made, they will say exactly what I have said, that in one year there will be saved more and much more than the additional cost of the equipment. If that is so, the question of salvage no longer matters. If the machine is paid for as a result of the first year's savings, the salvage question may be thrown out of the window.


Mr. HOMUTH:: In the figures the hon.
member is giving and probably about to give, is the whole cost of the equipment depreciated -obliterated?


Ralph Maybank: I get the point. I thought I was making that clear. Suppose you have two machines, one costing $10 and the other $20, for roasting peanuts. If, by buying the $20 machine, you can roast your peanuts so cheaply that you can make much more money than by using the $10 machine, you do not need to worry very much about the salvage question when your job is completed. That is exactly the picture of the lignite coal equipment. There is nothing to the salvage question; you do not need to consider it. There is, I am convinced, a greater saving. I see the Minister of Munitions and Supply smiling. All right. I would, however, point out to him that his statement last evening was just the vague one that Allied War Supplies take a different view. There is nothing in that statement of the minister except that we have a bunch of very good men and that we must leave the decision to them. The government should not abdicate. These people- Allied War Supplies-really usurped power long ago.
The first thing I want to know is this: What are the differences in cost? First, let

War Appropriation Bill
me point out to the committee that the minister himself stated that lignite coal requires a different kind of equipment. That sentence, taken with some other sentences in the statement, indicates clearly that the right equipment is not being put in; and if they are not putting in the right equipment, they are not going to keep their promise to burn a large percentage of lignite coal, as the minister said last night they would. On the other hand, if the equipment installed there is good for burning lignite coal, there is no argument at all for not using it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: One hundred per cent.


Ralph Maybank: There is no reason why they cannot burn lignite 100 per cent, if they can burn it 80 per cent. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say in one breath that the equipment is not suitable, and then say in the next breath that they will burn SO per cent lignite. It does not take a logician to see that there is something wrong with that. I should like to have a definite answer to my question as to what the additional costs are, and furthermore I should like to know when these officials made their decision.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This would seem to be a
matter that might very well be referred to the parliamentary committee which has just been set up on economy in expenditures. It has power to call witnesses and will have all the machinery necessary to go into this subject thoroughly. If the committee cares to bring down a report to parliament that there has been wasteful expenditure in connection with this installation, I shall be prepared to accept the rebuke and take the responsibility.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I say a word in
support of the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). I would suggest that if the committee is to make some inquiry into the question, they inquire from the city of Regina regarding its experiences with the burning of lignite coal by special equipment. I was a member of the city council for a number of years and I know that all of us were a little diffident about introducing the new equipment for burning lignite coal, but in the Regina school of which I was principal for some time, the fuel costs when burning lignite coal were cut from $3,000-that was when oil was used- to around $800 in the same kind of winter. Lignite has been successfully used in the city of Regina.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How about the delay if this question has to go before the committee?


Major James William Coldwell: I said, if it were put
before the committee, but I do not think that is necessary. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre can probably give the minister the information himself.


Ralph Maybank: I wish to make this
further remark with reference to what the minister has said. It is all right to refer this question to a committee, but while that is being done, these gentlemen who made their decision a long time ago will simply go right ahead using what they are using now. Therefore I say that if there is any chance of effecting a saving, it should be done at once. I do not see why a matter of this kind should be taken out of the public eye and referred to a committee. It is, of course, a proper subject for a committee to discuss further, but do not let us understand by that that nothing is to be done here about it. I want to point out that the minister has not yet pledged his own independent belief that the right course is being taken. No. This company is being put up for the parliament of Canada to-day. That is what is happening.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would ask the
minister if it is too late at this stage to make the necessary change in the equipment. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made what appears to me to be a very good case, and I should like to know from the minister whether the proper type of equipment for burning lignite could not now be installed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such inquiries as I have
made indicate that orders for the equipment have been given, but how far the manufacturer is advanced with them I cannot say. My hon. friend says that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made a case. May I suggest to him that the engineering reports obtained by those responsible seem to lead to a different conclusion. I hardly think a case has been made just by hearing one side. I saw the other side of the story as presented to me by officials of Allied War Supplies; it seemed to me they had a very strong case for doing what they did, and they did it with both sides of the case before them. It is not as if they did not know about lignite coal or had not a good deal of information about its use in western Canada, My hon. friend indicated that an engineer familiar with conditions in Winnipeg had been engaged in the case, because I think he told me or the house that the engineer had operated in Winnipeg at some previous time. If, however, the committee on economy is for any purpose whatever,
War Appropriation Bill

and can be helpful in the war situation, this is the type of case in which it can be helpful. It seems to me a proper case.


Ralph Maybank: How can they be helpful?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They can advise whether a wrong decision has been made, after hearing all the expert evidence that can be produced before them, and being able to weigh that expert evidence. We in this house are speaking as laymen. I am not a heating engineer.


Ralph Maybank: There is no advantage in locking the door when the stable has gone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: According to the hon. member's own statement, the stable has been gone for some time.


Ralph Maybank: Perhaps I should put that in completely Irish fashion and say there is no use in bridling the horse after the stable is gone, but of course hon. members understand what I meant. There is no use in locking the stable door after the horse has run away, and that is practically what we would be doing by merely referring the matter to a board to look into it after the fact. It is possible to get a complete examination now by neutrals. It is said that this organization has expert opinion. One of their experts is a man who was engaged recently in handling a particular type of equipment. I am not trying to suggest dishonesty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did he get a commission on this?


Ralph Maybank: That is the point. The leader of the opposition says, "Did he get a commission on this?" Definitely, that is not the sort of thing I am suggesting; but this particular engineer, who jumped, immediately to the use of a certain kind of equipment, had been selling that equipment for years. He tried to persuade us in Winnipeg to keep that equipment in one of the hospitals, but they switched to lignite equipment and the result of switching to that equipment was apparently twofold. In the first place, our bills dropped from $38,000 a year to about $16,000 or $17,000. When the bills were high in the first part of that period when we had his equipment and had to bum the other kind of coal, we did not have the hospital fully open; but at a later time, after we refused this engineer, our bills were around $16,000 and the hospital was fully open, more space being heated at less cost. That is the expert who to a very large extent has made this decision He told me so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us get one thing straight. Is any employee of Allied War Supplies Corporation interested in the sale of the equipment of which the hon. members speak.
[Mr. Howe.l


Ralph Maybank: I am making that clear. I am not making any charge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is making the charge that an employee of Allied War Supplies Corporation is engaged or interested in the sale of particular equipment. Is that true or not? Yes or no?


Ralph Maybank: If the minister had really listened with his mind as well as his ears he would not be asking that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a fair question. Is any employee-


Ralph Maybank: Just a moment now until I finish. I am not going to be whipped around, or down. I drew attention particularly to the fact that I was not making any such suggestion, and I did so in this way. The leader of the opposition called out to me, "Did he get a commission?" I drew attention particularly to the fact; I said, "That is just an illustration of the very thing I am not trying to charge."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Ralph Maybank: Just a minute; let me finish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who is this mysterious
engineer of whom the hon. member is speaking, and who employs him?


Ralph Maybank: I have made that clear already.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not made it clear to me.


Ralph Maybank: I will try to make it clear and draw a blueprint. The man I spoke of was, as I said, engaged in selling this equipment for a long time and was an engineer, one of the engineers that made this decision, and-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is he an employee of Allied?


Ralph Maybank: Just a moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member says he made a decision.


Ralph Maybank: The minister cannot both listen and speak at the same time. His province at this moment is to listen. I do not wish to be in any way truculent or disrespectful or to get under anyone's skin; on the other hand, while I do not know all my rights, I know some of them, and they are not going to be just whipped away at the will of anybody else.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that he should not suggest that anyone is trying to whip his rights away in any direction. He has the floor and he can

War Appropriation BUI
refuse to allow an hon. gentleman to ask him questions. He has the floor, but I do not believe he should use such an expression.


Ralph Maybank: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I withdraw that whole-heartedly without any mental reservations. I would make this observation, however, with reference to your own remark that I have the floor and may refuse to answer questions, or decline to be interrupted. I do not know that gets one anywhere sometimes when some people try to interrupt. One may decline to be interrupted but it does not necessarily work that way.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member will request the privilege of not being interrupted, I will insist on the observance of the rule.


Ralph Maybank: It is all right; there is no harm done. I believe that, in my endeavour to answer the minister, who does not want to wait for the answer, I was at this point: I said that this man had been in the employ of a company which is selling this equipment. He is one of the engineers of Allied War Supplies Corporation and one of the important men who made this decision. I now want to make it clear that I am not suggesting any improper motive on that man's part, but I am suggesting that with his long experience of fighting for a certain type of equipment he naturally, in making his decision, gravitated in the direction of choosing that which for many years he had thought was a good thing. I would say that that in itself is something which ought to be guarded against. That is as far as I am going. I have already mentioned the gentleman's name. It is Abbott. I think I have made that situation clear.


William Alexander Fraser: During
the discussion before the committee, from time bo time the matter of aircraft production has been mentioned, and mentioned on a number of occasions in rather disparaging terms. Yesterday when the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) was speaking, he made a statement, as I notice in Hansard, about the "muddle" in aeroplane production.
I should like to take a few minutes of the time of this committee to place upon the record some facts in connection with aeroplane production in Canada. Notwithstanding what has been said in the house, I believe there are still misgivings and misunderstand>-ings in 'the mind' of the public in connection with Canada's effort in the production of aeroplanes. I should like to deal with this matter in all fairness from the point of view of actual facts, and to place before the committee some reasons why aeroplane production in Canada is in its present state. And when I use the phrase "present state" I mean present state of production.
The other day the Minister of Munitions and Supply said that it would be a good fhing for hon. members to visit industrial plants in Canada bo gain some knowledge of what the government's war effort, or the country's war effort, is accomplishing in connection with the building of armaments. I have spent a great deal of my time during the last year in plants throughout Canada that are producing everything from ships bo aeroplanes, including the Canadian arsenals. But I am going to confine my remarks to aeroplane production. I am going to give the reason why aeroplane production in this country has not gone forward at the pace that would please bon. members of this committee and would, I know, please everyone in Canada. That reason is that we could not get . money voted in this house to build an aeroplane industry. Prior to the outbreak of the war the aeroplane industry in Canada was practically nil. During the years 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 it was impossible, as hon. members know-and I am not making this statement in any spirit of criticism-to get defence estimates passed through this bouse sufficient even to lay the foundation of an aeroplane industry such as is required in Canada at the present time.
In discussing the production of aeroplanes we must break that production down into two distinct classes. Class 1, as Mr. MacMillan has correctly stated in his report, includes fabricated or training planes such as were used in this country prior to the war and can be and have been constructed by labour accustomed to turning out that type of plane-the low-power training plane of the kind produced by de Havilland and Fleet. The technicians to develop these are not nearly as hard to train as those required for class 2.
In class 2 we have the all-metal plane which we started to develop in this country only after the outbreak of the war. I refer to the report of Mr. MacMillan tabled in this house by the Minister of Munitions and Supply some days ago and to the limitation he made in regard to every manufacturer except de Havilland and Fleet, that is, "unless unforeseen stoppages arise in supplies or component parts." In every case in discussing all-metal planes such as Lysander, Boling-broke and even the Anson, Mr. MacMillan has made the limitation that construction would go ahead at a certain rate provided the component parts were available.
Prior to the declaration of war the development of the aeroplane industry in Canada
War Appropriation Bill

was limited by the amount of money voted in the defence estimates by this house year after year. I want to pay tribute to the then minister of national defence and the then deputy minister for giving, in two or three instances, pilot or educational orders for allmetal planes. But the component parts for these planes were not being made in Canada. The manufacturers in Canada until the outbreak of the war felt that these necessary parts would be available from England. The British government and the representatives of the air ministry in London were very insistent on this-perhaps I should say conservative-that they did not want pilot orders for building of planes in Canada to follow the design of United States planes, but they asked-and I do not think I am out of place in making this statement-that in the construction of planes in this country Canada should adhere to British design.
In an 8,500-pound bombing plane, excluding the engine, there are 50,000 different parts. Instruments were not made in Canada, neither were tires nor hydraulics. Most of these component parts had to be brought from England. Even in England, until Dunkirk, people did not realize that they would not be in a position to supply the component parts, or even the engines, for Canadian planes. The result, as Mr. MacMillan stated in his report, was that the progress in the production of aeroplanes in Canada depended upon obtaining component parts either from England or from the United States. But after the war broke out, and particularly after Dunkirk, that source of supply was absolutely eliminated. It was impossible to procure instruments in Canada, even to procure tires for the landing gear.
Another factor of which hon. members should take full cognizance is that no order was given to or available for Canadian aeroplane manufacturers which would justify any attempt at mass production methods. When a company like National Steel Car had an order for only twenty-two Lysanders, allmetal planes powered with British engines, they obviously could not organize mass production similar to that attained by Lockheed, North American, or other companies in the United States. They had to proceed on the basis of the orders they had in hand, with no promise of further business.
To my hon. friends on the other side I say with respect-and with pity-that in the interests of Canada and the British empire it is too bad that we did not year by year, particularly in 1938 and 1939, get sufficient money in our estimates to be in a position to build up an aeroplane industry in this country.
[Mr. Maybank.l
After Dunkirk Canada found herself in urgent need of machine tools and precision instruments, gauges, every type of precision machine and tool used in the production of munitions and armaments. Only last week on the floor of the house it was stated that Australia had got into the production of aeroplanes, and I think reference was made to a copy of Life. It is true that Australia is producing a training plane. It is true that in 1937 the Australian government procured the rights from the Pratt-Whitney company for the production of the Pratt-Whitney engine in Australia. There was perhaps greater reason for Australia doing that than Canada, on account of Australia's isolation from the large producing centres of the United States. But Australia is producing only training planes, and only one type of engine, the Pratt-Whitney 500-horsepower engine, which is being used in that training plane.
What were we in this country confronted with at that time? When proposals were submitted to the government of the day by the Pratt-Whitney company, the same company that built the plant in Australia with respect to a programme involving about $12,000,000 for a plant to build aeroplane engines in Canada, the money, as every hon. member who sat in the house in those days knows perfectly well, was' not available. Neither -hon. members of this house, nor I believe the people of Canada, in 1937, would have acquiesced in the expenditure of a large sum of money to build aeroplane engines in Canada. Last week some hon. member asked, "Why are we not building aeroplane engines in Canada to-day? Why don't we start now?" The answer is obvious; you could not procure technicians to put in an aeroplane engine plant in this country to-day and establish and equip that plant in less than four years. I make that statement on the advice of the best aeroplane engine manufacturers in the United States.
Let us be fair, Mr. Chairman. When the war broke out the aeroplane industry in Canada was simply a myth; it was nothing, and we had to start from scratch. I think at that time we had about 1.700 people emplo3red in this industry. To-day we -have close to 20,000 employees, each of whom had to be educated in the construction of all-metal rather than fabricated planes. I want to contribute something to this discussion, Mr. Chairman, so I say to you that in peace time, before this war broke out, it took two years, even in England, to produce a 10,000-pound all-metal plane from the time the drawings were completed. We in Canada were confronted with the situation to which I have referred this afternoon-lack of technicians, lack of space

War Appropriation Bill
to build planes, lack of machine tools, and lack of precision machines. At the time we entered this war Canada could not possibly produce more than twenty per cent of the precision equipment that was required. Every plant from the Atlantic to the Pacific that was or could be equipped for the production of precision machinery, and that could get technicians or apprentices from the technical schools or elsewhere, is working twenty-four hours a day to my knowledge. Obviously such firms as National Steel Car, Fairchild and others working on all-metal planes can be tied up very easily because of the failure of subcontractors to supply the necessary equipment.
Now I should like to say just a word or two with regard to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the hon. member leaves the question of aeroplanes would he be good enough to give the committee his opinion about Federal Aircraft?


William Alexander Fraser: I should be delighted to do so, Mr. Chairman, if it were within the scope of my knowledge or capability.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; we will excuse you.


William Alexander Fraser: I	am
doing my best to cover what I know, not something I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That	is
a very good answer.


William Alexander Fraser: I	am
being honest with the leader of the opposition.
Just for a moment I should like to refer to the letter which was read this afternoon by the Minister of Labour, and at the same time I should like to congratulate him upon the splendid presentation he made in connection with the difficulties with which he is confronted from time to time. I ask my hon. friend from Weyburn, who read into the record a paragraph or two from a letter he received from a certain person-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not from a letter; I read from a memorandum submitted to the Minister of Labour by the representatives of a certain union.


William Alexander Fraser: The
representative of a union who was fired for sleeping in a fuselage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member stated-


William Alexander Fraser: May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; I want
the hon. member to correct that statement.


William Alexander Fraser: I have the floor and I am going to stick on it until I am finished. I said my hon. friend read from a letter from a member of a union who was fired for sleeping in a fuselage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a
question of privilege.


William Alexander Fraser: I want to make further reference to my hon. friend who is on his feet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a question of privilege, to say that I did not read from a letter. If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look at Hansard he will find that I read from a memorandum.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has already made that statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the hon. member is repeating his former statement, and I insist that he quote from Hansard in order to show what I was quoting from, instead of merely making up his story. If his facts in reference to aeroplane production are no better-


William Alexander Fraser: I am
not in a position where stories matter. I am a realist; I deal with facts. I am not a gold medal debater, nor am I academic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is quite apparent.


William Alexander Fraser: Now,
you listen to me. I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend; I want to appeal to him. He knows perfectly well, and if he does not he should, that we have the same conditions among members of labour parties or gangs, as we call them, that, we have among the members of any other profession or vocation, including his profession, and even including the House of Commons. I may tell my hon. friend that I have handled labour for the last thirty-five years, and I am proud of the fact that in my employ I have three generations of some families. Just let us be fair, and not take only one side of the question. We are going to have labour problems in Canada, but the employer is going to be fair, and all I ask of my bon. friend is that he be fair also. I am not going into matters of affidavits and so on, bult in the organization of an industry that has grown from 1,700 to 20,000 employees who were not previously unionists, where the unions are mow walking in and unionizing these men, you
War Appropriation Bill

are going to have arguments. I have more faith in Canadian labour than the bon. member for Weyburn seems to have.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, no.


William Alexander Fraser: I have more faith and more experience. I oan tell my bon. friend that in my thirty-five years of experience I have never had a strike, and that I have always been able to sit down at a desk with labour and figure out any problem man to man. In all kindness I say to my hon. friend: Please, as an bon. member of this house, make up your mind to cooperate. Do not, as the Minister of National Defence said the other day, put a burr under the saddle; cooperate and help the producers of munitions, aeroplanes, tanks and all the other war materials; help these producers, who are striving to do their best, as labour also is striving. Help tihe producers iron out their problems with labour.
Now I want to go a step further, and I say to my hon. friend in all kindness-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander Fraser: Do my remarks confuse hon. members? I was going to say 'that you do have members of labour organizations who are not always fair. In a plant employing 3,500 or 3,800 men you will have members of a gang who are mot fair. No one knows better than my hon. friend, in his profession, that people are mot always fair; if that were not so he would not have a profession. We in industry have 'these problems. Let me go further. If given the opportunity I will be the first to sit down with the hon. member at his desk, give him all the facts, ask for his assistance, and work hand in band with him in ironing out. any difficulties that may crop up between labour and production in Canada's war effort.
I wish to make one or two further observations with regard to aeroplane production. In my opinion the most important chapter in Mr. MacMillan's report on the aeroplane industry-and it is a very fair reporto-is chapter C, which appears on the last page. It reads as follows:
After the joint lair training scheme and the Royal Canadian Air Force are stocked up, say by the middle of 1941, the annual Canadian demand will drop to something like:
Primary trainers	 150
Twin engine trainers	 150
Single engine trainers	 150
Fighters of all types	 300
I am sorry the Minister of Munitions and Supply is not in his seat; but this House of Commons and the Canadian people, with the prospect of a long war ahead of us, have to 
decide whether Canada is or is not going to be a factor in the production of aeroplanes. We cannot produce aeroplanes economically unless we design our operations to mass production. Mr. MacMillan very fairly sets that out when he mentions the man-hours necessary in Canada to produce a Boling-broke. The original order for Bolingbrokes was for 18 planes. That order was finished about a year ago. There were weeks and weeks when no one

I say this advisedly'- knew whether there would be sufficient money to go ahead with more planes, or whether conditions in Europe would be such as to demand a greater aeroplane production in Canada. The result was that aeroplane production in Canada has never been able, owing to the business it had ahead of it, to do anything like set up for mass production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
true; it takes two years.


William Alexander Fraser: Yes, it
takes two years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Look
ahead.


William Alexander Fraser: I am
glad the leader of the opposition mentions that. The final drawings for the Bolingbroke, which is the bomber being produced in Canada, were received only on February 1, 1939. The whole production of aeroplanes is in a state of evolution. Plans are being changed every day-well, every week, and sometimes every day. The plans for a certain plane being produced in Canada were changed 490 times from the time they left the original drafting board. If in dealing with the aeroplane industry in Canada we consider only the facts with which we are confronted I am quite sure there will be no rash statements about aeroplane production. I say that because every hon. member has the same idea. But we in Caanda must know whether there will be continuity of busines for those companies, whether it be National Steel Car, Fairchild, or any other.
I should like to refer again to the speech of the hon. member for Weyburn. In the quotation he placed on Hansard some time ago there was a sentence referring to mass dismissals, and another sentence dealing with tie-ups in plants.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Quote it.


William Alexander Fraser: I shall
enlarge upon it, and then the hon. member will understand it.

War Appropriation Bill


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have no
doubt the hon. member would enlarge upon it; but I want to hear the original before he enlarges upon it.


William Alexander Fraser: Let us suppose that you have a plant operating with a gang of 3,500 employees, and that you have a promise from subcontractors to supply component parts. Remember, the workers in your plant have been educated in aeroplane production; and in passing it might be well to remember that three years ago there was not one all-metal aeroplane mechanic in Canada- not one. Let us suppose that you have been held up for lack of component parts, although you have been promised day after day by the manufacturer that you would receive those parts. What would you do, Mr. Manager, behind your desk? You would have to decide this: Shall I knock these men off the payroll, and wait for those parts? Shall I take a chance of those men going somewhere else? Or, would you do your best to keep your gang together until the basic parts came in, particularly if you were dealing with rush work?
That is what occurred. It is a common occurrence in every industry. As I said a few minutes ago, every member of a union is not a good one. Every member of a gang is not a good one. Day after day in the modus operandi of industry these processes will go on. You know and I know that members of congregations must necessarily be excommunicated for the good of the whole. There is no argument about it. These are necessary actions.
All I ask, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this discussion on the production of aircraft in Canada is this: Let us deal with the facts.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is this a congregation?


Mr. McIVOR:: I am sure that there are no excommunications from the church to which the hon. member belongs.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What church is that?


William Alexander Fraser: In conclusion may I make this statement, in all fairness. I have had something to do with aeroplane production in the last eight or nine years. Associated with other aeroplane enthusiasts we have tried to build up an aeroplane industry in Canada, and for that reason I believe I know something about it. I know something, too, about the difficulties respecting cooperation in the aeroplane industry. No one would have gone farther, had he had the authority, than did the Minister of Munitions and Supply to get ahead with the construction of aeroplanes in Canada. The minister, who brought in as his coordinator in the aeroplane industry of Canada Mr. Ralph Bell-who, regardless of what was said about him in a derogatory way, has thrown everything into the production of aeroplanes in Canada-has done a wonderful job. There is no question about it. The very heart and will of these men is in the production of aeroplanes for war. Mr. Ralph Bell ironed out difficulties-inter-departmental difficulties, difficulties which arose and have always arisen when a production programme has had to be dealt with; difficulties which every member in this committee knows perfectly well must be found in any business, including the production of aeroplanes.
That is the situation to-day. Mr. MacMillan has placed on record reasons why there may be more delays. This country had to be transferred from a peace-time economy, without any thought of war, to one in which a war was in progress. I am sorry to say it is my belief that there are still many people in Canada who do not realize the gravity of the crisis with which we are confronted. The fact remains that Canada had to be transformed from a peace-time country, where many people got too much for giving too little-and wanted more-into a country where all the people have to make sacrifices for war.
The manufacturers of aeroplanes in Canada will do their level best. All they ask is cooperation from labour, the representatives of labour and the members of the house. Again I extend to the hon. member for Weyburn an invitation to sit down with me and to discuss anything which he believes might be of mutual interest to both of us in helping to prosecute Canada's war effort.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, it is not often I have the great pleasure of reading and listening to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I might advise some hon. members that it is not always wise to interrupt the worthy admiral of the fleet. He comes from one of the industrial centres of Ontario.
The question of lignite has been raised, but I contend that this matter should be taken up by the provinces. First, it has a great value. This is not the time, however, with a war on, to dislocate business in war industries using coal, as was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Furnaces would have to be changed. I have always believed in a national coal policy for Canada and have contended that all coal
War Appropriation Bill

should be mined and coked under the British flag, whether it is done in Wales, in the maritimes or in Alberta.
We are now in committee discussing a resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley).	In view of the proceedings at
Washington last Friday and Saturday when the lease-lend bill was passed, I thought the minister would have, since then, made a statement as to the policy of the government of Canada with regard to that gesture, not only toward the mother country but toward the dominions, especially Canada.
With all due respect to the minister I think he is placing too many artificial barriers against trade, especially against the small business man. I come from an industrial district and the people there want to know something more about the resolution. As I have said, I contend that about 70 per cent of the appropriation should be charged to capital and 30 per cent to income. The city of Toronto is one of the largest taxpaying cities in the dominion, and I have figured out that it will contribute about $90,000,000 toward these particular annual current expenses of civil government. That city, while paying such a large share of the taxes, is not getting the recognition it should from the government. About three mills of its tax rate are pure federal burden imposed on it, and I hope there will be some adjustment, and an account taken of the city proper.
As far as I can see, there is no intention on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side to offer anything but constructive criticism of the government of the day. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made a splendid speech yesterday and he gave us a lot of information to clear the air. There is no desire on the part of any hon. member on this side to embarrass the government or to offer anything but useful suggestions. It is no disparagement of hon. gentlemen opposite to say that many of those who sit in the government may have been successful in peace-time affairs, but war time offers a totally different situation to deal with.
I know of no rule of the house that would prevent the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) from wearing a uniform in this chamber. I am sorry I cannot wear one myself; if I could, I would not be here. In the British house, when the naval, army and air force estimates were being considered, many members who were serving in the forces rose in their places to criticize the government severely. Many of those members were Conservatives; and of all parties they offered constructive criticism and no objection was made. As I say, there is no rule of the house that prohibits a member

wearing a uniform in the chamber if he is serving in the forces, or to prevent his criticism of our war effort.
After all is said and done, a member of parliament has a duty to perform during war time as well as in peace. His duty is greater in time of war than it is in peace. As I said the other day, he does not derive his power and his functions from hon. gentlemen opposite or the crown. He has a duty to perform, and he should perform it. He is entitled to give his views as he sees fit. His mature consideration, his unbiased judgment, his criticism of all measures are his duty.
This resolution emphasizes the drain that is being imposed upon our national resources and man-power. It illustrates the awful cost of war. It shows how debts are piling up and gives us some idea of the gravity of the monetary problem that faces this country and that almost appals the people, and the seriousness of the present war situation.
Reference was made yesterday by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) to the salvage campaign being conducted by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner). The hon. member mentioned the National Council of Women who work hard. I received a letter the other day from the deputy minister, but I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that last fall the city of Toronto conducted a similar salvage compaign from which was realized a large sum through the street department. There are three other agencies in the scrap and salvage patriotic business in Toronto; one, well organized, being the Poppy Day Fund; another, the Red Cross and the third, the Salvation Army, and others like the Imperial Daughters of the Empire. When I was chairman of the police commission, we received from ten to fifteen applications at each meeting for peddler licences. These peddlers make their living in that way. So there is no dearth of facilities to collect this waste material in all its forms in Toronto, at all events.
I am sorry there was not more activity displayed by the government two or three years ago, or at least since the war started. I moved for a return on January 25 and May 25, 1940, which was brought down on June 5 last, showing the tonnage of pig-iron, scrap iron, nickel and copper exported by Canada to Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy. The totals were appalling. If the government had been alert in the past they would have prevented these things. A number of ships which used to sail the lakes have been broken up, such as the Chippewa, the Syracuse and the Rapids Prince. These boats, when broken up, were sold for scrap; they were taken to lake Erie ports in

War Appropriation Bill
United States and broken up, and afterwards some of the material was exported to enemy countries. We were too late again.
The government seems to be too late in connection with everything it undertakes. We are always told what will happen in the future. We are being told all the time by minister after minister of what is to be done in 1942 and 1943. It may be too late then, notwithstanding what the Minister of National Defence said yesterday. Help may come to Britain too late. A year ago we were depending upon France to hold out, and the Maginot line to last, but we know now the futility of that. Promises were made that they would hold the fort and the line until Great Britain got an army together or until the dominions came up with support. We are being told what is being done by the government, or what they only hope to do, in the way of mobilizing man-power, food power, munitions and everything else next year and the year after. We are relying upon the United States and I hope that the failure of France will not be repeated.
Yesterday the minister referred to the question of transportation for soldiers. During the last war the railways voluntarily carried soldiers for single fares over the week-end. I do not believe half the people of this country will agree with the statement of the Minister of National Defence in connection with soldier fares. It is ridiculous to think that men who have enlisted even unto death should have to pay fares. In the last war, as I said, the railways voluntarily carried men for single fare on week-ends. Now they carry them every day at half rate. The Railway Act does not at present provide for any special concessions to soldiers during the war, nor has the board of transport commissioners power to order any. In view of the fact that so many camps are far away from railways and the distribution of troops for training spread all over Canada, it is desirable to give soldiers some form of free transportation because a large number have been killed on highways thumbing a ride in many places in Canada while in training.
I have a return, No. 167, which shows that fifty-four soldiers have been killed on the highways. The figures are as follows:
Military district
No. 1	
No. 2	
No. 3	
No. 4	
No. 5	
No. 6	
No. 7	
No. 10	
No. 11	
No. 12	
No. 13	
Soldiers killed 6
7
0
0
5
1
54
An awful state of affairs.
I presented last December to the transport commission cases of discrimination by the railways against soldiers. You will see examples of it in excursion notices which appear in all the railway stations. In some cases the railways are charging soldiers more than one-third the rate they charge civilians to travel from towns and cities in the maritimes to central Canada. I brought this discrimination before the transport commission, but they declined to act. It was their duty under the Railway Act to find out if there was discrimination. But did they do anything about it? No. I have received a petition from some soldiers in camps in the maritimes complaining of this discrimination, and I wrote the transport commission, but they did nothing about it. They did not stop Lindbergh from getting a life pass on the Canadian National Railways. Imagine a country that has wasted as much money as Canada has on the railways not being able to afford to pay the fares of its soldiers who are fighting to the death in our defence!
The Duff report, at page 45, shows that a total of 555,298 railway passes were issued on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways away back in 1930; 288,000 on the Canadian National and 266,000 on the Canadian Pacific, and the commission recommended that there be an investigation into that. They said:
We are of the opinion that where the statute imposes an obligation upon the railways to provide free transportation .	.	. the state
should bear the cost of the service involved. It is also suggested that the discretionary power in the matter of free transportation at present vested by law in the board of railway commissioners be reviewed. The Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States is permitted no such discretionary power.
Some of the military camps are so far away that it is almost impossible for a soldier to get home; his return home is practically prohibited unless he be given railway transportation. I saw the stream of motor cars last Thanksgiving coming in from Barrie and the people hitch-hiking along the road. There is no law except the Ontario Highways Act prohibiting civilians from hitch-hiking, and it is never enforced. Why are soldiers prohibited from hitch-hiking? Why this discrimination? By whose authority were they forbidden to hitch-hike? When free transportation is provided by the government for the soldiers, it will be time enough for the defence department to make hitch-hiking a military offence.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend
permit me? I do not know whether he got the return or not, but as I understand it, hitch-hiking, so-called, or soliciting rides, is

War Appropriation Bill

prohibited by the Ontario Highways Act. All that the Department of National Defence did was to send out a circular calling attention to that section and instructing that military personnel should comply.


Thomas Langton Church: 
[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 13, 1941.